|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 01 2019 15:38 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 08:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't really understand where you got the understanding that UK will automatically leave without a no-deal as opposed to automatically a no-deal. This sky news expert must be the only guy with that understanding. I never said that. No-deal is still the default but now the MPs have the power to veto it so the risk of it happening has been drastically reduced. You had a eurosceptic minister resigning yesterday for this exact reason.
They don't have the power to veto it. That is what he is trying to explain you all the time.
Something WILL happen. And if they can not decide on what will happen, the default will happen.
And if they can't decide what will happen, then close their eyes and declare the incoming default crash train is absolutely not there, it will still steamroll them. Because that trick barely worked at the age of 2.
And don't start the "then we just extend" story again. As explained a 100 times here, the extension happens only with 100% approval of the EU nations. And while the EU signaled, that it would consider such an extension, it also made clear, that it will only happen, when there is some sort of plan of how this extension will lead to something fruitful. The childish eye closing will certainly not count for this.
|
On March 01 2019 16:24 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 15:38 Longshank wrote:On March 01 2019 08:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't really understand where you got the understanding that UK will automatically leave without a no-deal as opposed to automatically a no-deal. This sky news expert must be the only guy with that understanding. I never said that. No-deal is still the default but now the MPs have the power to veto it so the risk of it happening has been drastically reduced. You had a eurosceptic minister resigning yesterday for this exact reason. They don't have the power to veto it. That is what he is trying to explain you all the time. Something WILL happen. And if they can not decide on what will happen, the default will happen. And if they can't decide what will happen, then close their eyes and declare the incoming default crash train is absolutely not there, it will still steamroll them. Because that trick barely worked at the age of 2. And don't start the "then we just extend" story again. As explained a 100 times here, the extension happens only with 100% approval of the EU nations. And while the EU signaled, that it would consider such an extension, it also made clear, that it will only happen, when there is some sort of plan of how this extension will lead to something fruitful. The childish eye closing will certainly not count for this.
They absolutely 100% have the power to veto it, as stated in George Eustice's resignation letter. But it most likely requires them make decision on the remaining options. You guys say that the positions are locked, there will never be movement while I strongly disagree. When faced with the alternative of a no-deal, or in ERG's case, second referendum, things will start to move. We'll see who's right.
|
Lets say the House of Commons voted to "veto" a no-deal, what happens then? March rolls over and there is still no-deal. No deal is still the default. I don't get why you are so invested in this notion, when you yourself are dismissive of the sky news "expert" that gave you this opnion in the first place.
|
On March 01 2019 17:51 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 16:24 mahrgell wrote:On March 01 2019 15:38 Longshank wrote:On March 01 2019 08:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't really understand where you got the understanding that UK will automatically leave without a no-deal as opposed to automatically a no-deal. This sky news expert must be the only guy with that understanding. I never said that. No-deal is still the default but now the MPs have the power to veto it so the risk of it happening has been drastically reduced. You had a eurosceptic minister resigning yesterday for this exact reason. They don't have the power to veto it. That is what he is trying to explain you all the time. Something WILL happen. And if they can not decide on what will happen, the default will happen. And if they can't decide what will happen, then close their eyes and declare the incoming default crash train is absolutely not there, it will still steamroll them. Because that trick barely worked at the age of 2. And don't start the "then we just extend" story again. As explained a 100 times here, the extension happens only with 100% approval of the EU nations. And while the EU signaled, that it would consider such an extension, it also made clear, that it will only happen, when there is some sort of plan of how this extension will lead to something fruitful. The childish eye closing will certainly not count for this. They absolutely 100% have the power to veto it, as stated in George Eustice's resignation letter. But it most likely requires them make decision on the remaining options. You guys say that the positions are locked, there will never be movement while I strongly disagree. When faced with the alternative of a no-deal, or in ERG's case, second referendum, things will start to move. We'll see who's right.
It's clear you are wrong. They don't have a veto power over the no-deal scenario. They have the power to prevent a no-deal by either accepting May's WA (which they overwhelmingly rejected), ask for an extension to hold a referendum or cancel a50 altogether.
