Article 50/Brexit Negotiations

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think any deal should still be ratified by the people of course, this is different to what I am saying, deciding upon the type of Brexit is different to whether we should have one at all. Having another referendum should be off the cards but I definitely think we should get a say on ratifying any deal or we face leaving that part to the wishes of 600 or so people.

Of course if the deal shows we would be harmed and people still vote for it then we should plough on yes. Personally I can't see any way in which we will come out of this better at least in the short term unless we get the exact same deal we have now outside of the EU but with the other things we want.. Highly unlikely.

For many people there is more to this than GDP figures and the economics of FTSE100 companies. For some if free movement ends at the expense of a suffering economy they would vote for it and who is to decide for those people that their vote should be ignored?

Fascinated to understand why another Referendum should 'be off the cards'.

This is a monumental decision which thus far has been decided by one relatively narrow vote. Approx 600,000 votes the other way and the result would have been different.

I can see no good reason why there shouldn't be another vote. The leavers want democracy, so let's see how that democracy works out once people are faced with the consequences of this ridiculous decision.
 
Yes.

It's an issue for everybody who understands that we are a service based economy not a manufacturing economy and we have been ever since the 1980s; it's an issue for everybody who knows that London provides the nation with over a quarter of its income and who understands how much of a blow to that portion of the national income departure from the single market will be; its an issue for everybody who understands that reliance on WTO rules means that we can sell cars to China but we can't sell financial services to Germany; and its an issue for anyone who appreciates that the saving we make in not contributing to the EU is far outweighed by the loss of income that comes from removing from the national economy our ability to sell our most valuable commodity - financial services - to our most lucrative market - the EU.
Why aren't we a manufacturing economy? Where did those manufacturing jobs go? What happened with Tata Steel? What happened to the protection of those jobs?

The EU is not the Eurozone. The Eurozone is not the EU. It is really not a difficult concept to grasp. In both cases sovereign Govts choose to be a member of these bodies and weigh up the benefits and downsides accordingly.

You originally stated that the EU insisted on austerity policies for the UK. It doesn't. Your statement was false.

You then argued it wasn't false because of Greece, Spain etc (but not the UK).

I then pointed it was because they were in the Eurozone which has a common monetary policy set by the ECB which is not the EU. The ECB is an idependent body just as the BoE is in the UK. Whether Eurozone membership is good for Greece, Spain et al is for them to decide and has fuck all to do with us even if Brexiteers are somewhat obsessed with the populations of Greece, Spain and Italy as if the other 24 countries didn't exist.

So to recap. EU isn't dictating austerity policies to the UK. Austerity is a Tory policy. Squeezing the NHS is a Tory policy. Cutting the Police is a Tory policy. Dementia tax was a Tory policy. None of these policies were forced on a reluctant Tory Govt by the EU.

As for Maastricht. The Tory Govt decided to sign the Treaty as was their constitutional right to do so. As you state 'the elected Govt made a decision on our behalf'. Yes they did. That's their fucking job and what they are elected to do. Don't like it then work to vote them out.

As for last years referendum it was legally constituted and Parliament committed to honour the result. Yes it was fucking stupid and we are now reaping the consequences a year later and (laughably) had precisely one day of negotiations with the EU over it. I disagree it should have been offered but once offered and the Govt voted in on that promise then the promise should be, and was, honoured.

That we voted to cut our bollocks off with little to no idea as to what the consequences were or how precisely we go about it is kind of irrelevant. That a year later we still are divided in the country, Parliament and the Cabinet over the decision with still no clear idea of how we go about it or what is involved is very relevant bordering on abject stupidity but hey I didn't vote Tory or for this shit in the first place so unless I get fucking unicorns and a land knee deep in milk and honey I will happily batter the shit out of the wankers who advocated and voted for this crapfest.
Then you've interpreted what I was saying incorrectly.

I've stated the EU imposes certain rules and regulations (i.e. CFP, fees, etc) on the UK that we have to abide by. Is that true?
I've stated the EU imposed austerity measures on it's members (such as those in the Eurozone.) to stabilise the eurogroup regardless of the sufferings of the member states citizens. Isn't this also true?

I'm not bringing in British politics into this, I'm speaking on how I have perceived the actions of the EU these past 12 years ever since the European Constitution 2005 referendums (we didn't get to hold one as did several other members) rejected the notion only for them to introduce it via the Lisbon Treaty where only the Irish were allowed a referendum, which they rejected, only for the EU to reject the outcome and told them to vote again, enforcing the Lisbon Treaty over all it's members, having not allowed their members citizens to have their say via public referendum. These are sinister tactics of a regime that is desperate to claim power over a continent and it's peoples.

