purplenose
Well-Known Member
I agree, hence i refused to vote for any of them . My conscience would not allow me to do so. A stance that i have had alot of abuse for from both sides of the argument.
Another new Brexit thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
I agree, hence i refused to vote for any of them . My conscience would not allow me to do so. A stance that i have had alot of abuse for from both sides of the argument.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
To make more profits perhaps - they had to stop charging when they were compelled to by EU rules - you know those pesky EU rules that can save consumers money - once free to charge I am sure they will come up with reasons that they just have to do it
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
You mean like the CAP saves consumers money?
BobKowalski
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2007
- Messages
- 21,511
Interesting but you know paragraphs mate. Paragraphs. The ruling above seems reasonable in that the warrant cannot cut across the constitutional rights a German citizen enjoys. It would seem German law needs to better balance the constitutional rights of the citizen against the cooperation obligation necessary in the prosecution of an EAW.
Also interesting was the fact that the ECJ recently ruled that German prosecutors were not independent enough to issue EAW’s and banned then from doing so. They now need the sign off of a judge.
Fascinating to see how international law and domestic law shape each other.
Back to the original point. If enforcing EAW’s is problematic at times when extradition is to an EU country I don’t see Germany rushing to make an non EU country like the UK an exception.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
Arch puritan Brexiteer Steve Baker on BBC Politics Live generously says he takes no joy in the sadness of remainers - he's not encountered @Didsbury Dave though...;)
One comment on there resonated with me, it is the EU model of pooling sovereignty that is isolated now, at 2300 we join the rest of world who control their own laws, borders, budgets and policies.
One comment on there resonated with me, it is the EU model of pooling sovereignty that is isolated now, at 2300 we join the rest of world who control their own laws, borders, budgets and policies.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
and there in a single post is the obstacle to reasoned discussion about anything - the empty and absurd aggression of the lunatic left fighting a monster of their own creation which is, in reality, a just a mirror of themselves.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
It is one of life’s mysteries that in all of this time, from the run up to the referendum, to today the day we leave the EU, I have never heard, seen or read a comprehensive case for Brexit that couldn’t readily be taken to pieces by fact. You know, an economic case or a social case or a defence or scientific research case. Simply a case which credibly covered the Brexit position, the economic and social benefits and how it would be delivered. Something that the country could get behind. Not from anyone on here, not from any politician, not from any media outlet. That would be bad enough, but when fellow citizens are invited to put their case for Brexit, on Radio, TV, they invariably spout miscomprehensions, untruths and simply repeat the moronic phrases used by the so called leaders of the movement, thereby reenforcing the stereotype that Brexiteers are stupid. (Albeit research after the event did find that a persons level of education was as likely a predictor of which way a person voted as their age). Even today, James O’Brien was fielding calls from rejoicing Brexiteers who very capably demonstrated their stupidity to the entire listening nation.
How can so many be so wrong for so long and even more unbelievably, when they are proven to be wrong or mistaken, why don’t they care? ‘Because we won’?
How could so many honestly believe that the problems the U.K. faces could be solved by leaving the EU. Problems of wealth inequality, underinvestment in public services, child poverty - all problems of our own making.
I expect I’ll never understand.
Happy Brexit day.
What a really well written articleAnother lament - this from the Torygraph
Leaving the EU is horrible, but it is the only way to preserve our democratic liberal nation state
Sadness, foreboding, and dismay that it ever came to such a point: these are the emotions that this reluctant Brexiteer feels as we finally leave the European Union on Friday. I feel no satisfaction in the traumatic moment. Yet I stick to my view that this dysfunctional marriage had to end. Such is the Brexit paradox.
There has been much commentary over recent days dividing us (again) into opposed camps: Remainers still angry or in mourning, set against triumphant foes of Brussels. But what about the rest of us with more subtle feelings and in many cases a deep affection for l’Europe des patries?
Of course we recognise the advantages (for some) of being able to live and work anywhere in the EU. We know Brussels did a good job breaking down the cartels, opening up cheap air travel and (belatedly) ending the racket of roaming fees.
We can see that if you are dealing with a Chinese Communist Party that sees itself in “existential struggle” with the West, or with a pathological predator like Vladimir Putin, it is better to club together in self-protection. Mark these down on the good side of the ledger. But they are not the heart of the matter.
It has been a particularly irritating habit of the British establishment, aligned with a nexus of vested interests, and their army of academic and media auxiliaries, to reduce Brexit to a matter of trade above all else. If that were the case, then one would wish to stay in the EU.
