BREXIT
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,428
My bedtime reading - "The Benn Diaries" continues to fascinate.
It has just covered the period ('75) when the 'other' referendum was being fought over. Perhaps there is a hint as to what action is appropriate in these troubling times. That darling of the Tory right, Hilda, asked what she would do if the result went against her, said " I will ignore it!". Given that the result was (in that version) totally clear-cut, we were spared the awful vision of Hilda at the barricades, handbag at the ready, poised to defeat the plebeian hordes.
How valid would such an attitude be when the 'majority' in this latest fiasco is so slim?
It has just covered the period ('75) when the 'other' referendum was being fought over. Perhaps there is a hint as to what action is appropriate in these troubling times. That darling of the Tory right, Hilda, asked what she would do if the result went against her, said " I will ignore it!". Given that the result was (in that version) totally clear-cut, we were spared the awful vision of Hilda at the barricades, handbag at the ready, poised to defeat the plebeian hordes.
How valid would such an attitude be when the 'majority' in this latest fiasco is so slim?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Arthur Bellcrank
So Barnier has now made the big offer, we can have 15% of the fish in our own waters, how on earth can anyone put forward an argument that we should be better off staying in such a corrupt and bullying organisation as the EU.
I rather like Johnsons position that we keep 100% of our own fish, and if Biden doesn't like it then he might be better worrying about his own business, the longer this farce of negotiations progress the better we see what we are leaving.
I rather like Johnsons position that we keep 100% of our own fish, and if Biden doesn't like it then he might be better worrying about his own business, the longer this farce of negotiations progress the better we see what we are leaving.
Yes, by all means stick to Johnson's position...
How stupid can one be spending a lifetime pissing on the EU, spreading direct lies about it, pissing on neighbouring countries' leaders, winning a referendum on leaving, becoming PM, leave and then expect a favourable treatment ? Well, a certain Mr. Johnson is finding out. It's a pity he took his fellow contrypeople on that journey of his.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Denmark
Posts: 198
Gargleblaster doesn't love the EU, but it thinks it's useful. Gargleblaster thinks the UK leaving is counter-productive both to the EU and to the UK. Mind you Gargleblaster isn't Brit and doesn't live there, so it can't be a traitor. No, should the EU be unreasonable in Gargleblaster's opinion, Gargleblaster would not support it.
BTW Gargleblaster is not something from the Lord of the Rings, nor an "it", it's the name a drink, check wikipedia :-).
BTW Gargleblaster is not something from the Lord of the Rings, nor an "it", it's the name a drink, check wikipedia :-).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 39
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by Gargleblaster
BTW Gargleblaster is not something from the Lord of the Rings, nor an "it", it's the name a drink, check wikipedia :-).
I'm not aware of why you felt the need to add this random bit to the end of your post though!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,304
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...exit-deal-vote
Starmer prepares to reopen old Labour wounds over Brexit deal vote
Keir Starmer is preparing to risk a party rift by throwing Labour’s weight behind a Brexit deal if last-minute negotiations succeed in the coming days.
In what he hopes will be a signal to red wall voters that the party has heard them, multiple Labour sources said Starmer, and Cabinet Office shadow minister Rachel Reeves – who has been liaising with backbenchers on the issue – are minded to impose a three-line whip in support of a deal, subject to the detail.
They have rejected the idea of abstaining or giving MPs a free vote, fearing it would suggest Labour has failed to absorb the lessons of the pasting it took in last December’s general election.....
Boris Johnson’s majority of 80 means the deal would be highly likely to go through even if Labour abstained, but Starmer and his team believe the consequences of a no-deal exit from the transition period would be too dire for the party to stand on the sidelines......
Even many of those MPs who fought hard during the 2017-19 parliament for a people’s vote are expected to fall in behind the leadership, fearing the dire consequences of a no-deal exit on 1 January.
But some MPs fear Starmer’s team, led by former former Darlington MP Jenny Chapman, is too focused on “fighting the last war” by aiming all their political messaging at disgruntled Brexit voters in the red wall.
