[Politics] Brexit

[Diego Napier]

Yes , and Mexicans , what's unbelievable is your refusal to see the comparison.

Because the value of my opinion as an individual on the US (or yours come to that) is not validated or constrained by the party that happens to hold power in Britain or by Britain's current relationship with the EU. Similarly, it is illogical to suggest his opinion as an individual about the EU must be viewed in the light of America's relationships with it's NAFTA trade partners.

 

[jon12345]

My boy has just pointed out an X Factor contestant. A girl called Saara Alto. Unbelievably she is finnish in this british competition. just wait until May finds out

That reminded me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J62gcFkBHMQ

 

[Lincoln Imp]

off the cuff? you've been living in a box for over a decade, EU membership has been an issue ever since Maastricht, and really became a problem after Lisbon. it wasnt just some impromptu decision, but the result of a festering problem in the heart of our politics: who governs us, Westminister or Brussels? its really insulting to casually dismiss 12% of voters, it does represent a substantial pressure to address the issue. the fact about 3m more people turned out to vote either way also shows its a important issue.

I know that the Eurosceptic issue has been 'festering' (your word) in the Tory Party for two decades or more but the fact is that the decision to hold a referendum was an off the cuff one taken by David Cameron with minimal consultation.

I am at a loss why you claim I am 'casually dismissing' 12.5% of voters who voted for UKIP. I am not. I simply said that I didn't think they represented 'huge pressure' in favour of leaving the EU any more than the 23% who voted LibDem represented huge pressure not to leave. If you are as upset about the 12.5% why aren't you twice as upset about the 23%?

Finally, if you really do believe that you can equate the way Brussels is 'governing us' with the reach of our national government in Westminster then I completely understand why you voted Out.

 

[The Rivet]

You seem to be (probably deliberately) missing my point, which is that there is a huge minority (almost half the people who voted) who didn't want to leave at all, and here we are hurtling into a suicidal 'hard' Brexit with no concessions to those who wanted us to stay in the EU.

That 37% of eligible voters are able to determine the future for everyone else is ludicrous, not least because a lot of those who voted to leave did so on the basis of a massive, stinking, fat LIE

View attachment 78508

There was a winning position and a losing position. Remain Lost. I do understand your desperation and very plaintiff cry for dialogue but that is all it will ever be. To be sure free movement of travel HAS to be history. If that leads to a hard brexit so be it!

 

[beorhthelm]

I know that the Eurosceptic issue has been 'festering' (your word) in the Tory Party for two decades or more but the fact is that the decision to hold a referendum was an off the cuff one taken by David Cameron with minimal consultation.

I am at a loss why you claim I am 'casually dismissing' 12.5% of voters who voted for UKIP. I am not. I simply said that I didn't think they represented 'huge pressure' in favour of leaving the EU any more than the 23% who voted LibDem represented huge pressure not to leave. If you are as upset about the 12.5% why aren't you twice as upset about the 23%?

firstly, it was in the 2015 conservative manifesto to hold a EU referedum by 2017 and the public voted on that manifesto. secondly, i dont why you refer to the LibDem vote in 2010, they got 7.9% and were forth behind UKIP in the 2015 election.

 

[alfredmizen]

Because the value of my opinion as an individual on the US (or yours come to that) is not validated or constrained by the party that happens to hold power in Britain or by Britain's current relationship with the EU. Similarly, it is illogical to suggest his opinion as an individual about the EU must be viewed in the light of America's relationships with it's NAFTA trade partners.

Don't agree in any way, shape or form , he has dual nationality ,and the nation where he chooses to reside would not accept the situation that he is advocating we do in a million years , he's a hypocrite, totally and utterly.

 

[crookie]

I know that the Eurosceptic issue has been 'festering' (your word) in the Tory Party for two decades or more but the fact is that the decision to hold a referendum was an off the cuff one taken by David Cameron with minimal consultation.

I am at a loss why you claim I am 'casually dismissing' 12.5% of voters who voted for UKIP. I am not. I simply said that I didn't think they represented 'huge pressure' in favour of leaving the EU any more than the 23% who voted LibDem represented huge pressure not to leave. If you are as upset about the 12.5% why aren't you twice as upset about the 23%?

