https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-business-wto-gatt-24-article-eu-trade-leave-a8996001.html

So they're still discussing Article 24? It's like the Brexit question never moves. People just say the same thing over and over again, no matter if it's true or false.

agill wrote:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-business-wto-gatt-24-article-eu-trade-leave-a8996001.html

So they're still discussing Article 24? It's like the Brexit question never moves. People just say the same thing over and over again, no matter if it's true or false.

Of course Boris Johnson is lying again, why would he change?

Dutchy wrote:

agill wrote:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-business-wto-gatt-24-article-eu-trade-leave-a8996001.html

So they're still discussing Article 24? It's like the Brexit question never moves. People just say the same thing over and over again, no matter if it's true or false.

Of course Boris Johnson is lying again, why would he change?

Funny how people still seem to think they can force the EU to grand the same trade benefits to the UK as they have under the current FTA after quitting on their own ....

Best regards
Thomas

More of the 'Have our cake and eat it', more than 3 years AFTER the referendum?

And this man is supposed to bring a fresh new look at the brexit mess he helped create?

Seems like even the believer-in-chief doesn't truly believe in a hard brexit himself; otherwise why would he keep on looking for ways to escape from it through the backdoor?

On the other hand, it's very BoJo to do exactly that, of course.

ROTFL

It will be fun to see BoJo going to Brussels in August to find just a few caretakers left

sabenapilot wrote:

Seems like even the believer-in-chief doesn't truly believe in a hard brexit himself; otherwise why would he keep on looking for ways to escape from it through the backdoor?

Not enough checkmarks in the world for that.

Even BoJo knows that a hard Brexit without an FTA would kill the UK economy quite quick.

He needs the pain to come slowly, unnoticeable,.... otherwise it would be difficult to blame anyone else but "Leave" for it.

best regards
Thomas

Farage as ambassador. What’s happening to the UK. Shameless.

BestWestern wrote:

Farage as ambassador. What’s happening to the UK. Shameless.

Oh please. Complain about it when it happens, until then it's just self-aggrandising bullshit.

scbriml wrote:

BestWestern wrote:

Farage as ambassador. What’s happening to the UK. Shameless.

Oh please. Complain about it when it happens, until then it's just self-aggrandising bullshit.

The idea is for the birds and has not been floated by any senior member of Boris Johnson's team. I've no idea why it is even getting traction.

Olddog wrote:

It will be fun to see BoJo going to Brussels in August to find just a few caretakers left

That's no way to talk about Juncker!

So, it looks like a lot of hot air continues from the UK politicians, maybe that is why the record temperatures in Europe.

So far, it looks like no real progress. Forget about anything in August as the Continent shuts down for vacation. Then you got 2 months to try to get the stuff together but that is unlikely. It appears that the UK is on the road to perdition, to a hard 'Brexit', and the worst fears of trade in total cock up. So the Brexit voters get their wish to boot out non-UK EU citizen country workers out but they won't take those jobs. How will they feel when 100's of 1000's of jobs are gone to the EU due to a hard Brexit. I don't see any real good short and long term. Then you have the whole disaster in waiting of the GFA. I just hope there is no violence, but upon Brexit in place, the hangover of the supporters are long and painful.

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corby ... m-11759502

To be honest, despite this belated shift in stance this does not give Mr Corbyn any more credibility on the issue. It would be appropriate to point out that he's probably been bounced into this position because of Labour's abysmal performance in the European elections along with unions and other close allies such as McDonnell publicly saying they would back remain. To ignore them for much longer would have probably risked another leadership challenge. If Corbyn truly believed in remaining he would have campaigned more vigorously for it in 2016 and wouldn't have campaigned the 2017 General Election on the basis they would leave in the name of respecting the result.

However, as the article points out, the unknown at this stage is what if there's an election, Labour gain power (whether it's majority, minority or in coalition with/support of others) and has the opportunity to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement? Or is the policy to hold a second referendum and back remain only applicable for as long as the Tories are in power and they must therefore oppose anything they come up with by default? If the latter, it just goes to show they're not interested in putting what's best for the country first and shows they have no credibility on the issue.

ltbewr wrote:

So, it looks like a lot of hot air continues from the UK politicians, maybe that is why the record temperatures in Europe.

I don't know. The recent way of nominating a successor to Jean-Claude Juncker by ignoring candidates from the spitzenkandidaten process because the Council couldn't agree in favour of a compromise candidate from outside the process probably didn't help.

It makes the case for these sort of roles to be directly elected and, frankly, plays into the hands of those who accuse the EU of being undemocratic, but that's by the by.

Boeing74741R wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

So, it looks like a lot of hot air continues from the UK politicians, maybe that is why the record temperatures in Europe.

I don't know. The recent way of nominating a successor to Jean-Claude Juncker by ignoring candidates from the spitzenkandidaten process because the Council couldn't agree in favour of a compromise candidate from outside the process probably didn't help.

