agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,952
Likes: 4,386
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 7, 2019 13:42:08 GMT
There are still several options with hugely different benefits/costs that the people haven't been asked their opinion on (Norway +, TM's deal, Swiss model, Canada+++, no deal/WTO) etc. This is correct, but they all boil down to the same 2 issues.
If you want a deal you either:
- have a free trade deal (Norway style) which would also require free movement of people, or
- you have tariff free trading (Canada with as many ++++ as you like), which requires checks on good and would require a NI backstop
I can't for the life of me understand the issues with the Irish border. Switzerland borders 4 EU countries and appears to manage the transit of goods to and from the EU without checks or queues at the border. I don't see why we can't agree to something similar.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 7, 2019 13:46:11 GMT
I happened to see Caroline Spellman MP on the lunchtime news. She's one of the 200+ MPs who signed a petition asking that no-deal be ruled out. Problem is, as she said, MPs have to come together to agree a solution but have no idea what that might be. She could ask Labour to fall in behind May's deal (and commit electoral suicide, yeah)
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2019 13:46:17 GMT
I am interested to hear what you think you know now that you did not know then. If you agree there is no right/wrong answer as things stand then by definition you agree that the public vote is still valid. A second referendum will give the same result again - something called British Pride means Remain will never win and those arguing for it are clearly so out of touch with reality that it beggars belief they are still in public office Um, well basically we now know the government's plan for Brexit. A biggy really.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,221
Likes: 11,417
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 7, 2019 13:46:55 GMT
Problem comes, as with the EU, when MPs as a whole are way out-of-line with a huge proportion of the public.
A new election would return a similar pro-remain majority and would solve nothing."The Will Of The People" needs to be re-summoned in a fresh referendum. And as you say, cb25 , the huge proportion of the public who are not being represented by their MP can have their voices heard. Technically the last election returned a pro-leave, (even hard brexit) majority as both major parties stood on a manifesto commitment to honour the result, leave EU & SM (freedom of movement) ... the fact that many MPs have chosen to ignore the policy they were elected on highlights the state of democracy.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 7, 2019 13:52:05 GMT
I am interested to hear what you think you know now that you did not know then. If you agree there is no right/wrong answer as things stand then by definition you agree that the public vote is still valid. A second referendum will give the same result again - something called British Pride means Remain will never win and those arguing for it are clearly so out of touch with reality that it beggars belief they are still in public office Um, well basically we now know the government's plan for Brexit. A biggy really. I doubt you do because even they dont. All you know is that the plan is to have a two year transition to negotiate anything and everything of any importance.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 7, 2019 13:53:41 GMT
This is correct, but they all boil down to the same 2 issues.
If you want a deal you either:
- have a free trade deal (Norway style) which would also require free movement of people, or
- you have tariff free trading (Canada with as many ++++ as you like), which requires checks on good and would require a NI backstop
I can't for the life of me understand the issues with the Irish border. Switzerland borders 4 EU countries and appears to manage the transit of goods to and from the EU without checks or queues at the border. I don't see why we can't agree to something similar.
Free movement of people (I think) - probably much else too
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2019 13:53:59 GMT
This is correct, but they all boil down to the same 2 issues.
If you want a deal you either:
- have a free trade deal (Norway style) which would also require free movement of people, or
- you have tariff free trading (Canada with as many ++++ as you like), which requires checks on good and would require a NI backstop
I can't for the life of me understand the issues with the Irish border. Switzerland borders 4 EU countries and appears to manage the transit of goods to and from the EU without checks or queues at the border. I don't see why we can't agree to something similar.
Problem is, that just isn't true. Have you been through the Swiss-EU border recently? Full border infrastructure and customs checks (you may or may not get stopped) - would be anathema to Ireland and against the GFA.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 7, 2019 13:58:18 GMT
I can't for the life of me understand the issues with the Irish border. Switzerland borders 4 EU countries and appears to manage the transit of goods to and from the EU without checks or queues at the border. I don't see why we can't agree to something similar.
