The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...9 10 11 12 13 ...73 74 75 · >>
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#151New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 09:30:05
@nooneinparticular Said

Now you've confused me. Are we talking about May's Deal or Boris's? Because I was talking about May's in that part, and NI most definitely did not get a say in that one.

Fair enough, I thought you were referring to BJ's proposal.

@nooneinparticular Said

Except that regulatory alignment isn't just about production. It's also about imports, and if NI is forced to align itself with the EU, then they cannot take advantage of either production or imports changes in the rest of the UK for an indeterminate amount of time.

No. NI would be free to export to other parts of the world (excluding the EU) under either WTO terms or any trade agreements struck by the UK. They would also be able to import goods from other parts of the world (excluding the EU) under the same conditions as the rest of the UK as NI would NOT be in the customs union. The only restrictions to trade would be across the border with Éire. As for the indeterminate part, well the period is a minimum of four years. Anything longer than that would be with the approval of the Parliament of NI.

@nooneinparticular Said

What do you mean they're already there?

As in the border is already there. Has been since partition. No-one is creating a border. It already exists.


@nooneinparticular Said

The entire framework of the single market facilitates as little border infrastructure as feasibly possible. To leave it, naturally, means to diverge from that in a way that puts infrastructure there.

The government say they are committed to having as little infrastructure at the border as is possible. No return to the infrastructure of days gone by. The plans they have presented would mean that ordinary people could still cross the border in much the same way as they do at present. As for customs checks, only around 5-6% of vehicles would be subject to physical checks and these would be done well away from the border itself.

@nooneinparticular Said

The default position that is decided solely by NI erects a hard border. I don't understand how it can be claimed otherwise.

No one wants a return to a 'hard' border with check points etc etc etc so why would it happen? Maybe the EU would force Éire to implement a 'hard' border but there is no reason to believe that the UK will do so.

@nooneinparticular Said

Saying that it gives NI a say is nice and all, but by doing so it also cuts the voices of the UK and the EU out of the discussion. Neither of them get to decide the state of the border, only NI can.

Not true. The EU has a say right now. They can decide to accept the proposal or they can decide to reject it. That's their say and their say alone. The UK Parliament will also have a say in the event the EU ever agrees to the proposal. NI only gets a say if BOTH the EU and the UK first agree with the proposal.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#152New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 09:39:52
It's a shame Labour wouldn't agree to fresh elections a month or so ago. That would have given the people a clear choice btw voting for the Conservatives or Brexit Party who wanted to see the UK leave with or without a deal on the 31st. OR they could vote for Labour, the Lib Dems etc who had finally revealed their true intentions and opposition to leaving. But of course Labour refused three times to support an early election, and they have also refused to pass a motion of no confidence in the government who can no longer govern due to the actions of the rebel alliance.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#153New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 09:42:29
@shadowen Said

Actually no. It has just happened under BJ. Publicly the position of Labour and the Lib Dems has changed very significantly since BJ became PM.


Again, not true. Labour and the Lib Dems ARE a part of the MAJORITY coalition. They have more numbers sitting on their side of the House than do the government. They control Parliament. Something they never did under May. They are the reason why there is a 'zombie' Parliament at the moment. The reason why they didnt form a clear, majority coalition (with the aid of rebel Tories) earlier is because no one believed May would ever leave without a deal. They thought they could simply keep on rejecting leave proposals and forcing through extensions until they were in a position to revoke article 50 all together. But then BJ became PM and all of a sudden they were faced with a leader who appears fair dinkum in his determination to honour the people's vote, and to take the UK out of the EU without any further delays, and without a deal if necessary. This changed everything and forced remoaner MP's to publicly express (through word and action) their opposition to honouring the people's vote of 2016.

How can you say that Labour and the Lib Dems have no bearing on anything when they are the dominant parties in a majority coalition that has taken over parliament and stopped the Government from being able to govern? Surely you are familiar with the Benn Surrender Act. You think that has no bearing on anything?


Nope. The government have a very clear course of action, that being to deliver Brexit as per the wishes of over 17.4 million people. The rebel alliance also have a very clear aim, that being to defy the will of the people and stop Brexit. The parties in the rebel alliance do however advocate slightly different courses of action to achieve their aim. The simple reality is that what's causing 'gridlock' is the rebel alliance blocking every move the Government makes re their efforts to honour the people's vote of 2016.


I cannot for the life of me understand why you keep saying that the Conservative government are in control. Very clearly they do NOT "jointly control (Parliament) in a coalition" They are a significant minority in the House. ALL control rests with the rebel alliance. The Benn Surrender Act made that extremely clear. By the way, the Government are behind BJ and are clearly NOT hampering his efforts, nor are their 'partners' in the DUP. It's the rebel alliance that are blocking all of his Governments attempts to govern.


No. It's because the Conservative Party is unified in their determination to honour the result of the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history.


So let me get this straight. You're saying that the Conservative/DUP alliance which had a technical majority until last month, never actually had a majority and really the majority party for all this time has been Labours coalition?

And once again I reiterate that the Conservative/DUP lost that majority because THEY COULD NOT COME TOGETHER AND DECIDE ON A PLAN which caused 20 something of them to defect. So once again the fault lies with the dominant party not being able to hold onto it's members and splitting.

Quote:

How do you compromise when one side wants to honour the people's vote whilst the other side wants to defy it? The people voted to LEAVE the EU. The Government are trying to honour the will of the people. The rebel alliance on the other hand are committed to stopping this from happening. Not only is compromise impossible but it shouldn't be considered. The PEOPLE voted to LEAVE. In a democratic system Parliament should honour the expressed will of the people. The deadlock in Parliament is the result of a lack of losers consent. Simple as that.