It makes the case for these sort of roles to be directly elected and, frankly, plays into the hands of those who accuse the EU of being undemocratic, but that's by the by.

the EU council (all elected heads-of Government or State) proposed a candidate to the directly elected European Parliament: parliament is free can decline this candidate and then a new proposal needs to be made by the council who's having the right of initiative..

I remember that in the UK, there's currently an election going on in where a bunch of MPs only got to select 2 leadership candidates who're then presented to party members only for final elimination…one of both is certainly going to become the country's next PM, all without vote any by the public, be it directly or indirectly.

I wouldn't be so sure which of the 2 is most democratic in fact...

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Given the UK’s closest ally is the USA, both countries will want to keep our special relationship and I am sure this small issue will be quietly forgotten.

It always surprises me when this kind of thing is brought forward. Two questions:
- is the UK also the closest ally of the US?
- is the US really UK's closest ally? Based on what?

History. Common culture / language.

Ask any British national who our closest ally is and they’ll say in most likelihood, the USA. Probably followed by Ireland.

I don’t think the Dutch would come close alas.

Why does it surprise you? Do the the Dutch not have a nation they would consider an ally? Surely Belgium would they not?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ralia.html

As for the US, it would differ on the basis of your political leanings I guess.

noviorbis77 wrote:

History. Common culture / language.

That may have been true 30 years ago, but demografics are quickly shifting in the USA: the election of D. Trump to the presidency may have hiden it from view (maybe it was even a reaction to it in a certain way after Obama made it obvious to all), but the USA are increasingly becoming a black/hispanic/asian society: go and see for yourself how English the states of California, Florida, Arizona or even Texas still are... you'd better compare them to Spain!

Not so sure N. Farage would still feel as much at home in a political setup in Washington where the US President is a Latino and his VP an afro-american for instance, but it's a given these kind of line-ups are going to become pretty much standard in the not-so-distant future: the days when all-white solely-male candidates from New England were in charge of the USA, are almost gone: time is taking care of that right now! In another 30 years time, more than 1/3 Americans are no native English speakers any longer and the USA will start to feel as much British as India still does today. Double the time span, and the USA are a majority Spanish-speaking country even... Let that sink in for a minute... "vamos a hacer que Estados Unidos sea grande de nuevo", the new slogan of true nationalists in the USA

noviorbis77 wrote:

Ask any British national who our closest ally is and they’ll say in most likelihood, the USA. Probably followed by Ireland.

I very much doubt that Ireland sees England as the closes ally. Rather like the biggest oppressor....

Boeing74741R wrote:

has the opportunity to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement? Or is the policy to hold a second referendum

1. Any change to the WA would be rather minor cosmetics. Otherwise that is the take it or leave it deal. The EU is done negotiating.
2. Calling Brexit off is in deed an option.
3. it is either one of those or a hard Brexit.

best regards
Thomas

Boeing74741R wrote:

However, as the article points out, the unknown at this stage is what if there's an election, Labour gain power (whether it's majority, minority or in coalition with/support of others) and has the opportunity to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement?

Bwahahaha!

I appreciate you pointing out the (deliberate) ambiguity in the wording (highlighted by several journalists), but an "opportunity to negotiate its own WA" really can't happen as a) there's no time and b) the EU has already made it very, very clear that that won't happen - so in the real world Labour has finally switched to supporting another referendum and backing remain (as I thought it would following Tom Watson's speech a few weeks ago).

Boeing74741R wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

So, it looks like a lot of hot air continues from the UK politicians, maybe that is why the record temperatures in Europe.

I don't know. The recent way of nominating a successor to Jean-Claude Juncker by ignoring candidates from the spitzenkandidaten process because the Council couldn't agree in favour of a compromise candidate from outside the process probably didn't help.

It makes the case for these sort of roles to be directly elected and, frankly, plays into the hands of those who accuse the EU of being undemocratic, but that's by the by.

I don't get the UK's obsession with the selection process... this kind of horse-trading by proposing/debating/selecting/endorsing is part of any coalition building and is FAR more "democratic" than the UK's current PM selection process. All the people involved have been directly elected, and then - acting as representatives of the people - they choose from among themselves the most suitable to represent parliament overall. All seems quite sensible to me.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Given the UK’s closest ally is the USA, both countries will want to keep our special relationship and I am sure this small issue will be quietly forgotten.

It always surprises me when this kind of thing is brought forward. Two questions:
- is the UK also the closest ally of the US?
- is the US really UK's closest ally? Based on what?

History. Common culture / language.

Ask any British national who our closest ally is and they’ll say in most likelihood, the USA. Probably followed by Ireland.

I don’t think the Dutch would come close alas.

Why does it surprise you? Do the the Dutch not have a nation they would consider an ally? Surely Belgium would they not?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ralia.html

As for the US, it would differ on the basis of your political leanings I guess.

