Politics, politics, politics

[r-u-s-x]

There was lots of different view points, it was a cluster fudge of everything you want in a Leave campaign. If you were inclined to want a type of exit you had it offered to you and I bet most believed this is what they would get (people are stupid). Is it unreasonable to think that at least 2% of the total voters wanted (and thought they would get) what is now termed as a soft Brexit, I don't think it is.

As you said there is a lot of water under the bridge since the referendum but I thought the majority of prominent voices were saying we would stay in the single market, its only since the referendum that they have admitted that Hard Brexit (WTO rules) is a probability.

Again I am not arguing for a SOFT or HARD BREXIT just getting a bit sick of HARD BREXIT saying this is the will of the people / democracy as this is not the case.

 

[scaramanga]

There was lots of different view points, it was a cluster fudge of everything you want in a Leave campaign. If you were inclined to want a type of exit you had it offered to you and I bet most believed this is what they would get (people are stupid). Is it unreasonable to think that at least 2% of the total voters wanted (and thought they would get) what is now termed as a soft Brexit, I don't think it is.

As you said there is a lot of water under the bridge since the referendum but I thought the majority of prominent voices were saying we would stay in the single market, its only since the referendum that they have admitted that Hard Brexit (WTO rules) is a probability.

Again I am not arguing for a SOFT or HARD BREXIT just getting a bit sick of HARD BREXIT saying this is the will of the people / democracy as this is not the case.

I'm not sure of the quanitities, it's certainly possible.

Surely those who now want a soft Brexit had the opportunity to campaign and vote for one - instead they decided to campaign and vote for Remain. I used to live in a constituency where the MP was always Labour or Lib Dem. I could have voted Lib Dem to stop the Labour candidate but wanted to keep my principles and vote Conservative. Mine and other votes could have got the OK solution had we not gone for the best one but we didn't.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Free trade deal with Europe would take longer than two years to negotiate
13 December 2016 | 2429 views | 0Source: House of Lords
The House of Lords EU Internal Market and External Affairs Sub-Committees have today published a report on frameworks for UK-EU trade following June’s referendum.

It concludes there is always an inherent trade-off between liberalising trade and the exercise of sovereignty.

The report, Brexit: the options for trade, recognises that the Government is seeking a bespoke agreement with the EU post Brexit, but concludes that tailoring existing trade models will be difficult. A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU would take longer than two years to negotiate.

The Government will need to agree a transitional trade arrangement between the UK leaving the EU and full implementation of new trade terms. The report concludes that a temporary extension of participation in the customs union would be one important element of this.

The report also urges the Government to establish a clear ‘game plan’ for a transitional arrangement at the outset of negotiations under Article 50.

Commenting on the report, Baroness Verma, Chairman of the EU External Affairs Sub-Committee, said:
“It is unlikely that a bespoke EU trade agreement can be agreed within Article 50’s two-year period, so a transitional deal is vital for protecting UK trade, and jobs that rely on trade.

“The Government should focus on trade with the EU and its WTO schedules. Deals with non-EU countries are contingent on the outcome of these negotiations, and need to be sequenced accordingly.

“The complexity of the issues and the tight timetable require a significant scale-up in capacity in government departments and clear leadership across Whitehall.”

Chairman of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, Lord Whitty, added:
“Trade-offs will need to be made in whatever trading framework we eventually agree. The Government is committed to curbing the free movement of people and the reach of the European Court of Justice. This is incompatible with full Single Market membership.

“While an FTA would provide the greatest flexibility, and no commitment to freedom of movement, there is no evidence that it could provide trade on terms equivalent to membership of the Single Market.”

