+ Visit Rotherham United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results

Page 1 of 349 1231151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 3487

Thread: O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    18,705

    O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

    ...cabinet meeting now to approve final draft...

    Think it will get through the cabinet but there's no way it will get through the commons.

    can see this going to another referendum mi sen.

    Can't see May lasting much longer if she sells the tories/ country down the river.

    Lets hope somebody has got the uk a lifeboat if it all goes tits up.

    Interesting times worrever side you are on.
    Last edited by CAMiller; 19-11-2018 at 06:59 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,132
    She's got to go. A staunch Remainer she should never have been leading the Brexit process. She's listened to the London opinion, renegued on her election Brexit promises and let down the majority who voted to leave. If this "deal" goes through we will remain slaves to the corrupt capitalist EU and without a vote to boot. Can see an imminent election especially with the Labour Party's Brexit tactics being solely geared to bringing down the Government.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    18,705
    Think there could very well be an election cant see DUP being chuffed about the Irish situation and they are the party who are keeping the tories in power.In a way this was always gonna happen its all been very predictable.
    Last edited by rolymiller; 14-11-2018 at 05:03 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,475
    The deal should be "were going and that's that" **** you all.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    3,819
    What’s point on voting for a party when all they want to do is ask us to vote every time they want to wipe their asses

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,372
    Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was introduced by the EU to ensure that the European Union controlled any potential exit of a member state and gave it the power to put such obstacles in the way any of member wishing to leave that they might change their mind and would certainly put off anyone else who might think of leaving. It beggars belief that a UK government would be stupid enough to invoke Article 50 but that ignorance of EU matters and control over our sovereignty blighted this government and probably all of its predecessors.

    The second major strategic error of the government was to give control of the withdrawal plans to the civil servants in Whitehall. The very organisations that for the last two generations have known nothing other than this method of lawmaking coming from Brussels. The government gave the impression that nothing was being done to prepare for withdrawal but right from the very beginning around 200 civil servants were involved in the negotiations with Brussels. Many of whom have worked their entire working lives implementing directives from Brussels into UK law. They are the very last people who should be employed to unscramble the mess they have created over the last 40 years or so.

    What the government should have done was to ignore Article 50 and advise the EU that we would revoke the European Communities Act of 1972 which gives EU law precedence over UK law and the Houses of Parliament.

    We should then have said to them:

    1. We have our sovereignty back. We can make our own laws.
    2. We have our Supreme Court back. The European Court of Justice can no longer override decisions taken by British Courts.
    3. We are out of the Customs Union. We can make our own trade deals with the rest of the world in particular America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India and all the countries in the Commonwealth.
    4. We are out of the single market. Only those multinational companies who wish to export to the EU will be bound by your rules. The other 90% or so of our economy will abide by rules made by our own parliament.
    5. We are out of the Common Fisheries Policy. We get our fish back; we will set the rules about who can fish in our waters.
    6. We are out of the Common Agricultural Policy. That absurd system of having the same farming policy covering the damp plains of Northern Europe and the arid ones of the South and everywhere in between. We will make our own farming policy.
    7. We will control our own borders. We will decide who is allowed to settle in our country.

    Then we should have said to them "That is what we have gained by leaving the EU. Now let us talk about things that might be mutually beneficial to us both when we leave.

    "You mention a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There will be no border other than what already exists."

    The sad fact is that any 'deal' arranged by our government will water down or even eliminate our gains from leaving the EU that I mentioned above.

    Someone recently asked "Who would you prefer to negotiate our withdrawal from the EU Theresa May or Henry the VIII?"
    Last edited by Muchthemillersson; 14-11-2018 at 08:08 PM. Reason: Duplicated word

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,759
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLadonOS View Post
    The deal should be "were going and that's that" **** you all.
    The problem with the 'no deal' scenario is that I don't think there is a significant national mandate for it. Of the 52% of people who voted Leave, I think that a good % of them wanted a deal, or at least expected a deal to be done that didn't leave us in danger of a significant economic hit. So the direction forward needs to take into account the wishes of the 48% that still live here that wanted to remain but lost, as well as the x% (who knows?!) of Leave voters that voted expecting a deal (as Davies and others indicated that this would be easy) and would not want to risk a financial hit to their prices or jobs. (I agree that there was/is scaremongering here from Remainers (many of whom are genuinely scared for their businesses and jobs), but surely we have to agree that leaving is a significant economic risk - hardened Leavers are willing to take this but many don't in my opinion).

    The only deal that I think can be called democratic for our country is one that satisfies the most people who live and work here. I totally accept that many people in the leave vote want a hard Brexit/no deal but I don't think they are in any way the majority of them. Or that the majority of people who voted Leave are willing to take such an economic risk.

    Just a though: I wonder what a 'people's vote' that consisted of two options: May's 'deal' or 'no deal' with no option for Remain on the card?? Might that (taking Remain out of the options as that option was nullified in the original vote) might be the most democratic way of deciding if parliament can't (or we don't want them to!). Probably too much of a ball ache though!

    I suspect that May will push this out, resist the flak, and over the next couple of months just grind her opponents and the public into acceptance just to get the damn thing over with!

