Brexit Phase Two - Trade

"The clamour for parliament to have a ‘meaningful vote’ is simply a ruse and would make a no deal outcome more likely"


So Brexit == Sovereignty but NOT Parliament or The People getting to vote...
That isn't sovereignty it's a dictatorship
Is that what Brexit is? A dictatorship?
If not then Parliament and or the people whould get a vote on this
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
"The clamour for parliament to have a ‘meaningful vote’ is simply a ruse and would make a no deal outcome more likely"


So Brexit == Sovereignty but NOT Parliament or The People getting to vote...
That isn't sovereignty it's a dictatorship
Is that what Brexit is? A dictatorship?
If not then Parliament and or the people whould get a vote on this
The people did get to vote. They voted to leave the EU.

Our elected representatives in Parliament are now getting on with sorting out the details based on the mandate they got from the referendum.

Sorry if neither of those processes are delivering the outcome you want.

Wordsmith
 
"The clamour for parliament to have a ‘meaningful vote’ is simply a ruse and would make a no deal outcome more likely"


So Brexit == Sovereignty but NOT Parliament or The People getting to vote...
That isn't sovereignty it's a dictatorship
Is that what Brexit is? A dictatorship?
If not then Parliament and or the people whould get a vote on this
Brexit is the majority of the electorate saying we don’t want to be part of the EU.
 
The people did get to vote. They voted to leave the EU.

Our elected representatives in Parliament are now getting on with sorting out the details based on the mandate they got from the referendum.

Sorry if neither of those processes are delivering the outcome you want.

Wordsmith
So if HMG cancelled Brexit as "Our elected representatives in Parliament are now getting on with sorting out the details" decide it isn't doable they don't have to refer to anyone else.

If you are happy with that then OK.
I would still want a vote on it.
 
So if HMG cancelled Brexit as "Our elected representatives in Parliament are now getting on with sorting out the details" decide it isn't doable they don't have to refer to anyone else.

If you are happy with that then OK.
I would still want a vote on it.
Ive read your post a few times and it still seems incoherent.

Brexit is doable. Politicians who are upset about the referendum result are trying to stop it the only way they can now....kill it off in red tape.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
So if HMG cancelled Brexit as "Our elected representatives in Parliament are now getting on with sorting out the details" decide it isn't doable they don't have to refer to anyone else.

If you are happy with that then OK.
I would still want a vote on it.
When the Limp Dems lost the referendum for the single transferable vote as few years back, no-one went about saying we want a meaningful alternative to the first past the post system and parliament should get a vote on it.

All these demands for "meaningful votes" are essentially backdoor methods to try and keep us in the EU.

We had a democratically conducted referendum and the majority of those taking part voted to leave - get used to it.

Wordsmith
 
On the subject of a United States of Europe, I consider that it's a perfectly cromulent aspiration. It appears though, that this is an aspiration of the politicians and the 'elite', and which doesn't appear to be shared by the people.

Not sure of the actual facts but I have the feeling that it's been progressed by subterfuge, because the 'elite' didn't trust that the various peoples agreed. For example, I'm of the impression that anything that changes our constitution should be subject to referendum and various treaties haven't been.

I think one underlying reason for the leave vote, was to make sure that we couldn't become part of such a union by any further subterfuge.

I voted leave. Not for any particular type of leave, simply leave. I have no expertise in any of the technical aspects of leaving and am and was content to let the politicians and their experts work it all out.

I expected that, being politicians, they'd probably mess it up but if they can succeed at least in part and things can be generally improved/adjusted after the fact, then I think that's got to be acceptable.

I personally, can't make any contribution to the outcome and, although now aware of things I never considered previously, my stance is unchanged. So I'll own my decision, whatever that means.
 
You are correct. It’s management/indirect staff.

My own company has gone through this recently. 40% of indirect staff were made redundant. End result, we’re more profitable and more efficient. We’ve got away from the Chinese parliament style of management.
Management have a role in productivity, but in my experience large companies have a tendency to form layers of self licking lollipop management, reducing profitability
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
"The clamour for parliament to have a ‘meaningful vote’ is simply a ruse and would make a no deal outcome more likely"


So Brexit == Sovereignty but NOT Parliament or The People getting to vote...
That isn't sovereignty it's a dictatorship
Is that what Brexit is? A dictatorship?
If not then Parliament and or the people whould get a vote on this
Welcome to the machine. They only seem to want parliamentary sovereignty when it's going their way.
Not the inconvenient stuff.

