Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Fuzzar

OT - EU straw poll...

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, paul moy said:

... and needless to say only the Express is currently reporting the Brexiteer yellow vest protests in London.

The really funny thing Paul is that you say this without a trace of irony............................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jools said:

If you're seriously interested in Brexit and have been paying attention at how events have unfolded over the last couple and a half years since the referendum, you will know that Brexiteers have never been in charge of Brexit.

The fact that Davis, Boris & Raab all resigned might lend something of a clue 🤪

Not a clue at all as they didn't resign because they weren't in charge, they resigned because each had a period (a very lengthy one in the case of Davis) in which they were responsible for leading the negotiations and both totally failed to deliver on any of their promises.

I think its you that's not been paying attention, but of course we're now well into the stage of trying to shift the blame for the failure of Brexit away from the lying g*ts who promised the impossible and onto those who always knew that these guys were snake oil salesmen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Telegraph didn't intpret anything. They directly quoted the police and GLA official report. How would that be bias?

 

Because it's the Telegraph. Earlier you stated that these were numbers produced by the Police but the full quote from them says that they are not thier numbers just the GLA's estimate.

"But following a request under the Freedom of Information Act, Scotland Yard has now told The Sunday Telegraph: "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document."

It added: "Please note this is not a Metropolitan Police Service estimate as we have not recorded an estimated attendance figure for the march."

 

As I said earlier it's not an exact science, just estimates.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Not a clue at all as they didn't resign because they weren't in charge, they resigned because each had a period (a very lengthy one in the case of Davis) in which they were responsible for leading the negotiations and both totally failed to deliver on any of their promises.

I think its you that's not been paying attention, but of course we're now well into the stage of trying to shift the blame for the failure of Brexit away from the lying g*ts who promised the impossible and onto those who always knew that these guys were snake oil salesmen.

You're wrong and history will prove you so. I cannot believe anyone could be so stupid as not to know that Brexiteers have never been in charge of Brexit, let alone implement it; how could they when the majority of parliament are Remaniacs, including those at the helm?

Go and read Johnson's and Davis's resignation letters, ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Herman said:

If they had any dignity left they would have shown their displeasure at Chequers and resigned there and then and walked home, Instead they left it and resigned later. Boris only resigning because Davis beat him too it I seem to recall. The best phrase I have heard about this is "that as soon as anything was written down, that was when brexit crashed". Why do you think it took them two years to come up with anything concrete? Is it because they knew, after sitting in many meetings and negotiations, that what they promised you was unachiveable but they were still too gutless to tell the Britsh public what they knew.

 

Dear Prime Minister

As you know there have been a significant number of occasions in the last year or so on which I have disagreed with the Number 10 policy line, ranging from accepting the Commission's sequencing of negotiations through to the language on Northern Ireland in the December Joint Report. At each stage I have accepted collective responsibility because it is part of my task to find workable compromises, and because I considered it was still possible to deliver on the mandate of the referendum, and on our manifesto commitment to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market.

 

I am afraid that I think the current trend of policy and tactics is making that look less and less likely. Whether it is the progressive dilution of what I thought was a firm Chequers agreement in February on right to diverge, or the unnecessary delays of the start of the White Paper, or the presentation of a backstop proposal that omitted the strict conditions that I requested and believed that we had agreed, the general direction of policy will leave us in at best a weak negotiating position, and possibly an inescapable one.

The Cabinet decision on Friday crystallised this problem. In my view the inevitable consequence of the proposed policies will be to make the supposed control by Parliament illusory rather than real. As I said at Cabinet, the "common rule book" policy hands control of large swathes of our economy to the EU and is certainly not returning control of our laws in any real sense.

I am also unpersuaded that our negotiating approach will not just lead to further demands for concessions.

Of course this is a complex area of judgement and it is possible that you are right and I am wrong. However, even in that event it seems to me that the national interest requires a Secretary of State in my Department that is an enthusiastic believer in your approach, and not merely a reluctant conscript. While I have been grateful to you for the opportunity to serve, it is with great regret that I tender my resignation from the Cabinet with immediate effect.

Yours ever

David Davis

 

 

Dear Theresa

It is more than two years since the British people voted to leave the European Union on an unambiguous and categorical promise that if they did so they would be taking back control of their democracy.

