Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

PM May only has two Brexit options left


The Truman show
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Black Monk said:

Why do we have to have a Norway-style option? Why not a British-style option, in which we are a full, self-governing, sovereign state out of the single market and customs union, with all of our laws made within the UK, with an end to free movement and open borders?

After all, there was no Norway option until Norway got it.

The Swiss option is never mentioned and yet it is the Swiss option which would suit us better. The deal the EU gave the Swiss was a mistake and the EU say they'd never repeat again. but it shows bespoke deals can and are done.

The good news is Brexit still means Brexit. still leaving the Customs Union and Single Market, even the Labour party have gone quiet, calls for second Referendum are dead, as noted by Labours sacking of Owen Smith for repeatedly calling for one. The EU have realised we are leaving and decided the sensible option would be to move talks forward. and as noted we are on Phase 2 of 2. somewhere the EU said they refused to do until its all agreed -those who follow events will note nothing as been agreed. what happened to the EU's red lines. evaporated.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Why do we have to have a Norway-style option? Why not a British-style option, in which we are a full, self-governing, sovereign state out of the single market and customs union, with all of our laws made within the UK, with an end to free movement and open borders?

After all, there was no Norway option until Norway got it.

i think the reasons for a Norway style preliminary agreement, post brexit is one of realism. first the Irish border, second Gibraltar and more importantly the UK economy is unprepared.

ask yourself why absolutely no border control work has been done on the Irish border or at Dover, Heathrow or any other entry point to date. The UK is leaving, right? having borders everywhere else but NI only means that brexit can be circumvented. if Britain can't control the borders in NI and Gibraltar then its still in the customs union. this agreement just buy's time for Britain and more importantly May to smack down the small but very vocal leave MP's into a soft brexit. 

May has 3 months to come up with a workable solution or the next level of trade talks will collapse if she doesn't agree. and possibly this very agreement, too. but it looks like the UK will fold as it has done nothing to reinforce its borders with either legislation or physical measures or even threaten to close the NI and Gibraltar borders. we're talking about border and customs agents, inspection stations and infrastructure needed to enforce UK laws. 

 

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Black Monk said:

The Lefties think that anyone who doesn't vote for something lefty-liberal must be mentally ill or they have been robotically programmed by the likes of Cambridge Analytica to vote in such a way. They just can't get it that some people - the majority in the cases of Trump and Brexit - just don't agree with them and just vote the way they voted because they want to. Us 17.4 milliopn Bexit voters could only have voted the way we did because we had our little minds warped by the likes of Cambridge Analytica.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-great-cambridge-analytica-conspiracy-theory/

the problem is that what was promised by the leave advocates just can't be delivered. they promised that the UK could have its cake and eat it too but thats easier said than done. Johnson and Farage might have played the role of Cambridge Analytica but can they deliver? 

sadly for those that voted brexit its a case of 'buyer beware.' 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

the problem is that what was promised by the leave advocates just can't be delivered. they promised that the UK could have its cake and eat it too but thats easier said than done. Johnson and Farage might have played the role of Cambridge Analytica but can they deliver? 

sadly for those that voted brexit its a case of 'buyer beware.' 

Is this what was said in the pamphlet sent to your house by the government? the one i got said leaving ment leaving everything and there'd be no going back, all the senior members of the government said there'd be a recession the day after the referendum thousands would lose their jobs straight away, the media also spouted the same mantra, Johnson and Farage were amoung a few lone voices and not even in government we voted to leave in spite of all the doom and gloom, you've been spouting this crap since day 1, shut up!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

Is this what was said in the pamphlet sent to your house by the government? the one i got said leaving ment leaving everything and there'd be no going back, all the senior members of the government said there'd be a recession the day after the referendum thousands would lose their jobs straight away, the media also spouted the same mantra, Johnson and Farage were amoung a few lone voices and not even in government we voted to leave in spite of all the doom and gloom, you've been spouting this crap since day 1, shut up!

okay you're angry. i don't live in the UK so i received no pamphlet nor did i have a vote. Im just curious and interested in the European project., thats all can i ask you if the brexit you voted for resembles whats being offered by the EU to the UK? cause it looks to me like PM May has folded on all the red lines and promises that brexit was supposed to deliver. 

Sure there has been no economic downturn. you have a point. maybe there will be one after the UK ceases being a member of the EU. 