Having a veto power means keeping the status quo without having to choose any of the alternatives. They don't have that option...
|
On March 01 2019 19:56 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 17:51 Longshank wrote:On March 01 2019 16:24 mahrgell wrote:On March 01 2019 15:38 Longshank wrote:On March 01 2019 08:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I don't really understand where you got the understanding that UK will automatically leave without a no-deal as opposed to automatically a no-deal. This sky news expert must be the only guy with that understanding. I never said that. No-deal is still the default but now the MPs have the power to veto it so the risk of it happening has been drastically reduced. You had a eurosceptic minister resigning yesterday for this exact reason. They don't have the power to veto it. That is what he is trying to explain you all the time. Something WILL happen. And if they can not decide on what will happen, the default will happen. And if they can't decide what will happen, then close their eyes and declare the incoming default crash train is absolutely not there, it will still steamroll them. Because that trick barely worked at the age of 2. And don't start the "then we just extend" story again. As explained a 100 times here, the extension happens only with 100% approval of the EU nations. And while the EU signaled, that it would consider such an extension, it also made clear, that it will only happen, when there is some sort of plan of how this extension will lead to something fruitful. The childish eye closing will certainly not count for this. They absolutely 100% have the power to veto it, as stated in George Eustice's resignation letter. But it most likely requires them make decision on the remaining options. You guys say that the positions are locked, there will never be movement while I strongly disagree. When faced with the alternative of a no-deal, or in ERG's case, second referendum, things will start to move. We'll see who's right. It's clear you are wrong. They don't have a veto power over the no-deal scenario. They have the power to prevent a no-deal by either accepting May's WA (which they overwhelmingly rejected), ask for an extension to hold a referendum or cancel a50 altogether. Having a veto power means keeping the status quo without having to choose any of the alternatives. They don't have that option...
Fair enough I agree 'veto' is not the right word. That doesn't change the core of my argument though, that no-deal is now very unlikely to happen and that the ERG are looking at what other options they have.
|
We will see.
They will still need to actually have a majority for either May's deal, a referendum, or cancelling A50.
This has not changed.
Just saying "We don't want a "no deal"" doesn't mean that they can agree on any of that and are not still living in Fantasyland where they can get the wonderful genius Brexit with all the nice things and candy. The british parliament has demonstrated that they seem to think that they are in control of stuff that they are not in control of for all of this process. I am very cautious as to whether they have actually changed that.
|
On March 01 2019 21:12 Simberto wrote:
We will see.
They will still need to actually have a majority for either May's deal, a referendum, or cancelling A50.
This has not changed.
Just saying "We don't want a "no deal"" doesn't mean that they can agree on any of that and are not still living in Fantasyland where they can get the wonderful genius Brexit with all the nice things and candy. The british parliament has demonstrated that they seem to think that they are in control of stuff that they are not in control of for all of this process. I am very cautious as to whether they have actually changed that.
You're right but I think the difference is the deadline. So far they haven't HAD to agree on anything. The deadline forces them to some sort of agreement if they are to avoid no-deal, which is the one thing a vast majority definitely wants to do. In the end, most MPs seem to be rational human beings.
|
On March 01 2019 22:06 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 21:12 Simberto wrote:
We will see.
They will still need to actually have a majority for either May's deal, a referendum, or cancelling A50.
This has not changed.
Just saying "We don't want a "no deal"" doesn't mean that they can agree on any of that and are not still living in Fantasyland where they can get the wonderful genius Brexit with all the nice things and candy. The british parliament has demonstrated that they seem to think that they are in control of stuff that they are not in control of for all of this process. I am very cautious as to whether they have actually changed that. You're right but I think the difference is the deadline. So far they haven't HAD to agree on anything. The deadline forces them to some sort of agreement if they are to avoid no-deal, which is the one thing a vast majority definitely wants to do. In the end, most MPs seem to be rational human beings. Except the only thing Parliament has agreed to is that they will just ask the EU for more time so they don't actually have to agree to anything.
Once again I say the amendment is the exact opposite of Parliament getting ready to make a decision.
|
On March 01 2019 22:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 22:06 Longshank wrote:On March 01 2019 21:12 Simberto wrote:
We will see.
They will still need to actually have a majority for either May's deal, a referendum, or cancelling A50.
This has not changed.
Just saying "We don't want a "no deal"" doesn't mean that they can agree on any of that and are not still living in Fantasyland where they can get the wonderful genius Brexit with all the nice things and candy. The british parliament has demonstrated that they seem to think that they are in control of stuff that they are not in control of for all of this process. I am very cautious as to whether they have actually changed that. You're right but I think the difference is the deadline. So far they haven't HAD to agree on anything. The deadline forces them to some sort of agreement if they are to avoid no-deal, which is the one thing a vast majority definitely wants to do. In the end, most MPs seem to be rational human beings. Except the only thing Parliament has agreed to is that they will just ask the EU for more time so they don't actually have to agree to anything. Once again I say the amendment is the exact opposite of Parliament getting ready to make a decision.