They were told that they would be able to manage their own immigration policy, repatriate the sums of UK cash currently spent by the EU, and, above all, that they would be able to pass laws independently and in the interests of the people of this country.

Brexit should be about opportunity and hope. It should be a chance to do things differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy.

That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.

We have postponed crucial decisions - including the preparations for no deal, as I argued in my letter to you of last November - with the result that we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK control over that system.

It now seems that the opening bid of our negotiations involves accepting that we are not actually going to be able to make our own laws. Indeed we seem to have gone backwards since the last Chequers meeting in February, when I described my frustrations, as Mayor of London, in trying to protect cyclists from juggernauts. We had wanted to lower the cabin windows to improve visibility; and even though such designs were already on the market, and even though there had been a horrific spate of deaths, mainly of female cyclists, we were told that we had to wait for the EU to legislate on the matter.

So at the previous Chequers session we thrashed out an elaborate procedure for divergence from EU rules. But even that now seems to have been taken off the table, and there is in fact no easy UK right of initiative. Yet if Brexit is to mean anything, it must surely give ministers and Parliament the chance to do things differently to protect the public. If a country cannot pass a law to save the lives of female cyclists - when that proposal is supported at every level of UK government - then I don't see how that country can truly be called independent.

Conversely, the British government has spent decades arguing against this or that EU directive, on the grounds that it was too burdensome or ill-thought out. We are now in the ludicrous position of asserting that we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law, without changing an iota, because it is essential for our economic health - and when we no longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made.

In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony - and many will struggle to see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement.

It is also clear that by surrendering control over our rulebook for goods and agrifoods (and much else besides) we will make it much more difficult to do free trade deals. And then there is the further impediment of having to argue for an impractical and undeliverable customs arrangement unlike any other in existence.

What is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how we see the end state for the UK - before the other side has made its counter-offer. It is as though we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them. Indeed, I was concerned, looking at Friday's document, that there might be further concessions on immigration, or that we might end up effectively paying for access to the single market.

On Friday I acknowledged that my side of the argument were too few to prevail, and congratulated you on at least reaching a cabinet decision on the way forward. As I said then, the government now has a song to sing. The trouble is that I have practised the words over the weekend and find that they stick in the throat. We must have collective responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these proposals, I have sadly concluded that I must go.

I am proud to have served as Foreign Secretary in your government. As I step down, I would like first to thank the patient officers of the Metropolitan Police who have looked after me and my family, at times in demanding circumstances. I am proud too of the extraordinary men and women of our diplomatic service. Over the last few months they have shown how many friends this country has around the world, as 28 governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination of the Skripals. They have organised a highly successful Commonwealth summit and secured record international support for this government's campaign for 12 years of quality education for every girl, and much more besides. As I leave office, the FCO now has the largest and by far the most effective diplomatic network of any country in Europe — a continent which we will never leave.

The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP

 

 

Dear Prime Minister,

It has been an honour to serve in your government as Justice Minister, Housing Minister and Brexit Secretary.

I regret to say that, following the Cabinet meeting yesterday on the Brexit deal. I must resign. I understand why you have chosen to pursue the deal with the EU on the terms proposed, and I respect the different views held in good faith by all of our colleagues.

For my part, I cannot support the proposed deal for two reasons. First I believe that the regulatory regime proposed for Northern Ireland presents a very real threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom.

Second, I cannot support an indefinite backstop arrangement, where the EU holds a veto over our ability to exit. The terms of the backstop amount to a hybrid of the EU Customs Union and Single Market obligations. No democratic nation has ever signed up to be bound by such an extensive regime, imposed externally without any democratic control over the laws to be applied, nor the ability to decide to exit the arrangement. That arrangement is now also taken as the starting point for negotiating the Future Economic Partnership. If we accept that, it will severely prejudice the second phase of negotiations against the UK.

Above all, I cannot reconcile the terms of the proposed deal with the promises we made to the country in our manifesto at the last election. This is, at its heart, a matter of public trust.

I appreciate that you disagree with my judgment on these issues. I have weighed very carefully the alternative courses of action which the government could take, on which I have previously advised. Ultimately, you deserve a Brexit Secretary who can make the case for the deal you are pursuing with conviction. I am only sorry, in good conscience, that I cannot.

My respect for you and the fortitude you have shown in difficult times, remains undimmed.