Finally, if you really do believe that you can equate the way Brussels is 'governing us' with the reach of our national government in Westminster then I completely understand why you voted Out.

I agree, and I voted leave. There was a commitment to a referendum in the Tory manifesto, to lance the boil, but as i have said previously, Cameron had no belief that he would win an outright majority, and this would have been the first commitment to be jettisoned in coalition talks with the LibDems. He was as gobsmacked as anyone to have a majority. That said, he had no need to call it so quickly, and before he had made any kind of preliminary, behind the scenes discussions with his EU counterparts about what kind of reforms he was looking for, and they would be willing to grant. His tour around the capitals, and then the grand meeting when he made that triumphalist press conference declaring he had obtained pretty much sod all was embarrassing in the extreme. Massive regrets all round from both parties I imagine.

 

[Gwylan]

firstly, it was in the 2015 conservative manifesto to hold a EU referedum by 2017 and the public voted on that manifesto. secondly,

Here's what the manifesto says "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade"

I don't see how voting on a pledge to stay in the single market can possibly be reinterpreted as a pledge to come out of the manifesto. If you're saying that what's in the manifesto is irrelevant, why bring it up?

 

[Diego Napier]

Don't agree in any way, shape or form , he has dual nationality ,and the nation where he chooses to reside would not accept the situation that he is advocating we do in a million years , he's a hypocrite, totally and utterly.

Nonsense, there are myriad factors determining where a person decides to live. You haven't the slightest inkling of his personal circumstances and motivations but irrespective of this you blindly assume that he's a hypocrite and therefore make the startling leap that his opinion is invalid. Wow! Is that really what you think? Are all socialists hypocrites and their opinions invalid because they chose to remain in Britain under a tory administration? Are all supporter of CND hypocrites and their opinions invalid because they chose to remain in Britain when the government has committed to spend over £40 billion renewing trident? What a simple world you live in.

How about this one; are all racist xenophobes hypocrites and their opinions invalid unless they move away from countries that accept immigrants to ones that don't?

 

[beorhthelm]

Here's what the manifesto says "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade"

I don't see how voting on a pledge to stay in the single market can possibly be reinterpreted as a pledge to come out of the manifesto. If you're saying that what's in the manifesto is irrelevant, why bring it up?

that may be the verbose detail, the head line pledge was for an in/out referendum, and the point it this wasnt a spontaneous off the cuff announcment but a key part of the election campaign. claiming its was off the cuff is delusional and in denial how we arrived at having a referendum.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Here's what the manifesto says "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade"

I don't see how voting on a pledge to stay in the single market can possibly be reinterpreted as a pledge to come out of the manifesto. If you're saying that what's in the manifesto is irrelevant, why bring it up?

Great post. Makes the hard brexit, xenophobic stance of recent days completely unacceptable. There will be elecorial payback to the tories, though given the shambles of the labour party it may take some time

 

[Seagull27]

the fact he is a Nobel laurete in Physics doesnt have much bearing on his objectivity on the political subject of Brexit, especially considering the langauge: "...i feel very strongly about Brexit and do not wish to be associated...". not very objective.

In fairness, the wider context of his comments was in how brexit affects science and research in the UK, which I imagine he is pretty well qualified to comment upon.

It's extremely frustrating how much science has been under the radar in this whole brexit argument, when it stands to be one of the industries that will lose (and has already started to lose) the most.

Sent from my SM-A500FU using Tapatalk

 

[pastafarian]

Great post. Makes the hard brexit, xenophobic stance of recent days completely unacceptable.

Hard Brexit? Soft Brexit? These are undefinable terms and are entirely subjective.
Why not have a Very Hard Brexit or a Very Soft Brexit or even a Middle of the road Brexit?

Well done for showing your hand though,It is not xenophobic to want to leave The EU institution.
Sounds like the language of desperation.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

that may be the verbose detail, the head line pledge was for an in/out referendum, and the point it this wasnt a spontaneous off the cuff announcment but a key part of the election campaign. claiming its was off the cuff is delusional and in denial how we arrived at having a referendum.

