Andymac-47 wrote:I'm not a brexiteer Musta. Just pointing out that the UK bailed out other EU countries. That is all.
jackos wrote:Andymac-47 wrote:I'm not a brexiteer Musta. Just pointing out that the UK bailed out other EU countries. That is all.
ROI isn't "another EU Country though", the UK bailed them out because of the economic & cultural ties between the two countries which go far beyond beyond the relationships between most EU countries, it had bugger all to do with the EU. I am pretty sure Norway would bail out Sweden if we ended up in a similar situation because their oil fund owns something ridiculous like 50% of the Swedish stock market.
rss1969 wrote:I am no expert but I thought that we gave bail out money to both Ireland & Portugal?
Andymac-47 wrote:
You both are thinking about this far more than I am. I'll say it again the UK gave the ROI a bailout. In my statement i have no hidden agenda.
Are you sure about the EU, as I believe that the EU contributed s lot more to the bailout than the what the UK did at that particular time.
the flying pig wrote:yeah, things are very, very seriously ****'ed up.
the referendum made no sense and still makes no sense.
really the tories should have set their stall out really comprehensively in the build up to the 2015 election:
(a) in the event of a tory win there'd be a yes or no referendum on whether or not we should negotiate an exit;
(b) tory members would vote i suppose before the election on a brexiteer who would lead all campaigning for leave [campaigning would set out a very clear vision for the form of brexit we'd pursue], be personally accountable for the campaign's promises, and would be made PM [or be given some other role with absolute power over brexit negotiations] in the event of a yes vote.
what we have is just bollocks. a remainer PM unable to deliver a sensible brexit, the decision to leave having been won on the back of a mountain of unkeepable promises spewed out by people who were totally unaccountable.
Arnieb wrote:the flying pig wrote:yeah, things are very, very seriously ****'ed up.
the referendum made no sense and still makes no sense.
really the tories should have set their stall out really comprehensively in the build up to the 2015 election:
(a) in the event of a tory win there'd be a yes or no referendum on whether or not we should negotiate an exit;
(b) tory members would vote i suppose before the election on a brexiteer who would lead all campaigning for leave [campaigning would set out a very clear vision for the form of brexit we'd pursue], be personally accountable for the campaign's promises, and would be made PM [or be given some other role with absolute power over brexit negotiations] in the event of a yes vote.
what we have is just bollocks. a remainer PM unable to deliver a sensible brexit, the decision to leave having been won on the back of a mountain of unkeepable promises spewed out by people who were totally unaccountable.
Agree with this. Before the ref every politician should have agreed who would be PM if leave won. This person would then be responsible for negiotating a deal and presenting it back to the people in a 2nd ref. This lack of even fag packet level planning is crippling us now.
This approach would have focused attention on what the leader said in the campaign. The leader would have known that whatever they said would need to be deliverable and coherent.
Where we are now is that I think we will just revoke A50.
dirty leeds wrote:The EU would be foolish not to grant us a delay, if we ask for it.
Mustafaster wrote:Vampire wrote:As expected, the meaningless vote has been lost. What now?
No deal is still the default position and could occur due to collective incompetence - especially if the EU plays hard ball on the date - but I still think it unlikely given the desire to prevent it among the overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians (not to mention the EU - the deterrent effect on other states tempted to leave won't be lost on them). Possibly 20-25% chance from here?
General election? Can't see Turkeys voting for Xmas or the DUP giving a pro Sinn Fein Opposition Leader a sniff of power. In any case it just kicks the can down the road - the real options will eventually resurface. Similarly any extension or revocation of article 50, though not unlikely, also kicks the can down the road.
A second referendum (probably leading to no Brexit) has some momentum. The peoples’ vote is backed by the overwhelming majority of Labour members and all the other main opposition parties. It also has support from a number of Conservatives and more could be persuaded especially as the clock ticks down to "no deal" - and they can easily justify the move by saying "it’s not my preferred option but we can only break the deadlock by asking the public." As a lifelong Eurosceptic, however, Corbyn is using his position to thwart the will of his Party. That so called "compromise conference motion" commits him to nothing and he's still saying that even if there was a GE he'd prefer Labour to contest it on a pro Brexit platform. In claiming he could negotiate a better "cake and eat it" deal than May he is as deluded (or cynical) as Johnson and Rees Mogg.
What I do find really interesting in the Labour dynamic is the way anti Brexit Corbynites are still in denial about their dear leader's Euroscepticism - still making excuses for him - some even justifying his position as being tactical rather than ideological. Even if this were true, it misses the obvious irony of him putting electoral expediency above principle after so vehemently criticising Tony Blair for years for doing precisely that! But the truth is Corbyn's position isn't tactical at all - it is ideological – as he made clear yet again just recently when criticising EU restrictions on state aid to industry.
So, that leaves the option of some sort of amendment to May’s plan. This could be a softer Brexit through moderate MPs on both sides pushing for some sort of Norway type option, or a more cosmetic amendment to May’s plan allowing both her and her critics to save face. Possibly 30-35% chance?