The report evaluates the four main models for future UK-EU trade and concludes:
• The European Economic Area (EEA) is the least disruptive option for trade, but it is unlikely to be reformed to limit free movement or give the UK voting rights on EU legislation.
• The Government urgently needs to decide whether or not the UK will remain in a customs union. Doing so would mean no border checks for goods between the UK and EU, but would restrict the UK’s ability to sign trade deals with the rest of the world. It does not cover services.
• A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU is the most flexible option and could lead to a bespoke deal, but would be complex and take longer than two years to negotiate. Even the most advanced FTAs do not provide terms for UK-EU trade equivalent to membership of the Single Market.
• Trade under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules would have the most dramatic effect on trade, resulting in significant tariffs for goods and increased restrictions on services. Establishing independent WTO schedules will not be straightforward.

This report, Brexit: the options for trade, is the second of six reports published in six days from the House of Lords European Union Committee on the impact of Brexit on a range of different issues.

https://www.finextra.com/pressartic..._medium=dailynewsletter&utm_source=2016-12-14

 

[r-u-s-x]

There was no option for Soft or Hard Brexit though so that wasn't possible to win "Soft Brexit" and in all likely hood even if there was it wouldn't have been desirable. I concede that the majority of those that voted leave would want a hard BREXIT but I maintain that the majority of those who voted would not, why would you want to disregard 48% of the electorate. And I again go back to the starting point that Hard Brexit is unlikely to be the will of the majority of the people (as per referendum vote).

 

[monkeybarry]

Free trade deal with Europe would take longer than two years to negotiate
13 December 2016 | 2429 views | 0Source: House of Lords
The House of Lords EU Internal Market and External Affairs Sub-Committees have today published a report on frameworks for UK-EU trade following June’s referendum.

It concludes there is always an inherent trade-off between liberalising trade and the exercise of sovereignty.

The report, Brexit: the options for trade, recognises that the Government is seeking a bespoke agreement with the EU post Brexit, but concludes that tailoring existing trade models will be difficult. A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU would take longer than two years to negotiate.

The Government will need to agree a transitional trade arrangement between the UK leaving the EU and full implementation of new trade terms. The report concludes that a temporary extension of participation in the customs union would be one important element of this.

The report also urges the Government to establish a clear ‘game plan’ for a transitional arrangement at the outset of negotiations under Article 50.

Commenting on the report, Baroness Verma, Chairman of the EU External Affairs Sub-Committee, said:
“It is unlikely that a bespoke EU trade agreement can be agreed within Article 50’s two-year period, so a transitional deal is vital for protecting UK trade, and jobs that rely on trade.

“The Government should focus on trade with the EU and its WTO schedules. Deals with non-EU countries are contingent on the outcome of these negotiations, and need to be sequenced accordingly.

“The complexity of the issues and the tight timetable require a significant scale-up in capacity in government departments and clear leadership across Whitehall.”

Chairman of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee, Lord Whitty, added:
“Trade-offs will need to be made in whatever trading framework we eventually agree. The Government is committed to curbing the free movement of people and the reach of the European Court of Justice. This is incompatible with full Single Market membership.

“While an FTA would provide the greatest flexibility, and no commitment to freedom of movement, there is no evidence that it could provide trade on terms equivalent to membership of the Single Market.”

The report evaluates the four main models for future UK-EU trade and concludes:
• The European Economic Area (EEA) is the least disruptive option for trade, but it is unlikely to be reformed to limit free movement or give the UK voting rights on EU legislation.
• The Government urgently needs to decide whether or not the UK will remain in a customs union. Doing so would mean no border checks for goods between the UK and EU, but would restrict the UK’s ability to sign trade deals with the rest of the world. It does not cover services.
• A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU is the most flexible option and could lead to a bespoke deal, but would be complex and take longer than two years to negotiate. Even the most advanced FTAs do not provide terms for UK-EU trade equivalent to membership of the Single Market.
• Trade under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules would have the most dramatic effect on trade, resulting in significant tariffs for goods and increased restrictions on services. Establishing independent WTO schedules will not be straightforward.

