Does the UK face a No Deal Brexit?

Please treat other members in a constructive and friendly manner: Our Community Guidelines.
  • Me a pessimist? You’ve noticed?! I admire your optimism, even the parts of it that I think are misguided. And you’re right, in combination we do provide a balance.


    Being my usual pedantic non-binary self, I fall nearer to the pessimist side of the scale but well short of the last notch. I justify my pessimism by observing that there is much to be pessimistic about. I try to attach myself nearer to the midpoint of this scale, which is to hope for the best, but be prepared or even resigned to the worst.


    I realise saying “resigned” could be taken as a giveaway of deep pessimism. But here’s an alternative description of pessimism: realism. And here’s an alternative description of optimism: idealism.


    You recommend putting optimism to work, to pitch in, make a difference. How? What can one do other than be a helpless spectator? Sadly I’m not a tv interviewer (Brian Walden was my hero), nor a persuasive polemical defender of free speech and personal responsibility, with an audience of devotees running in to several million (eg Jordan Petersen), nor have I written a best seller (like Douglas Murray) that encourages people to take a hard look at something very disturbing in Europe that’s getting out of control So what do I do? Go on a protest march? But what if everyone else is marching to a different tune ad especially when they’re foaming at the mouth?


    Still asking, how does one make things better? You can’t talk about this stuff over a dinner table; if you try and do so, depending on the company, it will either be seen as unfashionable or unfathomable. Nor can one make conversational headway in a London restaurant with metropolitan friends, which revolves around general chitchat, gossip, the arts and property prices – anything ”heavier” is decidedly de trop. As for talking about anything of importance in my local village hall (which turns into a community pub on the last Friday of every month), there is not a hope in hell; favoured topics include fertilizer, both literally and metaphorically. The two most stimulating exchange of views on important topics are obtained from (a) my builder-landscaper and (b) one of my golfing buddies who, mercifully, doesn't want to talk about golf (not least because we're crap golfers).


    In theory the outlet for debate could be the Times readers’ forum. In practice, one faces a gauntlet of moderators kicking one’s comment into the long grass of “pending approval” which kills the possibility of an exchange of thoughts and ideas. This leaves Horizon’s relaxed liberal Forum Box where people like you dig deep, are game for airing differences of opinion (and Horizon too whenever the poor devil has time off from managing the forum!). Which leaves you and I as debating performing seals, egged on by Horizon’s “keep going both of you, great stuff”. For the rest of FB members’ contributions, its mostly thin gruel, probably related to the use of a Smartphone rather than desktop PC. Or maybe I’m out of step with forum-speak and have become a bit of a bore - there becomes a stage in one’s life where one is reluctant to find out whether it’s me or most of everyone else who is on the wrong side of the cage.


    Interesting point you make about remainers being disliked because they’re defeatist. That suggests that deep down they would like Britain to regain its sovereignty, independence, global trading prowess but they fear it won’t happen or will go pear-shaped. Maybe the Nanny State has emasculated national aspirations and the EU becomes the new Nanny State with a dash of cosmopolitanism. There are of course other reasons to Remain, including a complete lack of vision of the possible end game, of being part of the United States of Germany, with its partner on a leash, Germany’s favourite poodle, Vichy France.


    I’m not saying things can’t improve. Instead I’m saying that from an impartial global stance, at certain points in time, there are countries and groups of people who become winners and others who become losers and, as with a giant oil tanker, it can take a long time for the losers to correct that trend and sometimes it ends up being an unrecoverable downturn. 650 MP’s is an oil tanker which can barely change course.


    You talk of the importance of trying to make things better rather than having a defeatist attitude. Perhaps I set too much store on what my fellow countrymen think or, in most cases, don't think. Certainly that can make me defeatist. For example, I suggested to you that democracy could be improved if citizens were assessed for whether they are eligible to vote. You completely rejected this notion as anti-democratic and open to corruption. You talked of democracy being best served by relying on the wisdom of the crowd and when I asked you if that had to include criminals in prison, you duck that question. Presumably you are content with a definition of voting eligibility based on aged 18+ but surely you realise that is not a measure of eligibility but instead just a measure of age. So when I offered other factors which are obviously more highly correlated with a citizen’s ability to vote in a mindful rather than mindless way, you brushed aside those factors as "irrelevant", including factor (d) which had to do with a person's own capability to vote in a mindful way. That is the sort of thing which makes me defeatist: discovering a well-informed empathetic soul with clear opinions and then finding I have a hit a brick wall.


