|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On March 22 2019 21:44 Longshank wrote:@Xophy I tip my tinfoil ha to you good Sir! Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 19:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 22 2019 18:36 Longshank wrote:On March 22 2019 17:36 Pandemona wrote:On March 22 2019 08:11 Mohdoo wrote:On March 22 2019 07:49 Gorsameth wrote: *head hitting desk*
Why give them an extension with nothing to show for it, sigh.
So deal rejected next week then shitshow until mid april where the UK once again comes begging for more time to do nothing in.
"maybe they will understand its serious now" it was serious the last time and the time before that....
The longer it is delayed, the higher chance of cancelling Brexit. Time is on the side of people wanting it cancelled. Delay indefinitely until the whole thing just fizzles. At this point it won't be cancelled i am afraid. Would make it a lot easier. The 2 options are No Deal or May's Deal, there is nothing else but the MPs in Parliament think otherwise for some reason. Shouldn't we have learned by now not to speak in absolutes in regards to Brexit? There are other options. Parliament will try, and from the looks of it most likely succeed, to take control of the process on Monday. If the MPs in Parliament think there are other options it's quite important if they will be the ones running the show from next week. Maybe they'll reach an agreement, maybe not, but to anyone who's been following the debates this winter it's very notable how the tone has changed in the last week. The positions aren't nearly as entrenched as they've previously been. Anyone proclaiming with great conviction how there are only two options is just trying to score easy e-debate points in the not unlikely scenario they are right. It doesn't make any more true though. Ok, so explain to me what Parliament taking control means. The EU has once again made it clear, the current deal is final. They have no intention of renegotiating a new one. So what is Parliament going to do when it takes control? Hold a vote over the only deal that is on the table just like before? I'm not versed enough in the procedings of the Parliament to try to explain the technicalities but it's in the amendment by Hilary Benn + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1108873083094331392
One way frequently suggested has been to force MPs to take a stand on what they can accept, not what they prefer by a series of indicative votes. This is something May should have done in January but one of the things she's repeatedly refused to do. If I was to wager a guess it would be that we will end up with Mays deal vs. Customs Union 2.0. And as pointed out above me, leaders of the EU has stated many times that this deal is the only deal that can be negotiated around May's red lines. Were the red lines to change, the EU would "respond favourably" to quote Barnier. Tusk said yesterday that all options would be on the table in case of a longer extension. Forcing May to try and get the Norway model is an option, but I don't see it actually passed through Parliament, wasn't the response to Corbyn's letter, which basically was advocating for this, pretty bad? Didn't a bunch of people in his own party jump forward saying "we don't want this"? The problem with a Norway model is that you might aswell not leave at that point. Your giving up your vote in EU proceedings for very little. (and that is assuming you can get the Norway model, there have been voices from the group of countries that make up this version that don't want the UK to join them since they make decisions as a collective and the UK has different priorities).
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51345 Posts
Yeah but Corbyn wanted some dream customs union that was not even a thing and was completely made up so that might have been a reason behind that.
I just don't get why the EU would ever give us access to the trade union without paying into it or taking back all of the EU laws and being run under EU law again (even though we still will be under those laws anyway right?) so i don't see that deal with that involved will ever get through.
|
|
On March 22 2019 21:56 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 21:49 Pandemona wrote:On March 22 2019 21:41 farvacola wrote: The referendum vote should not be first in any appropriate sequence of events.
And the extent to which politicians are terrible also reflects on the populace. That underhand comment is a bit harsh when every single countries politicians are exactly the same.... Also i don't feel the referendum vote being first is an issue either, you can ask the people if they want to leave but you just don't put a time frame on it until the deal is done and everything is ironed out. Do you think time is the factor that divides the three leave factions? They would never agree, no matter the time frame. The problem is that 'Leave' was never defined before the referendum so all three(or more) factions are equally valid.
The referendum was very wel defined imo. How simple can it be? Leave the Eu or stay in the EU. It seems pretty clear to me. Leave eu is get out of all agreements and treatys they are in because of the eu,no longer forced to adhere eu laws and so on. I don't think there was much misunderstanding about what to vote for. In fact it could not have been more obvious. Its the politics afterwards that made it into a big mess because the result of the referendum was not expected.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
Yes I have seen this,its not the first petition either. I don't know what they want to achieve with this,other then use it as an argument to cancel the brexit or maybe to poll public opinion.
|
On March 22 2019 22:25 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 21:56 Longshank wrote:On March 22 2019 21:49 Pandemona wrote:On March 22 2019 21:41 farvacola wrote: The referendum vote should not be first in any appropriate sequence of events.