But Brexit is not about trade, and nor are the details of customs clearance or rules of origin as important as we keep being told. They are not trivial but they are second order issues.
The elemental question is who runs this country. Do we wish to be a self-governing democracy under our own courts, or a canton of a higher supra-national regime that keeps acquiring more powers – beyond its ability to exercise them competently – through the Monnet Method of treaty creep?
There is no mechanism for removing this overweening hybrid executive in Brussels, even when it persists in error as did in nearly accomplishing the extinction of North Sea cod by sheer ecological vandalism, or when it forced half of Europe into a debt-deflation spiral from 2010 to 2015 based on economic doctrines discredited a century ago.
How do you dislodge the European Council from the Justus Lipsius when it behaves outrageously? Can you impeach it? No, you can’t.
Commission fonctionnaires may be urbane, talented, and hard-working, but they are not a civil service. They can launch dawn police raids. They can impose vast fines on their own authority. They have quasi-judicial powers and the prerogative of legislative initiative. They are more like the Roman Curia. Nothing like this has existed in British political life since the Reformation. How do voters hold this Caesaropapist structure to account? They cannot do so. That is what Brexit is about.
There are great numbers of us in Britain, France, Holland, the Nordics, or the Czech Republic, who think the precious liberal nation state – inspired by the redemptive values of the English Bill of Rights and the Déclaration des droits de l'homme – has been a resounding success. We think it is the only forum of authentic democracy, the agent of the greatest moral progress the world has ever seen. We think the systematic attempt to discredit the nation state by blaming it for two world wars is an historical sleight of hand, a lie fed to two generations of European school children though the co-ordinated Franco-German curriculum in a systematic brain-washing exercise.
We see it as the guarantor of social solidarity and a bulwark against religious agitation, fracture, and the unforgiving clash of communitarian identities. We think it should not be discarded lightly.
Prof Gil Delannoi from Science Po in Paris argues in La Nation contre le Nationalisme that the EU is acquiring the character of an empire, a softish variant akin to the Holy Roman Empire, but – he notes acidly – soft empires remain soft only until they meet resistance.
The ousted Greek and Italian prime ministers discovered this during the eurozone crisis. When the euro’s survival was a stake, the imperial reflex was to replace these mercurial leaders with reliable EU apparatchiks – nice gentlemen, to be sure, but usurpers shoehorned into office with the connivance of captured local elites.
The implacable difficulty is that no empire has ever been democratic, even if the imperial mother country can itself be democratic in internal matters. So what do you do if you think that the EU is in fundamental and dangerous constitutional conflict with your nation state, sapping the lifeblood out of your institutions?
The chaos in Parliament over the last three years does not validate claims that Britain's quirky form of national democracy has long passed its sell-by date. The Bercow nadir illustrates a different point: degradation is what happens when legislatures have been eviscerated and the political class has been infantilised by yielding its functions to a higher authority. You end up with a playground.
What do you do? You vote for Brexit, or Frexit, or whatever your cause may be called – if they let you – knowing that it is going to be a painful ordeal, and hating the fact that you are at odds with the European nations you admire.
We are told that the EU has learned its limits and has stopped accreting power. Another Conference on the Future of Europe is planned: a two-year vox pop foray to rebuild trust and show EU citizens that their voice counts.
Forgive me for wincing. I was the Telegraph’s Brussels correspondent when Europe’s leaders – chastened by the torching of Gothenburg – published the Laeken Declaration in 2001. This mea culpa confessed that Europe’s peoples had come to see the EU as "a threat to their identity" and that there was no appetite for "a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life."
It spoke of returning powers to the member states and restoring "democratic legitimacy" through a Philadelphia convention. What happened? EU insiders hijacked it. A praesidium under super-elitist Valéry Giscard d'Estaing picked Commission lawyers to draft the wording.
The final text called for an EU president, a justice department, a supreme court with jurisdiction over all areas of EU policy for the first time, and for scrapping the national veto across further swaths of policy. It became the Lisbon Treaty, pushed through by executive nod without a referendum, except in Ireland where voters promptly rejected it – to no avail obviously.
Sure enough, the insiders are already subverting this new attempt. The European Parliament – a self-promoting corporation as much as a legislature – has picked the arch-integrationist Guy Verhofstadt to lead the charge and is already talking of stripping states of their tax and foreign policy vetoes.
