Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ainsworth74, 23 Jun 2016.
Just when you think things cant get any crazier - this week has been a total clusterf
That isn't relevant to the point of mine you responded to. Whatever effect free movement had on the result, any country wanting to be in the single market has to accept free movement. So what Corbyn wants is not on offer, though not as much of a contradiction as a backstop with an escape mechanism.
Ed Miliband is MP for Doncaster North. Doncaster is 91.4% English-born, 93.8% UK-born.
I would be frankly astonished if anyone from London got home from work on a Friday and decided to go to Calais for a pint.
No it wasn't. I will let you do the research (which will take seconds) to prove that is a lie.
First off the name of the country in English is “Ireland” - Éire is used if talking/writing in the Irish language.
What Mr Varadkar has been wishing for all along is quite simple - he wants to ensure that the peace that was achieved on the island of Ireland over 20 years ago is maintained and that the UK government stands by their international treaty obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. The latter part being something that so many English people don’t seem to have a clue about. That is what the backstop is all about.
Making threats against Ireland is frankly little more than bullying because you can’t get your way.
If people think we are being bullied now then just wait until, all on our own, we are trying to make trade deals with the US, China, India, the EU etc. The former PM of Australia Kevin Rudd has said already that our plans for trade with the Commonwealth are "Utter Bo**ocks". The guy is an idiot and his language was blunt but I would tend to agree with him. A broken clock is right twice a day and I think he has called this one correctly. He spoke more sense in two words than JRM could in an hour of mumbling.
I seem to remember a certain speech from David Cameron, whom it was quite reasonable for people to take as a true source of authority on the subject.
As an aside, without checking I seem to remember something similar was also in the Conservatives 2017 manifesto.
2017 was after the referendum campaign.
What this discussion shows is that there was no agreed definition on leave actually meant.
Also, a no deal and leaving the single market/customs union are not the same thing.
Cameron was threatening the possible consequences of a vote to leave. His words were immediately claimed to be part of Project Fear by the leave campaign and that nobody was suggesting leaving the single market.
Back in 2017 we were still well within Brexit is Brexit or We want a red, white and blue Brexit. Nothing had been decided before the election because May was trying to avoid setting out what we were aiming for - a tactic roundly supported by the brexiteers because, apparently, not letting the other people know what you want in a negotiation is a sure fire way of getting exactly what you do. Cynics would suggest the lack of detail presented to the EU wasn't because of some special negotiation tactic, but actually because the Government didn't have a clue what they wanted to do and were shocked to discover campaign slogans and sound bites isn't enough.
Calais...fair enough. However Lille, Brugge, Oostende, Gent...
If I lived in the south east and was earning a decent wage I'd absolutely pop over for a pint or six, depending on the train times. I did read that many on bot side commute to work via Eurostar, although they must have a salary to make Rees-Mogg weep.
Better than Ramsgate!
That’s because they are put off by the lack of reasonably priced off-peak returns on Eurostar, otherwise Londoners would flock to Calais for wild café runs every Friday. And the Lille grand-place would be invaded by craft ale-sipping, Craven A-smoking Hoxton square types.
(Honestly, the tale of the Londoner bloke bent on having a (metric) pint at Calais on a Friday night sounds like the beginning of a great Monty Python sketch)
When the Connex coach service between Ashford and Calais was running, trips to Calais (and beyond) were affordable and easy.
A certain Mr. N. Farage certainly does do that journey frequently.
Boris Johnson, and that two faced sh*tbag who was happy to take the money all of us paid to the EU in return for nothing (Nigel Farage) said more than once that leaving the EU didn't mean leaving the customs union etc. etc. etc.
I'm pretty sure the-
"We had to cut our Commenwealth trade deals", "we can't stop EU immigration" and the "unelected Brussels officals" complaints that have been around for years are directly related to each of those things. I always knew from 2016 that if you leave, you have to leave everything to make it worthwhile. Leave voters don't care about the affects of a hard brexit, because they don't believe in being a part of those EU institutions in principle.
So why didn't the Leave groups campaign as such? Why did they spend so much time and effort saying things like leaving the common market were all part of project fear?