    I appreciate the sermonising but I’m much more in the market for a debate with someone other than myself (the first sign of madness!)

  • That's really sad, Rob.


    The referendum was proof that things can change, if enough people want it. 17.4 million people took what was offered, ie. the opportunity to leave the EU.


    We now have to wait and see what happens, purely because we are one among many, and neither of us are people with influence and power. If Brexit isn't enacted, then basically we have no democracy, and I can't imagine the (previously) silent majority just taking that without complaint.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • Neither do I, but lets see what happens. I'm optimist too and lets remind ourselves how we got to this situation.


    David Cameron wanted to appease the right wingers (as he saw them) in his party, so he created the referendum knowing full well that if the vote went against him, it would never get enacted because the Liberals in his coalition government would vote it down. He then won a majority in the next election, the liberals were chucked out and he had to enact the wishes of the people.


    Sometimes there is reason for optimism.:)

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Well said, Horizon. Here's another reason for optimism.


    The EU have had their card well and truly marked. The majority voted to Leave their undemocratic political venture. Their actions so far have done little to impress anyone, be it in the UK, the EU, or anywhere else in the world. 'Mafia like' is a very suitable description.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • And although we maybe the only country leaving the EU at the moment, various European countries have had quite a "shift" in government over the last year or so. It's only a matter of time before the EU has to shift as well, or become totally irrelevant.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Scenario A: The real danger in all this is that Mad May might strike a deal. It will be Brexit Lite. Mad May, with the acquiescence of The House of Commons (by a wafer thin margin) will find enough in it to spin before the electorate as ticking the Brexit boxes. Business will applaud it because they just want to get out of a holding pattern before they run out of fuel and crash to the ground. Boris, JR-M and Davis will protest loudly but they will be outnumbered and accused of being unrealistic. There will be protest marches galore because this country is never short of protesters. A very large percentage of those who voted to Leave will, after all this crap, be secretly relieved that Mad May has a chosen a Bogus Brexit, a Sufficient Unto The Day Brexit. The Remainers will be relieved that to, all intents and purposes, Britain is still in bed with the EU, as an associate member; a drooping rose by any other name. Other EU members (net contributors) might want a similar amended type of membership, if they have the stomach to be jerked around by the EU (although they may decide it's easier for them because they don't have a leader like Mad May). The EU will save face by maintaining that this amended membership represents the process that is underway for the EU to reform itself to meet current and future economic and social conditions. They might even add that if only Britain had better quality leadership and an effective democratic system of making decisions all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.


    Scenario B: Because the Conservative Party Conference hasn't kicked Mad May out of number 10, the EU will remain inflexible about agreeing a satisfactory Brexit deal that compromises on EU principles. The EU figures that if Britain hasn't got the wherewithal to eject Mad May, then it remains a bunch of pushovers. This will force Britain to go it alone (a no-deal Brexit). The irony here is that the EU will be embarking on the kind of reforms which might well have made Britain re-examine whether they still wanted to leave. But the British Idee Fixe was and is unalterable.


    Scenario C: In the unlikely event that Britain decides to hold another referendum, the EU will be falling about laughing. It will take an eternity to arrange that referendum and another eternity for Westminster to discuss and agree on how to implement the result. By the time this happens Labour will be in power, Britain will be on skid row and assuming that the largest referendum vote is to stay in the EU, it is likely that the EU will either resist rescinding Article 51 (it's a grey area) or demand that remaining a member requires joining the Eurozone within 3 years. It might even be that the EU will be hatching new conditions to deter Britain from remaining a member. After all, from the EU perspective, what's to like about Britain remaining a member?