It looks like the EU will make Britain pay for any separation agreement. do you feel it better for the UK to just flip the EU the middle finger and just leave? 

i guess its just a matter of perspective as to what you think is the best thing to do. you might very well be right and i wrong but until crunch day comes we'll never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

okay you're angry. i don't live in the UK so i received no pamphlet nor did i have a vote. Im just curious and interested in the European project., thats all can i ask you if the brexit you voted for resembles whats being offered by the EU to the UK? cause it looks to me like PM May has folded on all the red lines and promises that brexit was supposed to deliver. 

Sure there has been no economic downturn. you have a point. maybe there will be one after the UK ceases being a member of the EU. 

It looks like the EU will make Britain pay for any separation agreement. do you feel it better for the UK to just flip the EU the middle finger and just leave? 

i guess its just a matter of perspective as to what you think is the best thing to do. you might very well be right and i wrong but until crunch day comes we'll never know. 

Sorry if i was a bit short but still going on about 'Johnson and Farage' at this stage of the game, my answer to you is still the same as it was in the beginning we should have walked i hope we still do but as she said "nothing's agreed until it's all agreed"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Why do we have to have a Norway-style option? Why not a British-style option, in which we are a full, self-governing, sovereign state

Ruled by this crowd

Image result for theresa may silk scarf  Image result for boris johnson  Image result for gavin williamson

 

:hmm: (The third one, in case anyone didn't recognize him, and who can blame them, is Gavin "Go away and shut up" Williamson, the Idiotic Belligerence (sorry, "Defence" Secretary).

Williamson: Russia 'should go away' and 'shut up' 

Edited by Vlad the Mighty
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The Swiss option is never mentioned and yet it is the Swiss option which would suit us better.

Oh I agree entirely. A central government that exists just for defence (and it is self defence, not trying to intervene all around the world) and to provide national highway and rail infrastructure. And where no one, probably even in Switzerland, knows who the Prime Minister actually is. (I suppose there is one, let me have a look.) What a blissful idea that must be. 

(* There seems to be a President, but not a Prime Minister. Can anyone name the President of Switzerland? Imagine that, a world so blissful that no one knows who the President is, or even if there is a Prime Minister.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it gets even better and better! There's speculation that when she turns 95, the Queen will step down or go into retirement and hand over to Charles. So then there'll be buffoons as the figurehead Head of State as well as in actual power! What a blissful world that will be! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

okay you're angry. i don't live in the UK so i received no pamphlet nor did i have a vote. Im just curious and interested in the European project.

what d'you reckon Cap'n? Wen and if Charlie III takes over in the big gold encrusted chair, would that be time for Australia to decide  that ok, perhaps it's time to say enough was enough? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

ask yourself why absolutely no border control work has been done on the Irish border or at Dover, Heathrow or any other entry point to date.

No, there's always been border controls and so forth at ports and airports, in fact due to opting out of the Schengen agreement that's hardly any different (other than having lanes for EU and Non-EU Citizens) than if it wasn't part of the EU at all.It's really only NI that there's a question mark over. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hit to the UK economy was relatively minor (there was an impact e.g. going from one of the fastest growing to one of the slowest and an increase to the cost of living) after the vote. The potential impact was lessened mainly because of the actions of the UK government - at roughly 7.30 the morning after the Vote Cameron went back on his pledge of immediate implementation, kicking article 50 roughly 3 months down the line, May then came in and kicked it a further 6 or so months. May later  insisted on an implementation period - during which nothing really changes which added 18 months or so to the Exit timetable. Theses actions probably unintentionally give hope to the markets etc. that Brexit either wouldn't happen or would be very soft. The same succor may also have been given by how little - so far that the UK government has won in its negotiations with the EU. At this stage imo we are still very much in wait or see as to how hard the egg will be boiled. At any rate the 'deferral' actions of the Government don't seem aligned with the argument that a massive windfall is awaiting the UK economy - just as soon as we can remove the yoke of Europe.

The impact of the Brexit was also "dampened" by global growth and by the Bank of England's actions including Interest Rate cuts and Quantitative Easing as its called.

It is interesting that relatively little is being done to provide more at the borders with the EU - staff, hardware, infrastructure or even having by this stage a clear concept of how technology would be used and plans for development and implementation of same.  Is this because for the foreseeable future the government believes alignment or whatever term they are using for it will be nearly 100% - I don't know and I am not arguing it will be -  probably the next 3 to 6 months will clear a lot up and I am happy to wait see what unfolds. 

Edited by RAyMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Ruled by this crowd

Sadly I think this crowd is much better than some of the alternatives - and I am not taking into account a change of government either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The Swiss option is never mentioned and yet it is the Swiss option which would suit us better. The deal the EU gave the Swiss was a mistake and the EU say they'd never repeat again. but it shows bespoke deals can and are done.

