parklane1
Tony Galvin
Far easier to blame/accuse people of being racists, turkeys, little englanders etc, etc then to accept or even look for the reasons that the political earthquake has taken place.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Far easier to blame/accuse people of being racists, turkeys, little englanders etc, etc then to accept or even look for the reasons that the political earthquake has taken place.
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
Junker is talking big to stop more Brexits.
He knows there is a change in people's wants and needs (there was before Brexit IMHO) so is making sure there is a pathway for a strong and reformed EU rather than a disintegrated EU.
Brexit, Austria voting 46% to the right, Italy, Netherlands and France all show a change will happen, there is too much of a groundswell not to.
@Danishfurniturelover Brexit will still happen. If it doesn't then it proves my pre vote point, that UK politics is so arrogant that it cannot be trusted to govern (although I'm not sure there was much doubt!).
He knows there is a change in people's wants and needs (there was before Brexit IMHO) so is making sure there is a pathway for a strong and reformed EU rather than a disintegrated EU.
Brexit, Austria voting 46% to the right, Italy, Netherlands and France all show a change will happen, there is too much of a groundswell not to.
@Danishfurniturelover Brexit will still happen. If it doesn't then it proves my pre vote point, that UK politics is so arrogant that it cannot be trusted to govern (although I'm not sure there was much doubt!).
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
I do not think it will, the are to many MP's who are against it and no matter what deal May brings to the house those MP's will vote against it saying it is not in the countries interest, some of them may genuinely think that, but I know people and human nature and I know some of them have already made up their mind. The whole phrase "kicking it into the long grass" is one bandied about and it is what happened to slow down and then stop it.
A lot of them even admitted that is what they wanted to happen so that Brexit got so bogged down in parliament it did not happen. They have their wish. I am not bothering to really think about it anymore I follow politics because I find it interesting but I would be amazed if we had any sort of Brexit, I do not think May ever really wanted it either though that is just my opinion of her.
The failure to inact Brexit means that UKIP will become quite a large party in this country though. If we are lucky it could be prime minister Farage in a few years
monkeybarry
Jack Jull
I hope you are wrong. I'm really into politics (although less so since I started working in the civil service!) and if what you say actually happens then what is the point of politics?I do not think it will, the are to many MP's who are against it and no matter what deal May brings to the house those MP's will vote against it saying it is not in the countries interest, some of them may genuinely think that, but I know people and human nature and I know some of them have already made up their mind. The whole phrase "kicking it into the long grass" is one bandied about and it is what happened to slow down and then stop it.
A lot of them even admitted that is what they wanted to happen so that Brexit got so bogged down in parliament it did not happen. They have their wish. I am not bothering to really think about it anymore I follow politics because I find it interesting but I would be amazed if we had any sort of Brexit, I do not think May ever really wanted it either though that is just my opinion of her.
The failure to inact Brexit means that UKIP will become quite a large party in this country though. If we are lucky it could be prime minister Farage in a few years
As much as i hate the result and even the fact it was in the Tory manifesto, the bottom line is this is our democracy and should operate as such.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
two of my local MP's have even come out and voted against parliament even having a say, they do not think we should pull out and they dont even think we should debate what 17.5 million people voted for, more will follow when the deal is put to the house.
They might be right and think that the deal put forward is not good enough but the sad thing is they have already decided, I have no proof of that other then to know what human nature is like. I hope I am wrong, I did not think we would win the referendum what with the vote registration time extended to get all the kids who were suddenly scared into action by project fear and that Labour MP getting killed.
But for me it will not be the UK that frees Europe from the EU it must now come from elsewhere, our best hope now is for the Italians to pull out of the Euro or maybe the Scots to finally vote for independence. Thus enabling the people of England to truly shape the country we want.
Is there a mandate for Hard Brexit over soft Brexit, as there were so many promises and different outcomes prior to the vote with no clear roadmap, we do not really know what people voted for Norwegian / Swiss / WTO / other. As 48% voted to remain would it be safe to assume that a few percent of people who voted Leave were looking for a very soft Brexit (don't know for sure as this was not the question). Balance of probabilities is that this is what the majority now want ( as those who voted remain would prefer this).
In this case is the argument that anything other than Soft Brexit would go against the will of the people?
Lets be honest no one really knows as the whole referendum was a brick show, we have no idea what people wanted other than Out of the EU as it is now. What I find a little distasteful is those wanted a Hard Brexit stating it is the will of the people as we have no idea.