How do you compromise when neither side is willing to re-examine their lines in the sand? The lines in the sand on both sides have not moved towards the middle since this started 3 years ago. Yes Labour bears some blame for this, but so to do the Conservatives. How is it a compromise when one side claims 'it's the will of the people so our hands are tied, accept what we offer or leave?' That is not a compromise position, it is an ultimatum. Just as the negotiation tactic of 'Accept what we want or we walk' is not a negotiating tactic, it's an ultimatum.

A compromise implies that a middle is reached. Any mention of 'losers consent' merely betrays that such a position was made irregardless of the other sides position. 'You lost so we get all say and suck it up'. That is not a compromise.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#154New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 10:22:05
@shadowen Said

Fair enough, I thought you were referring to BJ's proposal.


No. NI would be free to export to other parts of the world (excluding the EU) under either WTO terms or any trade agreements struck by the UK. They would also be able to import goods from other parts of the world (excluding the EU) under the same conditions as the rest of the UK as NI would NOT be in the customs union. The only restrictions to trade would be across the border with Éire. As for the indeterminate part, well the period is a minimum of four years. Anything longer than that would be with the approval of the Parliament of NI.


Wait what? What you're proposing makes no sense. How can NI import and export whatever it wants and still maintain regulatory alignment with the EU? One of the main concerns that is solved with regulatory alignment is that NI doesn't become a backdoor into the EU. It cannot do that if there are non-regulation goods floating around it's market with an open border with an EU member.

Quote:

The government say they are committed to having as little infrastructure at the border as is possible. No return to the infrastructure of days gone by. The plans they have presented would mean that ordinary people could still cross the border in much the same way as they do at present. As for customs checks, only around 5-6% of vehicles would be subject to physical checks and these would be done well away from the border itself.


No one wants a return to a 'hard' border with check points etc etc etc so why would it happen? Maybe the EU would force Éire to implement a 'hard' border but there is no reason to believe that the UK will do so.


The government can say whatever it likes, a lack of a hard border is an invitation for smuggling and illegal immigration. I've merely pointed out that maintaining the position of no hard border in NI is counter to the goal of wishing to control illegal immigration.

Hence why the EU wish for a solution just as much as the UK. Because that invitation runs in both directions. Hence why the idea of vague technology solutions is not enough to placate them, and trusting the UK to keep it's word with no recourse should they fail to would be called naive at best.

Quote:

Not true. The EU has a say right now. They can decide to accept the proposal or they can decide to reject it. That's their say and their say alone. The UK Parliament will also have a say in the event the EU ever agrees to the proposal. NI only gets a say if BOTH the EU and the UK first agree with the proposal.


Which is not at all what I'm saying. Yes the EU has a say right now in whether or not to accept the judgement of NI in regards to the border. But that's all it is. Accepting the judgement of NI. Choosing to abdicate your say later is not the same as deciding the state of your borders in perpetuity. The EU would clearly prefer the latter, as would the UK.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#155New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 11:14:11
@nooneinparticular Said

So let me get this straight. You're saying that the Conservative/DUP alliance which had a technical majority until last month, never actually had a majority and really the majority party for all this time has been Labours coalition?

I never said that. Never implied that. You however talk in the present tense when you claim the Conservative government (with support from the DUP) has a majority. You have said for example:

"under Johnson, the Labour and Lib Dem Parties ARE minority parties NOT part of the majority coalition"

"the Conservatives cannot pass anything in an HOC that THEY jointly control in a coalition"

"It IS (the Conservative Government), and ALWAYS has been the MAJORITY coalition"

So clearly you were saying that the Government (along with the DUP) ARE the majority. Not were, but are. The fact that the Government held the smallest of majorities over 4 weeks ago is neither here nor there as all of the major problems in the Commons have come about since the Rebel Alliance took over CONTROL of Parliament.

@nooneinparticular Said

And once again I reiterate that the Conservative/DUP lost that majority because THEY COULD NOT COME TOGETHER AND DECIDE ON A PLAN which caused 20 something of them to defect. So once again the fault lies with the dominant party not being able to hold onto it's members and splitting.

Again, not true. They infact lost their very slim majority once they had a very clear plan re Brexit. A plan that only found shape under BJ. Once it was clear to people like Hammond that BJ was absolutely determined to honour the people's vote and leave (with or without a deal) on October 31 they rebelled. They rebelled as they clearly dont want Brexit to happen at all and therefore wouldnt support the government's clear plan.

As for where the fault lies. Parliament passes a law to allow an in/out referendum and promise to respect the result (as other referendum results have been respected). They then overwhelmingly vote to allow the PM to trigger Article 50 and begin the process of leaving. Both major parties in 2017 then campaign on the promise to respect the result of the people's vote a year earlier. May couldn't/wouldn't deliver on the promises of her party and of Parliament. BJ becomes PM and states very clearly his determination to respect the people's vote and to take the UK out of the EU on the 31st...with or without a deal. Members of his party who were elected on the promise their party would honour the result of the people's vote cross the floor to prevent the PM from doing what they and Parliament promised they would do. And yet for you somehow the Government is at fault. Happy to say that poll after poll in the past month show most Britons hold a very different view as to where the blame lies.

@nooneinparticular Said

How do you compromise when neither side is willing to re-examine their lines in the sand? The lines in the sand on both sides have not moved towards the middle since this started 3 years ago.

I'm curious. You tell me what a compromise looks like.


@nooneinparticular Said
How is it a compromise when one side claims 'it's the will of the people so our hands are tied, accept what we offer or leave?' That is not a compromise position, it is an ultimatum.

It's respecting the democratic process. It's what MPs are supposed to do. It's what Governments are supposed to do. It's what parliaments are supposed to do.