Can you consider someone country the closest ally if that other country doesn't consider it to be so? In most respect, Canada is the closest ally to the US.

As for the Dutch, the EU27 are the most trusted allies and within them a few countries which are more or less the same as the Netherlands.

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”

― Henry Kissinger

And with the UK leaving the EU, the UK has gotten less interesting.

Boeing74741R wrote:

However, as the article points out, the unknown at this stage is what if there's an election, Labour gain power (whether it's majority, minority or in coalition with/support of others) and has the opportunity to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement? Or is the policy to hold a second referendum and back remain only applicable for as long as the Tories are in power and they must therefore oppose anything they come up with by default? If the latter, it just goes to show they're not interested in putting what's best for the country first and shows they have no credibility on the issue.

According to my information the new Labour position is this:
• Labour pushes for a confirmatory referendum in any case.
• For such a referendum, Labour will campaign for Remain against no deal and against the Tory-negotiated Withdrawal Agreement.
• Even if Labour should get into government and if they should succeed in negotiating a different WA, they would still put that to a referendum (and only in that purely hypothetical, practically mythical case they reserve the option to campaign for their own unicorn WA instead of outright Remain).

So for all practical (and even just halfway realistic) purposes, Labour has now decided to definitely support a "second referendum" and as long as the Tories are in power also to campaign for Remain.

Now that was a lengthy and difficult birth, and there are prettier babies, too...!

Klaus wrote:

Now that was a lengthy and difficult birth, and there are prettier babies, too...!

I'm sure our resident Brexiteers will still claim Labour is a leave party!

Irish Said to Accept Need for Checks in No-Deal Brexit

Ireland has accepted the need to set up checks with Northern Ireland in a no-deal Brexit scenario, people familiar with the matter said.

The government accept that checks, especially on livestock, will be required if the U.K. crashes out of the European Union, the people said, asking not to be identified because the plans haven’t yet been discussed with cabinet. The location of any checks is still to be determined, one of the people said.

Source, Bloomberg

Checks are definitely going to happen, the matter is where. Ireland isn't going to let herself out of the EU, because of a foolish mistake by its neighbor.

tommy1808 wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

has the opportunity to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement? Or is the policy to hold a second referendum

1. Any change to the WA would be rather minor cosmetics. Otherwise that is the take it or leave it deal. The EU is done negotiating.
2. Calling Brexit off is in deed an option.
3. it is either one of those or a hard Brexit.

best regards
Thomas

Actually labour doesn't have red lines and wants a custom union and close alignment with the single market. The EU would definitely be open to that. The only problem is that it's basically the same thing as remaining, and any amount of negotiation would make that clear.

The US has been made by British people, so it might seem logical that they would be close allies, aside from that small issue of unilateral independence declaration, and a couple of wars over that, that is. France having been on the US side in that war, is also a good contender for close ally. WW2 also plays a role, and then culture is important.

Since the UK will probably break apart over Brexit, and the US might break apart because of similar issues (people not wanting to live together, basically), that's something left in common, I guess.

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It always surprises me when this kind of thing is brought forward. Two questions:
- is the UK also the closest ally of the US?
- is the US really UK's closest ally? Based on what?

History. Common culture / language.

Ask any British national who our closest ally is and they’ll say in most likelihood, the USA. Probably followed by Ireland.

I don’t think the Dutch would come close alas.

Why does it surprise you? Do the the Dutch not have a nation they would consider an ally? Surely Belgium would they not?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ralia.html

As for the US, it would differ on the basis of your political leanings I guess.

Can you consider someone country the closest ally if that other country doesn't consider it to be so? In most respect, Canada is the closest ally to the US.

As for the Dutch, the EU27 are the most trusted allies and within them a few countries which are more or less the same as the Netherlands.

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”

― Henry Kissinger

And with the UK leaving the EU, the UK has gotten less interesting.

Well, it is how you look at it.

The US has always been our closest friend and ally. That is how we can see it. You may want to pooh pooh it as we seem them as closer friends than the EU nations, but thats how it is.

And long I hope it continues.

Dutchy wrote:

Irish Said to Accept Need for Checks in No-Deal Brexit

Ireland has accepted the need to set up checks with Northern Ireland in a no-deal Brexit scenario, people familiar with the matter said.

The government accept that checks, especially on livestock, will be required if the U.K. crashes out of the European Union, the people said, asking not to be identified because the plans haven’t yet been discussed with cabinet. The location of any checks is still to be determined, one of the people said.

Source, Bloomberg

Checks are definitely going to happen, the matter is where. Ireland isn't going to let herself out of the EU, because of a foolish mistake by its neighbor.

No different to what happens now with live animals,

https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/articles/cattle-imports-gb

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

History. Common culture / language.

Ask any British national who our closest ally is and they’ll say in most likelihood, the USA. Probably followed by Ireland.

I don’t think the Dutch would come close alas.