They worry that supporting a Johnson deal will leave Labour unable to hold the government to account for Brexit’s economic consequences, and damage the party in Scotland by allowing Nicola Sturgeon to lump the “Westminster parties” together on the issue. “The SNP will be cock-a-hoop,” said one Labour insider......
Meanwhile, the irony of Starmer, who systematically dismantled Theresa May’s Brexit deal with his “six tests”, now whipping MPs to back a deal that will put the UK outside the single market and the customs union, is not lost on some of his Labour colleagues.......
Starmer prepares to reopen old Labour wounds over Brexit deal vote
Keir Starmer is preparing to risk a party rift by throwing Labour’s weight behind a Brexit deal if last-minute negotiations succeed in the coming days.
In what he hopes will be a signal to red wall voters that the party has heard them, multiple Labour sources said Starmer, and Cabinet Office shadow minister Rachel Reeves – who has been liaising with backbenchers on the issue – are minded to impose a three-line whip in support of a deal, subject to the detail.
They have rejected the idea of abstaining or giving MPs a free vote, fearing it would suggest Labour has failed to absorb the lessons of the pasting it took in last December’s general election.....
Boris Johnson’s majority of 80 means the deal would be highly likely to go through even if Labour abstained, but Starmer and his team believe the consequences of a no-deal exit from the transition period would be too dire for the party to stand on the sidelines......
Even many of those MPs who fought hard during the 2017-19 parliament for a people’s vote are expected to fall in behind the leadership, fearing the dire consequences of a no-deal exit on 1 January.
But some MPs fear Starmer’s team, led by former former Darlington MP Jenny Chapman, is too focused on “fighting the last war” by aiming all their political messaging at disgruntled Brexit voters in the red wall.
They worry that supporting a Johnson deal will leave Labour unable to hold the government to account for Brexit’s economic consequences, and damage the party in Scotland by allowing Nicola Sturgeon to lump the “Westminster parties” together on the issue. “The SNP will be cock-a-hoop,” said one Labour insider......
Meanwhile, the irony of Starmer, who systematically dismantled Theresa May’s Brexit deal with his “six tests”, now whipping MPs to back a deal that will put the UK outside the single market and the customs union, is not lost on some of his Labour colleagues.......
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Carlisle
Posts: 11
leave and then expect a favourable treatment ?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by Arthur Bellcrank
In this case the "favourable treatment" means expecting to retain 100% of something that you own. But Johnson has made it clear, if the EU are not happy we will leave with no deal, that is not a problem.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: scotland
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Gargleblaster
How stupid can one be spending a lifetime pissing on the EU, spreading direct lies about it, pissing on neighbouring countries' leaders, winning a referendum on leaving, becoming PM, leave and then expect a favourable treatment ? Well, a certain Mr. Johnson is finding out. It's a pity he took his fellow contrypeople on that journey of his.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,140
Originally Posted by occasional
You might be interested to know that the local analysis in my area is that the Brexit vote won because the British government on the ground (ie the civil servants) were overly subservient to EU regulations.
The best interests of the UK were served by having some influence of 27 states, rather than one.
We (the UK) are now a less significant player on the world stage than we used to be, and no amount of willy waving increases in defence expenditure will change that; we will revert to essentially becoming one of the USA's largest aircraft carriers, along with other such carriers at South Korea.
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,791
"The best interests of the UK were served by having some influence of 27 states, rather than one. We (the UK) are now a less significant player on the world stage than we used to be, and no amount of willy waving increases in defence expenditure will change that; we will revert to essentially becoming one of the USA's largest aircraft carriers, along with other such carriers at South Korea."
Perfect!!!
Perfect!!!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: scotland
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by ATNotts
Whatever people in your area chose to believe, the facts remain that the UK was, is, and will remain a sovereign nation that made, makes and will continue to make it's own laws. In being a member of the EU the UK played a full part in deciding the regulations of the group which it in turn implemented.. When the UK signs up to any international agreement it is obligated to invoke the rules that go with it, be that the nuclear non proliferation treaty, the Paris climate accords or indeed the Good Friday agreement. The EU is only different insofar as there is a degree of pooled sovereignty, which gave the UK influence on what happened in all the EU states, rather than now, where the UK has influence only over itself.