    ***


    On a separate point, this to you Fidget: When you say "the majority voted to Leave their undemocratic political venture" your definition of "majority" is 52%-48%. Would you still feel it was a majority to implement if it was 51% vs 49%? How about 50.001% versus 49.999%? When the stakes are high we usually talk about a working majority or clear majority or decisive majority. Don't talk to me about such a wafer thin majority being good enough for the GE and therefore good enough for Brexit. In the case of a near-hung parliament, coalitions form to enable Government to make and implement decisions. Besides which, unlike Brexit, this typical Parliamentary bedlam gets a chance to be corrected after 5 years.


    As for the EU's undemocratic venture, I need to be persuaded about what's so wonderful about British democracy in:


    a) allowing a smooth-talking PR spokesman for Carlton TV to become Prime Minister


    b) to nonchalantly waltz around Brussels with one hand in his pocket in pursuit of EU reforms


    c) and return to Britain with sweet f-all

    d) then hold a referendum based on a simple Stay-Leave question, without any follow-up questions to gain even a glimmer of understanding of why people voted the way they did


    e) and giving no consideration to the abandonment of this major status quo requiring a more decisive majority eg 60-40.


    f) Not that the referendum had any legal traction - it's just a Dimwit Dave's idea of an opinion poll - it still has to be agreed by MP's and More-Devious-than-Dimwitted Dave knows that with the Liberals voting against leaving, the reform negotiations was just Dave strutting his stuff and maybe setting himself up to one day becoming a big shot in Brussels


    g) after that farce, Panama Dave resigns, confirming the bleeding obvious, that you don't send a bloke to negotiate reforms of the EU when that person has already declared he wants Britain to remain a member


    h) at which point Dung-heap Dave is replaced by a so-called safe pair of hands (Mad May) who within a fortnight (see Craig Brown back then) is already showing signs that she is an alien or the result of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers ..... but less intelligent


    If all this is your idea of democracy in action, we're doomed


    But, hey, I don't want to be pessimistic - I'm sure we'll all live happily ever after!

  • I'll need to think about most of your post. I'll give one quick answer though, but before giving it I will admit my bias.



    On a separate point, this to you Fidget: When you say "the majority voted to Leave their undemocratic political venture" your definition of "majority" is 52%-48%. Would you still feel it was a majority to implement if it was 51% vs 49%? How about 50.001% versus 49.999%? When the stakes are high we usually talk about a working majority or clear majority or decisive majority. Don't talk to me about such a wafer thin majority being good enough for the GE and therefore good enough for Brexit. In the case of a near-hung parliament, coalitions form to enable Government to make and implement decisions. Besides which, unlike Brexit, this typical Parliamentary bedlam gets a chance to be corrected after 5 years.

    If it had been 52% Remain, then yes, I may well have said it wasn't a good enough majority. Reason being that the status quo always has a 10-20% bias. I won't mention the £9m remain leaflet (oops, I just have!). It is clear the 'establishment' were for Remain, which gave Leave a big disadvantage, but still we overcame it.


    Whether it was right or wrong, they can't change the rules after the event and expect everyone to accept the change.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • A majority is a majority and lets not piss around here. We know who voted leave and who voted remain. Just look at all the results at the time. Leaving aside Scotland (who cares) it was London who overwhelmingly voted remain and almost swung the vote. There was a majority to leave in most areas of England and the only reason London voted differently is there aren't many English people left in the city now. Simple as that.


    I don't think option C will happen. There's been a vote and the country would go ballistic if there were another. So, I'd rule that option out immediately. The only ones who want that option are Corbyn's bunch as a way of causing the government as much trouble as possible along with a few hard core remainer conservative MPs too who might also side with Corbyn.


    Option B is possible, but its all down to language which is why I think option A is more likely.


    The deal will be worded so that it doesn't harm the EU principles of the single market and "togetherness" while giving the impression that the UK can leave but still tethered. A bit like a pet dog. Which as Boris pointed out yesterday, just sows discord for future tensions between the UK and EU.