And the extent to which politicians are terrible also reflects on the populace. That underhand comment is a bit harsh when every single countries politicians are exactly the same.... Also i don't feel the referendum vote being first is an issue either, you can ask the people if they want to leave but you just don't put a time frame on it until the deal is done and everything is ironed out. Do you think time is the factor that divides the three leave factions? They would never agree, no matter the time frame. The problem is that 'Leave' was never defined before the referendum so all three(or more) factions are equally valid. The referendum was very wel defined imo. How simple can it be? Leave the Eu or stay in the EU. It seems pretty clear to me. Leave eu is get out of all agreements and treatys they are in because of the eu,no longer forced to adhere eu laws and so on. I don't think there was much misunderstanding about what to vote for. In fact it could not have been more obvious. Its the politics afterwards that made it into a big mess because the result of the referendum was not expected. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584Yes I have seen this,its not the first petition either. I don't know what they want to achieve with this,other then use it as an argument to cancel the brexit or maybe to poll public opinion.
The wording was obvious. The secondary impacts were not obvious. The secondary impacts were also lied about. People actively said x would happen but y is what will actually happen.
Also, are there not polls being used to track support for Brexit? I feel like in the US, polling agencies would be milking the hell out of something like this.
|
On March 22 2019 22:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 21:44 Longshank wrote:@Xophy I tip my tinfoil ha to you good Sir! On March 22 2019 19:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 22 2019 18:36 Longshank wrote:On March 22 2019 17:36 Pandemona wrote:On March 22 2019 08:11 Mohdoo wrote:On March 22 2019 07:49 Gorsameth wrote: *head hitting desk*
Why give them an extension with nothing to show for it, sigh.
So deal rejected next week then shitshow until mid april where the UK once again comes begging for more time to do nothing in.
"maybe they will understand its serious now" it was serious the last time and the time before that....
The longer it is delayed, the higher chance of cancelling Brexit. Time is on the side of people wanting it cancelled. Delay indefinitely until the whole thing just fizzles. At this point it won't be cancelled i am afraid. Would make it a lot easier. The 2 options are No Deal or May's Deal, there is nothing else but the MPs in Parliament think otherwise for some reason. Shouldn't we have learned by now not to speak in absolutes in regards to Brexit? There are other options. Parliament will try, and from the looks of it most likely succeed, to take control of the process on Monday. If the MPs in Parliament think there are other options it's quite important if they will be the ones running the show from next week. Maybe they'll reach an agreement, maybe not, but to anyone who's been following the debates this winter it's very notable how the tone has changed in the last week. The positions aren't nearly as entrenched as they've previously been. Anyone proclaiming with great conviction how there are only two options is just trying to score easy e-debate points in the not unlikely scenario they are right. It doesn't make any more true though. Ok, so explain to me what Parliament taking control means. The EU has once again made it clear, the current deal is final. They have no intention of renegotiating a new one. So what is Parliament going to do when it takes control? Hold a vote over the only deal that is on the table just like before? I'm not versed enough in the procedings of the Parliament to try to explain the technicalities but it's in the amendment by Hilary Benn + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1108873083094331392
One way frequently suggested has been to force MPs to take a stand on what they can accept, not what they prefer by a series of indicative votes. This is something May should have done in January but one of the things she's repeatedly refused to do. If I was to wager a guess it would be that we will end up with Mays deal vs. Customs Union 2.0. And as pointed out above me, leaders of the EU has stated many times that this deal is the only deal that can be negotiated around May's red lines. Were the red lines to change, the EU would "respond favourably" to quote Barnier. Tusk said yesterday that all options would be on the table in case of a longer extension. Forcing May to try and get the Norway model is an option, but I don't see it actually passed through Parliament, wasn't the response to Corbyn's letter, which basically was advocating for this, pretty bad? Didn't a bunch of people in his own party jump forward saying "we don't want this"? The problem with a Norway model is that you might aswell not leave at that point. Your giving up your vote in EU proceedings for very little. (and that is assuming you can get the Norway model, there have been voices from the group of countries that make up this version that don't want the UK to join them since they make decisions as a collective and the UK has different priorities). A bunch of people in Labour would jump forward and say "we don't want this" no matter what he proposed. While remain might be in majority among MPs and members there are still a sizable portion strongly against a second referendum. As I said, it's not about what people want but what they can accept. And multiple MPs from across the Parliament has said that they think a CU2.0 is something a majority can accept.
Reports on Twitter and Sky News indicates that the Government will get ahead of Benn's amendment and arrange the indicative votes themself(being forced into it isn't a good look). The options would be: May's deal No deal Second referendum Revocation of a50 May's deal + CU (aka Corbyns deal, or if that's the one below with SM. Not sure.) May's deal + CU + SM Free Trade Agreement
In case of MV3 failing, these would be held on Wednesday.
Edit: I've got the acronyms mixed up. CU2.0 should be CM2.0(as in Common Market, aka Norway+).
|
I've just seen this on twitter from a Yougov poll. Looks like the government is representing the will of the people by doing nothing and refusing all options.
|
United States40789 Posts
On March 22 2019 17:53 Jockmcplop wrote: Its amazing to me that something that began as a misguided outpouring of national pride spitting in the face of reality has become a neverending series of humiliations. The UK is now the world news equivalent of a tetanus dog with no legs being nursed back to health by a monkey that you see at the end of the daily news to try and make people remember that life can be ridiculous as well as terrifying.