@nooneinparticular Said

Just as the negotiation tactic of 'Accept what we want or we walk' is not a negotiating tactic, it's an ultimatum.

Ultimatum: a threat in which a person or group of people are warned that if they do not do a particular thing, something unpleasant will happen to them.

Personally I don't see either the EU's stance, nor that of the UK, as being ultimatums. I see them as being negotiation tactics. The EU were the first to use these tactics. They presented May with a leave agreement, and until just a few weeks ago their position was "this is it, take it or leave it". They said this even after the UK Parliament had rejected their withdrawal agreement 3 times. Even now Barnier still publicly holds the view that May's deal is all there is. Take it or leave it. Their approach, coupled with May's refusal to seriously consider leaving without a deal, meant that all of the power in negotiations lay with the EU.

BJ has rightly rejected a deal that has already been rejected by Parliament no fewer than three times. He has instead come up with a new proposal that makes very significant concessions to the EU but nonetheless rejects elements of May's deal that would see the UK trapped in the customs union, trapped in the single market, subject to rulings by the ECJ, subject to EU laws and regulations etc etc etc. What May was offered was not even remotely close to Brexit. BJ's new proposal, as stated, makes significant concessions whilst trying to deliver the core aspects of Brexit for which more than 17.4 million people voted. For him to say in effect "the concessions we have made are as far as we can go. To go further would take us back towards a May deal, would be inconsistent with what the people voted for, and that would have no chance of passing through Parliament. So this is what we are offering. If you don't accept it then we shall leave on WTO terms." Not an ultimatum but rather a negotiating position.

Think of buying a car. The 'seller' (presumably) wants to sell the car. The prospective buyer wants to purchase it. The seller initially states that they couldn't accept anything less than $20k for the vehicle. Take it or leave it. They make their offer knowing that the prospective buyer (representing a business) has stated that they will not leave without buying the car. The prospective buyer however needs to get permission from their business partners before the sale can go ahead. People in the business won't agree to the deal and end up appointing someone new to carry on negotiations. The new business representative goes back to the seller and states that $20k is simply too much. They will offer $15k but that's absolutely as high as they can go, and that if that price isnt acceptable then they will walk away. Have either the prospective seller or buyer issued ultimatums? I don't think so. They have each used similiar negotiating tactics...and in negotiations you need to be prepared to walk away, and the other party needs to know that you are prepared to walk away. If only one party is prepared to walk away then the other party is entirely reliant upon the good will of the former.

@nooneinparticular Said

A compromise implies that a middle is reached. Any mention of 'losers consent' merely betrays that such a position was made irregardless of the other sides position. 'You lost so we get all say and suck it up'. That is not a compromise.


No, losers consent underpins democracy. Without it democracy simply doesnt work. Neither the EU nor the UK are morally compelled to strike a deal. The UK is however morally compelled to accept the will of the people. If an agreement acceptable to all parties can be reached then great. That's clearly the preferred option for all involved. If no mutually acceptable agreement can be reached then so be it. What should be non-negotiable is that Parliament respects the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history. It is not for Parliament to decide which democratic outcomes it will or will not respect. That is not consistent with democracy.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#156New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 11:29:13
@nooneinparticular Said

The government can say whatever it likes, a lack of a hard border is an invitation for smuggling and illegal immigration. I've merely pointed out that maintaining the position of no hard border in NI is counter to the goal of wishing to control illegal immigration.

You presume that it is impossible to control smuggling and illegal immigration without a hard border. I, and many others, disagree. IF the situation ever comes about where NI is out of the customs union and doesnt have a hard border then we shall find out who is right. As it is though smuggling and illegal immigration IS a significant problem within the EU.

@nooneinparticular Said

Hence why the EU wish for a solution just as much as the UK. Because that invitation runs in both directions. Hence why the idea of vague technology solutions is not enough to placate them, and trusting the UK to keep it's word with no recourse should they fail to would be called naive at best.

I think you are particularly generous when ascribing motive to the EU's position under Barnier.

@nooneinparticular Said

Which is not at all what I'm saying. Yes the EU has a say right now in whether or not to accept the judgement of NI in regards to the border. But that's all it is. Accepting the judgement of NI. Choosing to abdicate your say later is not the same as deciding the state of your borders in perpetuity. The EU would clearly prefer the latter, as would the UK.

Why would the UK or NI want the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels to determine the state of their borders? I agree that many in the UK would not be happy with NI having the final say on the border question but no solution is going to please everyone, and the Government need the support of the DUP.
mrmhead On March 27, 2024




NE, Ohio
#157New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 11:51:18
@shadowen Said

Some people believe that a "hard border" could result in an increase in activity by extremists. The proposed agreement is committed to avoiding a "hard border".



Thanks - I couldn't remember if the term was "hard border / soft border" - or if I was mixing that up with "Hard Brexit / Soft Brexit"

It sounded like the "Customs" mention was heading back towards a Hard border - though, I haven't read any further details.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#158New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 12:53:59
@mrmhead Said

Thanks - I couldn't remember if the term was "hard border / soft border" - or if I was mixing that up with "Hard Brexit / Soft Brexit"

It sounded like the "Customs" mention was heading back towards a Hard border - though, I haven't read any further details.