I didn't vote from a financial aspect, but from one of liberty.
 
Fascinated to understand why another Referendum should 'be off the cards'.

This is a monumental decision which thus far has been decided by one relatively narrow vote. Approx 600,000 votes the other way and the result would have been different.

I can see no good reason why there shouldn't be another vote. The leavers want democracy, so let's see how that democracy works out once people are faced with the consequences of this ridiculous decision.

The answer tends to be little more than a variant of "You lost, get over it".
 
We are free to trade with who the hell we like. You do not have to exit the EU or the trading bloc to trade with other people. Take China. We export some £18bn a year. Germany exports around £80bn a year. The EU does not hold Germany back anymore than it does us. Germany just makes things China wishes to buy. Perhaps we should try that rather than blaming others for our failings.
Can we trade with any nation that an EU member state does not currently trade with?
 
Why aren't we a manufacturing economy? Where did those manufacturing jobs go? What happened with Tata Steel? What happened to the protection of those jobs?

.


Largely, they went in the 80s. Whatever the causes of that, it happened. Blame, or praise if you prefer, whoever you want for that state of affairs.

It is water under the bridge and we are now where we are. We have to live with the fact that in the 1980s we moved from having an economy predominantly based on manufacturing to one predominately based on providing financial services. We also have to live with the fact that the option of reverting to WTO rules, which does not cover the provision of financial services, would in economic terms be a fucking disaster.
 
Fascinated to understand why another Referendum should 'be off the cards'.

This is a monumental decision which thus far has been decided by one relatively narrow vote. Approx 600,000 votes the other way and the result would have been different.

I can see no good reason why there shouldn't be another vote. The leavers want democracy, so let's see how that democracy works out once people are faced with the consequences of this ridiculous decision.

Agreed. We should have a vote when we know the outcome. We should also not allow referendum's unless the promises made prior to the vote are written into a legal requirement by the government of the day. i.e. £350 million a week. Vote Leave promised us that we wouldn’t have to send Brussels £350 million a week. They won’t succeed, of course, in getting that amount of money back since we don’t even send it in the first place. Saying we did was a lie What’s more, if we want full access to the single market, we’ll probably have to pay for it. Norway pays similar per head on a net basis that we do per head. But we were promised we’d get £350 million a week back from Brussels. So we must have it. Free movement for our people “British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down.” That’s Johnson on June 26. How is the government going to deliver that if, at the same time, we are going to limit the ability of EU citizens to come here?
 
Oh now it's about 'liberty'. Yeah right. You shift the goal posts again sunshine.

But hang on let's take your comments to another poster. Why aren't we a manufacturing ecomony? Well let's thank the Thatcher Govt for that one shall we. Again a domestic decision taken by the Govt at the time. Then you cite Tate Steel. If memory serves didnt Cameron block the EU from trying to stop the Chinese steel dumping? If you want protection for UK steel workers then the EU was all for it. Shame the Tory Govt disagreed.
 
The answer tends to be little more than a variant of "You lost, get over it".
Remainers refuse to honour the result of the vote by introducing the concepts of 'hard' and 'soft' brexits when there is no such thing.

We leave the EU, the Single MArket and the Customs Union all in one fell swoop. The remainers during the campaign made every attempt to highlight that we cannot 'have our cake and eat it' and that by choosing to leave we leave everything. Now we're being told that this information 'wasn't made clear enough'.

It was, people just refuse to accept that and speak to us like we were uninformed. We knew the ramifications of what a leave vote meant, people should stop trying to argue otherwise or suggest we were voting 'without the full facts.

To use a loose analogy; "Referendum on whether everyone should wear blue hats or no hats at all"
"Blue hats wins"
"Yes, we accept that people should have to wear hats, but where did it state the hats had to be blue?"
 
Remainers refuse to honour the result of the vote by introducing the concepts of 'hard' and 'soft' brexits when there is no such thing.

We leave the EU, the Single MArket and the Customs Union all in one fell swoop. The remainers during the campaign made every attempt to highlight that we cannot 'have our cake and eat it' and that by choosing to leave we leave everything. Now we're being told that this information 'wasn't made clear enough'.

It was, people just refuse to accept that and speak to us like we were uninformed. We knew the ramifications of what a leave vote meant, people should stop trying to argue otherwise or suggest we were voting 'without the full facts.

To use a loose analogy; "Referendum on whether everyone should wear blue hats or no hats at all"
"Blue hats wins"
"Yes, we accept that people should have to wear hats, but where did it state the hats had to be blue?"

Really? Like David Davis who thought we would be free to strike a bi-lateral trade deal with Germany? Or Boris Johnson who thought we would be able to remain in the single market but still introduce a points-based system of intra-EU immigration controls?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.