Brexit: Boris' Big Belgian Bangers
-
What are the problems with a Norway+ situation? This seems to me to be the least damaging option but I'm happy to be educated.
-
The problem is that it introduces the problem that the Leave campaign were pretending existed when we were in the EU.
-
May’s red lines are the major problem: no way to stop immigration (outside of a never-used emergency brake) and no way to strike independent trade deals. -
This guy was good. It helped that he wasn't affiliated politically (not a MP for a party at least) and just spoke plainly and knowledgeably. I can't remember his precise words but think he was asked something like 'what's your preferred outcome?' and he just went for a soft brexit and the controls on immigration just being the emergency handbrake, he said he knew a lot of people wouldn't find that acceptable but he thought that was the best trade off given where we are. Any other political type that has advocated similar would have described that handbrake as 'giving us the crucial control over immigration that the public want.' or some other Cameron-level bullshit, and would have got an earful of booing.poprock wrote:
There’s a piece here by Anand Menon, the MP who was facing that audience. He does at least say that it wasn’t quite as nightmare-inducing as you would think from that one moment. There was context.Scary though. Getting a bunch of people in a room and the winning vote goes to blowing up the country. That’s not right wherever it happens.… contrary to my worst fears, when I tried, nervously, to explain all of this to the audience in Derby, they didn’t heckle. They didn’t shout me down. They paid attention. Some caricature leavers as a bunch of ignorant oiks waiting to drown out arguments they don’t like; that’s certainly not a view I have any time for.
People respect honesty and are crying out for it. It's (imo) why Farage and Johnson have such cut through. People know the mainstream politicians are bullshitting and think these blokes are telling it like it is, rather than reflecting back dangerous prejudices. -
Yossarian wrote:May’s red lines are the major problem: no way to stop immigration (outside of a never-used emergency brake) and no way to strike independent trade deals.
Norway can strike its own deals cant it?SFV - reddave360 -
Andy wrote:poprock wrote:In future, without that, our Parliament can enact local UK laws that run counter to the European Court of Human Rights. The UK Gov will be able to undermine our human rights at will.
I don’t see how. We will still be a member of the Council of Europe. That’s what binds us to the European Convention of Human Rights.
I might well be wrong on this, but I’m paraphrasing from the experts in this Guardian Law article:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/13/brexit-eu-human-rights-act-european-charter
Basically the ECHR is not enshrined in UK law. -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/jan/21/brexit-latest-news-mays-statement-mps-commons-deal-will-be-absolute-disaster-says-business-minister-as-may-prepares-to-address-mps-politics-liveDonald Tusk, the European council president, has claimed that David Cameron told him he thought he would never have to hold the referendum he promised because the Lib Dems would block it. In an interview for a BBC documentary, ‘Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil’, the first episode of which goes out a week today, Tusk said:
I asked David Cameron, ‘Why did you decide on this referendum, this – it’s so dangerous, so even stupid, you know,’ and, he told me - and I was really amazed and even shocked - that the only reason was his own party, [He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because, his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum. But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory. -
RedDave2 wrote:Yossarian wrote:May’s red lines are the major problem: no way to stop immigration (outside of a never-used emergency brake) and no way to strike independent trade deals.
Norway can strike its own deals cant it?
It looks like you may be right, although this fact means that the Irish border is still an issue. -
Yossarian wrote:RedDave2 wrote:Yossarian wrote:May’s red lines are the major problem: no way to stop immigration (outside of a never-used emergency brake) and no way to strike independent trade deals.
Norway can strike its own deals cant it?
It looks like you may be right, although this fact means that the Irish border is still an issue.
Yeah, realistically the Irish border is what makes this such a problem and it's a little bit unique to the situation. If it was just the mainland Britain I reckon the other issues could have been compromised on by one side or the other.
SFV - reddave360 -
They're effectively members of the single market aren't they? Not actual members but have to comply with all rules and don't get a say. 'Government by fax machine' was how I've heard it described by a Norwegian politician on the radio box.
'Norway for now' was an idea doing the rounds in Tory circles a while ago, but I don't think it was a goer. -
They’re members of the single market but not the customs union, which is a thing apparently.
-
monkey wrote:Donald Tusk, the European council president, has claimed that David Cameron told him he thought he would never have to hold the referendum he promised because the Lib Dems would block it. In an interview for a BBC documentary, ‘Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil’, the first episode of which goes out a week today, Tusk said: I asked David Cameron, ‘Why did you decide on this referendum, this – it’s so dangerous, so even stupid, you know,’ and, he told me - and I was really amazed and even shocked - that the only reason was his own party, [He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because, his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum. But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory.