People opposed to Brexit insist that leaving the customs union necessitates a hard border. It doesnt.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#159New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 16:46:32
I think that whether or not the EU decide to enter into serious negotiations with BJ will be dependent upon how likely they think it is that the UK will be able to leave on the 31st of October without a deal. The EU do not want the UK to leave. You have Jo Swinson writing to Juncker urging him not to accept any deal put forward by BJ. You have others within the rebel alliance telling the EU that they can stop BJ taking the UK out of the EU. IF they believe Parliament can stop BJ then I believe they will not accept any changes to May's deal and instead put their trust in the rebel alliance and their efforts to prevent the UK from leaving. If on the other hand they think that BJ could actually take the UK out at the end of the month without a deal then I think they will negotiate. At the moment it seems that the EU is unsure if the rebel alliance really can stop BJ. Compare how they have treated BJ's proposal to how they treated May's attempts to re-negotiate.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#160New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 16:58:29
It is interesting that the rebel alliance for a month or so has constantly been attacking BJ for not getting a new deal whilst at the same time doing all they can to undermine his attempts at getting said deal. They have constantly attacked him for not getting a new deal to present to Parliament whilst the Lib Dems, Labour, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have said that they won't support ANY deal that the PM comes up with. So in effect they have been complaining that he hasnt come up with a new plan for them to reject! At the same time they talk about democracy whilst fighting hard to prevent the result of the biggest democratic vote in UK history from being realised. They talk of democracy whilst refusing to give the people the opportunity to vote in a new election. They shout that BJ isnt fit to be PM and yet refuse to table a motion of no confidence. Infact in reality the rebel alliance are propping up BJ who they insist should resign!
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#161New Post! Oct 03, 2019 @ 23:43:15
@shadowen Said

I never said that. Never implied that. You however talk in the present tense when you claim the Conservative government (with support from the DUP) has a majority. You have said for example:

"under Johnson, the Labour and Lib Dem Parties ARE minority parties NOT part of the majority coalition"

"the Conservatives cannot pass anything in an HOC that THEY jointly control in a coalition"

"It IS (the Conservative Government), and ALWAYS has been the MAJORITY coalition"

So clearly you were saying that the Government (along with the DUP) ARE the majority. Not were, but are. The fact that the Government held the smallest of majorities over 4 weeks ago is neither here nor there as all of the major problems in the Commons have come about since the Rebel Alliance took over CONTROL of Parliament.


Sorry. Yes, I should have made the distinction that they held control in the past more clear. That said, I vehemently deny that all of their major problems started after the rebellion. The rebellion was nothing more than the culmination of all their problems reaching a breaking point. Rebellions do not pop up out of thin air.

Quote:

Again, not true. They infact lost their very slim majority once they had a very clear plan re Brexit. A plan that only found shape under BJ. Once it was clear to people like Hammond that BJ was absolutely determined to honour the people's vote and leave (with or without a deal) on October 31 they rebelled. They rebelled as they clearly dont want Brexit to happen at all and therefore wouldnt support the government's clear plan.


Clearly.

I would advise both remainers and leavers against the notion that the Tory rebels are 'for' or 'against' them politically. From this outsider perspective, I suspect that the Tory Rebels have created an alliance of convenience both with Labour and with each other. As soon as their interests no longer align, they will split. I very highly doubt that the Tory Rebels end goal is to stop Brexit from happening at all.

Quote:

Happy to say that poll after poll in the past month show most Britons hold a very different view as to where the blame lies.


So now we believe polls, huh? Now we believe the experts? Or is that only when they back your own convictions? I've seen polls that suggest not much movement has happened politically in the last 3 years and that a new GE at this point in time has a pretty decent chance of returning another hung parliament.

Quote:

I'm curious. You tell me what a compromise looks like.



It's respecting the democratic process. It's what MPs are supposed to do. It's what Governments are supposed to do. It's what parliaments are supposed to do.


Ultimatum: a threat in which a person or group of people are warned that if they do not do a particular thing, something unpleasant will happen to them.

Personally I don't see either the EU's stance, nor that of the UK, as being ultimatums. I see them as being negotiation tactics. The EU were the first to use these tactics. They presented May with a leave agreement, and until just a few weeks ago their position was "this is it, take it or leave it". They said this even after the UK Parliament had rejected their withdrawal agreement 3 times. Even now Barnier still publicly holds the view that May's deal is all there is. Take it or leave it. Their approach, coupled with May's refusal to seriously consider leaving without a deal, meant that all of the power in negotiations lay with the EU.

BJ has rightly rejected a deal that has already been rejected by Parliament no fewer than three times. He has instead come up with a new proposal that makes very significant concessions to the EU but nonetheless rejects elements of May's deal that would see the UK trapped in the customs union, trapped in the single market, subject to rulings by the ECJ, subject to EU laws and regulations etc etc etc. What May was offered was not even remotely close to Brexit. BJ's new proposal, as stated, makes significant concessions whilst trying to deliver the core aspects of Brexit for which more than 17.4 million people voted. For him to say in effect "the concessions we have made are as far as we can go. To go further would take us back towards a May deal, would be inconsistent with what the people voted for, and that would have no chance of passing through Parliament. So this is what we are offering. If you don't accept it then we shall leave on WTO terms." Not an ultimatum but rather a negotiating position.

Think of buying a car. The 'seller' (presumably) wants to sell the car. The prospective buyer wants to purchase it. The seller initially states that they couldn't accept anything less than $20k for the vehicle. Take it or leave it. They make their offer knowing that the prospective buyer (representing a business) has stated that they will not leave without buying the car. The prospective buyer however needs to get permission from their business partners before the sale can go ahead. People in the business won't agree to the deal and end up appointing someone new to carry on negotiations. The new business representative goes back to the seller and states that $20k is simply too much. They will offer $15k but that's absolutely as high as they can go, and that if that price isnt acceptable then they will walk away. Have either the prospective seller or buyer issued ultimatums? I don't think so. They have each used similiar negotiating tactics...and in negotiations you need to be prepared to walk away, and the other party needs to know that you are prepared to walk away. If only one party is prepared to walk away then the other party is entirely reliant upon the good will of the former.