This report, Brexit: the options for trade, is the second of six reports published in six days from the House of Lords European Union Committee on the impact of Brexit on a range of different issues.

https://www.finextra.com/pressartic..._medium=dailynewsletter&utm_source=2016-12-14

No brick!

 

[scaramanga]

There was no option for Soft or Hard Brexit though so that wasn't possible to win "Soft Brexit" and in all likely hood even if there was it wouldn't have been desirable. I concede that the majority of those that voted leave would want a hard BREXIT but I maintain that the majority of those who voted would not, why would you want to disregard 48% of the electorate. And I again go back to the starting point that Hard Brexit is unlikely to be the will of the majority of the people (as per referendum vote).

Isn't that the beauty of our democratic system - that anyone can campaign on any grounds they want?

If enough people wanted to campaign for a soft brexit (and if they'd laid out the model as per the ASI article above) then I suspect it would have been the preference for many. Nobody really did though, the Leave campaign was (wrongly IMO) all about ending immigration, opening up trade and returning sovereignty.

 

[Gutter Boy]

There was no option for Soft or Hard Brexit though so that wasn't possible to win "Soft Brexit" and in all likely hood even if there was it wouldn't have been desirable. I concede that the majority of those that voted leave would want a hard BREXIT but I maintain that the majority of those who voted would not, why would you want to disregard 48% of the electorate. And I again go back to the starting point that Hard Brexit is unlikely to be the will of the majority of the people (as per referendum vote).

A soft Brexit was the EU reforming. Stopping its imperialist power accumulation and doctrinal MO, and becoming fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. Economic co-operation doesn’t need political integration into a superstate.

The failure to do that over the past 25 years created the binary choice between all out and all in. We've broken the EU because it wouldn't flex.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Isn't that the beauty of our democratic system - that anyone can campaign on any grounds they want?

If enough people wanted to campaign for a soft brexit (and if they'd laid out the model as per the ASI article above) then I suspect it would have been the preference for many. Nobody really did though, the Leave campaign was (wrongly IMO) all about ending immigration, opening up trade and returning sovereignty.

Likewise can be said of the Hard Brexit - there was no vote on Hard Brexit just as definitively as there was no vote on Soft Brexit. The Leave campaign was about ending immigration, opening up trade, returning sovereignty, giving more money to the NHS, keep giving funds to regions that are currently receiving funds from EU, Staying in the single market, leaving the single market and a whole host of other things.

 

[r-u-s-x]

A soft Brexit was the EU reforming. Stopping its imperialist power accumulation and doctrinal MO, and becoming fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. Economic co-operation doesn’t need political integration into a superstate.

The failure to do that over the past 25 years created the binary choice between all out and all in. We've broken the EU because it wouldn't flex.

This is your view, not arguing for or against - what I am saying is it is very likely that the majority of people who voted in the referendum would prefer SOFT over hard. Good democracy should represent the will of the majority of the electorate surely? Those stating that Hard Brexit is the will of the people are at best incorrect at worst willfully lying.

 

[Gutter Boy]

This is your view, not arguing for or against - what I am saying is it is very likely that the majority of people who voted in the referendum would prefer SOFT over hard. Good democracy should represent the will of the majority of the electorate surely? Those stating that Hard Brexit is the will of the people are at best incorrect at worst willfully lying.

But the EU have been clear for decades that soft Brexit can't be on the table. That's having our cake and eating it, and it would existentially undermine the whole EU. The union in its current form would collapse immediately if they conceded it would be acceptable, as all the other nations would want it too.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Soft Brexit is still very much on the table and probably the EU's preferred choice, it just means that we have to include freedom of movement, I.e. the Norwegian or Swiss model that was one of the models that was put forwards pre election. Again not arguing for this (and I very much think it will not be the route we go down) just saying it was one of the options that people who voted in the election thought they may have been voting for.

 

[r-u-s-x]

But the EU have been clear for decades that soft Brexit can't be on the table. That's having our cake and eating it, and it would existentially undermine the whole EU. The union in its current form would collapse immediately if they conceded it would be acceptable, as all the other nations would want it too.