What you said has pretty much nothing at all to do with what I was replying to. You know, stuff like politicians saying leave doesn't mean we have to leave the common market or customs union etc. We can be like Norway or Switzerland etc. Well done.
The trouble is that David Cameron decided to try to skew the referendum by not having a plan for leaving. That is why he was out of Downing Street so quickly after the referendum.
The trouble is that David Cameron didn't even vaguely consider the prospect of Leave winning, so he didn't bother to prepare for that outcome. Nothing to do with him 'trying to skew the referendum'.
ECJ jurisdiction required for Norway/Switzerland models. Therefore not total reclamation of sovereignty.
Arguably, the referendum was flawed and skewed heavily in favour of leave because of the poor choice of question. 'Leave' actually encapsulated a whole range of different proposals, from no-deal to EFTA-membership to something-in-between. Remain on the other hand was one single proposal. The referendum basically put that one option against everything else and added up the votes for all the other options to make what was in effect 52% for 'everything else'.
Since it's clear with hindsight that there was no clear majority for any single one of the multitude of options on the table, it's pretty clear that in that situation, if you set any of the options against 'everything except this option' then 'everything except this option' would always win. If the referendum question had been 'hard Brexit' against 'no hard Brexit' then no hard Brexit would've won. If the referendum had been 'EFTA membership' against 'no to EFTA membership' then 'no to EFTA membership' would have won. So the 52% for 'all the options except staying in the EU added together' really tells us very little about which option was the most popular/least unpopular.
Those who claim the referendum result must be respected because it's the will of the people simply haven't thought it through. Sadly that includes the Prime Minister and lots of Government ministers who really should know better.
The ECJ red line is more down to the number of times they told Mrs May off during her time as Home Secretary than anything else.
Although at least we'll be free of the them stopping us deporting terrorists though, right?
If you voted leave, do you care that some people might not be able to get health insurance?
Is that a serious question?
If it is, and please do not construe this as a personal attack, it is a worrying display of ignorance.
Brexit was voted almost 3 years ago, it is due in two effing weeks, and you cannot tell the respective responsibilities of the ECJ and the ECHR.
This is not a connoisseur’s detail, or an intricate situation in EU institutions that leads to confusion, it’s a bloody basic fact.
Just be informed that in any case, the UK will _not_ leave the European Convention on Human Rights.
Oh, I know the difference all right. It doesn't stop me being told regularly that we have to be out of the grapes of the ECJ so we can get rid of terrorists though, hence my question ending with "right?". I was hoping one of the brextreemists would have taken into that trap, but hey ho!
I think it should have been an AV question (to allow voting for options), and any second referendum must be. FWIW, if I had been able to guarantee an EEA/EFTA (Norway/Switzerland) style outcome I would almost certainly have voted Leave (my fairly strongly held view is that the EU should never have progressed past being a trading bloc, and I am absolutely anti-federal-EU, primarily because too many layers of Government are just a waste of money), whereas because of the risk of "no deal" I voted Remain.
Some date confusion and conflation fallacy there. Ted Heath had nothing to do with the calling of the 1975 referendum. That was a Labour Party manifesto pledge that they enacted after winning the October 1974 General Election.
The letter that you linked to was written in 1960 when Ted Heath was Lord Privy Seal. Lord Kilmuir was not Attorney General at that time either and hadn't been since 1945. He was Lord Chancellor.
How can you accuse a previous administration's Lord Chancellor and Lord Privy Seal for lying to the electorate in the 1975 referendum campaign? Ted Heath wasn't even Prime Minister when the letter was written and wouldn't be party leader until 1965, and by the time the referendum campaign began in April 1975 he was on the back benches.
The "no loss of sovereignty" quote was from a leaflet distributed in 1971 ahead of the parliamentary debate and motion on whether the UK should join the EEC. There's no link between that leaflet and the private letter written in 1960.
Basic research that took me 15 minutes. Perhaps consider doing likewise before posting.
Let's remind ourselves of what we were told about brexit shall we...
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" - Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" - Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" - Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" - Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" - Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
Every one seems to have forgotten all that.