As long as the UK refuses to draft a plan that respects the red lines of the EU then, yes we hit ultimatum status. The only other option is to play Boris's game and hope the EU buckle. If they do that however they risk everything. That is why they were red lines in the first place. Hence why I was so surprised that May got even as much as she did out of the EU. Because the UK's and EU's red lines were mutually exclusive to each other.

Quote:

No, losers consent underpins democracy. Without it democracy simply doesnt work. Neither the EU nor the UK are morally compelled to strike a deal. The UK is however morally compelled to accept the will of the people. If an agreement acceptable to all parties can be reached then great. That's clearly the preferred option for all involved. If no mutually acceptable agreement can be reached then so be it. What should be non-negotiable is that Parliament respects the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history. It is not for Parliament to decide which democratic outcomes it will or will not respect. That is not consistent with democracy.


The only consent from the losers in a democracy is to consent to the fact that they have lost a political fight. That does not then compel them to become meek and to give up, nor does it compel them to assist the victors in their own plans. If the victors are unable to achieve their goals despite having more power, as was the case up until a month ago, then they are the ones at fault. If the victors lose their majority due to infighting, as has happened here, then only the victors are to blame. Yes the losers have now gained enough power to potentially flip the power dynamic but it was the victors who gave them that power and opportunity in the first place.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#162New Post! Oct 04, 2019 @ 00:13:18
@shadowen Said

You presume that it is impossible to control smuggling and illegal immigration without a hard border. I, and many others, disagree. IF the situation ever comes about where NI is out of the customs union and doesnt have a hard border then we shall find out who is right. As it is though smuggling and illegal immigration IS a significant problem within the EU.


I presume no such thing. Simply that the lack of one makes controlling smuggling and illegal immigration more difficult.

Quote:

I think you are particularly generous when ascribing motive to the EU's position under Barnier.


Generous? I have presumed an entirely selfish and self-serving motive to the EU's negotiating stance regarding the border. How is that in any way generous?

Quote:

Why would the UK or NI want the unelected bureaucrats of Brussels to determine the state of their borders? I agree that many in the UK would not be happy with NI having the final say on the border question but no solution is going to please everyone, and the Government need the support of the DUP.


Why would they? I honestly don't understand how your response stems from mine.
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#163New Post! Oct 04, 2019 @ 15:20:01
@nooneinparticular Said

I vehemently deny...

No need for that sort of language!

@nooneinparticular Said


I vehemently deny that all of their major problems started after the rebellion. The rebellion was nothing more than the culmination of all their problems reaching a breaking point. Rebellions do not pop up out of thin air.

The major problem from the start has been that Parliament has been at odds with the people. Most MP's do not support ANY form of Brexit and have been, and are, determined to make sure that it doesnt happen. Key members of May's government were hard remainers like Hammond and Grieve, so politicians felt they could deny people the Brexit they voted for without having to do much more than reject any leave deals whilst constantly asking for more extensions. Whilst doing this they continued to sprout project fear in the hope they could get the electorate to change their mind. Then along comes BJ. Unlike May he is genuinely committed to taking the UK out of the EU as per the expressed wishes of the people. Unlike May his key personal are not ardent remainers. And thus Parliament had to rebel if they wanted to thwart the will of the people. They had to take charge for they knew that if they didnt the UK would leave on the 31st.

You talk of a breaking point. The breaking point was the appointment of a strong, pro leave PM determined to deliver to the people what Parliament had promised them, and what they the people had voted for. This was their breaking point. If BJ hadn't become PM, if he hadnt made it very clear that he intended to honour the result of the people's vote, then it's extremely hard to imagine that there ever would have been a breaking point for Parliament. Hard to see that there ever would have been a rebellion. The rebellion is simply a means of Parliament getting what they have wanted all along, and that is a situation whereby the wishes of over 17.4 million people are ignored and the UK never leaves their beloved EU.


@nooneinparticular Said

I would advise both remainers and leavers against the notion that the Tory rebels are 'for' or 'against' them politically. From this outsider perspective, I suspect that the Tory Rebels have created an alliance of convenience both with Labour and with each other. As soon as their interests no longer align, they will split.

I don't think your advice is required. I know of absolutely no one who thinks the former Tory MP's are siding with the other parties in the Rebel Alliance for any reason other than shared goals re Brexit.


@nooneinparticular Said

I very highly doubt that the Tory Rebels end goal is to stop Brexit from happening at all.

Let me see, they have sided with Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru over Brexit. Labour want a referendum where the only choice is btw remain or 'leaving' under the rightly hated May deal that Labour have voted against three times. A deal that effectively shackles the UK to the EU and is anything but Brexit. As for the other parties, they are now openly in favour of simply revoking Article 50. So no, I don't think the ex Tory MP's are any different. I don't think they are not fully committed to ensuring that Brexit doesn't happen at all.

@nooneinparticular Said

So now we believe polls, huh? Now we believe the experts? Or is that only when they back your own convictions?

You seem to equate organisations that are nationally (in some cases internationally) recognised as being respected specialists in polling with 'experts' who claim to be able to predict the future as being essentially the same thing. Do I believe the published results of polls conducted by specialist organisations that have a long established track record when it comes to conducting said polls in the UK? Yes. So when they say this is the question we asked, I believe them. When they say these are the options we offered re a response, I believe them. When they say the polled 'X' number of people on a specific date, I believe them. When they say this how those surveyed answered the question(s) we asked, I believe them. Why? Because firstly it's easy for people to check the information they are publishing. Secondly, if they are found to have lied, or given inaccurate information, it could destroy the organisations credibility indefinitely. What future would a polling company have if their polls werent believed. This leads into the third reason which is that these organisations have a long history of conducting polls in the UK. Their accuracy has been tested over this period of time via elections and referendums. For example, on the day of the Brexit referendum YouGov showed remain winning 52-48. Now they got that wrong. The result of course was the other way around, but there is always going to be a margin of error whenever you seek to discover the opinions of a small group of people and then extrapolate that to indicate the views of a much larger group. Every one understands that and so their referendum day poll result was within a reasonable margin of error. Finally of course, when a company publishes the results of their poll you are dealing with something that has ALREADY happened. Now do I treat all polls as equal? No. I tend to ignore polls conducted by websites, newspapers and organisations who do not have an established history of conducting, and publishing the results of, polls. I am also very much aware that polls should always only be viewed as indicative.