The European Parliament's Guy Verhofstadt CREDIT: AFP
Nor can the EU retreat as long as the euro exists. The logic of monetary union is fiscal union, and that path leads to a unitary superstate. The euro cannot be made to work successfully any other way, as the German professoriate warned a quarter century ago.
Either the eurozone moves towards an EU treasury with shared debts, fiscal transfers, and federal tax powers, or it will stumble from crisis to crisis with each cyclical downturn until it blows apart. But to assume those powers is to strip the Bundestag and its peers of their core tax and spending prerogatives, without which democracy is a sham.
It is why the alluring cakeism of the City of London – in the EU but not in the euro – could never be a stable equilibrium and could not last. The notion that we could have it "both ways" and cling forever to a frozen status quo has been the great illusion of City Remainers. The EU is reorganising its constitutional structure around the viability of the euro and there is no place in this scheme for a sterling hold-out. We had to join them totally, or leave them.
My fond hope is that by saving our democratic nation state from slow asphyxiation we will head off a drift into anomie and dangerous political waters. The dust will settle and the world will wake up to find the same tolerant free-thinking UK, under the rule of law, that it has mostly been for 300 years, and wonder how it misread Brexit so badly.
It is Europe that the liberal intelligentsia should worry about. The EU has choked off the political breathing space of its members. It risks succumbing gradually to the Salvinis, the Orbans, and the neo-Falangist syndicalism of the AfD and the Rassemblement, as voters rebel against globalist cultural nihilism.
A liberal-minded Briton does not have to apologise for Brexit and the restoration of democratic self-rule, but that does not make it a pleasant exercise. The sadness is that Europe’s hard-driving ideological elites have led us to this regrettable juncture.
I will drink my toast on Friday to fellow souverainistes across the Channel. Join us soon.
Even the most diehard Remainer on here - so long as they are able to set aside any bitterness and need for denial - must be able to get their heads around that and acknowledge that we are indeed best Leaving.
I and others on here have said that whilst we wish to Leave - if we Remain then do so wholeheartedly. All the bollocks about half in / half out is indeed just bollocks. either Leave of Remain and integrate - any middle ground is just transition
I wish this article had been made available to the electorate in 2015/16 - so many Remainers would have had the mist removed from their eyes and have not fallen for all the guff that they allowed to shape their thinking
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Hahaha. So your post, the one i responded to, was 'reasoned discussion'' was it?
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
Have you read some of your posts?
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
of course, the lunacy of the far left is axiomatic.
oh dear, I seem to hit the back of the net with that simple observation ..I hope your pain will soon pass
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 57,736
Has he taken in to account the countries the PPF (Putin Puppet Federation) controls, though?
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
Sovereignty don't pay the bills or feed the kids.Another lament - this from the Torygraph
Leaving the EU is horrible, but it is the only way to preserve our democratic liberal nation state
Sadness, foreboding, and dismay that it ever came to such a point: these are the emotions that this reluctant Brexiteer feels as we finally leave the European Union on Friday. I feel no satisfaction in the traumatic moment. Yet I stick to my view that this dysfunctional marriage had to end. Such is the Brexit paradox.
There has been much commentary over recent days dividing us (again) into opposed camps: Remainers still angry or in mourning, set against triumphant foes of Brussels. But what about the rest of us with more subtle feelings and in many cases a deep affection for l’Europe des patries?
Of course we recognise the advantages (for some) of being able to live and work anywhere in the EU. We know Brussels did a good job breaking down the cartels, opening up cheap air travel and (belatedly) ending the racket of roaming fees.
We can see that if you are dealing with a Chinese Communist Party that sees itself in “existential struggle” with the West, or with a pathological predator like Vladimir Putin, it is better to club together in self-protection. Mark these down on the good side of the ledger. But they are not the heart of the matter.
It has been a particularly irritating habit of the British establishment, aligned with a nexus of vested interests, and their army of academic and media auxiliaries, to reduce Brexit to a matter of trade above all else. If that were the case, then one would wish to stay in the EU.
But Brexit is not about trade, and nor are the details of customs clearance or rules of origin as important as we keep being told. They are not trivial but they are second order issues.
The elemental question is who runs this country. Do we wish to be a self-governing democracy under our own courts, or a canton of a higher supra-national regime that keeps acquiring more powers – beyond its ability to exercise them competently – through the Monnet Method of treaty creep?