Ah, 'delusional'. You're missing the point. The referendum did indeed become an integral part of the Tories' election pitch, but its inclusion in the manifesto was the result of a snap commitment made by Cameron with minimal consultation. That was the off-the-cuffery I was talking about. It was a classic piece of derring-do by Dave but, as a poster has just suggested, a commitment he didn't expect to have to keep.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Hard Brexit? Soft Brexit? These are undefinable terms and are entirely subjective.
Why not have a Very Hard Brexit or a Very Soft Brexit or even a Middle of the road Brexit?

Well done for showing your hand though,It is not xenophobic to want to leave The EU institution.
Sounds like the language of desperation.

Wake up at the back. Fairly common terms being used, do a bit of reading. And what are you on about, i didnt link xenophobia and leaving the eu, as much as you might wish. Read up on Rudd and her desire to list foreigners in business eg.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Hard Brexit? Soft Brexit? These are undefinable terms and are entirely subjective.
Why not have a Very Hard Brexit or a Very Soft Brexit or even a Middle of the road Brexit?

Well done for showing your hand though,It is not xenophobic to want to leave The EU institution.
Sounds like the language of desperation.

I'm sure you know exactly what Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit mean.

As I see it, Hard Brexit is the option favoured by a minority of Conservative national politicians, a majority of UKIP members, an indeterminate proportion of the general public and a minority of NSC posters including Pretty Pink Fairy and perhaps you. Soft Brexit is the one that would be favoured by those who voted Remain and a proportion* of those who voted Leave.

*We do not know the proportion but if it's more than about 5% that would mean that most voters would prefer the Soft Brexit solution of staying in the single market. (We could always ask to confirm that although in the parallel universe of Hard Brexiteers that is apparently undemocratic.)

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I'm sure you know exactly what Hard Brexit and Soft Brexit mean.

As I see it, Hard Brexit is the option favoured by a minority of Conservative national politicians, a majority of UKIP members, an indeterminate proportion of the general public and a minority of NSC posters including Pretty Pink Fairy and perhaps you. Soft Brexit is the one that would be favoured by those who voted Remain and a proportion* of those who voted Leave.

*We do not know the proportion but if it's more than about 5% that would mean that most voters would prefer the Soft Brexit solution of staying in the single market. (We could always ask to confirm that although in the parallel universe of Hard Brexiteers that is apparently undemocratic.)

As far as I can tell soft Brexit means trying to retain our current membership of/access to the single market, which almost certainly means free movement continuing and having to abide by ECJ law (only half/ not really leaving?). Whereas Hard or real Brexit means negotiating for a maximum amount of tariff free access to the single market possible while ending free movement and primacy of EU law amongst other issues, broadly defined as 'taking back control'.

Others will probably define it differently which supports pastafarian's point .. all rather subjective.

 

[Hastings gull]

Wake up at the back. Fairly common terms being used, do a bit of reading. And what are you on about, i didnt link xenophobia and leaving the eu, as much as you might wish. Read up on Rudd and her desire to list foreigners in business eg.

Of course they are common terms -every one knows that - but pastafarian is quite right in that they will mean different things to different people, hence his assertion that these descriptions are subjective. You have misunderstood his post.

 

[Triggaaar]

Others will probably define it differently which supports pastafarian's point .. all rather subjective.

Well yes you could write up several possible scenarios about what will transpire, and they could then be defined more accurately than as simply hard or soft, but the two simple categories do give a broad idea of our main options.

I'm in favour of soft brexit, I'm sure that the vast majority of voters are. Just about all remainers, and a lot more leavers than one might think. But the negotiations will (quite rightly) be behind closed doors, so we might not get much sense of the result until it's done.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Well yes you could write up several possible scenarios about what will transpire, and they could then be defined more accurately than as simply hard or soft, but the two simple categories do give a broad idea of our main options.

I'm in favour of soft brexit, I'm sure that the vast majority of voters are. Just about all remainers, and a lot more leavers than one might think. But the negotiations will (quite rightly) be behind closed doors, so we might not get much sense of the result until it's done.

Is it possible to determine what the vast majority of voters are in favour of without having clearer definitions of what soft/hard Brexit actually mean?

Can you please define what you mean by a soft Brexit?