Now you seem to think that my believing the results of polls under the circumstances previously stated, whilst not believing 'experts' who tell us what will happen in the future, is hypocritical. Again, to believe that is to believe for example that a YouGov poll is the same as a public servant claiming that if the UK leaves without a deal then people will starve whilst others will die for want of medicines! I didn't believe the predictions made by those peddling project fear from the moment an in/out referendum was announced, and I don't believe them still. I didn't believe the economic 'experts' who stated as fact that, if the leave vote were to be successful, there would be a run on the pound, there would be rampant inflation, the UK would go into recession, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost etc etc etc. Turns out I didnt believe them for good reason. For what has happened since the 2016 people's vote? Well there was no run on the pound, there was no rampant inflation. Not only did the UK not go into recession but the UK is currently the best performed G7 economy and has out performed countries like Germany for most of the past three years. Instead of hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost around 1,000,000 have been created. Infact, since the referendum the UK has seen a larger net increase in employment than the rest of the EU combined. Furthermore, the average increase in wages is currently growing at the fastest rate since June 2008. Now when all of the doom and gloom predictions didnt come true after the referendum result in 2016 the 'experts' simply doubled down and said their predictions would come true in 2017...and then in 2018! Hell even Carney (a poster boy for project fear) was forced to admit earlier this year that if the right decisions were made the UK could actually be better off outside of the EU. But despite not one of their dire predictions coming true the so called 'experts' feeding project fear just keep on peddling the same s***e. The latest is the much quoted, and discredited, Yellowsnow report that I shall address separately in the near future.

So do I think it's hypocritical to accept polls published by reputable companies whilst being extremely skeptical of 'experts' who claim to know what the future will hold re a no deal Brexit (or any Brexit according to most of them)? No I dont. Do I think the published results of polls that have already taken place should be viewed in the same way as 'experts' claiming to know what will happen in the future? No I don't. Do I think it's unreasonable to accept the published results of polls by companies who have a long track record of providing a reasonable indication of how a particular demographic thinks at a point in time whilst being extremely skeptical of experts whose predictions have been shown to be wildly wrong time and time again? No I don't. You however obviously think otherwise, for if you didnt you wouldnt think it hypocritical of me to accept the polling 'experts' whilst being extremely skeptical of those 'experts' who claim to be able to foretell the future re Brexit.

@nooneinparticular Said

As long as the UK refuses to draft a plan that respects the red lines of the EU then, yes we hit ultimatum status. The only other option is to play Boris's game and hope the EU buckle. If they do that however they risk everything. That is why they were red lines in the first place. Hence why I was so surprised that May got even as much as she did out of the EU. Because the UK's and EU's red lines were mutually exclusive to each other.

So according to you the EU issued an ultimatum first and now the UK have only just responded with one of their own. As stated earlier however i dont think either party issued any ultimatums, but i guess it comes down to what definition of 'ultimatum' you accept.
nooneinparticular On March 16, 2023




, Hawaii
#164New Post! Oct 04, 2019 @ 18:01:47
@shadowen Said

No need for that sort of language!


The major problem from the start has been that Parliament has been at odds with the people. Most MP's do not support ANY form of Brexit and have been, and are, determined to make sure that it doesnt happen. Key members of May's government were hard remainers like Hammond and Grieve, so politicians felt they could deny people the Brexit they voted for without having to do much more than reject any leave deals whilst constantly asking for more extensions. Whilst doing this they continued to sprout project fear in the hope they could get the electorate to change their mind. Then along comes BJ. Unlike May he is genuinely committed to taking the UK out of the EU as per the expressed wishes of the people. Unlike May his key personal are not ardent remainers. And thus Parliament had to rebel if they wanted to thwart the will of the people. They had to take charge for they knew that if they didnt the UK would leave on the 31st.

You talk of a breaking point. The breaking point was the appointment of a strong, pro leave PM determined to deliver to the people what Parliament had promised them, and what they the people had voted for. This was their breaking point. If BJ hadn't become PM, if he hadnt made it very clear that he intended to honour the result of the people's vote, then it's extremely hard to imagine that there ever would have been a breaking point for Parliament. Hard to see that there ever would have been a rebellion. The rebellion is simply a means of Parliament getting what they have wanted all along, and that is a situation whereby the wishes of over 17.4 million people are ignored and the UK never leaves their beloved EU.


If these evil geniuses were actually capable of the amount of duplicity you accuse them of, then this 'plan' that you've attributed to them certainly does not show it. How does delaying until the EU gets fed up and stops extending deadlines a roadmap to get the UK not to leave the EU? Why would these duplicitous MP's you accuse of ignoring 'the will of the people' give two figs about the will of the people enough to not just rescind article 50 in the first place?

Quote:

I don't think your advice is required. I know of absolutely no one who thinks the former Tory MP's are siding with the other parties in the Rebel Alliance for any reason other than shared goals re Brexit.