Yours sincerely

Dominic Raab

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Herman said:

They will never, ever take responsibilty.

Correct, they will never have to accept responsibility for trying to thwart democracy 👍

Unlike your Remaniac chums who're at it again:

Delingpole: Another Kamikaze Plot by MPs to Destroy Brexit with ‘Trump-Style’ Shutdown

 

‘An all-party group of senior MPs’ are plotting to sabotage Brexit by ‘starving the [British] government of cash and creating a Donald Trump-style shutdown’.

Do any of these gimps appreciate what a terrible look this is for representative democracy?

According to the Sunday Times, this group includes “former Labour cabinet minister Yvette Cooper”, along with former Tory ministers Nicky Morgan, Oliver Wetwin and Nick Boles. The idea is to vote on “two amendments to the Finance Bill that would lead to a gridlock in Whitehall unless Theresa May wins approval from parliament for a deal with Brussels.”

No, I have no idea either whether this plan is likely to succeed. It could be just another of those “sounds big, means zilch” scoops that political editors come up with on a Sunday when there’s not much real news out there. Or, for all I know, it could be the beginning of end of Brexit.

But either way, the standout point remains: parliament – the body of MPs whose ostensible purpose is to represent the interests of the British people – has gone AWOL. Not just AWOL, actually, but completely barmy.

In order to advance its narrow, short-term aim of keeping Britain more or less within the European Union, parliament has decided to sever once and for all its relationship of trust with the electorate. If these loser MPs weren’t so blinkered by their Remainer obsessions, they’d realise that the consequences for this will be far more serious and damaging than anything that might by caused by a “No Deal” – aka ‘hard’, aka ‘real’, aka ‘full English’ – Brexit.

Has there ever been a time in British history when parliament was so out of tune with the will of the people? Has there ever been a greater democratic deficit than when 17.4 million people voted for Brexit only to watch their parliamentary representatives so flagrantly, unapologetically and contemptuously seek to overrule them?

This isn’t just poor judgement. It’s insanity.

Allister Heath made the case well before Christmas in a piece for the Telegraph titled ‘Hardline Remainers are becoming ever more extreme as time is running out.’

He likened the frantic desperation of Remainers to that of kamikaze pilots:

The intensity of their attacks is well beyond anything the Brexiteers can muster, which is why it feels like the pro-Remain counter-revolutionaries are winning.

To such true believers, nothing is taboo anymore, almost everything – careers, power, the Tory government, the capitalist order, even – is worth giving up to stop us from leaving the EU, especially without a formal deal. They have worked themselves up into such a frenzy that, shamefully, some would now prefer a neo-communist government to any meaningful Brexit.

There is a name for such preposterous loss of proportionality: it’s called Brexit Derangement Syndrome…

One of the many reasons the Remainers lost the Referendum was that they were quite unable to make a positive case for Britain remaining shackled to the crumbling, anti-democratic, arrogant, elitist, corrupt, sclerotic, mendacious, socialistic EU empire.

That’s what Projects Fear 1.0 and 2.0 were about: “Never mind the facts – here is some scary stuff we just made up to frighten you.”

Our only hope, I think, is to hold our nerve and never forget that whatever gibberish comes out of the mouths of our MPs – even ones we once thought we could rely on, like Brexiteer-turned-Mayite-sell-out Michael Gove – is just the delusional ramblings of a cowardly, self-serving, career-safe, unprincipled, spineless governing elite long, long past its sell-by date.

A poll last week by YouGov found that 57 per cent of Conservative Party members would prefer a no deal Brexit, whereas just 23 per cent would opt for Theresa May’s Brexit in name only “deal”.

Across Britain, outside the Remainer metropolitan strongholds, the people are still resolutely pro-Brexit.

You’d scarcely guess this from the mainstream media, even from those publications which originally came out for Brexit but which now are either rejecting it – eg the Daily Mail – or supporting it in name only – eg the Sunday Times.

We need to differentiate the signal from the noise.

The noise is all remain.

The signal is that Brexit – full, unapologetic Brexit – is still what most of us want.

Whether we’re going to get it, no one can predict. But let’s not take at face value anything the pro-Remain Establishment – both MPs and media – tells us in the guise of dispassionate expertise. They’re a bunch of shifty, cheating liars who are trying to sell their country down the river. And one day, I hope, they will be made to pay for their treachery.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Was Delingpole always a whiny little ****, or just since he took the editorship of breitbart?