But if any brexiters can tell me how Brexit will be of appreciable benefit to the UK. I'd be delighted to hear it.

(It'll annoy the foreigners isn't an appreciable benefit)
 
My_T_Huntpost: 8619955 said:
Anti EU id would appear to increase in correlation with distance from the centre ground politically, whether to the left or right. Primarily, in my opinion, because part of the EU's founding principles is to check extremism.
You couldn't get anymore moderate or centre ground, than Gisele Stewart and Kate Hoey!
 
It is like comparing BMW with Airbus.
They both have tax issues in common like all multis. Oh and why shouldn't BMW be compared with airbus. I mean one makes cars the other planes- the difference is what apart from the glaringly obvious? Just that BMW managed to asset strip the British indigenous car industry courtesy of the EU and Labour connivance.

Me being half German I should be proud nicht wahr, Just that these southerners have no morals. So I'm not
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Brexit is the majority of the electorate saying we don’t want to be part of the EU.
If we don't want to be part of the Eu. Why are we paying all this extra money to stay in various bits and pieces?
Why are we desperately hoping that our finance crowd will get some sort of deal to allow them to carry on dealing in the Europe? (And JRM to carry on dealing in the Eu)

Why did we open our fishing grounds? And offer up access to our int and sy stuff?

When we were in we wanted opt outs and now we're going out we want opt ins.

I'm beginning to see Hilary Benns point. 'We have decided to disembark from a liner in the middle of the ocean as a country'.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the machine. They only seem to want parliamentary sovereignty when it's going their way.
Not the inconvenient stuff.

Some only seem to want democracy and a meaningful vote when it's going their way.
Not the inconvenient results.

But if any brexiters can tell me how Brexit will be of appreciable benefit to the UK. I'd be delighted to hear it.

(It'll annoy the foreigners isn't an appreciable benefit)
As has been frequently pointed out in this thread, the EU has no choice but to go for ever closer political and financial integration. The euro is an unfinished protect and requires centrally set budgets from Brussels, the power for Brussels to fine countries that deviate from the agreed budgets and a transfer of wealth from richer to poorer regions of the EU.

As also pointed out, getting that agreed by the remaining 27 member states is a political impossibility. It would require unanimous assent - and too many member states are opposed. Despite that, the financial implications of a euro collapse are horrifying - and moves will continue towards 'further political and financial integration' - further antagonising votes in many countries.

The irresistible force (moves towards further integration) has met the immovable force (voter resistance). As such the EU can only wait for the next recession to roll along and trigger a full or partial failure of the euro. Something we are steadily distancing ourselves from.

One of the benefit of Brexit is that we will have full power over all the UK political and financial levers. As such we can be very proactive in trying to avoid the worst effects of a recession and the associated euro collapse. The EU's freedom of action is circumscribed by the Lisbon treaty - there may be desirable actions that canot be carried out because of the legal requirements of that treaty.

And, following the inevitable problems in the euro during the next recession - a new EU treaty will be required. I think the EU will be politically paralysed - polarised between countries that want more integration and countries that want less. As such, I don't think the EU will be able to correct the problems in the Lisbon treaty. As well as a euro failure, a full or partial break-up of the EU is also going to be an inevitable consequence of the next recession.

Wordsmith
Disagreeing doesn't preclude alternative views.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
On the subject of a United States of Europe, I consider that it's a perfectly cromulent aspiration. It appears though, that this is an aspiration of the politicians and the 'elite', and which doesn't appear to be shared by the people.

Not sure of the actual facts but I have the feeling that it's been progressed by subterfuge, because the 'elite' didn't trust that the various peoples agreed. For example, I'm of the impression that anything that changes our constitution should be subject to referendum and various treaties haven't been.

I think one underlying reason for the leave vote, was to make sure that we couldn't become part of such a union by any further subterfuge.

I voted leave. Not for any particular type of leave, simply leave. I have no expertise in any of the technical aspects of leaving and am and was content to let the politicians and their experts work it all out.

I expected that, being politicians, they'd probably mess it up but if they can succeed at least in part and things can be generally improved/adjusted after the fact, then I think that's got to be acceptable.