There is no mechanism for removing this overweening hybrid executive in Brussels, even when it persists in error as did in nearly accomplishing the extinction of North Sea cod by sheer ecological vandalism, or when it forced half of Europe into a debt-deflation spiral from 2010 to 2015 based on economic doctrines discredited a century ago.
How do you dislodge the European Council from the Justus Lipsius when it behaves outrageously? Can you impeach it? No, you can’t.
Commission fonctionnaires may be urbane, talented, and hard-working, but they are not a civil service. They can launch dawn police raids. They can impose vast fines on their own authority. They have quasi-judicial powers and the prerogative of legislative initiative. They are more like the Roman Curia. Nothing like this has existed in British political life since the Reformation. How do voters hold this Caesaropapist structure to account? They cannot do so. That is what Brexit is about.
There are great numbers of us in Britain, France, Holland, the Nordics, or the Czech Republic, who think the precious liberal nation state – inspired by the redemptive values of the English Bill of Rights and the Déclaration des droits de l'homme – has been a resounding success. We think it is the only forum of authentic democracy, the agent of the greatest moral progress the world has ever seen. We think the systematic attempt to discredit the nation state by blaming it for two world wars is an historical sleight of hand, a lie fed to two generations of European school children though the co-ordinated Franco-German curriculum in a systematic brain-washing exercise.
We see it as the guarantor of social solidarity and a bulwark against religious agitation, fracture, and the unforgiving clash of communitarian identities. We think it should not be discarded lightly.
Prof Gil Delannoi from Science Po in Paris argues in La Nation contre le Nationalisme that the EU is acquiring the character of an empire, a softish variant akin to the Holy Roman Empire, but – he notes acidly – soft empires remain soft only until they meet resistance.
The ousted Greek and Italian prime ministers discovered this during the eurozone crisis. When the euro’s survival was a stake, the imperial reflex was to replace these mercurial leaders with reliable EU apparatchiks – nice gentlemen, to be sure, but usurpers shoehorned into office with the connivance of captured local elites.
The implacable difficulty is that no empire has ever been democratic, even if the imperial mother country can itself be democratic in internal matters. So what do you do if you think that the EU is in fundamental and dangerous constitutional conflict with your nation state, sapping the lifeblood out of your institutions?
The chaos in Parliament over the last three years does not validate claims that Britain's quirky form of national democracy has long passed its sell-by date. The Bercow nadir illustrates a different point: degradation is what happens when legislatures have been eviscerated and the political class has been infantilised by yielding its functions to a higher authority. You end up with a playground.
What do you do? You vote for Brexit, or Frexit, or whatever your cause may be called – if they let you – knowing that it is going to be a painful ordeal, and hating the fact that you are at odds with the European nations you admire.
We are told that the EU has learned its limits and has stopped accreting power. Another Conference on the Future of Europe is planned: a two-year vox pop foray to rebuild trust and show EU citizens that their voice counts.
Forgive me for wincing. I was the Telegraph’s Brussels correspondent when Europe’s leaders – chastened by the torching of Gothenburg – published the Laeken Declaration in 2001. This mea culpa confessed that Europe’s peoples had come to see the EU as "a threat to their identity" and that there was no appetite for "a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life."
It spoke of returning powers to the member states and restoring "democratic legitimacy" through a Philadelphia convention. What happened? EU insiders hijacked it. A praesidium under super-elitist Valéry Giscard d'Estaing picked Commission lawyers to draft the wording.
The final text called for an EU president, a justice department, a supreme court with jurisdiction over all areas of EU policy for the first time, and for scrapping the national veto across further swaths of policy. It became the Lisbon Treaty, pushed through by executive nod without a referendum, except in Ireland where voters promptly rejected it – to no avail obviously.
Sure enough, the insiders are already subverting this new attempt. The European Parliament – a self-promoting corporation as much as a legislature – has picked the arch-integrationist Guy Verhofstadt to lead the charge and is already talking of stripping states of their tax and foreign policy vetoes.
The European Parliament's Guy Verhofstadt CREDIT: AFP
Nor can the EU retreat as long as the euro exists. The logic of monetary union is fiscal union, and that path leads to a unitary superstate. The euro cannot be made to work successfully any other way, as the German professoriate warned a quarter century ago.
Either the eurozone moves towards an EU treasury with shared debts, fiscal transfers, and federal tax powers, or it will stumble from crisis to crisis with each cyclical downturn until it blows apart. But to assume those powers is to strip the Bundestag and its peers of their core tax and spending prerogatives, without which democracy is a sham.
