Off Topic UK / EU Future

The powerful ERG group are yet to flex their muscles, if May cannot stick to her own aims as expressed earlier in the process then there are others within the party that will deliver a proper Brexit.

As one of the losers perhaps you should be walking about London this afternoon.

 

Have you missed the debate on the terms?

 

you voted leave - we're leaving. The rest is for the birds.

 

They do not have the numbers in Parliament SH. Whether you like it or not, in order to get a deal through parliament she will have to appeal to Labour moderates.

 

Nobody likes the present plan, a firm Brexit plan that achieves what people voted for stands more chance of uniting parliament and the country. It is also more likely to be accepted by Brussels, being based on a Canada plus plus option.

 

Seeing as the ERG cult do not have the slightest chance of taking over the negotiations at this point, I fail to see why you keep up this degree of wishful thinking. There you go again, complaining that your government is not giving you your type of Brexit. You might have had a point if anyone knew what would happen.

 

History should show the current government that it is heading towards a very rocky future if it cannot agree with itself. The last time such huge demonstrations took place while the Tories were in power was when people took to the streets over the poll tax. It finished off the leader fairly quickly, then despite stumbling on for a few more years it ultimately proved to be the death knell for the party for over a decade. The issue over the EU/UK relationship goes across party lines, but so did the poll tax. The government have talked themselves into a corner, and minority groups within are doing their best to ensure that they cannot get out. Who needs enemies when you have friends like these?

 

Nigel Farage is correct, there should be a 'peoples vote' - in 20 years time. It will give those whinging now plenty of time to campaign to re join the EU, or whats left of it.

 

So why do we have general elections every 5 years or so if referendums cannot be held more frequently than 20 years ?

 

There is no connection between the two.
Perhaps it should be nearer 40 years as previously?

 

There is a connection SH. The reason we have regular elections is to allow voters to change their minds, and to reflect the fact that the electorate is always changing. I agree that referendums are not quite the same in that they are a 'one off' situation - and this is why they should be used sparingly, and with a number of checks and balances. To conduct a one off referendum on a straightforward first past the post basis, and then treat the result as being set in stone, was lunacy with a capital L. Particularly when any action taken will be years after the event itself, and with a changed electorate. It would be fundamentally undemocratic to fall into a hard Brexit if the electorate is against it at the moment of its happening.

 

Elections and referendums are very different. Parliament occasionally decides some subjects are so important they should devolve decisions to the people. A decision was made in 2016 and should be respected if confidence in our political system is to be maintained. No responsible government should, in any way, undermine the democratic decision chosen by the people. In the unlikely event another referendum is called on the terms of Brexit, remaining in the EU cannot be an option if democracy is to be protected.

Remoaners should accept the result and democratically campaign later for re-entry once we have left.

 

What an odd comment. What is a general election if not a decision devolved to the people ? In this case (the 2016 referendum) it should NEVER have been devolved to the people. Not because it is trivial - far from it - but because it is very very complicated - much too complicated to be answered by the simple referendum question - especially after such a misleading ( dishonest ? on both sides arguably, but PROVEN to be dishonest on the leave side) campaign. Exactly the sort of decision that Parliament should take, after due consideration over many months, which would have included asking the questions people are asking now - FAR FAR too late. And all because Cameron was having trouble with his own backbenchers. Hubris overlaid by selfishness.

Why should people wait until we have left before campaigning to re-enter ? If leaving is so stupid (which it manifestly is and EVIDENTIALLY is) then any sensible person will campaign as vigorously as possible to stop it - or at least ask 'the people' if Parliament is too cowed - whether they think leaving on whatever basis we have been presented with is a good idea.
Still, the collection of people who represent the 'Leave is a good idea' policy almost by their self-selection prove it's daft. This is particularly true if one examines the claims made for leaving prior to he referendum and the reality that is now apparent - none of the claims will be delivered. NONE of them.
Of course we can stop EU economic migrants coming to the UK. which has the effect that Fruit and vegetables will be left to rot. NHS finally collapsing. Huge loss to the exchequer (since the EU migrants pay tax & NI). Of course we can extricate ourselves from the ECJ, ,but we CANNOT extricate ourselves from the international law committments we have made over many years. If in doubt - read 'Fantasy Island' by Conor Gearty. Of course we can make trade deals with other countries - who make up under 40% of our current trade. And as for negotiating with the USA - that will be fun.
I'm not sure why I waste my time really, but at least I have tried. Sadly, as Einstein pointed out, doing the same thing twice and expecting different result is fairly dim.

 

Where were people like yourself when parliament voted overwhelmingly to have a referendum? I cannot recall anybody complaining then about the process. Could it have something to do with the result? You have come to rely on tactics such as the EU insisting referendum results are re-run if the answer does not tally with the selfish views of the eurocrats.

The EU were always going to make the process of leaving as difficult as possible, this is no reason to cower under the onslaught of these bullies. Sadly we do not currently have a PM with the guts and stamina shown by Lady Thatcher who would have made serious progress by now. She would not have relied on dodgy advise from timid civil servants who are effectively sabotaging Brexit at their will.

 

Thatcher was pro EU membership SH. Not only that but every living PM. since her was on the remain side, which must tell you something.

 

"sabotaging Brexit at their will" you do them too much credit.

Would you also care to provide examples, backed up with evidence rather than your own anecdotes, of where the EU forced Member States to have another vote. I seem to recall that in all cases the respective Prime Ministers instituted re-runs rather than the EU. They were at liberty to refuse to accept the new treaties.

 

There was an article in the Telegraph a couple of days after the referendum stating that the logical outcome would be to follow the the Norway model and remain in the CU and SM. It was not a new idea as it had been put forward by a number of leading pro-leave figures before the actual vote. Some people, unknown numbers, would have accepted that was a route that the country would take and voted for it. As this was being put forward surely we should have made efforts to join up with Norway. As the Telegraph pointed out it met the terms of leaving that people voted for.

 

It tells me PM's like to keeps as many lucrative financial options open as possible after leaving office.

Thatcher would not have agreed with the current travel towards a federal Europe. She was pro Common Market but would have vehemently opposed loss of sovereignty, uncontrolled immigration etc. I can imagine her views echoing Rees Mogg rather than Ken Clark. She would have opposed paying the ransom until a decent deal was on the table.

 

It was made clear by all leading leave and remain figures that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and the customs union. Regaining sovereignty and stopping large payments to Brussels were also promised. These were the outcomes expected and promised by the PM in her earlier speeches before Robbins and his merry men messed things up.

 

IDS agrees.

'Stand up to EU NOW' Brexit negotiators need Thatcher's ‘backbone’, says Iain Duncan Smith UK negotiators have “no self-belief” and need Margaret Thatcher's “backbone” to...