    On whether someone will move against May, Rees-Mogg said he wouldn't, but clearly Boris is plotting. Has he got the numbers? (from MPs) I don't think so, but people like winners. But as I remarked yesterday, Boris made zero effort to "work" the crowd, aka get MPs on his side. A conference hall full of MPs with adjoining meeting rooms wouldn't have been the perfect place to acquire MPs to his side. He just couldn't be bothered.

    After all, from the EU perspective, what's to like about Britain remaining a member?

    A "few" billion.

    But, hey, I don't want to be pessimistic - I'm sure we'll all live happily ever after!

    :thumbup::D^^


    Ok, I fully disagree with all your points demolishing the premiership of David Cameron, the Carlton tv salesman as you put it and when I find one of these points, I'll let you know.;)


    ===


    My take on what will happen is that, bearing in mind there is a time crunch here, the negotiations will go down to the wire with the EU, but some fudge deal that no one is happy with, will be made in December or January. Then parliament gets to vote on it and remember the EU Withdrawal Bill and the delaying tactics used for that... It will be filibustered to death and if the deal is eventually agreed by parliament that's when Boris and co make their moves against May, causing more delays. And that's what I think will happen, time will simply run out and come 29th March, either parliament hasn't ratified the deal and/or May is in the middle of a battle over her leadership and we crash out with no deal.


    The other option is the French parliament veto the deal with perhaps some EU governments too. Would be a nice symmetry that, the French blocked us going in and block us going out.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • OK, here's my view.


    I think Scenario A is the most likely because Remain politicians outnumber leave politicians. I honestly think May has already cleared Chequers with the EU, and both May and the EU are posturing, making out they don't want it, just to make Chequers look better than it is. However, I hope and pray that I am wrong, and the EU rejects it outright rather than May making more and more concessions.


    Scenario B would be most acceptable to Brexiters. Your view that the EU will reform is, quite frankly, pie in the sky! Perhaps it will reform a little, if the UK leaves. If the UK remains under EU control then it will never, ever, reform, because they will have learned that they don't need to! Yes, 'no deal' would be tough for a while, but I honestly believe it would be worth it. I dread to think of a future in the EU. Better to take our chances and have hope, rather than have no hope at all. I also believe that many other non-EU (and some EU) countries would support us, in defiance of the EU. Job losses can be offset by reducing immigration. We took lots of job losses when we joined, and we survived. We would have more money available to deal with our own problems, and as the 5th biggest economy I doubt there is a single country that wouldn't want to trade with us. The EU are happy enough to have trade deals with very minor economies.


    Scenario C won't happen. Not without great loss of face in the world, and a total collapse of democracy.


    I also agree with Horizon that Labour will do whatever possible to bring the government down, and to hell with what the electorate want, what democracy dictates, and what the consequences would be for the country.


    As for a) thru' h) ... it's history. We can't change the past, but we can learn from it, and we can change the future ... if we get Brexit completed, one way or another. Democracy has been sadly lacking in the UK since we were taken into the Common Market without electoral consent (and a whole lot of deceit from some politicians) but it can be restored in the UK. There is zero chance of the EU becoming more democratic. The EU way is not to give people any real choice on the important matters, and it will never change. It's likely to get far worse.


    Last but not least, the EU are desperate to keep us under their control. It isn't just the money, it is the fear that we will be more competitive (impossible not to be, really) and apart from the competition we would bring, it would demonstrate to the other EU countries that EU membership is not beneficial overall (unless they are one of the big recipients), and even then, the baggage that comes with EU membership is intolerable to many. I think particularly of immigration and refugee 'quotas'.


    Edited to correct typos.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • It's hard to know with our remainer PM, whether the EU really believes we will leave the EU or not. I must admit I did expect several countries to be showing signs of anxiousness at our leaving by now, but they all seem relaxed about it. Perhaps they know something we don't.


    I also expected fireworks at the conservative party conference and that didn't happen either, so my predictions turn out diddly squat.

    It's the control bit that is key. If the EU cannot control us, they will want to ensure that Brexit is as painful to us even though it will damage others too, rather than letting The Project fail. Whether we import Danish bacon or not is neither here or there, it's the City access that is key and something the EU want to hammer us over.