If I was a country leader I would agree to a 5-10 year extension for the UK. Not a 3 month with no ideas on how that helps. Basically just leaving them in for a decade more where the climate can change more pro EU.
|
On March 01 2019 23:49 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2019 22:33 Gorsameth wrote:On March 01 2019 22:06 Longshank wrote:On March 01 2019 21:12 Simberto wrote:
We will see.
They will still need to actually have a majority for either May's deal, a referendum, or cancelling A50.
This has not changed.
Just saying "We don't want a "no deal"" doesn't mean that they can agree on any of that and are not still living in Fantasyland where they can get the wonderful genius Brexit with all the nice things and candy. The british parliament has demonstrated that they seem to think that they are in control of stuff that they are not in control of for all of this process. I am very cautious as to whether they have actually changed that. You're right but I think the difference is the deadline. So far they haven't HAD to agree on anything. The deadline forces them to some sort of agreement if they are to avoid no-deal, which is the one thing a vast majority definitely wants to do. In the end, most MPs seem to be rational human beings. Except the only thing Parliament has agreed to is that they will just ask the EU for more time so they don't actually have to agree to anything. Once again I say the amendment is the exact opposite of Parliament getting ready to make a decision. If I was a country leader I would agree to a 5-10 year extension for the UK. Not a 3 month with no ideas on how that helps. Basically just leaving them in for a decade more where the climate can change more pro EU. a 2 year or more extension is very easy.
The UK simple retracts article 50, EU doesn't have to agree to anything then.
|
A few weeks back i stated (a bit bluntly, fair enough) that the UK is going to be raped by the big players.
Here's the outline for a trade deal with the US, as published by washington.
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Negotiating_Objectives.pdf
Note: this is an official document. This isn't "fear mongering" or "hearsay" or "maybe" - that's what the US is expecting.
A few highlights.
Secure comprehensive market access for US agricultural goods in the UK by reducing or eliminating tariffs
I'm not sure if i should explain how bad this is for local farmers, it should be obvious.
Establish a mechanism to remove expeditiously unwarranted barriers that block the export of US food and agricultural products in order to obtain more open, equitable, and reciprocal market access.
This is also very obvious, but to prevent (potentially deliberate) misunderstandings: this is the part that guarantees chlorinated chicken, medicinal beef, beekilling pesticides. And no, that isn't me imagining or "reading into it", it's a fact.
In regards to pharmaceuticals:
Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for US products
Basically: enable US pharma to charge what they want and remove governmental oversight that, in the EU, prevents price hikes like they happen in the US (Epi-Pen, etc).
These are already their demands. And the UK has nothing to bargain with - not that it'd matter under Trumps US in the first place, they'll tell the UK to take a hike if the demands are not met sufficiently.
Now, i hear little britainists scream that Gove already made clear that he will not allow quality etc to drop - but here's me wondering, the fuck would you do to prevent it? There's nothing you can do. If the US ties this to their offer, the way the EU ties their deal to the backstop, and btw the way the UK ties a agreed upon payment to a deal ("divorce bill"), then that's what it's going to be. You can maybe compromise on these things, which means you only get three quarters of the bad shit, but don't delude yourself and think that this isn't going to happen.
It is.
|
@m4ini
I'm just surprised the US government didn't wait with making this public until the UK is officially out with no deal. The US so openly showing how they will royally fuck the UK could knock some sense into the British public.
|
United States44325 Posts
On March 02 2019 01:07 maybenexttime wrote:
@m4ini
I'm just surprised the US government didn't wait with making this public until the UK is officially out with no deal. The US so openly showing how they will royally fuck the UK could knock some sense into the British public.
It’s been out of the hands of the public since the referendum. It’s the politicians who have fucked it up since then.
|
On March 02 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2019 01:07 maybenexttime wrote:
@m4ini
I'm just surprised the US government didn't wait with making this public until the UK is officially out with no deal. The US so openly showing how they will royally fuck the UK could knock some sense into the British public. It’s been out of the hands of the public since the referendum. It’s the politicians who have fucked it up since then.