So, my personal opinion (apologies to the xenophobes on here who think a foreigner shouldn't comment on UK politics) is:
Softer Brexit or amended/fudged version of May’s plan – 30-35%
2nd referendum – likely outcome no Brexit - 25-30%
no deal (with or without 2nd referendum) - 20-25%
other/fuck knows 15-20%
I do also think, however, that the key to the first of those two is (as I have always thought) dependent on whether Labour Party members can find a way of prevailing upon their Eurosceptic leader. Again, apologies to anti Brexit Corbynites on here who think "Corbyn" should be a censored word on this thread and all the fire should be on the Conservatives - but I've always thought - given the divided Government and deadlock across a hung Parliament - the position of the Opposition Leadership is critical. Despite Corbyn's obvious Euroscepticism, it is possible he could find himself backed against the wall by his own membership - which is why I still see 2nd referendum a close second in the options.
Yes Corbyn is anti EU and always has been, but focussing on that is akin to FLDC focussing on a bloke with binoculars outside the training ground instead of the fact that Bielsa schooled him twice and were lucky to get away with a 6-1 test ting.
It's pointless distraction.
eric olthwaite wrote:The problems with the second referendum as I see it are these.....
Option 2: all options.
- No deal
- May's deal or a version thereof / EFTA type set-up
- Remain
Brexiteers will object in principle; Remain's a shoo-in here because of the split Leave vote.
Phatphil65 wrote:What about the option where a second referendum is held and the people reinforce the original vote to leave? Back to square one?
No Confidence Is A Preference For The May-Critical Voyeur Of What Is Known As...
Good morning. Nothing has changed. MPs gave Westminster its long-awaited moment of catharsis last night, voting to reject the Brexit deal negotiated by Theresa May by 432 votes to 202 in the largest parliamentary defeat in more than a century. The prime minister faces a vote of no confidence in her government tonight, but is going nowhere. So what now?
It's a measure of just how unprecedented the situation before us is that the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which for months has functioned as May's straitjacket, is now her lifebelt. Despite the lopsided scale of last night's defeat, she can count on the support of the DUP and the Brexiteers on the Conservative benches. Jeremy Corbyn's chances of success are effectively nil, as those close to him well know. Tonight's result will merely affirm last night's: the Commons is content to keep May in office but is nowhere near a consensus on how it might allow her to exercise it as far as Brexit is concerned.
Can the prime minister broker one? The short answer appears to be no. For about five seconds at the despatch box last night, it appeared that May might snap out of a lifetime of partisan truculence and attempt to come to some sort of accord with Labour. It soon became clear, however, that the "senior parliamentarians" she has pledged to meet do not include Jeremy Corbyn, and the offer she is currently willing to make will not include the big things that Labour MPs and the trades unions want, namely a permanent customs union with the EU.
That Downing Street were briefing that within minutes of the defeat - and Cabinet ministers spinning the same line on the airwaves - suggests that in the short term they might struggle to convince many more members of the opposition than the three who voted for the withdrawal agreement last night. Something, most likely May's attachment to an independent trade policy after Brexit, is going to have to give. Her spokesman insists it is a "principle" rather than an immovable red line. But for reasons of internal party management, it will be difficult for the prime minister to be the one who gives it up.
Nor, despite the increasingly forlorn hopes of pro-Europeans on the Labour benches, will Jeremy Corbyn drop his opposition to a second referendum once tonight's confidence vote is lost. The message from his allies in public and private is that Labour intends to push its confidence vote again, again, again and again in the hope of peeling off the DUP and Tory Leavers, and failing that - as is likely - force a Brexit it can live with through the Commons somehow. The Labour leadership's reluctance to be blamed for stopping Brexit - shared by many of its MPs - increases the chances of some sort of deal, probably with a radically revised political declaration, passing the Commons.
But how either May or Corbyn arrives at that point without a fatal rupture within either of their parties or electoral coalitions is still unclear. Barring the EU27 agreeing to gut the withdrawal agreement, at least one key constituency in the Commons - either party leadership, advocates for a Norway-style deal, advocates for a second referendum, the DUP, hard Brexiteers - will have to decide to act against its obvious political interests if the UK is to leave the EU with a deal on March 29. Until that happens, MPs and the rest of us are merely trapped in a new holding pattern. Meanwhile, the Article 50 clock rattles heedlessly on. If MPs aren't willing to endure the sort of political pain they have hitherto avoided for the sake of stopping a no-deal, they face a simple choice: run out of time, or give themselves more.
the flying pig wrote:Just staying probably would be the least bad thing but it'll still be alomst unfathomably awful, will leave a very large number of people seriously disenfranchised [e.g. never voting again]. but it'd, of course, be a nonsense to argue that they'd end up any happier, any more franchised, post brexit, once the full uselessnes of it became apparent to all. the electorate's expectations have not been well managed.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], LSD&2Es and 3 guests