The good news is Brexit still means Brexit. still leaving the Customs Union and Single Market, even the Labour party have gone quiet, calls for second Referendum are dead, as noted by Labours sacking of Owen Smith for repeatedly calling for one. The EU have realised we are leaving and decided the sensible option would be to move talks forward. and as noted we are on Phase 2 of 2. somewhere the EU said they refused to do until its all agreed -those who follow events will note nothing as been agreed. what happened to the EU's red lines. evaporated.

It still hasn't stopped the Remoaners dreaming of overturning it. There was an anti-Brexit march in Leeds yesterday led by the campaign group Leeds for Europe, with the gormless Lord Adonis, Labour MP Ben Bradshaw and philosopher AC Grayling joining it. We really have got a situation in modern Britain - in the year some MPs were marking 100 years since women got the vote - in which there are people taking to the streets calling for the overturning of a democratic vote. This is like something you'd expect to see in a hell-hole dictatorship, not Great Britain.

People marching through Leeds with anit-anti placards

Edited by Black Monk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

i think the reasons for a Norway style preliminary agreement, post brexit is one of realism. first the Irish border, second Gibraltar and more importantly the UK economy is unprepared.

ask yourself why absolutely no border control work has been done on the Irish border or at Dover, Heathrow or any other entry point to date. The UK is leaving, right? having borders everywhere else but NI only means that brexit can be circumvented.

It is absurd that the question of Ulster’s border has become a threat to Brexit itself.  

With some imagination and flexibility this side issue could have easily been tackled. 

After all Britain and Ireland have had a common travel area since 1923, while modern technology, including automatic number plate recognition and online tracking, lessens the need for physical customs checks. 

Northern Ireland and the Republic already operate different currencies and tax systems without any problem. 

Just as wrong-headed is the purist belief in the rigid constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland. 

As someone who was brought up there, I recognise that the place is very different from Somerset or Surrey, since 40 per cent of the province’s population have an allegiance to another nation. 

That is why, whatever diehard Unionists might pretend, Northern Ireland has always diverged from the rest of the UK, whether in politics, sport, economics, culture or the law.  

Abortion and gay marriage, for example, are still illegal in Ulster. 

But with goodwill that constitutional difference should provide room for pragmatism over Irish trade. 

Creative ambiguity has always been at the heart of progress in Ulster. 

At present an impasse exists largely because the EU has weaponised the Irish issue to undermine Brexit. 

“The key to the UK’s future lies, in some ways, with Dublin,” Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, trumpeted recently.  

That just shows the EU’s disdain for national autonomy.  

The UK’s future should lie with the British people. 

Moreover, the EU’s pose as the friend of Ireland smacks of outrageous hypocrisy. 

This is an oligarchy that twice ordered the Irish electorate to vote again after rejecting the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the Lisbon Treaty in 2008. 

https://www.*** blocked ***/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/889212/brexit-irish-border-EU-DUP-UK-theresa-may-jean-claude-juncker-donald-tusk-arlene-foster

Quote

 

 this agreement just buy's time for Britain and more importantly May to smack down the small but very vocal leave MP's into a soft brexit. 

 

 

 

 

The terms "soft Brexit" and "hard Brexit" were invented by the Remainers after they lost the referendum. Before and during the referendym campaign there were no such terms. "Hard Brexit" is Brexit - the thing that people voted for - whereas "soft Brexit" is just Remainer-speak for "no Brexit at all."

The British people voted to leave the EU. They didn't vote for a "soft Brexit" where we're out of the EU in name only. We voted for what you lot now dub "hard Brexit", but what the rest of us call "Brexit", and that is what we should be getting. The people voted for it in a democratic manner.

 

Edited by Black Monk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Ruled by this crowd

Image result for theresa may silk scarf  Image result for boris johnson  Image result for gavin williamson

 

:hmm: (The third one, in case anyone didn't recognize him, and who can blame them, is Gavin "Go away and shut up" Williamson, the Idiotic Belligerence (sorry, "Defence" Secretary).

Williamson: Russia 'should go away' and 'shut up' 

The difference being is that this government was democratically elected by the British people. You may not like May (whom the people seem to be warming to) and Johnson (a good London Mayor and now a good Foreign Secretary) and Williamson (who's turning out to be a brilliant new Defence Secretary), but this government was democratically elected by the British people.

This is quite unlike the undemocratic EU - I don't remember the likes of Juncker and Tusk ever having been elected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black Monk said:

This is an oligarchy that twice ordered the Irish electorate to vote again after rejecting the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the Lisbon Treaty in 2008. 