Let me see, they have sided with Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru over Brexit. Labour want a referendum where the only choice is btw remain or 'leaving' under the rightly hated May deal that Labour have voted against three times. A deal that effectively shackles the UK to the EU and is anything but Brexit. As for the other parties, they are now openly in favour of simply revoking Article 50. So no, I don't think the ex Tory MP's are any different. I don't think they are not fully committed to ensuring that Brexit doesn't happen at all.


Ridiculous. That's like saying just because the Conservatives sided with the DUP and Brexit aligned parties that they are all committed to delivering Brexit at the end of the month. Just because they have a shared objective does not mean that their end goals are aligned.

Quote:

You seem to equate organisations that are nationally (in some cases internationally) recognised as being respected specialists in polling with 'experts' who claim to be able to predict the future as being essentially the same thing. Do I believe the published results of polls conducted by specialist organisations that have a long established track record when it comes to conducting said polls in the UK? Yes. So when they say this is the question we asked, I believe them. When they say these are the options we offered re a response, I believe them. When they say the polled 'X' number of people on a specific date, I believe them. When they say this how those surveyed answered the question(s) we asked, I believe them. Why? Because firstly it's easy for people to check the information they are publishing. Secondly, if they are found to have lied, or given inaccurate information, it could destroy the organisations credibility indefinitely. What future would a polling company have if their polls werent believed. This leads into the third reason which is that these organisations have a long history of conducting polls in the UK. Their accuracy has been tested over this period of time via elections and referendums. For example, on the day of the Brexit referendum YouGov showed remain winning 52-48. Now they got that wrong. The result of course was the other way around, but there is always going to be a margin of error whenever you seek to discover the opinions of a small group of people and then extrapolate that to indicate the views of a much larger group. Every one understands that and so their referendum day poll result was within a reasonable margin of error. Finally of course, when a company publishes the results of their poll you are dealing with something that has ALREADY happened. Now do I treat all polls as equal? No. I tend to ignore polls conducted by websites, newspapers and organisations who do not have an established history of conducting, and publishing the results of, polls. I am also very much aware that polls should always only be viewed as indicative.

Now you seem to think that my believing the results of polls under the circumstances previously stated, whilst not believing 'experts' who tell us what will happen in the future, is hypocritical. Again, to believe that is to believe for example that a YouGov poll is the same as a public servant claiming that if the UK leaves without a deal then people will starve whilst others will die for want of medicines! I didn't believe the predictions made by those peddling project fear from the moment an in/out referendum was announced, and I don't believe them still. I didn't believe the economic 'experts' who stated as fact that, if the leave vote were to be successful, there would be a run on the pound, there would be rampant inflation, the UK would go into recession, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost etc etc etc. Turns out I didnt believe them for good reason. For what has happened since the 2016 people's vote? Well there was no run on the pound, there was no rampant inflation. Not only did the UK not go into recession but the UK is currently the best performed G7 economy and has out performed countries like Germany for most of the past three years. Instead of hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost around 1,000,000 have been created. Infact, since the referendum the UK has seen a larger net increase in employment than the rest of the EU combined. Furthermore, the average increase in wages is currently growing at the fastest rate since June 2008. Now when all of the doom and gloom predictions didnt come true after the referendum result in 2016 the 'experts' simply doubled down and said their predictions would come true in 2017...and then in 2018! Hell even Carney (a poster boy for project fear) was forced to admit earlier this year that if the right decisions were made the UK could actually be better off outside of the EU. But despite not one of their dire predictions coming true the so called 'experts' feeding project fear just keep on peddling the same s***e. The latest is the much quoted, and discredited, Yellowsnow report that I shall address separately in the near future.

So do I think it's hypocritical to accept polls published by reputable companies whilst being extremely skeptical of 'experts' who claim to know what the future will hold re a no deal Brexit (or any Brexit according to most of them)? No I dont. Do I think the published results of polls that have already taken place should be viewed in the same way as 'experts' claiming to know what will happen in the future? No I don't. Do I think it's unreasonable to accept the published results of polls by companies who have a long track record of providing a reasonable indication of how a particular demographic thinks at a point in time whilst being extremely skeptical of experts whose predictions have been shown to be wildly wrong time and time again? No I don't. You however obviously think otherwise, for if you didnt you wouldnt think it hypocritical of me to accept the polling 'experts' whilst being extremely skeptical of those 'experts' who claim to be able to foretell the future re Brexit.


So I assume by that long wall of text, you have compiled a thorough meta-analysis of all the data institutions you disparage as being wrong 'time and time again' and can say what their actual success rates are for predictions and by how much they were off? And that you can do the same for the ones you trust?
shadowen On March 22, 2024




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#165New Post! Oct 05, 2019 @ 14:01:23
@nooneinparticular Said

If these evil geniuses...

I don't believe them to be either evil or geniuses

@nooneinparticular Said

If these evil geniuses were actually capable of the amount of duplicity you accuse them of, then this 'plan' that you've attributed to them certainly does not show it. How does delaying until the EU gets fed up and stops extending deadlines a roadmap to get the UK not to leave the EU?

I have NEVER said that the remoaners plan was to keep delaying until the EU get fed up and stop extending. NEVER said nor implied that at all. I dont know if you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said, if you didnt really read what I said, or if you didnt understand what I said.

The remaoners plan has been pretty simple. Parliament doesnt want the UK to leave and neither does the EU. So basically the EU give Parliament a deal they know the majority will reject. After 2 years the UK asks for an extension which of course the EU give. Parliament and the EU continue making everything to do with Brexit as difficult as possible. This gives remoaners more time to stoke 'project fear' and to show everyone that leaving is just too difficult. The hope is the constant delays and constant 'project fear' propaganda will eventually wear people down. Meanwhile the EU is happy to keep extending as long as they believe that doing so will result in the UK NOT leaving. Now as a part of this plan the idea initially was to have a 2nd in/out referendum. However polls were showing that such a referendum could well result in the same outcome as the first. So remoaners then planned to present to the people a referendum that offered not an in/out option, but rather remain or leave with May's hated deal. A deal Parliament have rejected three times. A deal they know that Brexiteers will never support. Indeed this is the current position of Labour.

