Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

[Magilla 510]

3 hours ago, Bob Arctor said:

Whether people believe they were well informed is irrelevant to whether they were well informed though, because you don't know what you don't know.

Indeed, there have been plenty on here claiming that the loss of FoM won't stop people being able to go holiday so there'll be no difference..... a clear example of not quite grasping the implications!

 

3 hours ago, Bob Arctor said:

How many people who voted knew the main implications of the Belfast Agreement, for example? 

Well, not Angelfire, who started a thread asking about it after the referendum

 

[bendix 10]

1 hour ago, melthebell said:

So, we're asking for an extension until the end of June, lol, 29th March looks so far away

Isn't Tusk instead looking at proposing a flexible one year extension.  Good move on their part; it avoids the perpetual and inevitable fortnightly extension requests.

 

Let's face it.  The vote to forbid a no deal exit puts an end to this disastrous project of self-harm by the UK.   

 

Parliament has done its job properly - making decisions on behalf of the people, not FOR the people.

[Eater Sundae 12]

21 minutes ago, Magilla said:

*Every* leave campaign campaigned on getting a deal, and how easy and great that deal would be.

 

We had everything from "car makers will force the EU" to "they need us more than we need them".

 

Any suggestion of not getting that deal, despite the obvious flaws, was delcared "project fear".

 

No one voted for no-deal, it was explicitely and repeatedly ruled out by all the campaigns on the winning side.

 

They couldn't have done, according to the leave campaigns it was never on offer!

 

Revisionist nonsense.

 

*Thought* they knew what they were voting for... an important distinction.

Thought it - but that was about 3 months after the vote. I reckon there are a lot who would think differently if they were asked now

[Staunton 18]

On 3 April the BBC News website reported the resigning Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and Assistant Government Whip Nigel Adams telling the Prime Minister: "You and your cabinet have decided that a deal - cooked up with a Marxist who has never once in his political life put British interest first - is better than no deal."

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47796377

 

Now, a quick look at wikipedia is sufficient to inform us that Adams is an individual who seems wedded to the idea that he is naturally entitled, and that in March 2017 he was instructed to apologise to the House of Commons after the Commons Committee on Standards ruled that he had breached the MPs' code of conduct by failing to declare his interest in a telecommunications company while taking part in parliamentary inquiries relating to the industry'.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Adams

 

So, he's clearly not an honest man.

 

And Nick Boles, in his resignation rant on leaving the Conservative Party on 1 April, related his insight that 'senior ministers had shown a 'collective failure to lead and unite' and had 'all put their interests first'.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47787899

 

So, I don't think we should be afraid of reaching the conclusion that when Nigel Adams said to Theresa May 'You and your cabinet have decided that a deal cooked up with a Marxist who has never once in his political life put British interest first is better than no deal,' what he really means is 'You and your cabinet have decided on a deal cooked up with the Leader of the Opposition, who has never once put the interests of Nigel Adams before those of millions of ordinary people'.

[geared 315]

May's now gone asking for a delay till the 30th of June, despite the obvious disruption this will cause to EU elections being in May.

 

I can't see the EU allowing us to screw up their elections, especially when a delay till next year has already been mooted by Tusk.

They want shut of our nonsense so they can get on with their own business, the arguing and squabbling in Parliament is really starting to annoy the rest of Europe.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

2 hours ago, alchresearch said:

Yet UKIP did OK.

Pundits on the BBC were saying that among the general population away from London, very few people have heard of the change in UKIP since Farage left and Wee Tommy got involved, and still see it as a 'respectable' €urosceptic party. 

 

The candidate was also Neil Hamilton who, while be far from respectable, is a very high profile figure in Welsh politics and a member of the Welsh Assembly.

 

The most interesting swing was from Labour to pro-referendum parties which suggests dissatisfaction at Corbyn's anti-referendum stance.

[L00b 441]

37 minutes ago, geared said:

May's now gone asking for a delay till the 30th of June, despite the obvious disruption this will cause to EU elections being in May.

 

I can't see the EU allowing us to screw up their elections, especially when a delay till next year has already been mooted by Tusk.

They want shut of our nonsense so they can get on with their own business, the arguing and squabbling in Parliament is really starting to annoy the rest of Europe.

She has to be seen to try, to maintain the illusion that she's intent on delivering Brexit, but is getting thwarted at every turn by those dastardly Continentals (and assorted others).

 

It's all optics for domestic political consumption.

 

When the EU inevitably nixes her request (probably later today), she'll then do what the EU asked for securing the next extension (and so she'll run the EU elections in the UK).

 

The EU27 are indeed quite fed up with the British toddler-like strop, but they would still prefer you weren't out (count your remaining selves lucky), so they'll still show some flexibility...to a point, of course.

 

I saw Bettel delivering a speech at a business event yesterday afternoon. Symptomatic of the strong anti-populist efforts now underway across the EU27 in advance of the EU elections. I think some posters here would have liked it very much.

 

EDIT - that speech: https://youtu.be/uNqujddq2Sc

Edited April 5, 2019 by L00b
Link

[RJRB 688]

There are a couple of points that stand out amongst the many issues raised over Brexit.

Firstly why do some constantly assert that the referendum just meant leave with no agreement.

It was a binary question without a binary answer,and our withdrawal was always going to be subject to negotiations.If you did not understand this at the time then you did not know exactly what you were voting for.

Secondly,given this and especially if it is a revelation to you,then why object to a second referendum based on the facts.

[apelike 10]

6 hours ago, Cyclone said:

I'm not sure that the political establishment had even considered the Irish situation, it certainly hadn't made the news until about a year ago.

You may be right on that to a point but the government certainly did as they also knew that the funding underpinning the GFA would be ending soon and that they had guaranteed to continue it. They also knew that it would need to be re-written as that agreement has many references to the EU which would become invalid if we left the EU, something I have brought up in previous threads.

 

What is not stated however is if the/a deal is accepted will the EU then continue to fund it.

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

There are a couple of points that stand out amongst the many issues raised over Brexit.

Firstly why do some constantly assert that the referendum just meant leave with no agreement.

It was obvious that we would need to agree on how we left and that was what the 2 year grace was meant to be for, negotiating that. What was not obvious was that a deal would actually be put forward by May and the EU that meant we still stayed tied to the EU in many respects. For instance if the deal is accepted then we would still be bound by VAT rules and that means paying it to the EU.

 

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

It was a binary question without a binary answer,and our withdrawal was always going to be subject to negotiations.

If you did not understand this at the time then you did not know exactly what you were voting for.

No it was a binary question with a binary answer... Remain or Leave and that was it. Most that voted leave understood that and as said what was to follow was negotiations about how we left.

 

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

Secondly,given this and especially if it is a revelation to you,then why object to a second referendum based on the facts.

I for one am not one of the people standing in the way of another referendum, its parliament that are doing that and rightly so.

[geared 315]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

She has to be seen to try, to maintain the illusion that she's intent on delivering Brexit, but is getting thwarted at every turn by those dastardly Continentals (and assorted others).

 

It's all optics for domestic political consumption.

Pity she's crap at that as well though.

 

Last time around she went asking for a delay and in the process laid into British MP's for causing all the problems (in front of the European Council).

That went down like a lead balloon and helped contribute to another crushing defeat for her deal.

Edited April 5, 2019 by geared

[apelike 10]

6 hours ago, Bob Arctor said:

Whether people believe they were well informed is irrelevant to whether they were well informed though, because you don't know what you don't know. 

And what you dont know is endless so the only way to approach it is how you would normally do in life and that is judge on what you believe at the time. Great to discuss but endless all the same.