BristolUK

At least five minutes of finger pointing and laughing would be entirely justifiable.

Shard

It's not expected that any in the EU/members would trigger a No Deal crash, particularly when an election/referendum is within sight. The EU admits a hard border in Ireland is possible, but obviously wants to avoid it.

BristolUK

I've just seen this in the express

Quote:

NIGEL FARAGE has ordered Boris Johnson to sack his Brexit mastermind Dominic Cummings after the Prime Minister's decision to suspend parliament was found to be "unlawful" by the Supreme Court.

Someone not elected to the UK parliament is ordering the Prime Minister to do something.
Read by the readers who are complaining about unelected judges.

Couldn't make it up.

DaveLovesDee

I posted this at 11.43am UK time today on the Tories in Chaos thread. Quite prescient in my opinion.

dbd33

I thought this was interesting:

https://www.politico.eu/article/wher...mpression=true

It pre-dates his comments yesterday; it's hard to keep up with his biggest mistake day-by-day.

Shard

Yes, definite miscalc. You can see it in his desperate attempts to goad Corbyn into calling an election (via a VONC) and labelling him chicken etc. Yesterday was more frantic taunting. Simon Jenkins had some good comments on the possible outcomes yesterday. It may well be that this refusal to play will mean that BoJo puts together WA#4 and pushes it through in order to achieve his self-imposed October deadline. After all, his ONLY consideration is maintaining power, and this may be the path to maintaining it.

dbd33

I would be able to see that if I could imagine what would be in WA#4. I don't think the Brits have any clue and the EU isn't going to make suggestions. He could try to sell May's deal again, I suppose.

I still haven't seen anyone, anywhere, post a credible advantage of Brexit.

Paul_Shepherd

Well....I think if the EU had remained as it was initially intended....a simple trading block/agreement between member countries, and not the dictating bureaucratic monster it has become, I don't think there would have ever been an appetite for Brexit.

Over the past 50 years it has become evermore integrated, where every member country has given up a little bit more of their sovereignty and identity, towards the ultimate goal of the United States of Europe..... the problem with this is that it will never work, its not possible to force together hundreds of years of differing cultures in the space of 50 years and expect it to be harmonious. What works for one member state won't work for another.....and that is down to the differing culture of the European countries, which what has always made Europe so facsinating, the diversity of cultures, why would we want to erode that, which is basically what the EU are doing by removing a little bit if each countries identity with their rules and regulations....I haven't met many Europeans who wanted to give up their currency for the Euro.

A trade agreement is all the European countries ever needed....what we have now, has gone way further than it ever should have done, this is just my humble opinion of course, we all see things through different eyes. That aside I really hope that Britain can come out of this with a deal....I think we are all agreed that no deal would be devastating to the British economy.

Almost Canadian

Which just goes to show what a royal mess the Remain side made of their arguments a few years ago. It should have been a slam dunk to persuade the electorate to vote to remain. They were not able to do so.

You cannot credibly argue against an advantage of Brexit being control of the UK's immigration and, until such time as the deal with the EU is known, one cannot really say whether the price paid was worth it. If some of the posters on this forum get their way, Brexit will mean being in the EU without having any say in the laws it makes - the softest of soft Brexits.

Shard

Hard to say whether one side can be persuaded or not. Certainly there's a strong economic argument to stay in the EU, but it turns out not many Leavers care about that (plus have their own bogus sunlit uplands to aspire to). It's more about outlook. Some view Europeans as partners, others view them as inferiors taking advantage of the UK. Hard to change those impressions through rational argument. Demographics plays a big part, and now that the demographics have shifted a little more a simple second referendum would obviate the need for much discussion.

Oakvillian

True, that may be a difficult position to take, but the degree to which Brexit allows the UK to "take back conrtol" of immigration (and absolutely, the degree to which that is actually a desirable outcome) is certainly questionable. Much easier, though, to point out the fact that there were (indeed, until Brexit, there still are) already very many tools in the EU toolbox (such as requiring registration, requiring proof of gainful employment within a certain period, etc etc) for EU migrants that the UK chose not to implement. Those tools would have provided significantly greater control over immigration within the context of the EU.

Shard

Personally, more than happy with a United States of Europe. EU isn't perfect, but it's far better than the alternative.

dbd33

In what way is the EU a dictating bureaucratic monster? Bananas, kippers, complete freedom of movement - all myths.

The UK didn't join the Euro. What identity has been lost by being in Europe; is it the passport colour? If so, would the Brexiteers settle for a government program of blue passport holders so as to conceal the pink?



Again, in what way? I accept that my old high street, which used to be all Indian shops, is now all Romanian shops, but it was the British government that wanted to allow the Romanians to stay; the EU allows temporary work permits and similar restrictions on EU nationals in other countries.

But a deal requires keeping the things you seem to object to; trade agreements, movement of labour, that sort of thing.

You haven't made an argument for what would be better with Brexit, just complained about some non-specific things about the EU. I'm looking for any reason to change; "my bananas can be more bent" might be one, though they can't be.

dbd33

.

Agreed.

1. The UK could have restricted immigration from within the EU while staying in; there's no requirement that any EU citizen be allowed to live anywhere.
2. The UK's demand for cheap labour means that there will still be loads of impoverished immigrants, perhaps more Chinese and Indians, perhaps America's rejects, just from different countries. I don't think the average Britain particularly hates his or her house being burgled by Europeans, they just don't want their houses burgled, so it's out-of-the-frying-pan.

DaveLovesDee

The EU became what it is now because it's member state heads of government, and the EU Parliament's elected representatives from those member states voted in favour of it. Had either group voted against it, there would have been no change.

There was very little anti-EU sentiment pre-2004, which was when the East European A8 countries joined. And the UK was one of the few then-current EU member states to not impose delayed controls on free movement of A8 nationals, which was part of the tools Oakvillian mentioned above.

It's hard to encourage people to vote on cold, emotionless facts, and when most of the popular media is on the opposition's side. Leave had an advantage of having had the near-constant drip-drip of anti-EU stories for at least 20 yrs, creating fear and division, and the EU referendum gave readers of those publications an outlet for their voices.

Yes, Remain could have done better. Any suggestions on what they could/should have done?