    I agree with you Fidget about the refugees and really the EU, especially Germany, sowed the seeds of its destruction a few years ago during the Syrian migrant crisis. Where was "more Europe" and "ever closer union" as various countries put in border controls and installed barbed wire?


    In a way, Brexit is a side show and why May was so poorly received at the last EU conference as they had other things on their minds, like taking back control for themselves too. It can't be both, either the EU is open to all or not.


    My hope is that with Brexit, ultimately the clamour for a EU superstate will stop and some politicians will see sense and we'll go back to the EC instead.


    The single currency among so many different countries was then and is today, an absolute disaster for everyone. Although I suppose it's kinder than the panzer divisions of the past as a way for hegemony on the continent.


    There's northing wrong with sovereign, independent, nation states trading with each other and being on friendly terms. I wouldn't want to share a bed with my neighbours and that's how countries should be with each other too, close but not that close.:)

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Never heard that Nigel, thanks.


    But all accounts everyone (the EU and UK) already have November and possibly early next year, pencilled in as possible meeting dates to hammer out the final deal. So, I'm not sure why Farage thinks the 19th is important, although he knows the EU better than anyone else.

    Mr Farage mentioned this date again tonight along with a warning that we are about to regally shafted at this EU meeting , as Mrs May kept on about a frictionless trade deal in her conference speech , I suspect we are BRINO bound and the Tories are annihilation bound.

  • I must try and catch Farage's show some times, but its at a iffy time for me, so tend to miss it.


    If the EU do reject her deal, then she can dance all the way into obscurity for all I care.


    Remember "strong and stable"...

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Majority is a majority

    "A majority is a majority"? I don't know what that means. Is that like "rules are rules"? Seriously though, you might want to give it a bit more thought by taking on board the following considerations:


    Tyranny of the majority is a long held concept. We already know that tyranny by minority over the majority is barred, but so is tyranny of the majority against minorities. This fundamental principle of constitutional democracy, majority rule coupled with the protection of minority rights, is embedded in the constitutions of all genuine democracies today.


    This is why it is entirely legitimate to consider defining a majority as something beyond 50%+1. Such a consideration becomes relevant when voting for or against the status quo, especially when there is no easy and practical means of revising that decision in subsequent years. It becomes even more relevant when the government implementing this referendum hasn’t the foggiest idea what lies ahead if the vote is to abandon the status quo


    There are no laws on how referendums should be conducted in the UK. Which is hardly surprising as they're ad-hoc events.


    Referendum can have thresholds. Swiss referendums have a double majority requirement (50% + 1 of the popular vote and succeeding in at least half of the provinces). The Montenegro independence referendum had a 55% threshold..


    Cameron presumed a Remain vote majority was a slam dunk. So he was being intellectually sloppy and arrogant in settling for a majority of 50%+1.


    Ultimately the trade-off is between democracy and stability. A dramatic example being that in America there is a constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto, who must approve a change in the status quo despite the blocking power of the president.

    You only need to read a couple of paragraphs of the weblink below to realise that stating that “a majority is a majority” is a vacuous argument


    https://scholar.harvard.edu/fi…Final_Version_3.22.10.pdf

    Majority Voting, Legislative Institutions, and Gordon Tullock


    You might also want to google “Tyranny of the Majority” and relate that to why, in certain circumstances, the solution can be a higher threshold in order to serve both democracy and stability.


    Another referendum

    If there was one, it could all be done within 4 weeks - or 4 months - or 4 years. Knowing Britain as we do, I bet it will be years. Whatever the questionnaire wording, it will boil down to a choice between (1) rescinding Article 51 (ie returning with our national tail between our legs and being a global laughing stock - and even then subject to whether the EU will let us rescind Article 51 without there being some new rules (eg join Eurozone) or (3) leaving without a deal or continuing to negotiate for the right deal until the EU, the UK and all it's citizens die of old age or boredom. Also, I reckon the turnout will be lousy because voters will now know what is meant by "having a say" through a referendum: it's just extravagant but simplistic opinion poll which may or may not be activated until 650 lunatics have pontificated on the referendum result and its implementation pros & cons through to doomsday.