In this case is the argument that anything other than Soft Brexit would go against the will of the people?
Lets be honest no one really knows as the whole referendum was a brick show, we have no idea what people wanted other than Out of the EU as it is now. What I find a little distasteful is those wanted a Hard Brexit stating it is the will of the people as we have no idea.
AuroRaman
Chris Armstrong
If we are lucky it could be prime minister Farage in a few years
That would be the absolute LAST thing he would want. He was a guest on Sam Delaney's show recently, one of my camera mates was on set. Sam asked him pre-recording if he would have been interested in this potential UK Ambassador role to the US. The clam said 'of course, it's easy money and I can expense literally everything I do'. Apparently he went on to say that much like Trump, he enjoys putting on the persona to gain exposure and make money. I can't remember all of what was said, can ask my mate again, I'm on a shoot with him this Saturday.
Basically, all that 'Man of the People' stuff that people fall for is absolute gonads. Of course, most of us knew that from the start....
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
The problem is soft Brexit is the same as the EU. There's no difference other than the name. No repatriation of powers, no freedom to do our own trade deals with the world, no visa system etc. The benefits of Brexit start to come the further away from Brussels' machinations we can get
But I do accept that getting our BETA (a British CETA) may take longer than 2 years and a fall back interim arrangement might be useful, so long as we are out in principle by March 2019.
Cool not disagreeing with that but I would still argue that the "will of the people" is a lot more likely to be Soft than Hard, just feel its disingenuous of BREXIT to state otherwise.
I doubt that a soft brexit was the intention of most of those voting leave.
Most I know that voted leave would consider a soft brexit the same as the status quo.
I agree most but I would guess (that's all we can do) that at least 3% of those who voted would prefer Soft, that is all it needs to represent "the will of the people" as I would be fairly confident that those that wished to remain would have SOFT> HARD. (3% + 48%)
To be clear I am not arguing that the referendum gave a mandate for a soft exit but to keep hearing that Hard Brexit is "the will of the people" when this is clearly not a safe conclusion, in fact it is a lot more likely that a Soft Brexit would be preferred by the majority.
Last edited:
I'd argue that none of the 48% voted for any kind of Brexit at all. Hard brexit is probably the preference of those who won the vote.
But you agree that those voted remain would most likely have SOFT>HARD, you think this is a reasonable assumption? If so the will of the majority of the people would also most likely be SOFT > HARD.
It is probably the preference of those who won but we have no way of knowing, but surely the goal of democracy is to represent the majority of all voters not only those who won. If there was any forward thinking in this process that would have easily been achievable with a second question in the referendum open to all regardless of the first choice.
As the referendum question was not a vote for the type of BREXIT then those who wish for a hard Brexit can not claim this is the will of the people, which was my starting point.
It is probably the preference of those who won but we have no way of knowing, but surely the goal of democracy is to represent the majority of all voters not only those who won. If there was any forward thinking in this process that would have easily been achievable with a second question in the referendum open to all regardless of the first choice.
As the referendum question was not a vote for the type of BREXIT then those who wish for a hard Brexit can not claim this is the will of the people, which was my starting point.
I don't recall anyone campaigning to leave doing so on the basis of what we currently are calling a soft Brexit. Whilst many suggested that we could and should continue trading with Europe as we currently do, they all either offered unencumbered trade with the rest of the world and/or control of borders.
I don't see how a soft Brexit could include either or both of those.
Do you not recall Norwegian or Norwegian plus model during the campaign. I would say that this is in line with a soft Brexit
Isn't the "plus" bit the bit where we control immigration and have free trade with the outside world?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Or Canada
Ok so in that case the Norwegian Model was also proposed - This is a Soft Brexit so yes there were plenty of people campaigning on a soft Brexit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...pt-that-norway-model-is-the-only-safe-way-to/
Adam smith institute https://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
Government paper https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...pt-that-norway-model-is-the-only-safe-way-to/
Adam smith institute https://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
Government paper https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU.pdf
As with most things they write, I agree with most of the Adam Smith Institute argument.
Do you feel though, that any of those voices were either loud or representative of the Leave campaign? I only know of one person who voted Leave who reads the Telegraph. My memory of it may be clouded, but most of the coverage was of Farage and Johnson - I don't recall much of the more nuanced argument making its way to the public sphere.