Why does it surprise you? Do the the Dutch not have a nation they would consider an ally? Surely Belgium would they not?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ralia.html

As for the US, it would differ on the basis of your political leanings I guess.

Can you consider someone country the closest ally if that other country doesn't consider it to be so? In most respect, Canada is the closest ally to the US.

As for the Dutch, the EU27 are the most trusted allies and within them a few countries which are more or less the same as the Netherlands.

“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”

― Henry Kissinger

And with the UK leaving the EU, the UK has gotten less interesting.

Well, it is how you look at it.

The US has always been our closest friend and ally. That is how we can see it. You may want to pooh pooh it as we seem them as closer friends than the EU nations, but thats how it is.

And long I hope it continues.

It is the way you look at it, you can't speak for the nation, my friend.

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Can you consider someone country the closest ally if that other country doesn't consider it to be so? In most respect, Canada is the closest ally to the US.

As for the Dutch, the EU27 are the most trusted allies and within them a few countries which are more or less the same as the Netherlands.



And with the UK leaving the EU, the UK has gotten less interesting.

Well, it is how you look at it.

The US has always been our closest friend and ally. That is how we can see it. You may want to pooh pooh it as we seem them as closer friends than the EU nations, but thats how it is.

And long I hope it continues.

It is the way you look at it, you can't speak for the nation, my friend.

True. I cannot speak for a nation.

But I know a lot more about life in the UK than you my friend, and I am almost certain most people in the UK will recognise that the US is our historical closest ally.

You can deny it and argue against it for whatever weird reasons you want, that is entirely your right.

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Well, it is how you look at it.

The US has always been our closest friend and ally. That is how we can see it. You may want to pooh pooh it as we seem them as closer friends than the EU nations, but thats how it is.

And long I hope it continues.

It is the way you look at it, you can't speak for the nation, my friend.

True. I cannot speak for a nation.

But I know a lot more about life in the UK than you my friend, and I am almost certain most people in the UK will recognise that the US is our historical closest ally.

You can deny it and argue against it for whatever weird reasons you want, that is entirely your right.

You're hotly advocating a minority position, though, and a receding one at that.

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Can you consider someone country the closest ally if that other country doesn't consider it to be so? In most respect, Canada is the closest ally to the US.

As for the Dutch, the EU27 are the most trusted allies and within them a few countries which are more or less the same as the Netherlands.



And with the UK leaving the EU, the UK has gotten less interesting.

Well, it is how you look at it.

The US has always been our closest friend and ally. That is how we can see it. You may want to pooh pooh it as we seem them as closer friends than the EU nations, but thats how it is.

And long I hope it continues.

It is the way you look at it, you can't speak for the nation, my friend.

noviorbis77 Is correct the United States is the United Kingdom’s closets ally, the political demension may ebb up and down depending on who is in high political office at the time but what does not change is the special relationship between intergovernment at the coal face in aspects of greater intelligence sharing and military cooperation, it is a known fact that the United Kingdom and Australia have a more deeper relationship than those of NATO and five eyes partners.

Also there are fears this could be reduced because of the covert nature of Theresa May and the closer defence relationship within the withdrawal agreement, which goes to show Theresa May had no intention of leaving the EU except via a BRINO


https://www.foxnews.com/world/ex-mi6-ch ... ith-us.amp

Aesma wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

has the opportunity to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement? Or is the policy to hold a second referendum

1. Any change to the WA would be rather minor cosmetics. Otherwise that is the take it or leave it deal. The EU is done negotiating.
2. Calling Brexit off is in deed an option.
3. it is either one of those or a hard Brexit.

best regards
Thomas

Actually labour doesn't have red lines and wants a custom union and close alignment with the single market. The EU would definitely be open to that. The only problem is that it's basically the same thing as remaining, and any amount of negotiation would make that clear.

In deed. It is still "sign the WA first". It is the foundation on which the EU-UK relation shall stand while negotiating the future, longterm, relationship.

Best regards
Thomas

A101 wrote:

Also there are fears this could be reduced because of the covert nature of Theresa May and the closer defence relationship within the withdrawal agreement, which goes to show Theresa May had no intention of leaving the EU except via a BRINO

There is no more binding collective defense treaty then the EU treaties.

Best regards
Thomas

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

It is the way you look at it, you can't speak for the nation, my friend.

True. I cannot speak for a nation.

But I know a lot more about life in the UK than you my friend, and I am almost certain most people in the UK will recognise that the US is our historical closest ally.

You can deny it and argue against it for whatever weird reasons you want, that is entirely your right.

You're hotly advocating a minority position, though, and a receding one at that.

Must say I am a bit surprised about it, but noviorbis77 appears to be right:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... ard-allies

All the more reason to get on with Brexit.

AeroVega wrote:

Klaus wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

True. I cannot speak for a nation.

But I know a lot more about life in the UK than you my friend, and I am almost certain most people in the UK will recognise that the US is our historical closest ally.