    You disagree with my opinion of Cameron

    So what? Do you also disagree with my judgement that his reform negotiations with the EU were pathetically ineffectual? Are you a Cameron fan? You surely must realise that Cameron, more than any other politician, has got us into this mess.


    Horizon's scenarios

    I think they are at least if not more plausible than mine. My concern is not the act of leaving without a deal but the reason for doing so. Britain's global reputation depends on it making that decision rather than the EU politely telling Britain to go forth and multiply. We need to leave without a deal as winners, not losers, as a country that won't be pushed around, as a country that knows what democracy, sovereignty and freedom is all about. Following on from the Chamberlainesque entreaties by Cameron and May which took ages to get nowhere, Britain urgently needs a leader who wouldn't put up with that crap for one minute. Boris and Rees-Mogg are prime examples where the EU wouldn't be able again to get away with that kind behaviour. Strategy-wise they'd make a terrific Good Cop/Bad Cop combo at the EU.


    Fidget's scenarios A B or C

    I agree with you Fidget that scenario A is what Mad May is pursuing. Whether it goes ahead will depend on what proportion of the 52% Leavers kick up a huge fuss. I fear the majority reaction will be "whatever", leaving Boris and Rees Mogg talking to themselves. I suspect Labour will remind voters that scenario A is a dog's dinner and they will win the next General Election I also think that it will lead to a Labour victory at the next General Election.


    The Conservative Party Conference

    I'm amazed at the way the Party has dealt with the Brexit issue, using whitewash and polyfiller. They've rallied round May for no reason that I can think of other than her being dissed by an exasperated or bored rigid EU and not getting a sore throat at the Conference. Or could it be the grotesque dance onto the conference stage? Did the audience see that as May having overnight discovered personality and spontaneity? I saw it as a real life impersonation of the Mel Brooks film Young Frankenstein, where Dr Frankenstein demonstrates to an academic audience how he has injected a primitive semblance of life into a corpse and taught it how to imitate Fred Astaire singing & dancing "Putting On The Ritz" before the monster suddenly goes berserk and the audience rushes out of the auditorium. I think Frankenstein's monster is marginally more human than the monster which the Tory Party have as their leader - and not just in dance steps!










    t

  • It is my best guess that there will be a No Deal Brexit as both our parliament and the EU parliament will never be able to agree anything.

    By default if nothing is voted through... No Deal exit occurs. Or "Brexit" as we like to call it.


    I also think this is what the referendum voted for.

    And what the country wants according to the polling and also what I want.


    I think if they declare this now, there will be more time for "certainty" and preparation can take place.



    But they won't. They will keep trying to shaft us.

    And even after Brexit, they will keep trying to sign us back up to bad deals.

    It will never end, but at least some of our enemies will be unemployed soon.

  • Problem is so many of the politicians including our prime minister are so keen on doing a deal at any cost. It should not be a zero sum game.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I agree, that's the problem.


    However it seems they can't agree.

    Which is an acceptable solution to this problem.


    And really pretty reflective of the nation as a whole I think.


    But we did vote for the nuclear option of leaving without a deal in the referendum. That did happen.

  • I would prefer a deal, rather than just crashing out of the EU, but that doesn't appear to be "The Plan." I said yesterday that people voting to leave in 2016, won't understand if come 2022, we're still in the EU in all but name.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • For me the deal comes at a price of 39 billion in return for absolutely nothing at all and opens us up to transition periods that can result in the referendum being overturned for longer.


    And I don't really see that EU membership is actually good for us financially anyway.

    I think the case for it is way, way, way overblown.


    I appreciate there might be some kind of downturn to come with leaving, but my bet is the opposite. An upswing.

    I just don't buy into Project Fear at all and never have.


    Vote for me and you will be rich.

    Vote against me and you will be poor.


    Righto. Lol.

    I think I'll take my chances thank you.

  • Fully agree.