I used to grow shellfish and there were new regulations coming in over waters in which they could be cultivated. There is a meeting of shellfish growers and it is decided that the regulations are not entirely satisfactory, so the chairman is asked if this can be raised in Brussels. "Waste of time. They do not listen to us at all."
A few months later we are talking with a Belgian shellfish farmer. "When I have a problem I go to the EU office and they are very helpful."
The perrenial problem of distant government.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 91
Originally Posted by occasional
That is the theory. Now consider the reality.
I used to grow shellfish and there were new regulations coming in over waters in which they could be cultivated. There is a meeting of shellfish growers and it is decided that the regulations are not entirely satisfactory, so the chairman is asked if this can be raised in Brussels. "Waste of time. They do not listen to us at all."
A few months later we are talking with a Belgian shellfish farmer. "When I have a problem I go to the EU office and they are very helpful."
The perrenial problem of distant government.
I used to grow shellfish and there were new regulations coming in over waters in which they could be cultivated. There is a meeting of shellfish growers and it is decided that the regulations are not entirely satisfactory, so the chairman is asked if this can be raised in Brussels. "Waste of time. They do not listen to us at all."
A few months later we are talking with a Belgian shellfish farmer. "When I have a problem I go to the EU office and they are very helpful."
The perrenial problem of distant government.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 85
For those on here so infatuated with participating in the biggest known case of mass self harm, or leaving the EU if you insist on protocols, this editorial should be of interest.
Mentions sovereignty and also, that, the EU wisely like most of us, wouldn't trust Boris and his "promises " now, and in the future.
Arfur's immortal "good times are just around the corner " gets a mention as well......albeit diametrically opposite to his roseate vision.....
From the Guardian
The Guardian view on the Brexit endgame: drop the clean break myth | Brexit | The Guardian
Mentions sovereignty and also, that, the EU wisely like most of us, wouldn't trust Boris and his "promises " now, and in the future.
Arfur's immortal "good times are just around the corner " gets a mention as well......albeit diametrically opposite to his roseate vision.....
From the Guardian
The Guardian view on the Brexit endgame: drop the clean break myth
EditorialThe prime minister needs to look beyond 31 December and start repairing relations with Britain’s neighboursThe Guardian view on the Brexit endgame: drop the clean break myth | Brexit | The Guardian
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,304
I find the Grauniad a great bellwether.
if I am ever in doubt about a policy I read the opinion of the Grauniad editorials and especially the views of their exemplar corresponents of Polly and Monoblott (Monboit), and know exactly what not to do or believe......
if I am ever in doubt about a policy I read the opinion of the Grauniad editorials and especially the views of their exemplar corresponents of Polly and Monoblott (Monboit), and know exactly what not to do or believe......
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 79
Posts: 1,005
There is a difference between EU Regulations and Directives, I quote:- Regulations have binding legal force throughout every Member State and enter into force on a set date in all the Member States. Directives lay down certain results that must be achieved but each Member State is free to decide how to transpose directives into national laws.
I would guess (but I don't know) the shellfish problem was due to a Directive that was then enacted by HMG. Whereas other countries often watered down Directives a little (and sometimes ignored them) HMG often added knobs, bells and whistles which were never intended in the Directive at all. Also, when Regulations and Directives were being developed, the time for governments to intervene and influence them was during their development for which there was ample time. It was next to impossible to change them after they had been agreed because any such change would need the agreement of the other EU states.
Quite often HMG only woke up to proposals when it was too late, despite them being published in the relevent documents well in advance. Then, having got it wrong, it was convenient for HMG (an Boris) to blame the bureaucrats in Brussels. There is a lesson there, it paid always to be on the ball and to vet proposals in good time!
I would guess (but I don't know) the shellfish problem was due to a Directive that was then enacted by HMG. Whereas other countries often watered down Directives a little (and sometimes ignored them) HMG often added knobs, bells and whistles which were never intended in the Directive at all. Also, when Regulations and Directives were being developed, the time for governments to intervene and influence them was during their development for which there was ample time. It was next to impossible to change them after they had been agreed because any such change would need the agreement of the other EU states.