You can deny it and argue against it for whatever weird reasons you want, that is entirely your right.

You're hotly advocating a minority position, though, and a receding one at that.

Must say I am a bit surprised about it, but noviorbis77 appears to be right:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... ard-allies

All the more reason to get on with Brexit.

Right about what? I am talking about in practice, not perceived by the general public. The "closest" ally said - by two presidents - that the UK will be back in line to do a crucial trade deal.

BTW two footnotes:
- The poll is before Brexit, 2015, would be interesting what it is now.
- "An overwhelming majority see America, Germany and France as important UK allies"

So why is it a reason to get on with Brexit? Don't get the link.

Johnson Open to Suspending Parliament (8:30 p.m.)

In a punchy response, Johnson insisted he will not rule out the radical step of suspending Parliament in order to deliver Brexit on time. Hunt earlier said he would not contemplate such a move. A previous suspension of Parliament resulted in a "civil war," Hunt said.

Johnson, the favorite, said he would not "take anything off the table" in his determination to deliver on the vote of the 2016 referendum campaign. That sets up a potentially major conflict with MPs, who earlier voted to back a move to stop the next prime minister suspending Parliament in order to force through a no-deal Brexit.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/labour-b ... 59724.html

There you have it, suspend democracy itself to force a no-deal Brexit, force Britain in a constitutional crisis. Brexitremist. Quite bizarre, whom could have thought that Brexitremist will go so far to force their view on the British.

So simple question for our Brexitremist, would you support such a move? It is a yes or no question. Don't expect KLDC10, A101 and noviorbis77 and others to give a straight-up answer though.

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Must say I am a bit surprised about it, but noviorbis77 appears to be right:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... ard-allies

All the more reason to get on with Brexit.

Right about what?

About the UK public perceiving the US as their biggest ally. That is what he claimed and appears to be confirmed by this poll.

Dutchy wrote:

I am talking about in practice, not perceived by the general public.

But noviorbis77 was not. I did not refer to you or your position at all in my post.

Dutchy wrote:

BTW two footnotes:
- The poll is before Brexit, 2015, would be interesting what it is now.
- "An overwhelming majority see America, Germany and France as important UK allies"

Agreed. Could go both ways, though.

Dutchy wrote:

So why is it a reason to get on with Brexit? Don't get the link.

The poll shows that the British public do not see their European neighbours as their biggest allies. For me that is not a good basis for being part of the EU.

Dutchy wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Klaus wrote:

You're hotly advocating a minority position, though, and a receding one at that.

Must say I am a bit surprised about it, but noviorbis77 appears to be right:

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/ar ... ard-allies

All the more reason to get on with Brexit.

Right about what? I am talking about in practice, not perceived by the general public. The "closest" ally said - by two presidents - that the UK will be back in line to do a crucial trade deal.

BTW two footnotes:
- The poll is before Brexit, 2015, would be interesting what it is now.
- "An overwhelming majority see America, Germany and France as important UK allies"

So why is it a reason to get on with Brexit? Don't get the link.

If that’s your yardstick to measure the relationship between the UK and the US its pretty poor

Every personality in high office makes a statement for a reason and not always for the reason you think, everyone has their own interests to protect, as I said before what is said to the media and what happens behind closed doors can be very different



Ambassador Gardner at the time of the Obama administration acknowledge that the president used a poor choice of words at the time also gave a glimpse to why do US had taken that position

The UK and the US are so philosophically aligned on so many issues – from competition, to trade, to digital economy, to Russia’s sanctions, the list is long – that having the UK leave the EU would damage our ability to influence the EU in a direction that we wanted.

Dutchy wrote:

So simple question for our Brexitremist, would you support such a move? It is a yes or no question. Don't expect KLDC10, A101 and noviorbis77 and others to give a straight-up answer though.

All right I’ll bite and keep it in the parameters of your yes and no court room drama



yes

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So simple question for our Brexitremist, would you support such a move? It is a yes or no question. Don't expect KLDC10, A101 and noviorbis77 and others to give a straight-up answer though.

All right I’ll bite and keep it in the parameters of your yes and no court room drama



yes

Yes, you are a Brexitremist and undemocratic. So never use the argument anymore that the Brexit vote should be honored, because it was the will of the people. Shocking for someone in the west to throw away democracy like that. You absolutely don't care what will happen to the UK, luckily you have a way out and move to Australia when you are done wrecking the country by that attitude yours.

Let's see if noviorbis77 and KLDC10 are that extreme.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So simple question for our Brexitremist, would you support such a move? It is a yes or no question. Don't expect KLDC10, A101 and noviorbis77 and others to give a straight-up answer though.

All right I’ll bite and keep it in the parameters of your yes and no court room drama



yes

Yes, you are a Brexitremist and undemocratic. So never use the argument anymore that the Brexit vote should be honored, because it was the will of the people. Shocking for someone in the west to throw away democracy like that. You absolutely don't care what will happen to the UK, luckily you have a way out and move to Australia when you are done wrecking the country by that attitude yours.