David Cameron is, was, and always will be one of the most irresponsible politicians who has ever lived. Gambling away the future of a whole fucking nation-state on a hunch. Ignorant, selfish, arrogant, entitled, shiny, gammon-skinned pigfucking necrophiliac. -
RedDave2 wrote:Yossarian wrote:RedDave2 wrote:Yossarian wrote:May’s red lines are the major problem: no way to stop immigration (outside of a never-used emergency brake) and no way to strike independent trade deals.
Norway can strike its own deals cant it?
It looks like you may be right, although this fact means that the Irish border is still an issue.
Yeah, realistically the Irish border is what makes this such a problem and it's a little bit unique to the situation. If it was just the mainland Britain I reckon the other issues could have been compromised on by one side or the other.
A former minister for Europe from Portugal argued today that the request for the border in Ireland to be settled at the start of the talks was a mistake by Brussels.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-northern-ireland-backstop-theresa-may-how-brussels-blew-brexit/ -
https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2019/0121/1024571-derry/
More and more of this is coming if border checks return between Northern Ireland and Ireland. -
May is going to make a Brexit Statement at 3:30pm apparently"Like i said, context is missing."
http://ssgg.uk -
poprock wrote:I might well be wrong on this, but I’m paraphrasing from the experts in this Guardian Law article:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/13/brexit-eu-human-rights-act-european-charter
Basically the ECHR is not enshrined in UK law.
It looks to me like you are conflating human rights with fundamental rights, which are an additional set of rights. The Human Rights Act protects human rights, but not fundamental rights.
As for the latter part, it depends on what you mean by ‘enshrined’. The Human Rights Act is there to reflect the European Convention of Human Rights in UK law, and covers articles 2-12&14 of ECHR. It says requires new laws to be interpreted in a manner which is compatible with ECHR.
It does come with the proviso ‘as far as possible’, but it would be difficult, I imagine, to have it any other way.
However, I’ve been reading that the problem is that ECHR isn’t robust enough; apparently, it makes no provision for forcing countries to abide by its decisions (see its inability to force the UK to allow prisoners to vote when that was deemed non-compliant) other than to kick them out of the Council of Europe.
There inlies a problem; our government and other short-sighted morons might like that. It’s normally used as leverage; you can’t join the EU unless you first join the Council of Europe, but that’s not much of a threat to a country currently trying to leave. -
RamSteelwood wrote:May is going to make a Brexit Statement at 3:30pm apparently
I’m sure it will be insightful and illuminating. -
I’ve had it on for thirty seconds, and she’s already twisting reality and being deliberately obtuse. She’s a dangerous fucking cunt.
-
Andy wrote:I’ve been reading that the problem is that ECHR isn’t robust enough; apparently, it makes no provision for forcing countries to abide by its decisions (see its inability to force the UK to allow prisoners to vote when that was deemed non-compliant) other than to kick them out of the Council of Europe.
I think we’re roughly on the same page. The ECHR has no teeth. Our Parliament do not have to abide by its guidelines when setting UK laws. They’re just guidelines.
Whereas the EU charter of fundamental rights literally overrides UK law. While we’re in the EU, our Parliament could pass shitty laws, but then the EU fundamental rights would overrule them in any court decisions. -
The Irish question is actually The British Question and always has been.
That Portuguese ex minister is making the Brexiter mistake of separating Ireland and the EU as if we are wholly separate entities. Ireland is the EU.
This same technique is how the papers made the UK population hate something it helped create, as if it was a foreign entity.
Brexit is an auto-immune disease.
Also Norway cannot strike trade deals alone they must consult efta. (Iceland, Lichtenstein, Switzerland)
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1071078003780870146?s=09Wind Waker is a bad game -
kneecap wrote:The Irish question is actually The British Question and always has been.
Andrew Maxwell nailed this.
https://twitter.com/irishunity/status/1055045122025504768?s=21 -
Give this a listen
https://www.reddit.com/r/ireland/comments/agp2wt/and_you_though_that_the_people_in_the_republic/Wind Waker is a bad game -
Brexit is an auto-immune disease.
I'm nicking that. -
Article in the guardian covering customs union vs other options etc. I quite like the guys football analogy.
1st division - eu single market
2nd division - customs union
3rd division - bilateral trade deal
4th division - WTO
5th division - north Korea, playing on their own
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/21/no-say-on-trade-deals-for-uk-in-eu-customs-union-says-ex-wto-chief
SFV - reddave360 -
The image of a sad Kim jong playing ball on his own in a small yard, ever now and then looking over at the other boys on the pitches with their colourful kits tickles me.SFV - reddave360
-
As May clumisly dribbles a ball onto the pitch tripping over her kitten heels.
"Game on, I think Kim"
A tear runs down the dictator's chubby cheek. -
Labour have tabled an amendment:
https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-tables-amendment-break-brexit-deadlock/
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,715
- Games1,879
- Off topic836