It is why the alluring cakeism of the City of London – in the EU but not in the euro – could never be a stable equilibrium and could not last. The notion that we could have it "both ways" and cling forever to a frozen status quo has been the great illusion of City Remainers. The EU is reorganising its constitutional structure around the viability of the euro and there is no place in this scheme for a sterling hold-out. We had to join them totally, or leave them.
My fond hope is that by saving our democratic nation state from slow asphyxiation we will head off a drift into anomie and dangerous political waters. The dust will settle and the world will wake up to find the same tolerant free-thinking UK, under the rule of law, that it has mostly been for 300 years, and wonder how it misread Brexit so badly.
It is Europe that the liberal intelligentsia should worry about. The EU has choked off the political breathing space of its members. It risks succumbing gradually to the Salvinis, the Orbans, and the neo-Falangist syndicalism of the AfD and the Rassemblement, as voters rebel against globalist cultural nihilism.
A liberal-minded Briton does not have to apologise for Brexit and the restoration of democratic self-rule, but that does not make it a pleasant exercise. The sadness is that Europe’s hard-driving ideological elites have led us to this regrettable juncture.
I will drink my toast on Friday to fellow souverainistes across the Channel. Join us soon.
Neither does socialism.
George Hannah
Well-Known Member
With respect, it is a grave mistake to listen to shock jockeys humiliating pensioners. To better understand the case for Brexit please read the Liam Halligan piece earlier in the thread about the exaggeration of economic damage or the commentary of Mervyn King on its political merits.
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
Not left the EU yet.and while my unexpected free pass into the empire of the Barclay Bros is still valid
How the doomongers got it wrong about Britain's Brexit economy
The economy is showing positive signs. Now it's time to roll up our sleeves and show that post-Brexit Britain can shine
Liam Halligan
30 JANUARY 2020 • 1:31PM
“The country’s finished,” snapped Hugh Grant last week, when asked about developments in the UK since mid-December. While an accomplished actor, when it comes to political and economic analysis the Notting Hill star fluffed his lines. For whether Grant likes it or not, Boris Johnson’s emphatic election victory has sparked a burst of business optimism. Clarity on Brexit triggered a strong economic uptick in January, after three and a half years of political deadlock.
Just look at this chart:
Brexit is getting done - and businesses confidence is booming
Line chart with 37 data points.
The chart has 1 X axis displaying Time. Range: 2017-01-20 01:12:00 to 2020-02-10 22:48:00.
The chart has 1 Y axis displaying Above 50 indicates growth. Range: 47.5 to 57.5.
View as data table. Brexit is getting done - and businesses confidence is booming
Above 50 indicates growthBrexit is getting done - and businessesconfidence is boomingComposite PMIJul '17Jan '18Jul '18Jan '19Jul '19Jan '2047.55052.55557.5IHS MARKIT
End of interactive chart.
It shows the economy just recorded its best month in over a year. Confidence among manufacturers saw its sharpest rise on record.
Firms also took on more staff, with permanent hiring up in January for the first time since 2018. Ending the Brexit stand-off also inspired consumer confidence, as house purchases and car sales picked up.
This “Boris Bounce” was confirmed by the International Monetary Fund, which has just upgraded its 2020 UK growth estimate, despite lowering forecasts elsewhere. Britain is set to expand 1.4 per cent this year – faster than France, Germany and the eurozone as a whole - and exports are set to outstrip the rest of Europe as new trade opportunities present themselves:
Brexit bounce
Bar chart with 9 bars.
British exports are expected to outperform the rest of Europe in terms of growth this year
The chart has 1 X axis displaying categories.
The chart has 1 Y axis displaying Expected growth in exports ($bn). Range: 0 to 100.
View as data table. Brexit bounce
Expected growth in exports($bn)Brexit bounceBritish exports are expected to outperform the restof Europe in terms of growth this yearChinaUSCanadaUKNetherlandsGermanyBelgiumFranceSpain050100EULER HERMES
End of interactive chart.
With the UK high up the G7 growth league, and Brexit uncertainty tamed, chief executives across the world are channelling a wave of cash towards Britain, seen as an increasingly stable investment destination in a world best by political and economic turmoil.
The government, after ten years of tight spending, is also loosening the public purse strings. The budget deficit is down from a ruinous 10 per cent of GDP after the 2008 financial crisis to under 2 per cent now. That’s why Chancellor Sajid Javid unveiled an extra £14 billion in public spending in September, the largest rise in 15 years.