I was saying that those who support Hard BREXIT often say this is the will of the people or its democratic. I maintain that the referendum results do not support this view, there was no distinction for what the terms of Brexit should be. I also postulated that it is more likely that the majority of those that voted would be for SOFT rather than Hard BREXIT, the 48% of Remainers would be very likely to prefer the soft variety and I would guess that at least 2% of those that voted out did so in the belief we would remain in the single market, possibly with freedom of movement.

I do not insist this is a fact as there is no way to know but I would suggest it is a lot more likely to be "will of the people" for a Soft variety, but what it 100% was not a remit for was a Hard Brexit - the brick show of a referendum did was not set up in a way to come to this conclusion.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

No brick!

Exactly. I meant to add a comment before posting, but got sidetracked.
There's a HoL committee that have spent time (and money) to come up with that "advice". i could probably have written that.

 

[wiziwig]

Ok i'll bite then. I'm from a similar 'first generation' immigrant background but was actually born in Nigeria but came here with my mother to join my father when he was here studying. I was aged 9 months and their plans were to both study and move back but things changed in Nigeria (much for the worst generally due to military dictatorship AND poor/corrupt management of a then thriving Economy due in part to the selfish the devaluing of the Naira) and so here i am.

Firstly, i then take it personally when you mention 'people coming to the Western Hemisphere to live permanently' as you prove my point re my comments of what goes on globally: you label immigrants from other continents differently to, say, Greek Cypriots. This is as i always expect: no matter how many years those of 'non-white' faces integrate here (or in other 'White countries'), things for them will never be the same as for those from countries whose skins are 'fairer' or 'white'. Over time they will almost always integrate to be seen as 'White' or 'British.' Hence even though you are yourself from an immigrant background you differentiate yourself from immigrants from 'other continents' (i take you saying this as code for 'non-white').' Another example: those first/second generation people of say, Irish, Polish or Greek descent not being asked as many times "where ae you from originally" compared to those with brown faces, like those similarly first/second generation with African and Asian roots. So it is with this view that i say your picture if anything describes things in the opposite way of how things really work.

Secondly, can i ask you in light of your comments about people coming from other continents to live permanently "in the Western Hemisphere", what do you think of people from European countries going to live permanently in the Americas and Australasia?

Apologies for not replying sooner but I've been away for the past few days.

In the context of the debate i.e. galeforce's wish for a one global racial group, can I ask we try to keep it factual rather than you implying racism on my part?

Fact 1). Presently, The Western Hemisphere - North America and Europe is majority white.

Fact 2). Australia aside - The majority of the people from the other continents are of a darker skin.


From the few words that I wrote regarding temporary workers in the Middle East, to permanent residency in Europe, your response is to twist the debate so as to discredit me that I as a greek-cypriot, see myself as a superior form of immigrant to those from the other continents.

Well no, that's not how I see things and I resent you implying that is how I do .

The facts speak for themselves . Cyprus is in Europe and it's people are caucasian - Do you think me a clam, that I cannot recognise, that on both our father's arrival to Britain, that my father who'd have less obstacles to face than your father would? You think I cannot see that the prejudices of the ignorant, would not make it harder for your father than for mine?

Perhaps you could tell me if the reverse would be true. Let's say, both you and I, with both the same work skills migrated to South Africa, would we both encounter the ignorance and prejudice out there in equal measure?

By differentiating in a debate, a white European to say a black African, is just that, differentiating. We can also be different from continent to continent by our physical characteristics, our cultural traditions , our languages, our religions and, our morals. Can we not talk of these differences without implying racism?

Can we not say that if large numbers of different belief systems are imported, that its possible that it generates concern for the national group without labelling these concerns as racist?

I would say that the biggest concern to Europeans is the uncontrolled mass migration into the continent by muslim young men under the guise of refugee status.