This kind of ignorance and bias is what dogs any kind of discussion like this.

The EU is not an oligarchy and did not order anybody to do anything. Both times the Irish people rejected the initial treaties because they could not agree to their terms. Both times the EU made amendments to the treaties by inserting qualifying clauses and guarantees into them that satisfied the Irish people. On both occasions the will of the Irish people as expressed through these referenda dominated proceedings and our interests were protected and respected.

Edited by Ozymandias
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

This kind of ignorance and bias is what dogs any kind of discussion like this.

The EU is not an oligarchy and did not order anybody to do anything. Both times the Irish people rejected the initial treaties because they could not agree to their terms. Both times the EU made amendments to the treaties by inserting qualifying clauses and guarantees into them that satisfied the Irish people. On both occasions the will of the Irish people as expressed through these referenda dominated proceedings and our interests were protected and respected.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

This kind of ignorance and bias is what dogs any kind of discussion like this.

The EU is not an oligarchy and did not order anybody to do anything. Both times the Irish people rejected the initial treaties because they could not agree to their terms. Both times the EU made amendments to the treaties by inserting qualifying clauses and guarantees into them that satisfied the Irish people. On both occasions the will of the Irish people as expressed through these referenda dominated proceedings and our interests were protected and respected.

"Oligarchy" perfectly describes the EU as "a small group of people having control of a country or Organisation". Do nnot forget, that ONLY the Commission can initiate new legislation, nobody else can initiate legislation therefore, Ipso Facto, the EU IS an Oligarchy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RAyMO said:

The hit to the UK economy was relatively minor (there was an impact e.g. going from one of the fastest growing to one of the slowest and an increase to the cost of living) after the vote. The potential impact was lessened mainly because of the actions of the UK government - at roughly 7.30 the morning after the Vote Cameron went back on his pledge of immediate implementation, kicking article 50 roughly 3 months down the line, May then came in and kicked it a further 6 or so months. May later  insisted on an implementation period - during which nothing really changes which added 18 months or so to the Exit timetable. Theses actions probably unintentionally give hope to the markets etc. that Brexit either wouldn't happen or would be very soft. The same succor may also have been given by how little - so far that the UK government has won in its negotiations with the EU. At this stage imo we are still very much in wait or see as to how hard the egg will be boiled. At any rate the 'deferral' actions of the Government don't seem aligned with the argument that a massive windfall is awaiting the UK economy - just as soon as we can remove the yoke of Europe.

The impact of the Brexit was also "dampened" by global growth and by the Bank of England's actions including Interest Rate cuts and Quantitative Easing as its called.

It is interesting that relatively little is being done to provide more at the borders with the EU - staff, hardware, infrastructure or even having by this stage a clear concept of how technology would be used and plans for development and implementation of same.  Is this because for the foreseeable future the government believes alignment or whatever term they are using for it will be nearly 100% - I don't know and I am not arguing it will be -  probably the next 3 to 6 months will clear a lot up and I am happy to wait see what unfolds. 

Why has the UK remained the Number 1 destination in Europe for foreign investment when its been clear for sometime the UK is leaving the EU. Why during that time also as unemployment rate been falling to all time lows? The UK economy as continued to grow, All the experts got it wrong, all the models they held up wrong, all the remoaners who just repeated what they were told, wrong. and they've continued in the same vein.

Why would the UK economy take a hit when we leave, we never got a kick up when we joined, and the same again with the single market in 1992, which people say is so crucial to our growth rate, yet we cannot see any positive kick up in the graph of UK growth either when we first joined the EEC or when the single market was completed in the early 1990s. in fact the growth rate fell off on both occasions. If there was no benefit going into the thing, why should there be something negative when we come out? It is not asymmetric. There will not be a hit.

The figures don't lie, just look at the numbers massive trade deficit with the EU, leaving the EU will not be a big economic event. It's a massively important political event, but it will not be a significant economic event, because joining it was not. Indeed, even worse, in the immediate aftermath of both joining the EEC and of completing the single market, there were very big recessions where our growth rate took a very big hit. we cannot blame the EEC for the first one - that was more to do with international banking and the oil crisis, but we can entirely blame the EU for the second one, because it was the European exchange rate mechanism that ripped the heart out of our companies and our economy and led to a boom and bust that was almost as big as Labours.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Blatant confirmation bias . Your response to being accused of ignorance and bias is to reference a ten year old newspaper opinion piece written by a political hack as ignorant and prejudiced as yourself. Both you and the author of this article make no attempt at objectivity but are content to manipulate reality in order to promote your agenda. At the very least demonstrate some respect for yourself by not making statements that are flatly contradicted by facts that are readily determined by anyone inquiring into the matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, keithisco said:

"Oligarchy" perfectly describes the EU as "a small group of people having control of a country or Organisation". Do nnot forget, that ONLY the Commission can initiate new legislation, nobody else can initiate legislation therefore, Ipso Facto, the EU IS an Oligarchy. 