Quite often HMG only woke up to proposals when it was too late, despite them being published in the relevent documents well in advance. Then, having got it wrong, it was convenient for HMG (an Boris) to blame the bureaucrats in Brussels. There is a lesson there, it paid always to be on the ball and to vet proposals in good time!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 39
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by ORAC
if I am ever in doubt about a policy I read the opinion of the Grauniad editorials and especially the views of their exemplar corresponents of Polly and Monoblott (Monboit), and know exactly what not to do or believe......
Join Date: May 2002
Location: England
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by Bergerie1
HMG often added knobs, bells and whistles which were never intended in the Directive at all. Also, when Regulations and Directives were being developed, the time for governments to intervene and influence them was during their development for which there was ample time. It was next to impossible to change them after they had been agreed because any such change would need the agreement of the other EU states.
Quite often HMG only woke up to proposals when it was too late, despite them being published in the relevent documents well in advance. Then, having got it wrong, it was convenient for HMG (an Boris) to blame the bureaucrats in Brussels. There is a lesson there, it paid always to be on the ball and to vet proposals in good time!
Quite often HMG only woke up to proposals when it was too late, despite them being published in the relevent documents well in advance. Then, having got it wrong, it was convenient for HMG (an Boris) to blame the bureaucrats in Brussels. There is a lesson there, it paid always to be on the ball and to vet proposals in good time!
Having been involved in consultations on proposed technical directives, the UK element always wanted to add more conditions and bureaucracy. The UK appears to thrive on it, Dickens even wrote about it a long time ago. If you thought the EU was bureaucratic, just wait until our lawyers and rule makers wade in on the opportunities now arising, bonfire of the regulations my a***.
Last edited by Grayfly; 28th Nov 2020 at 13:05.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: A post-punk postcard fair
Posts: 964
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Well, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt on perceived bigotry, TURIN. No doubt there are "bigots" on both sides of the argument, as in so many issues in politics or life in general. But, assuming your interlocutor wasn't actually "raving", as you put it, what's wrong with pointing out that EU rules have enabled some people to abandon their own countries and migrate here for economic reasons, and in some cases to take advantage of our welfare system?
Re the pro-Remain bias in the broadcast media, one blatant area is the anti-Brexit terminology adopted by political correspondents (whose reports should be neutral), such as "crashing out", "going off a cliff edge", etcetera. There have been no pro-Brexit or anti-Remain equivalents. Thus the listeners are slowly brainwashed. But even worse is that, since Mrs May (the reluctant Leaver) became PM, all statements by HMG on Brexit plans have been treated as having doubtful credibility, while those emanating from the EU are taken on face value and with unquestioning respect.
Finally, I'm not in the habit of emboldening and underlining large sections of my posts for added emphasis. There seems to be a habit of some people on this thread to quote the whole of a lengthy post and then discuss only part of it. That's fine by ne - it gives my post a second bite of the cherry! But kindly don't embellish any of its text for your own convenience, as you have done in this case, because a casual observer might assume it reflects my habitual writing style.
Re the pro-Remain bias in the broadcast media, one blatant area is the anti-Brexit terminology adopted by political correspondents (whose reports should be neutral), such as "crashing out", "going off a cliff edge", etcetera. There have been no pro-Brexit or anti-Remain equivalents. Thus the listeners are slowly brainwashed. But even worse is that, since Mrs May (the reluctant Leaver) became PM, all statements by HMG on Brexit plans have been treated as having doubtful credibility, while those emanating from the EU are taken on face value and with unquestioning respect.
Finally, I'm not in the habit of emboldening and underlining large sections of my posts for added emphasis. There seems to be a habit of some people on this thread to quote the whole of a lengthy post and then discuss only part of it. That's fine by ne - it gives my post a second bite of the cherry! But kindly don't embellish any of its text for your own convenience, as you have done in this case, because a casual observer might assume it reflects my habitual writing style.
Confirmation bias at play, it’s not hard to get people on side, particularly as people just haven’t trusted Parliament (or the MSM) for such a long time. I’m just surprised the vote result was as close as it was. If it were to run now it would most likely display a much more clear majority in favour of remain.