There are people voicing concerns regarding the numbers of muslims in Europe. There are concerns, that politicians entrusted to keep us safe are really on the same train of thought as galeforce's vision for the destruction of national diversity, that is by neutralising the politics of the white European majority. Are all these white European people voicing these concerns, racist?

Muslims in Europe have high unemployment rates and also have a high percentage who have no wish to assimilate into a liberal society and many see non muslims as an enemy. Europeans are not allowed to express concerns?

The same powers that share galeforce's dream of a one world government and superstate blocks are pushing their agenda through their controlled main streeem media and are not showing the true realities of this uncontrolled mass migration into Europe by people from the other continents. Look into it without relying on the BBC and other state news media and you will find that there have been major disturbances in many cities across Europe. There have been mass protests against this uncontrolled immigration in numerous countries, numbering in their 100,000s, that go unreported by our MSM.

Also . I'm not sure what your reasons are for asking me the question - what do you think of people from European countries going to live permanently in the Americas and Australasia?

Are Europeans migrating in large uncontrolled numbers to the Americas and Australasia?


Finally, I ask you to watch this six minute video and then maybe we can have a better understanding.

 

[wiziwig]

The tag line read 'white genocide.' It implied that calls for diversity are really a method to wipe out the white race.

To deny the racism of that is either highly ignorant of what constitutes racism, or horrible cynicism on your part. Take your pick. Also you are correct that having concerns about uncontrolled immigration does not make one racist, but the fact is, the overwhelming majority of the people who spout these views, are racist and do so for racist reasons.

Apologies for not replying sooner but I've been away.

Might I suggest you look up the definition of genocide and you will learn that it is more than simply wiping out a group of people in it's entirety ....

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext-printerfriendly.htm

I ask you to take note of the protected group segment.

-----------
The law protects four groups - national, ethnical, racial or religious groups.

A national group means a set of individuals whose identity is defined by a common country of nationality or national origin.

----------

You used the word wipe out, I didn't.

Interesting that you implied racism on my part for wanting to avert this enforced national changes, whilst galforce's call, for the destruction of racial groups and the melding into the one racial group does not register your attention.

 

[Baleforce]

@wiziwig, it's not a wish, its evolution, homogenisation to dominant traits

 

[wiziwig]

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.

It's the way of today's left-wing/liberals to accuse others of racism, they do it in the belief that it makes them seem more humane. Many of them almost instantly see white supremacy the moment a white person holds a different view to their own.

They don't seem to get it, that their political correctness social justice flimflam is largely to blame for the nationalistic reactions we're now seeing.

Trump is a nazi worse than Hitler. Farage is another nazi and so too is Le Pen and Geert
Wilders. Nazis every fudging where.

If this Leftist dream of central control, one world government carries on, the above named will be the least of our worries.

 

[wiziwig]

@wiziwig, it's not a wish, its evolution, homogenisation to dominant traits

I'm sorry but I beg to differ.

We are the same in the fact that in the mornings we need to urinate, to have a brick. We are the same, that we all need to quench our thirst, to fill our stomachs. We all have the instinct of survival . These are the basic needs of all the creatures in the animal kingdom.

What separates us from the creatures and from each other is individual thought.

Your way is that of a hive mentality , a one way to do and to think .

One world government, one racial group , one religion , one language.

 

[milo]

https://twitter.com/x/status/809091180248072192

 

[Baleforce]

I'm sorry but I beg to differ.

We are the same in the fact that in the mornings we need to urinate, to have a brick. We are the same, that we all need to quench our thirst, to fill our stomachs. We all have the instinct of survival . These are the basic needs of all the creatures in the animal kingdom.

What separates us from the creatures and from each other is individual thought.

Your way is that of a hive mentality , a one way to do and to think .

One world government, one racial group , one religion , one language.

it's not "my way"

also, we'll educate religion out of existence in the next few generations