With tax revenues recently buoyant and borrowing lower than expected, there’s more to come in next month’s budget – which will unleash further public investment.
The government now needs to lay out its post-Brexit policy agenda – as Westminster regains control of Britain’s laws, borders and money. Freed from EU “structural fund” restrictions, an active regional policy can close the productivity gap between the South East and elsewhere. That means far more widespread infrastructure spending – in my view, diverting funds earmarked for HS2 towards regional commuter services.
A dozen low-tax “free ports” – stymied under EU rules – would similarly help spread wealth across the regions. So too would strong post-Brexit agricultural and fishery policies, shifting subsidies towards smaller farmers while reclaiming UK fishing grounds. Our sovereign industrial policy should avoid “picking winners”, but be based instead on low, simple taxation – slashing business rates to help struggling high street retailers, amidst other carefully targeted tax breaks.
As well as world-class transport and broadband connectivity, we also need, despite incoming migration controls, a steady supply of labour – which means better skills. Securing a high-wage, high-productivity economy requires vocational training to be at the heart of the UK post-Brexit policy mix, with its own dedicated Cabinet position. There need not be an erosion of workers’ rights and a regulatory race to the bottom and, despite scaremongering, I don’t believe there will be – not least as our own Parliament will be in charge, with the Tories keen to retain support in newly-won seats in former Labour heartlands seats.
Although Brexit has now legally happened, we need more certainty regarding our ongoing EU relationship, of course. In the upcoming trade talks, before the no-change “implementation period” ends in December, the UK is once again well placed.
While negotiating with a hapless Theresa May, the Brussels-based eurocrats still had a chance of reversing Brexit, so were allowed to dictate the EU’s strategy. But with Johnson controlling the Commons and Brexit “done”, EU governments know this is now all about damage limitation – and will be more heavily involved.
Leaders of EU member states and their business lobbies know Britain’s £94 billion EU trade deficit translates into billions of euros of profit and millions of EU jobs. We need to wake up to our strengths, dismissing eurocrat attempts at “sequencing” from the outset. All issues should be addressed simultaneously, including Britain’s on-going defence, security and intelligence commitment, which in the EU’s eyes is priceless.
Far too much is still being made of the EU’s “formidable bargaining power”. Really? Emmanuel Macron is besieged by protesters and lagging hard-right Marine Le Pen in opinion polls. Angela Merkel is bowing out of public life as Germany’s economy stagnates, her ruling coalition in tatters.
We want our European neighbours to prosper, of course, but let’s not be intimidated. The UK was judged “the best place in the world to do business” by Forbes Magazine for the last two years in a row. We boast seven of the top 40 universities on earth – the EU has none.
“There goes the neighbourhood,” tweeted Hugh Grant on election night, as Johnson secured his majority, embodying the patronising, anti-democratic attitudes of a cosseted liberal elite. The rest of the country, meanwhile, wants to roll up its sleeves and show that post-Brexit Britain can shine.
Len Rum
Well-Known Member
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
It just gets others to pay them ;-)
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 15,937
The issue with this is that we don't really have a good view yet on what the current Tory MP cohort is really like. Many moderates and old wise heads were forced out by Johnson and many of those that were quiet but strongly remain have since stood down. The Tory party of the last parliment was probably; 20% strong remain, 20% leave but really remain, 30% leave but nervous and 30% ERG loony.
The 20% remain have all gone, forced out or stood down. How do the rest stack up? If BJ goes soft brexit how many ERG loonies are there now - how hard will they fight? If BJ goes hard core brexit trade war how many Tory Wets will emerge and how hard will they fight?
My gut feel is that when the shit hits the fan it's going to be around 50:50 between wets and loonys. That is worse case for BJ. He will have all the pressure of the commitment to get this done quickly, make it seem easy and Business / Economic pressure to get a good trade deal v's Farrage and the ERG loonies screaming betrayal.
This is a guess on my part but I see evidence that BJ wants to go soft to get this done (while talking up a hard line - a gas light hard brexit) and at the same time the new Tories that make up the extra votes are all going to be a bit Francois.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
not just shock jocks though George although I would dispute that James is one. Every single media vox pop. Are they all designed to make Brexiters look stupid? Im not looking to read about the scale of economic damage either. More the case for it and why it is better than the status quo.
- Status