The waiting time for each lorry passing the Swiss border varies between 20 minutes and 2 hours. Source: International Road Transport Union.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2019 13:59:14 GMT
Um, well basically we now know the government's plan for Brexit. A biggy really. I doubt you do because even they dont. All you know is that the plan is to have a two year transition to negotiate anything and everything of any importance. Well firstly, the withdrawal agreement is also a biggy, as we may never be able to leave it. Secondly, we now know the red lines laid down by the government that dictates what is and isn't possible. Norway/EEA/Swiss were still an option during the campaign, now they are not according to these red lines. No deal was barely mentioned during campaign, now government actively planning for it. All this (plus difficultiea with Irish border) are new since ref and fundamental issues.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 9, 2019 12:02:02 GMT
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jan 9, 2019 12:36:52 GMT
That seems a reasonable stance to me and I think Daniel is missing the point. We're at a standstill in terms of majorities for the way forward (I think all agree), and the default option is regarded by many as catastrophic, including Daniel. For parliamentarians to focus solely on what they would most like to happen in this circumstance and allow us to teeter into No-Deal would be irresponsible IMV. As for a way forward, the most interesting article I've read in the last 24 hours is this one: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/the-guardian-view-on-brexit-the-government-has-failed-its-time-to-go-back-to-the-people. It's a more balanced article than the title may suggest, and is effectively proposing that the process is started again and led by a Citizens assembly. This seems to me like a reasonable way forward to protect at least some vestiges of the 'will of the people' whilst not careering into No-Deal.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 9, 2019 12:49:36 GMT
That seems a reasonable stance to me and I think Daniel is missing the point. We're at a standstill in terms of majorities for the way forward (I think all agree), and the default option is regarded by many as catastrophic, including Daniel. For parliamentarians to focus solely on what they would most like to happen in this circumstance and allow us to teeter into No-Deal would be irresponsible IMV. As for a way forward, the most interesting article I've read in the last 24 hours is this one: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/08/the-guardian-view-on-brexit-the-government-has-failed-its-time-to-go-back-to-the-people. It's a more balanced article than the title may suggest, and is effectively proposing that the process is started again and led by a Citizens assembly. This seems to me like a reasonable way forward to protect at least some vestiges of the 'will of the people' whilst not careering into No-Deal. Hard to see how such an assembly would work, or how the assembly would be chosen. Guardian article says "MPs should then open up the debate to the country: first, by establishing a citizens’ assembly to examine the options and issues that face the nation". MPs (especially, and to some degree the country) are already aware of the options, they just can't agree which one is best (or MPs en-masse agree with the public's decision to Leave).
Just been watching PMQs. Corbyn telling May that "ruling out no-deal is the will of the house" (words to that effect). OK, that follows from yesterday's vote. So one might think Corbyn would be in favour of the sole deal the EU is offering. Ah, no, he says he wants May's deal to fail. What Corby wants if her deal fails (as is likely) is a General Election. I'd almost like to see that happen, just so that Labour had to get off the fence and says whether they wish to Leave or Remain.
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Jan 15, 2019 0:43:46 GMT
Having posed the original question(s) of this thread exactly 2 months ago, i was a leaver, and voted such, but really had no idea how leaving would/could be achieved with a cross party consensus, clearly that's not achievable. The vote is tomorrow, and i am now firmly behind Mrs May's deal, no other party has a coherent alternative.
What the last 8 weeks or so have proven to me is that the SNP are a joke, i really do not have any inclination to comment on their ridiculous position that Scotland voted to remain in the EU... so... bla bla bla .. (apologies to any Scots on here) , and the labour party have only one agenda, which is to disrupt the conclusion/outcome of the vote, to such an extent as to force a general election after an attempted vote of no confidence, (which they would lose) showing utter contempt for the British electorate.
But.. TBH.. after 8 weeks.. i'm not that surprised, i feel now i should have expected it, being naive enough to think that parliament (as a whole) would support the British electorate and deliver Brexit, as was voted for.
No-one knows what the next few days/weeks hold, no doubt it will be uncertain, but god preserve Jeremy Corbyn does not get the upper hand.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 15, 2019 7:11:28 GMT
<snip>...the labour party have only one agenda, which is to disrupt the conclusion/outcome of the vote, to such an extent as to force a general election after an attempted vote of no confidence, (which they would lose) showing utter contempt for the British electorate. <snip> No-one knows what the next few days/weeks hold, no doubt it will be uncertain, but god preserve Jeremy Corbyn does not get the upper hand. I said on this forum, very soon after the referendum, that the outcome made it far more likely that JC would be the next PM; when others were suggesting he was now done for. Ok, I wasn't expecting TM to throw an unnecessary and even more de-stabilising election in the interim, but I otherwise think events continue to make that more likely.
I also predicted that TM would replace DC when the popular view seemed to be it would be BoJo (before Gove stuck the knife in).
I hope I am proved as wrong on the first of these as I was right on the second.
And even if I do turn out to be right on the second point, I still don't know when money will be transferred from Dubai to pay an equity partner to invest in a company to pay back a loan on a power boat. Although my best guess is "never"
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 15, 2019 7:39:08 GMT
but really had no idea how leaving would/could be achieved with a cross party consensus, clearly that's not achievable. would support the British electorate and deliver Brexit, as was voted for TM didn't even try to achieve any consensus, which a good leader would have done on such a close result. She instead tried to appease her right wing, set up unnecessary "red lines", set course for a hard and divisive Brexit and was extremely denigratory to her opponents and to Parliament. She is reaping what she sowed through her incompetence and partisan approach. Any objective reading if the situation shows that (a) there is more than one type of Brexit (b) more than one type was described in the Leave campaign and (c) there is not a Brexit as was voted for - if you genuinely want that you have to put a negotiated Brexit to the vote. Finally, in terms of your Scottish comments, I wonder if the Scots might be right to remember that after a resounding 74% referendum m vote in favour of a Scottish Parliament, Theresa May voted AGAINST setting it up. Funny thing this will of the people.
|
|