    I'm in a minority of one here, but I do think EU membership is beneficial and if it weren't for the fact that the EU is turning into Greater Germany, I wouldn't preferred to stay in. But we are where we are and I would rather be as far from the euro (cough, Italy budget crisis) as we can be.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • There are things I liked.

    Credit card refunds. Great.


    But even those things the EU did I liked, have been passed.

    We don't need to remain to keep them.


    We don't have to keep paying them for reforms we have already done.



    I don't think you are in a minority on the economics of the EU.

    The trouble is I don't trust any of the economists.


    I was always royally pissed off by the way we were joined to the EU against our wishes.

    Typical Blair. That has rankled me from day one. Got my back up to have democracy cheated so blatantly.

    But I rebelled against this for a while. Gave it a chance.

    When we first joined the EU I recognised the good things and figured as Brits, we could reform it from the bad.

    And now, I don't believe we can reform it from the inside.

    I think we have more power and influence over them externally.

    I also no longer see any policies I like. And it's been decades since I have.

  • I'm missing your point about Blair there baff, what do you mean. Even he can't be blamed for taking us into the EU, he's done plenty of other stuff though...


    One of the issues with the EU is just do to with systems and law. We do things the Anglo Saxon way based on statue law, but those on the continent use a totally different set up to us in many cases. They're just not compatible with us.


    I agree we'll have more influence and power outside, but the EU has been good for lots of things. Environmental (clean beaches) as but one example.


    The EU is all about itself now. Growing the beast until it cannot be stopped, rather than concentrating on the important stuff like jobs, growth and security.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Mate, I watched him sign the damn treaty live on TV.


    He promised he wouldn't before giving us a referendum as long as we would all just elect him.

    He was elected and then he signed the damn thing.

    Said it wasn't the same treaty. They had changed two words out of 10 million so it wasn't the same treaty.

    But I read both. It was the same treaty.


    And it's not just him either. Every other party elected since promised a referendum too, before the EU came into effect and ever after, and they all repeatedly lied and when they got elected simply didn't do it.


    To even imagine that we live in a representative democracy after this is impossible.


    Nigel Farage needs to be honoured. But he won't be. Because there is no honour in our political system at all.

  • But we did vote for the nuclear option of leaving without a deal in the referendum. That did happen.

    It certainly did not happen. No one voted to leave the EU by putting Britain's economy and businesses into limbo land for at least 2 years, maybe even longer, with the result that private and corporate investment into Britain would shrink and that Britain would not be able to exit the EU without animosity, trading friction if not downright sabotage with exporting into the EU, and being made an example of so as to deter other EU member states from thinking of leaving. No one in Britain voted to leave the EU with negotiations for leaving being presided over and spearheaded by a mental case. Just because Theresa May suffers from Delusional Disorder (a.k.a. psychosis) that's no reason why we have to as well

  • Mate, I watched him sign the damn treaty live on TV.


    He promised he wouldn't before giving us a referendum as long as we would all just elect him.

    He was elected and then he signed the damn thing.

    Said it wasn't the same treaty. They had changed two words out of 10 million so it wasn't the same treaty.

    But I read both. It was the same treaty.

    I think you're talking about the Lisbon Treaty, but as I'm sure you would know that wasn't the treaty that took us into Europe, that was done in the 70s and the specific treaty that created the EU was signed by Major.

    Nigel Farage needs to be honoured. But he won't be. Because there is no honour in our political system at all.

    We've got threads on Farage, have a mooch around baff.


    I think Farage was underestimated and still is. He's still knocking around and lets see where he pops up next.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • It certainly did not happen. No one voted to leave the EU by putting Britain's economy and businesses into limbo land for at least 2 years, maybe even longer, with the result that private and corporate investment into Britain would shrink and that Britain would not be able to exit the EU without animosity, trading friction if not downright sabotage with exporting into the EU, and being made an example of so as to deter other EU member states from thinking of leaving. No one in Britain voted to leave the EU with negotiations for leaving being presided over and spearheaded by a mental case. Just because Theresa May suffers from Delusional Disorder (a.k.a. psychosis) that's no reason why we have to as well

    Sure we did.