Technically yes. But one of the reasons why your politicians have been reluctant to hold a second referendum was that there was a substantial opposition to it among the public. If people get a reality check finally, and realize all those great deals are going to be far worse than what the EU could negotiate, and that being more flexible without the EU means bending over to the US and other big players, maybe they will overwhelmingly support a second referendum.
|
United States44325 Posts
On March 02 2019 01:29 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2019 01:15 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2019 01:07 maybenexttime wrote:
@m4ini
I'm just surprised the US government didn't wait with making this public until the UK is officially out with no deal. The US so openly showing how they will royally fuck the UK could knock some sense into the British public. It’s been out of the hands of the public since the referendum. It’s the politicians who have fucked it up since then. Technically yes. But one of the reasons why your politicians have been reluctant to hold a second referendum was that there was a substantial opposition to it among the public. If people get a reality check finally, and realize all those great deals are going to be far worse than what the EU could negotiate, and that being more flexible without the EU means bending over to the US and other big players, maybe they will overwhelmingly support a second referendum.
As I’ve said many times, you can’t referendum your way out of a problem caused by holding too many referendums. The opposition to holding a second referendum is that it’s stipid political theatre that exists only help politicians. It’s transparent and evidence only of a total bankruptcy of leadership. They need us to lie to them and tell them that we believe that they’re just following the peoples’ will before they do their jobs. They don’t believe it. We don’t believe it. But they’re stupid enough to think that when they hold a second referendum and get the result they want we’ll beloeve them when they say they have no choice but to stay in Europe. I wouldn’t play this game with a five year old.
Fuck them. With a rake. A rusty one.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
If transport secretary Chris grayling was working in any private company, he'd have lost his job ages ago.
|
Your argument against a second referendum seems to based on the idea that one should not ask the same question to the same people just because you didn't like the answer you got the first time. That sounds logical. However, I think you are missing one key element in your analyses, and that is time. Opinions change over time and it makes no sense to act based on past preferences that may not have majority support any longer. And when you add in that (i) Brexit is likely to have a very large impact and (ii) the majority in favour of Brexit was minor and (iii) the votes for Brexit were likely at least partially based on wrong information, it makes even more sense to hold a new referendum.
If I may make a rather morbid comparison, I'd point you to Dutch euthanasia legislation. One of the checks that must be met before euthanasia is allowed to be carried out, is that the patient must repeat the will to die a second time, after a waiting period. Just to make sure he really wants to die. Grave decisions should not be made on a wim, but require unwavering desire. I don't see why Brexit would qualify for less.
|
On March 02 2019 05:33 Sr18 wrote:
Your argument against a second referendum seems to based on the idea that one should not ask the same question to the same people just because you didn't like the answer you got the first time. That sounds logical. However, I think you are missing one key element in your analyses, and that is time. Opinions change over time and it makes no sense to act based on past preferences that may not have majority support any longer. And when you add in that (i) Brexit is likely to have a very large impact and (ii) the majority in favour of Brexit was minor and (iii) the votes for Brexit were likely at least partially based on wrong information, it makes even more sense to hold a new referendum.
If I may make a rather morbid comparison, I'd point you to Dutch euthanasia legislation. One of the checks that must be met before euthanasia is allowed to be carried out, is that the patient must repeat the will to die a second time, after a waiting period. Just to make sure he really wants to die. Grave decisions should not be made on a wim, but require unwavering desire. I don't see why Brexit would qualify for less.
I dont want to speak for KwarK, but I get the impression that he isn't arguing against a second referendum as such, as much as he's arguing against referendums in general and pointing out that they usually happen because politicians are so spineless and shit that they can't just take responsibility for what they know is right because they are paralyzed by the fear of a popularity hit.
Brexit is a direct consequence of high ranking politicians doing what the know is wrong, and what they know is bad for our country, to settle internal political party strife, and a second referendum would be an admission that they know that this was a shitty thing to do but they don't have the guts to fix it themselves.
Having said all that, I wouldn't be too pissed off at a second referendum if it stopped Brexit at this point because clearly no-one actually knows how to Brexit at all.
|
United States44325 Posts
If there was a second referendum and remain won then we'd get to watch politicians try to play both sides as they labour the point that they really did want to Brexit when the people wanted to but now nobody knows what the people want and therefore they're just going to have to stay in the EU for now because they respect both sides far too much to possibly make a decision right now.
They'll insult us and lie to us and patronize us, and at the end they'll pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for outmaneuvering the people and playing both sides, despite the fact that the entire act is about as convincing as a four year old covered in chocolate sauce insisting that they have no idea where the ice cream went.
It's not enough for them to ignore the people and do what they want, they have to patronize the people at the same time by insisting that they're doing it for the people. They're convinced they're playing 4D chess when in reality it's more like hide and seek where they're hiding their head in a bucket while their body is in plain sight but they'll cry if you find them too quickly.
The entire affair is theatre and I have no patience for it.
|
But what do you want them to do now Kwark, if revoking a50 is not an option?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