Let's see if noviorbis77 and KLDC10 are that extreme.

You wanted a simple yes and no answer without reason why I have taken that view, the response from you is exactly what I was expecting, but once again your post is so far wide of the mark I’m actually cheering you on because it’s so bloody funny

sabenapilot wrote:

the EU council (all elected heads-of Government or State) proposed a candidate to the directly elected European Parliament: parliament is free can decline this candidate and then a new proposal needs to be made by the council who's having the right of initiative..

I remember that in the UK, there's currently an election going on in where a bunch of MPs only got to select 2 leadership candidates who're then presented to party members only for final elimination…one of both is certainly going to become the country's next PM, all without vote any by the public, be it directly or indirectly.

I wouldn't be so sure which of the 2 is most democratic in fact...

Neither if you ask me, though in the case of the latter at least members of the public get the opportunity to vote if they are already paid up members of the party in question; however some parties have rules in place such as having to be a member for x amount of months before being entitled to vote to avoid entryism influencing the contest. That said, Ed Miliband's reforms and introducing the £3 supporter tier that gave anyone the right to vote in Labour leadership elections is often cited as one reason why Corbyn is now leader and why they frantically changed it to £25 one year later.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Bwahahaha!

I appreciate you pointing out the (deliberate) ambiguity in the wording (highlighted by several journalists), but an "opportunity to negotiate its own WA" really can't happen as a) there's no time and b) the EU has already made it very, very clear that that won't happen - so in the real world Labour has finally switched to supporting another referendum and backing remain (as I thought it would following Tom Watson's speech a few weeks ago).

Yes. Hence why I started the scenario with the words "what if", because from where I'm sitting Labour are just a deluded as some of the Tory leadership candidates if they think they can make substantial changes.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

So, it looks like a lot of hot air continues from the UK politicians, maybe that is why the record temperatures in Europe.

I don't know. The recent way of nominating a successor to Jean-Claude Juncker by ignoring candidates from the spitzenkandidaten process because the Council couldn't agree in favour of a compromise candidate from outside the process probably didn't help.

It makes the case for these sort of roles to be directly elected and, frankly, plays into the hands of those who accuse the EU of being undemocratic, but that's by the by.

I don't get the UK's obsession with the selection process... this kind of horse-trading by proposing/debating/selecting/endorsing is part of any coalition building and is FAR more "democratic" than the UK's current PM selection process. All the people involved have been directly elected, and then - acting as representatives of the people - they choose from among themselves the most suitable to represent parliament overall. All seems quite sensible to me.

So essentially the debates between the spitzenkandidates and broadcasted prior to the elections are/were a waste of time and money then given that none of them have been nominated? I say this as someone who's in favour of televised debates, though I accept the arithmetic following the elections made it a less-than-straightforward path.

It would have been nice if the groupings the parties are aligned with were stated on the ballot paper so people knew exactly what they were voting for, as I don't recall seeing these on the ballot papers I was sent and my knowledge of which group each party is in is down to my own research. I can't speak for other countries so I'm open to being educated, but the problem you have here (and it's something I have mentioned in one of these threads before) is in the UK at least there is a lack of common knowledge over how the process works, what groupings exist and which ones our political parties sit in - all of this is on top of other lack of general knowledge over how the EU works and how the public are enjoying the benefits. Whether this is deliberate misreporting on the media's part or otherwise I don't know, but the reality here is that the more clued up ones are generally those who have taken the time to do their own research. I'm convinced if there was more public knowledge about the positives and more efforts made to increase engagement, the result 3 years ago would be different.

Please remember, I'm looking at how things can be improved, it's not an obsession on my part. None of which is relevant to the current Tory party leadership contest and, as I said above, I don't particularly think either case can claim to be more democratic over the other.

If you think the current system is fine and nothing needs changing, that's your prerogative. However, don't be surprised if others criticise the overlooking of the spitzenkandidates if it happens again.

Klaus wrote:

Boeing74741R wrote:

However, as the article points out, the unknown at this stage is what if there's an election, Labour gain power (whether it's majority, minority or in coalition with/support of others) and has the opportunity to negotiate its own withdrawal agreement? Or is the policy to hold a second referendum and back remain only applicable for as long as the Tories are in power and they must therefore oppose anything they come up with by default? If the latter, it just goes to show they're not interested in putting what's best for the country first and shows they have no credibility on the issue.

According to my information the new Labour position is this:
• Labour pushes for a confirmatory referendum in any case.
• For such a referendum, Labour will campaign for Remain against no deal and against the Tory-negotiated Withdrawal Agreement.
• Even if Labour should get into government and if they should succeed in negotiating a different WA, they would still put that to a referendum (and only in that purely hypothetical, practically mythical case they reserve the option to campaign for their own unicorn WA instead of outright Remain).