    Ramble over...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    10,122
    From the outset, regardless how all us oiks voted, the negotiations have only been carried out with the tory party interests in mind, and frankly it stinks to high heaven.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Muchthemillersson View Post
    Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was introduced by the EU to ensure that the European Union controlled any potential exit of a member state and gave it the power to put such obstacles in the way any of member wishing to leave that they might change their mind and would certainly put off anyone else who might think of leaving. It beggars belief that a UK government would be stupid enough to invoke Article 50 but that ignorance of EU matters and control over our sovereignty blighted this government and probably all of its predecessors.

    The second major strategic error of the government was to give control of the withdrawal plans to the civil servants in Whitehall. The very organisations that for the last two generations have known nothing other than this method of lawmaking coming from Brussels. The government gave the impression that nothing was being done to prepare for withdrawal but right from the very beginning around 200 civil servants were involved in the negotiations with Brussels. Many of whom have worked their entire working lives implementing directives from Brussels into UK law. They are the very last people who should be employed to unscramble the mess they have created over the last 40 years or so.

    What the government should have done was to ignore Article 50 and advise the EU that we would revoke the European Communities Act of 1972 which gives EU law precedence over UK law and the Houses of Parliament.

    We should then have said to them:

    1. We have our sovereignty back. We can make our own laws.
    2. We have our Supreme Court back. The European Court of Justice can no longer override decisions taken by British Courts.
    3. We are out of the Customs Union. We can make our own trade deals with the rest of the world in particular America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India and all the countries in the Commonwealth.
    4. We are out of the single market. Only those multinational companies who wish to export to the EU will be bound by your rules. The other 90% or so of our economy will abide by rules made by our own parliament.
    5. We are out of the Common Fisheries Policy. We get our fish back; we will set the rules about who can fish in our waters.
    6. We are out of the Common Agricultural Policy. That absurd system of having the same farming policy covering the damp plains of Northern Europe and the arid ones of the South and everywhere in between. We will make our own farming policy.
    7. We will control our own borders. We will decide who is allowed to settle in our country.

    Then we should have said to them "That is what we have gained by leaving the EU. Now let us talk about things that might be mutually beneficial to us both when we leave.

    "You mention a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There will be no border other than what already exists."

    The sad fact is that any 'deal' arranged by our government will water down or even eliminate our gains from leaving the EU that I mentioned above.

    Someone recently asked "Who would you prefer to negotiate our withdrawal from the EU Theresa May or Henry the VIII?"

    Good points well made.

    But if I was a EU leader, by nature prioritising the health and well being of the EU project, and the shared ease of trade by all within the EU community from which we currently benefit, why would I offer any kind of favourable trade deal to a country that simply walked out of it's obligations (as well as benefits) and wanted to gain the benefits of world free trade deals as well as a good free trade deal with the EU? Surely if they gave us such a deal, then all the remaining EU countries would walk out too and = the end of the EU project.

    By nature of EU project preservation (which by the way is of general benefit to participating members), the EU will not make it favourable for countries leaving (especially in your suggested Henry 8th manner) even if that means them making a loss on whatever trade deal they all willing to eventually offer us.

    It seems fantasist to me to expect us to be able to walk away from the EU (especially in the manner you suggest) and them to offer us a good deal. It was never going to happen. They don't have the motivation to do so and can afford to take a financial hit of their own to secure the EU project.

    I think the only option is a compromise (which is always going to disappoint most people) or no deal (which most people are not willing to risk). That seems to be what May has provided. Could she have done better? Probably. But people will still be unhappy.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,372
    You're quite right Raging, the EU is beset with its own problems and it certainly won't want to give the impression to other members that there is some sort of panacea to be gained by countries leaving the EU. More than anything they have to maintain the sanctity of the Customs Union. That is the way that all the German states came together before the formation of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1870. They see the success of that customs union and are convinced that is the way that the countries of Europe can be brought together into single state so you can see the horror they feel that not having a hard border in Ireland breeches the sanctity of their customs union. Our negotiators should see that is THEIR major weakness not ours.

    Another issue that we don't seem to be facing is that we have a trade deficit with the EU of £80 billion per annum. We buy from them £80 billion more goods than they buy from us EVERY year. That means two things. One is that it is a substantial export of British jobs into the EU that our politicians should be seeking to reverse by bringing our trade with the EU back into balance.

    The other one is one of simple arithmetic. Let's say you are a household and you chronically spend more than you earn every year. What happens? You have a deficit on your income account and it has to be made good from your capital account. First your savings go; then you borrow; then you sell your assets. It's just the same with countries. If you perpetually buy more from overseas than you sell you have to borrow money, then you have to sell assets to make up the cash flow. There are only so many Premier League football clubs, water companies, gas companies, electricity companies, London properties and so on. Eventually there will be nothing left. What next? Whatever next? The government MUST take back control of our trade policy and bring our EU exports back into line with our imports as indeed they are with the rest of the world.

    The Henry the VIII was very much tongue in cheek and what I outlined in my previous post was not a suggestion that we simply walk away, it was a statement of where our negotiators should have started from - that is what our people voted for, that is what we have, now let's discuss the many, many areas that our affairs are intertwined and seek arrangements for our mutual benefit.

Page 1 of 349 1231151101 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •