Brexit Phase Two - Trade

Or 'leave in name only'.

As I flagged earlier today, the instant a Conservative administration says after Brexit "we can't change our taxes/regulations because our agreement with the EU won't allow it" will be the moment their poll ratings start to slide on a scale akin to that experienced after the UK was forced out of the ERM.

The Tories were eventually out of power for fifteen years after their fruitless attempt to belong to the precursor of the euro because they forfeited their reputation for economic competence. Allow Brussels to retain power over the UK after Brexit and they'll be out of power at least as long.

Wordsmith
Reputation for economic competence?!?

That's going down the shitter PDQ thanks to the conservatives putting it's own infighting ahead of UK PLC for the past couple of years.

It's not gone unnoticed
 
The mandate bestowed by the referendum lasts until the next referendum. Anyone trying to overturn Brexit using a GE result would have to campaign almost exclusively on that basis and neither of the two main parties would survive adopting that policy option.

I agree with your confidence point. The current situation reflects the fact that there is no truly decisive majority either way and, for both sides, where they are now is probably the safest bet, whilst pushing for a change in the mix is fraught with uncertainty and has already backfired once.
Nope, an election would trump the referendum were anyone to campaign to remain, fortunately for Brexiteers both Labour and Conservative support leaving. The same divisions affect both and, barring Jezza popping his clogs I can't see anything changing on that front.
 
Nope, an election would trump the referendum were anyone to campaign to remain, fortunately for Brexiteers both Labour and Conservative support leaving. The same divisions affect both and, barring Jezza popping his clogs I can't see anything changing on that front.
A GE would only trump a referendum if you made the GE specifically about Brexit. Neither party will do that, not least for the reason you gave.
 
You are leaving a house that you rented from me. There is damage to the house and the contract states that you must pay for the damage. You offer £1,000 - a realistic figure to fix the problems. I demand £10,000 and you invoke the arbitration clause which means we end up in court.

Who is most to blame for that state of affairs? You, with your realistic offer to fix the damages, or me with my outrageous demand?

For you read the UK, for me read the EU and you've got the concept.

Wordsmith
Hyperbolic rhetoric though, grievance manufacturing in the finest traditions of the SNP. Another bunch of monocular nationalists.
 
A GE would only trump a referendum if you made the GE specifically about Brexit. Neither party will do that, not least for the reason you gave.
Depends how the manifesto is worded, that goes for the Conservative party as well. If you remember that no parliament may be bound.....
 
A GE would only trump a referendum if you made the GE specifically about Brexit. Neither party will do that, not least for the reason you gave.
To make re-run of the referendum the key feature of a GE would mean that the party putting it into their manifesto would have to set out the benefits of remaining in the EU. As the remain side defaulted to 'Project Fear' in the last referendum rather than argue the positive benefits of membership, I can't seen them convincing the electorate second time around that the EU is some form of promised land.

In addition, "Project Fear's", dire warnings from last time would be replayed - together with clear proof that the sky didn't fall in after we voted for Brexit.

Wordsmith
 
Italian government and stability....
 
Depends how the manifesto is worded, that goes for the Conservative party as well. If you remember that no parliament may be bound.....
I wouldn't give much for the chances of the party that tried the 'By the way, we're cancelling Brexit' gambit.
 
I wouldn't give much for the chances of the party that tried the 'By the way, we're cancelling Brexit' gambit.
That's not how frog boiling works, ask Johnson, Gove, Fox and Davis. With apologies to John Rentoul.
 
Hyperbolic rhetoric though, grievance manufacturing in the finest traditions of the SNP. Another bunch of monocular nationalists.
Grievance manufacturing. Great term.

Probably the lead manufacturing process in the NE should Doomsmith get his way ;)
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Reputation for economic competence?!?

That's going down the shitter PDQ thanks to the conservatives putting it's own infighting ahead of UK PLC for the past couple of years.

It's not gone unnoticed
What a pity that Labour are in such good form at the same time!!! :rolleyes:
 
That's not how frog boiling works, ask Johnson, Gove, Fox and Davis. With apologies to John Rentoul.
Politics isn't frog-boiling - you can't boil political ideas to death. Brexit wouldn't die, it would simply fester, with the main outcome being a further decline in trust in politicians and in the political process, which wouldn't do anyone any good. I would also posit that moderate Remainers fully appreciate the implications and most of them are too responsible to want to prevail in that manner.
 
What a pity that Labour are in such good form at the same time!!! :rolleyes:
All parties are on the horns of a dilemma after the Brexit vote.
  • The Tories have elected a leader who couldn't negotiate her way out of a paper bag.
  • Many in Labour are itching to oppose Brexit but don't want to commit electoral suicide by doing so.
  • Limp Dem figures like Cleag are going around saying the Leave voters were to stupid to understand the consequences of Brexit. P*ssing off half the electorate will really help the Limp Dem voting figures
  • The SNP have decided that Brexit is a chance to re-run the once in a lifetime referendum from 4 years ago and are hacking off a lot of the Scottish electorate for that reason.
All the parties are suffering from an inability to adjust to the new political landscape.

Wordsmith
 
I'm struggling with your absurd argument that there is a mandate to 'leave' Europe but no mandate for whatever agreement is required to enable that outcome. You're being driven by what you want the situation to be and not by the situation as it actually is. The EU's exit mechanism is Article 50 and the default setting for Article 50 is a hard exit if some form of agreement is not reached within the prescribed two-year period. Anyone who didn't understand that when they voted has only themselves to blame.
You’re contradicting yourself again.

The mandate is to leave the EU, which will happen, as per the mandate.

Agreements outside of this are outwith the scope of the mandate and therefore entirely achievable if desired, as you have noted.

You may have noticed there are some clues in the A50 process to enable this.

You may have also noticed some clues in both the Withdrawal Agreement and in TMs speeches.

Best of luck. ^^
 
Why are you struggling with the simple concept we can simply walk away and the default is a hard brexit ?
Because that is not the case. You’re confusing hard Brexit with the mandate to leave the EU.

They are entirely separate concepts, hard Brexit having already been discounted by HMG, as evidenced by the application to remain in the CU, EASA and Euratom.

Which, you will note, is separate to the process of leaving the EU. ^^
 
Because that is not the case. You’re confusing hard Brexit with the mandate to leave the EU.

They are entirely separate concepts, hard Brexit having already been discounted by HMG, as evidenced by the application to remain in the CU, EASA and Euratom.

Which, you will note, is separate to the process of leaving the EU. ^^
It's all negotiations still, the option to walk away is always there

To pretend otherwise is just ignoring reality
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Bacongrills The NAAFI Bar 229
Good CO Brexit 349
ACAB The NAAFI Bar 453

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top