So for all practical (and even just halfway realistic) purposes, Labour has now decided to definitely support a "second referendum" and as long as the Tories are in power also to campaign for Remain.

Now that was a lengthy and difficult birth, and there are prettier babies, too...!

You'll upset Corbynista's by claiming their policies are ugly.

So basically Labour are now remain for as long as they are in opposition (because it's the opposite to what the Tories want to do), but will switch back to leave if they somehow get into power because they think that a Brexit on their own terms is better. I can't help but think this is a short-term, populist stance because of the support they've haemorraghed to the likes of the Lib Dems and the Greens who are clear for what they stand for on Brexit and because the trade unions are now telling Labour to align with their stance of second referendum and remain, as well as the likes of McDonnell and Watson constantly going public about the need to switch to second referendum and remain (McDonnell in particular because I don't think the Corbyn cult will go as far as attempting to deselect Corbyn's closest ally because he's dancing to a different tune on Brexit, plus Watson as Deputy Leader has his own mandate so can't be deposed easily).

As a remainer, it's not making me any more likely to want to support them. It's also why they're not fit for power anytime soon because they don't have a credible plan for the single biggest issue of the day if they got in to power. Simply stating what they will do for as long as the Tories are in power won't cut it and I doubt it will lead to voters flocking back to them in their droves, particularly remainers who voted Lib Dem or Greens or even SNP if in Scotland.

Aesma wrote:

Actually labour doesn't have red lines and wants a custom union and close alignment with the single market. The EU would definitely be open to that. The only problem is that it's basically the same thing as remaining, and any amount of negotiation would make that clear.

It could be described as "BRINO" (Brexit in Name Only). Is being in a customs union compatible with EEA membership (as that would probably be the option offered if no Schengen like with EFTA)? It would also still involve having to pay in but not getting as much out as we do now as full members.

A101 wrote:

the Irish government placed more police and defence personal at check points at the border than the UK did at the height of the troubles.

Source please

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

All right I’ll bite and keep it in the parameters of your yes and no court room drama



yes

Yes, you are a Brexitremist and undemocratic. So never use the argument anymore that the Brexit vote should be honored, because it was the will of the people. Shocking for someone in the west to throw away democracy like that. You absolutely don't care what will happen to the UK, luckily you have a way out and move to Australia when you are done wrecking the country by that attitude yours.

Let's see if noviorbis77 and KLDC10 are that extreme.

You wanted a simple yes and no answer without reason why I have taken that view, the response from you is exactly what I was expecting, but once again your post is so far wide of the mark I’m actually cheering you on because it’s so bloody funny

And your response is exactly as I expected. I wanted a simple yes or no answer because I wanted to know how far you would take it and it is bloody far. I wanted to know if you are a democrat: because all you Brexiteers are crying a democratic decision should be honored, but you aren't. I am not interested anymore in excuses etc.

The truth is that you are prepared to do anything, prepared to take any cost (for Brittian, you have a get out of the country-free card), prepared to dissolve British democracy and constitution itself as long as you have your precious Brexit.

Bags the reason why? Just trolling? well you had your little fun. Trolling for political reasons? Your dead set on trying to let the British ship go down. There is no sane argumentation left for this most extremist point of view.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, you are a Brexitremist and undemocratic. So never use the argument anymore that the Brexit vote should be honored, because it was the will of the people. Shocking for someone in the west to throw away democracy like that. You absolutely don't care what will happen to the UK, luckily you have a way out and move to Australia when you are done wrecking the country by that attitude yours.

Let's see if noviorbis77 and KLDC10 are that extreme.

You wanted a simple yes and no answer without reason why I have taken that view, the response from you is exactly what I was expecting, but once again your post is so far wide of the mark I’m actually cheering you on because it’s so bloody funny

And your response is exactly as I expected. I wanted a simple yes or no answer because I wanted to know how far you would take it and it is bloody far. I wanted to know if you are a democrat: because all you Brexiteers are crying a democratic decision should be honored, but you aren't. I am not interested anymore in excuses etc.

The truth is that you are prepared to do anything, prepared to take any cost (for Brittian, you have a get out of the country-free card), prepared to dissolve British democracy and constitution itself as long as you have your precious Brexit.

Bags the reason why? Just trolling? well you had your little fun. Trolling for political reasons? Your dead set on trying to let the British ship go down. There is no sane argumentation left for this most extremist point of view.

You have no idea why I said yes, but continue on your little rant

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

You wanted a simple yes and no answer without reason why I have taken that view, the response from you is exactly what I was expecting, but once again your post is so far wide of the mark I’m actually cheering you on because it’s so bloody funny

And your response is exactly as I expected. I wanted a simple yes or no answer because I wanted to know how far you would take it and it is bloody far. I wanted to know if you are a democrat: because all you Brexiteers are crying a democratic decision should be honored, but you aren't. I am not interested anymore in excuses etc.