Now the above approach was working well until BJ came along. Now you had a PM and a cabinet who were genuinely determined to honour the expressed wishes of the people. This has meant that remainers have had to change tact to make sure BJ can't take the UK out of the EU (deal or no deal). To this end the speaker has broken all conventions in trying to help the remain cause. The Supreme Court has broken all convention to try and help the remain cause. Meanwhile Parliament has forced through the extraordinary Benn Surrender Act that reduces the executive to mere puppets of the Rebel Alliance. Under UK law only the executive can negotiate with foreign powers and sign treaties etc, and yet we now have a case of the Rebel Alliance seeking to legally force the PM to do what a foreign power tells him to (and yes the EU27 is in effect a foreign power).

Now at the moment, as previously mentioned, Labour want a referendum where people arent given the choice of genuinely leaving the EU followed by an election. The Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru are saying, "fine, we will support your claytons referendum but if we have the power after the election that follows we will simply revoke article 50 regardless of the result of the claytons election. The Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru would like to simply revoke Article 50 right now but Labour wont support them. More on that later.

Up until recently most opponents of Brexit in Parliament would publicly say they were committed to respecting the will of the people whilst acting against it. Under BJ they have been forced from the shadows and have been exposed as people determined to stopping the UK from leaving at all costs...as they know better than the people what is best for the people. Gotta love the arrogance.

So anyway, the remoaners plan is certainly NOT to keep extending until the EU "gets fed up and stops extending deadlines". That clearly wouldnt stop the UK from leaving and I have never suggested therefore that this has been their plan. Far from it. Indeed it has become extremely clear over the past month that remonaer MP's are working closely with the EU. Hell, you even have Jo Swinson writing to the EU telling them not to accept any deal presented by the government! There are even rumours that members of the EU were consulted over the drafting and use of the Benn Surrender Act. Now these are simply rumours at this time and so I dont believe them unless they are proven to be true..but it would hardly come as a surprise if there was some truth to the rumours.

@nooneinparticular Said

Why would these duplicitous MP's you accuse of ignoring 'the will of the people' give two figs about the will of the people enough to not just rescind article 50 in the first place?

Well the official position of the Lib Dems, the SNP and Plaid Cymru is to do exactly that, to revoke Article 50 at the first available opportunity. The reason why they havent done so already is because Labour wont support them. Many Labour supporters voted to leave and so the party knows they cant simply come out and say 'we will revoke Article 50' like the other parties. Instead they are hoping to be more subtle by presenting a new referendum where people would only be able to choose to either remain, or to Leave under May's awful deal. May's deal of course isnt Brexit and so the choice is btw remaining in the EU with at least some say in some matters, or remain with no say in any matters.

@nooneinparticular Said

Ridiculous. That's like saying just because the Conservatives sided with the DUP and Brexit aligned parties that they are all committed to delivering Brexit at the end of the month. Just because they have a shared objective does not mean that their end goals are aligned.


News flash. The Conservative Party, the DUP, UKIP and the Brexit Party are ALL committed to the UK leaving at the end of the month. The only difference is that the latter two only want the UK to leave with a clean break whilst the two former parties would prefer a deal but are prepared to leave without one.

End goal: something you want
Objective: something that you plan to do or achieve

@nooneinparticular Said

So I assume by that long wall of text, you have compiled a thorough meta-analysis of all the data institutions you disparage as being wrong 'time and time again' and can say what their actual success rates are for predictions and by how much they were off? And that you can do the same for the ones you trust?

Fair dinkum, i really dont know if you are being serious or just trying to wind me up.

First up I am very skeptical of pretty much ANY one who claims to know what the future will hold, and that most definitely includes economists and politicians. I don't disparage universally recognised data institutions when they present data on things that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED. I do however become very skeptical when they claim to know what WILL HAPPEN esp when talking about scenarios that havent been previously experienced. And yet this is what they do re Brexit. They don't say that based on this data we think there is the chance that this might be the outcome. With project Fear 'experts' they say that 'this is what WILL happen'. And yet time and time again they are proven wrong, and often by their OWN data. For example, a number of the figures I quoted were published by HM Treasury. The same HM Treasury who have actually stoked the fires of 'Project fear'. So it is amusing to see their own figures showing how wrong they have been.

To me though it just seems like you don't differentiate btw Government sources publishing data pertaining to something that HAS HAPPENED vs 'experts' telling people WHAT WILL HAPPEN. One is a report and one is a bloody prediction presented as fact. Stating what has already happened is NOT the bloody same as saying what WILL happen. Past vs future. Surely you can see the difference? So do I trust Government figures (corroborated by industry figures) on things that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED such as employment growth and wage growth? Yes I do. Do I trust these same sources (and other 'experts' when they claim to know what will happen in the future? 'Experts' who havent been right about one thing yet. The answer is no. But if you seriously cant see the difference btw accepting universally recognised reports concerning things that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED and statements by the same sources (or other 'experts' re WHAT WILL HAPPEN then so be it.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...9 10 11 12 13 ...73 74 75 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Random
Tue Apr 14, 2009 @ 05:49
26 1304
New posts   Relationships
Wed Jan 21, 2009 @ 07:59
120 5296
New posts   Random
Mon Mar 01, 2010 @ 14:25
25 1001
New posts   Random
Mon Jun 25, 2007 @ 14:21
14 605
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Fri Aug 04, 2006 @ 19:32
8 490