 

image.png.1f388d9280334c5db0dfc7c5298a8553.png

Delingpole setting up for his next lecture.

Edited by Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Herman said:

Was Delingpole always a whiny little ****, or just since he took the editorship of breitbart?

 

image.png.1f388d9280334c5db0dfc7c5298a8553.png

Delingpole setting up for his next lecture.

 ....... said the cheese eating surrender monkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Herman said:

Was Delingpole always a whiny little ****, or just since he took the editorship of breitbart?

 

image.png.1f388d9280334c5db0dfc7c5298a8553.png

Delingpole setting up for his next lecture.

Apparently has Lyme Disease , which can cause mental disturbance and confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, MooreMarriot said:

Apparently has Lyme Disease , which can cause mental disturbance and confusion.

Quite a common disease I presume? It would explain a lot on this thread if so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jools said:

You're wrong and history will prove you so. I cannot believe anyone could be so stupid as not to know that Brexiteers have never been in charge of Brexit, let alone implement it; how could they when the majority of parliament are Remaniacs, including those at the helm?

Go and read Johnson's and Davis's resignation letters, ffs.

Look at the dates on their letters FFS - you numpty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Indy

"A majority of voters believe the final say on Britain’s impending exit from the EU should be determined by the public, according to the biggest Brexit poll held since the 2016 referendum.

The YouGov survey of 25,000 citizens showed 53 per cent favour a second referendum while 47 per cent do not, once those answering “don’t know” have been discounted.'

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement for another referendum is it. There would need to be a huge shift in public opinion to make it a realistic possibility. With opinion so narrowly split on the issue it would be a huge mistake to repeat the exercise.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Because it's the Telegraph. Earlier you stated that these were numbers produced by the Police but the full quote from them says that they are not thier numbers just the GLA's estimate.

"But following a request under the Freedom of Information Act, Scotland Yard has now told The Sunday Telegraph: "The Greater London Authority (GLA) has included an estimated attendance figure of 250,000 in a debrief document."

It added: "Please note this is not a Metropolitan Police Service estimate as we have not recorded an estimated attendance figure for the march."

 

As I said earlier it's not an exact science, just estimates.

 

Read my original quote again which was taken verbatim from the Telegraph. I did not say they were police figures and neither did the Telegraph. They were GLA estimates given to the police in a debriefing document. Are you saying the GLA, Sadiq Khan's GLA, has misrepresented the estimates in their debriefing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Van wink said:

 

Indy

"A majority of voters believe the final say on Britain’s impending exit from the EU should be determined by the public, according to the biggest Brexit poll held since the 2016 referendum.

The YouGov survey of 25,000 citizens showed 53 per cent favour a second referendum while 47 per cent do not, once those answering “don’t know” have been discounted.'

 

Hardly a ringing endorsement for another referendum is it. There would need to be a huge shift in public opinion to make it a realistic possibility. With opinion so narrowly split on the issue it would be a huge mistake to repeat the exercise.

Fine. I have never argued for a second referendum. But I am unclear as to why you would be content. You are on frequent record as wanting a Soft Brexit. Without another referendum the only options are an opposite - May's Hard Brexit or the nutcases' Ultra-Hard Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Fine. I have never argued for a second referendum. But I am unclear as to why you would be content. You are on frequent record as wanting a Soft Brexit. Without another referendum the only options are an opposite - May's Hard Brexit or the nutcases' Ultra-Hard Brexit.

LOL.... May's Hard Brexit is Brexit in name only and totally 'soft', and thus not leaving.   17.4 million voted for your 'nutcases' Brexit  to WTO followed by a potential FTA with the EU which means that we actually leave the EU, its customs union and single market etc, as espoused in Cameron's 9 million pound  letter to the whole of the UK.  You really are a twerp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Fine. I have never argued for a second referendum. But I am unclear as to why you would be content. You are on frequent record as wanting a Soft Brexit. Without another referendum the only options are an opposite - May's Hard Brexit or the nutcases' Ultra-Hard Brexit.

Not many would call it hard. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herman said:

52/48 = Ringing endorsement.

53/47 = Not a ringing endorsement. 

😲

 

I suspect you were a bit surprised by the result of the poll Hermy.

(almost as surprised as you were by the result of the referendum) 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not at all surprised by either. 