The truth is that you are prepared to do anything, prepared to take any cost (for Brittian, you have a get out of the country-free card), prepared to dissolve British democracy and constitution itself as long as you have your precious Brexit.

Bags the reason why? Just trolling? well you had your little fun. Trolling for political reasons? Your dead set on trying to let the British ship go down. There is no sane argumentation left for this most extremist point of view.

You have no idea why I said yes, but continue on your little rant

So, mister, perhaps you want to enlighten us? Why did you say YES to suspending democracy to have your little Brexit.

Dutchy wrote:

The truth is that you are prepared to do anything, prepared to take any cost (for Brittian, you have a get out of the country-free card), prepared to dissolve British democracy and constitution itself as long as you have your precious Brexit.

Bags the reason why? Just trolling? well you had your little fun. Trolling for political reasons? Your dead set on trying to let the British ship go down. There is no sane argumentation left for this most extremist point of view.

Now I have to admit I'm very curious to know the reaon(s) too as to why anybody would want to abolish a democratically elected and free parliament and thus democracy as we know it, for the sake of a simple (minority) government policy?

I mean, let's think this over for a minute, shall we?

What do you think to gain from persuing this policy to the point you even want to give away your constitutional right to having a sovereign parliament?

The money?
Even if all the calculations on how much the UK stands to lose in a (hard)Brexit scenario are dead wrong, you stand to win just 125 quid a year, this based on the net contrubition the UK makes to the EU... Do you sell your free vote for that amount of pocket money??? Millions of ordinary people have had to fight very hard and long and many thousands have lost their lives over this civil right, you know? Now it's just going to be a poor clown like BoJo (indeed, Boris... the Jeltsin of the UK, so to say) who's playing with the idea to prorogue parliament briefly, but who knows... there may be a Putin in waiting to take over from him and make this practice of governing without parliamentary oversight daily routine!

The sovereignty?
What is it you radically want to see changed in British society that currently can't be done because of a sovereign parliament?
So far, we've been lectured on an illustrious merchant shipping act from the 1980s of which I've long forgotten the details because it affects hardly anybody in the UK at all.
But other than that? If you want to sign away your most precious civil rights and democratic system for the sake of it, it must be something far far more radical than that, surely?
You want to expell all people not British enough in your eyes? You want to segregate people based on religion or skin colour? You want to create a one nation, one party, one leader type of democracy… and lock everybody up who doesn't agree with him?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And your response is exactly as I expected. I wanted a simple yes or no answer because I wanted to know how far you would take it and it is bloody far. I wanted to know if you are a democrat: because all you Brexiteers are crying a democratic decision should be honored, but you aren't. I am not interested anymore in excuses etc.

The truth is that you are prepared to do anything, prepared to take any cost (for Brittian, you have a get out of the country-free card), prepared to dissolve British democracy and constitution itself as long as you have your precious Brexit.

Bags the reason why? Just trolling? well you had your little fun. Trolling for political reasons? Your dead set on trying to let the British ship go down. There is no sane argumentation left for this most extremist point of view.

You have no idea why I said yes, but continue on your little rant

So, mister, perhaps you want to enlighten us? Why did you say YES to suspending democracy to have your little Brexit.

Well its not a decision I take lightly and it does have serious implications and sets a dangerous precedent.

Firstly I don't think he will do it,
Secondly parliament voted to invoke A50 and knew the default position, if you don't like the default potential outcome then they should not have invoked
Thirdly it gives the PM some breathing space to actually go to Brussels to see if they will renegotiate the WA with out the noise of parliament jettisoning no deal,

Fourthly you wanted someone and parliament to make a stand and he's doing it and we will see a result one way or another.

Do I agree with how the process has reached this point, no I don't. Do I think its a necessary evil yes, the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU Parliament also voted to leave the EU, what ever the outcome we will leave with an agreement or not

Boeing74741R wrote:

I can't speak for other countries so I'm open to being educated, but the problem you have here (and it's something I have mentioned in one of these threads before) is in the UK at least there is a lack of common knowledge over how the process works, what groupings exist and which ones our political parties sit in - all of this is on top of other lack of general knowledge over how the EU works and how the public are enjoying the benefits.

Oh absolutely. This, in a nutshell, is why we have the current mess. It's also - speaking from experience - why other European countries I've lived in have historically been more relaxed about the EU and open to it - there's more of an understanding of what it does and why (and hence how it benefits everyone), both in terms of media reporting and in simple things like EU-funding being mentioned in promotional material for all the infrastructure, social programmes, art & media projects etc. that it supports.

I was reading only this morning how the North East of England, Wales and Cornwall currently benefit from a lot of EU support... yet there's almost no knowledge of this. A massive contrast compared to when I visited Ireland in the 90s and kept seeing huge signs about EU funding next to all the shiny new roads we were driving on, for example.