    We voted to leave "whatever the cost".


    It was made absolutely excruciatingly and repeatedly clear what would happen to us financially if we dared to go against the wishes of our lords and masters.

    We still haven't heard the end of it.


    And just between you and me, we never will.

    This same argument will be being made by some oldies in 30 years time we vote to go back in.



    You are allowed to have your own opinion and it has been given equal weight to the opinions of the rest of us.

    Can't say fairer than that really.



    On the plus side, don't worry about it.

    All these wild eyed predictions of doom have turned out to the be opposite of what has occurred so far.

    I think you'll be fine.

  • I think you're talking about the Lisbon Treaty, but as I'm sure you would know that wasn't the treaty that took us into Europe, that was done in the 70s and the specific treaty that created the EU was signed by Major.

    We've got threads on Farage, have a mooch around baff.


    I think Farage was underestimated and still is. He's still knocking around and lets see where he pops up next.

  • I'm sorry but I don't buy that the EEC is the EU.

    Or that the ECSC, The European Coal and Steel Community is in fact the EU.


    They have different names because they are different treaties.



    The UN maybe the evolution of the League of Nations but they are not the same.


    And the country knew the Lisbon Treaty was a new treaty and it demanded a vote on it and was repeatedly promised a vote on it.

    Just as other countries were.


    Only the polling showed 75% would vote against it and the the French and the Irish did vote against it.

    So they didn't give us the promised vote.


    And that happened.


    Major signed it, Blair signed it. Brown signed it.


    And pretending the vote to sign up to the EEC 25 years earlier counts as a referendum on the EU is to fully ignore what happened to democracy in this country.

    Is to pretend that there was no public will for a vote on EU membership. No public campaign for it and no repeated manifesto promises from all party's for it.


    But there was.

    And to deny it is dishonest.


    And every general election since this, it has been campaigned on. By all main party's and all winning party's.

    Referendum demanded and committed to. And upon election... denied.

    And UKIP won the EU elections.

    Every possible vote has given a no response to EU membership since the day it was invented. I kid you not.


    At all possible elections since the inception of the EU a referendum has been demanded and offered because people didn't want to be in it.

    Every single one.

    That happened. It's real.


    This is not a democratic country.

    I hope to see it become one.

  • Fully agree.


    I'm in a minority of one here, but I do think EU membership is beneficial and if it weren't for the fact that the EU is turning into Greater Germany, I wouldn't preferred to stay in. But we are where we are and I would rather be as far from the euro (cough, Italy budget crisis) as we can be.

    If you mean EEC membership is beneficial I might agree with you , that prick Major sent us down the political route which is why Brexit rightly happened , EU membership is not beneficial to the UK in any away as far as I can see , we can co-operate without the cancerous EU getting into every aspect of our lives as has happened on defence projects like the Tornado and even Concorde , all way before the EU was stuck on our backs.

  • I can see no real benefit to EU membership. All the things we gain from EU membership can be achieved in other ways, and much cheaper too.


    Even if the EU were truly democratic, allowing a group of countries (only one larger, economically, and the rest smaller) to have control over many of our laws, our money, our fisheries, and our borders is ridiculous in the extreme, and we pay a very high price for the 'privilege'.


    I may be denied the pleasure of seeing the EU trying to convince other eurosceptic countries that they need to pay more, or receive less, when the UK leaves.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • 1) That's a daft way of putting it when no-one knew the downside, and certainly didn't know that the Brexit negotiations would be conducted by a psychotic with no end in sight.


    2) The assurances peddled by the Leave Camp and the Remain camp were overstated to the point of lacking credibility and preventing an informed choice. This is what is sometimes called "The Wisdom Of The Crowd and is used to defend democracy, God help us!


    3) Repeating "the same old argument" doesn't in itself invalidate the argument. It might simply prove that you either get bored too easily or have a closed mind.


    4) Gee thanks! WTF do you think you are?!


    5) If you aspire to become a politician or "person of influence" I think you'll be in good company, rubbing shoulders with a bunch of patronising turds who are a great danger to the future of this country.