Edited by Herman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Herman said:

Not at all surprised by either. 

Im surprised that you're not surprised, particularly in relation to the poll in the Indy. You and others have made much of the turnout for the "peoples vote" yet you seem resigned to the fact there is not a groundswell of support for it in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An eye-opener !!!   We are signed up to the Common Trade Convention which allows frictionless trade in the event of deal OR No Deal.

So the Irish Border is a non-issue.  Quelle surprise !!!!!!  :

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-remain-in-common-transit-convention-after-brexit

 

UK to remain in Common Transit Convention after Brexit

Continued membership of the convention will ensure simplified cross-border trade for UK businesses exporting their goods.

Published 17 December 2018
From:
HM Treasury and The Rt Hon Mel Stride MP
 

The UK is set to remain in the Common Transit Convention (CTC) after Brexit, ensuring simplified cross-border trade for UK businesses exporting their goods.

The CTC is used for moving goods between the EU member states, the EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland) as well as Turkey, Macedonia and Serbia.

The UK is currently a member of the CTC while it is in the EU, and has successfully negotiated membership in its own right after Brexit. This would apply to any new trading relationship with the EU or in the unlikely event of a no deal.

Membership of the CTC will help ensure that trade moves freely between the UK and CTC members after the UK leaves the EU. It will provide cashflow benefits to traders and aid trade flow at key points of entry into the UK, as traders will only have to make customs declarations and pay import duties when they arrive at their final destination.

Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mel Stride said:

We are a great trading nation and our goods are in demand all over the world.

That’s why we are committed to ensuring that trade can continue to flow with as little friction as possible when we leave the EU.

Membership of the convention will support traders both under a new trade agreement with the EU, or in the unlikely event of no deal.

This gives businesses the continuity and certainty they need to plan for the future.

Membership of the CTC, and its supplementary convention the Convention on the Simplification of Formalities in the Trade of Goods, reduces administrative burdens on traders by removing the need for additional import/export declarations when transiting across multiple customs territories. It also provides cashflow benefits by allowing the movement of goods across a customs territory without the payment of duties until the final destination – countries who are not in the Convention would have to pay each time their goods crossed a border.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Van wink said:

Not many would call it hard. 

Possibly, but those who know what they're talking about would, and do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Possibly, but those who know what they're talking about would, and do.

Who's that, then? Any links?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Possibly, but those who know what they're talking about would, and do.

The same people said the same thing about joining the Euro.

And we're totally wrong.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Herman said:

It's quite obviously a hard Brexit. 

Your problem Herman is that you just don't believe enough, anything is possible so there is no need for a plan😉😉

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Possibly, but those who know what they're talking about would, and do.

Find me links to serious main stream political commentators who have referred to the May deal as a Hard Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herman said:

It's quite obviously a hard Brexit. 

There's no such thing as a 'hard' Brexit --- It's Brexit or Remain, that's what people voted for - Nobody voted for a deal.

Anyway - when the WA is voted down, It's more likely that Article 50 will be extended than Brexit.

The useless b@stards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Jools said:

There's no such thing as a 'hard' Brexit --- It's Brexit or Remain, that's what people voted for - Nobody voted for a deal.

Anyway - when the WA is voted down, It's more likely that Article 50 will be extended than Brexit.The useless b@stards.
 


 

 

I don't think article 50 will be extended if the deal isn't ratified by parliament. Theresa May would have to request it and all 27 other member states would have to agree. 

The vote happens next week, so if it's rejected then it's a question of whether the EU sticks to its guns over the Ireland backstop as the fact that they've so far refused to offer any substantial change to the formal agreement, merely a few platitudes in the political declaration, is the big sticking point. If they don't budge on that score then how it proceeds is entirely in Theresa Mays hands. 

The three possibilities that I see are:

  • The clock is wound down to March 29 without anything more happening, switching to WTO terms and folks like me over on the continent bricking it somewhat. 
  • A referendum happens on whether to go ahead on WTO terms or revoke article 50 (very tight schedule to get this done before March 29th, but just barely possible. The last GE took about 2 months to happen from first announcement.)
  • TM unilaterally withdraws article 50. Technically she's entitled to, although I suspect the fallout would be pretty dramatic. 

All of this assumes the EU doesn't budge, which I think is a pretty safe assumption.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×