I personally, can't make any contribution to the outcome and, although now aware of things I never considered previously, my stance is unchanged. So I'll own my decision, whatever that means.
Ah, but do you think a USE will embiggen it?
 
Ive read your post a few times and it still seems incoherent.

Brexit is doable. Politicians who are upset about the referendum result are trying to stop it the only way they can now....kill it off in red tape.
It is doable, always has been. All it takes is a lot of detailed work to unpick the many threads that have grown up over 40 years of membership. I'd use a decade as a finger in the air estimate for a minimum pain solution, which is what the referendum campaign sold as the goal. We didn't get that though.

What we did get was a bunch of muppets cuffing it, issuing Article 50 far too early then failing to do what could have been done in the time since then. Cheered on of course by unthinking supporters of Brexit who saw any criticism as treason. Of course that unthinking support of a total lack of preparation has meant that Brexit would be disastrous for the UK unless it's a fudge that changes nothing but the price - which will go up.

So go on denying reality; that will ensure that what you want never comes to pass. Either we crash out and rejoin rapidly as a matter of national survival, or we change nothing and slide back in in a few years when the political climate shifts.
 
As has been frequently pointed out in this thread, the EU has no choice but to go for ever closer political and financial integration. The euro is an unfinished protect and requires centrally set budgets from Brussels, the power for Brussels to fine countries that deviate from the agreed budgets and a transfer of wealth from richer to poorer regions of the EU.

As also pointed out, getting that agreed by the remaining 27 member states is a political impossibility. It would require unanimous assent - and too many member states are opposed. Despite that, the financial implications of a euro collapse are horrifying - and moves will continue towards 'further political and financial integration' - further antagonising votes in many countries.

The irresistible force (moves towards further integration) has met the immovable force (voter resistance). As such the EU can only wait for the next recession to roll along and trigger a full or partial failure of the euro. Something we are steadily distancing ourselves from.

One of the benefit of Brexit is that we will have full power over all the UK political and financial levers. As such we can be very proactive in trying to avoid the worst effects of a recession and the associated euro collapse. The EU's freedom of action is circumscribed by the Lisbon treaty - there may be desirable actions that canot be carried out because of the legal requirements of that treaty.

And, following the inevitable problems in the euro during the next recession - a new EU treaty will be required. I think the EU will be politically paralysed - polarised between countries that want more integration and countries that want less. As such, I don't think the EU will be able to correct the problems in the Lisbon treaty. As well as a euro failure, a full or partial break-up of the EU is also going to be an inevitable consequence of the next recession.

Wordsmith
Back to Schrödinger's EU, simultaneously the ebil empire, all powerful and umdemocratic on one hand. Unable to get agreement from the remaining 27 states on the other.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
Disagreeing doesn't preclude alternative views.
Yep - although the nature of EU treaties means treaty change has to be unanimous. Accordingly, divergent views on the way forward substantially reduce the prospects for agreement.

As an example of that, one of the ways the eurozone could be prevented from collapsing is by a transfer of wealth from richer to poorer members. Greece would be in favour of that, but Germany will never hand over control of its cheque book.

Wordsmith
 
"The clamour for parliament to have a ‘meaningful vote’ is simply a ruse and would make a no deal outcome more likely"


So Brexit == Sovereignty but NOT Parliament or The People getting to vote...
That isn't sovereignty it's a dictatorship
Is that what Brexit is? A dictatorship?
If not then Parliament and or the people whould get a vote on this
It's a bugger this parliamentary sovereignty isn't it? People who campaign on it don't like it in action.

For myself, regardless of the final outcome, this has been a good thing.
 
[
It's a bugger this parliamentary sovereignty isn't it? People who campaign on it don't like it in action.

For myself, regardless of the final outcome, this has been a good thing.
Like I said, Parliament either want's it or it doesn't. Parliament asked us to make the choice, we made it! We made it because of the principle of Parliamentary supremacy we've had for 300 years. So yes I agree with the premis that it's a good thing. That to me isn't the issue. It's what happens if parliament overturns our decision will that be good for them. I suspect it won't be. On the basis of a woman scorned-the electorates might just not bother with Parliament and the commission will dancing with glee as it will set a precedent of being able to dictate to parliaments.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top