What utter rubbish! Don't you know that in regard to EU legislation the Commission is tied to what is allowed by treaty. All EU law is solely based upon the treaties democratically agreed by and between EU members. The Commission cannot initiate legislation that does not comply with these treaties. 

In countries like Ireland the national electorate gets to vote and debate on these treaties and to force the EU to amend the terms of treaties if they are not considered in our national interest. No EU treaty has ever been foisted on the Irish people against their will unless and until its terms were changed. The process is admirably democratic.

In the UK the people have NEVER been asked to vote on a EU treaty. It would seem that the lack of democrzcy is not actually a EU characteristic but may be the fault of politics in individual member states.

The people of the UK were never even asked if they wanted to join the EEC in 1973. It became a political issue AFTER the UK joined and they were subsequently asked through a referendum in 1975. The ONLY other time the will of the British people has ever been tested by referendum was on Brexit in 2016.

The people of the UK have NEVER been asked to vote on any European treaty. It was the UK parliament that ratified each treaty. Brexit is a consequence of that lack of democratic participation. European legislation is UK law because the UK adopted (and helped to frame) those treaties and the laws that have followed from them.

Go learn some facts before you accuse the EU of being an oligarchy and undemocratic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

What utter rubbish! Don't you know that in regard to EU legislation the Commission is tied to what is allowed by treaty. All EU law is solely based upon the treaties democratically agreed by and between EU members. The Commission cannot initiate legislation that does not comply with these treaties. 

In countries like Ireland the national electorate gets to vote and debate on these treaties and to force the EU to amend the terms of treaties if they are not considered in our national interest. No EU treaty has ever been foisted on the Irish people against their will unless and until its terms were changed. The process is admirably democratic.

In the UK the people have NEVER been asked to vote on a EU treaty. It would seem that the lack of democrzcy is not actually a EU characteristic but may be the fault of politics in individual member states.

The people of the UK were never even asked if they wanted to join the EEC in 1973. It became a political issue AFTER the UK joined and they were subsequently asked through a referendum in 1975. The ONLY other time the will of the British people has ever been tested by referendum was on Brexit in 2016.

The people of the UK have NEVER been asked to vote on any European treaty. It was the UK parliament that ratified each treaty. Brexit is a consequence of that lack of democratic participation. European legislation is UK law because the UK adopted (and helped to frame) those treaties and the laws that have followed from them.

Go learn some facts before you accuse the EU of being an oligarchy and undemocratic.

I guess its just misunderstood. Its amazing what passes as Democracy for some people. meeting in secret, unable able to see who voted for what, power vested in the unelected commission, the same commission who make legislation, making the EU parliment the only parliment in the world that is unable to initiate legislation. :o

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Black Monk said:

Williamson (who's turning out to be a brilliant new Defence Secretary),

"Go away and shut up"? That qualifies someone as brilliant in Ms.May's hapless crew then? Poor old Winston would never have stood a chance; he could never have hoped to aspire to heights of rhetoric like that that could rally the nation against tyranny. :no: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

"Go away and shut up"? That qualifies someone as brilliant in Ms.May's hapless crew then? Poor old Winston would never have stood a chance; he could never have hoped to aspire to heights of rhetoric like that that could rally the nation against tyranny. :no: 

I think it goes beyond that statement, He's doing a great job for the MoD, he was only in office a few days and the word was the Chancellor was to cut the defence budget (again) Williamson noted how Philip Hammond uses the RAF to travel free of charge, So, one day Hammond turns up expecting to be swiftly transported to the EU for a meeting only for the RAF under orders from Williamson to refuse him boarding or using RAF facilities. result Hammond was late for the EU meeting and Williamson puts down marker.

To date Williamson as secured, funding for the 7th Astute, Stopped the cut to the Royal Marines, Secured funding for Harpoon anti-ship missile (beyond 2018) secured funding for latest order of AMRAAM Missile, successfully argued to retain the Batch 1's River class. Secured funding for ALL the P8's. he's fighting the corner for the Military. the early signs are he's the best defence secretary we've had for a long while.

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.