How people can take Theresa May's side in this is truly baffling beyond words. She had 90 minutes with EU leaders yesterday during which she apparently didn't know the answers to any of the questions they asked her. Ask anyone in the UK and they will tell you that she's been that way since she became PM. She won't answer a single question unless she can answer it with a predetermined catchphrase that means nothing, and at a time when we need a leader to bring people together she doesn't have the power to govern her own front bench let alone convince the whole of parliament to agree to something they don't want. She's a political frankenstein's monster, the result of political science gone totally down the wrong alley for years. Robotic, charmless, boring, incompetent and shit. Only capable of repeating a 3 word mantra which changes every few months. Will of the people, strong and stable, brexit means brexit FUCKING DO SOMETHING May stop this catchphrase bullshit it doesn't help you or anyone. If she hadn't called a snap election (which she promised not to and then did anyway) we wouldn't be in this mess now and Brexit could've worked.
Resign. Preferably 2 years ago.
Rant over. May doesn’t control Parliament, which is odd given that Prime Minister is the job title of the person who can get Parliament to vote with them. There’s nothing she can do, she has duck all power, she’s PM in name only. Other than resign of course.
|
United Kingdom20164 Posts
On March 22 2019 23:39 Jockmcplop wrote:I've just seen this on twitter from a Yougov poll. Looks like the government is representing the will of the people by doing nothing and refusing all options.
I think that we need a public vote, ranked choice with everything from no deal to revoking article 50. Get opinions on record and then act on them decisively.
The first referendum was never enough to go on; it was a 52/48 vote with the 52ers voting for very different things. Very silly to proceed for the next 2 + 3/4 years as if it were.
|
On March 22 2019 22:04 Gorsameth wrote: The problem with 'get a deal, then have a referendum' is that your assuming the EU is willing to negotiate before art 50 is invoked. The EU has every reason not to do this, not least of which that every other nation that ever considered if it wouldn't be better off alone would jump at the chance of doing the same. The EU would spend the rest of its existence negotiating with current members about what deal those members would get if they leave. Its completely unworkable.
That makes sense but then you need 2 referendums. One to unvoke the article and another when you have the consequenzes of leaving on the table. The negotiations is an final deal is extremely important!
Btw, is it a given that the UK can somehow remain in the customs union and single market but reserve the right to block EU regulations and movement of workers? I thought that was impossible from the EU side.
A Norway like deal would actually almost be better for the EU, as they will get rid of a powerful and troublesome deligation in Bruxelles and can still pass all the legislation they want over their heads. The only right they have is some to make some stupid trade taxes, which are very important for Norway (like ~400% import tax on certain farm pruducts) which I don't think the UK wants anyway.
|
Btw, is it a given that the UK can somehow remain in the customs union and single market but reserve the right to block EU regulations and movement of workers? I thought that was impossible from the EU side.
No. Like, that's absolutely impossible. I've heard people mention this, but this is even more idiotic than the £350m bus.
Here's how it is, and that's indeed non-negotiable. A: single market means four freedoms. No way around that. B: customs union means you implement what the EU regulates. If you don't, you go. Which btw also wouldn't work even if the EU would suggest this (which they won't, you'd be next level deluded to assume that'd happen) - because customs union and single market means "no own trade deals". As we know and is proven, the UK is very adept and eager to roll over the trade deals they got through the EU negotiate new deals.
Norway (/plus) isn't going to happen either. I'd actually be even more pissed off if suddenly Norway would be an option, because that would mean that literally two and a half years were wasted. Norway requires the four freedoms (btw, something Switzerland accepted too). If suddenly the four freedoms aren't a problem anymore, the entire clusterfuck that happened for two and a half years could've been avoided, and literally everyone could've been happy.
Of course, except those people who literally think that "those poles stealing all the jobs".
|
dudes, the point was, if you remember from couple years ago, for EU to fail/fall/disband/regress to its starting block. there were a bunch of talk about -exits back then, from Grexit to Itaexit &co, then it was the deal breaking/failing between the lefties and the righties in the European Parliament making the backstage consensus in passing laws, well, to put it likely, more contentious. in essence, the anglo-saxons wanted to neuter the germans. some aspects of that struggle are still going on but per ensemble, they' fucked it.
also, i find everyone's basic premise/expectancy that a deal should start from 'what is the best for <X>side' to be naive at best. fucking your enemy more than you fuck yourself it's a win in most scenarios.
|
On March 23 2019 17:45 xM(Z wrote: dudes, the point was, if you remember from couple years ago, for EU to fail/fall/disband/regress to its starting block. there were a bunch of talk about -exits back then, from Grexit to Itaexit &co, then it was the deal breaking/failing between the lefties and the righties in the European Parliament making the backstage consensus in passing laws, well, to put it likely, more contentious. in essence, the anglo-saxons wanted to neuter the germans. some aspects of that struggle are still going on but per ensemble, they' fucked it.
also, i find everyone's basic premise/expectancy that a deal should start from 'what is the best for <X>side' to be naive at best. fucking your enemy more than you fuck yourself it's a win in most scenarios.
(1) the EU doesn't see the UK as an enemy. More like a friend who did LSD and now thinks he's the king of Narnia, and maybe it's getting a bit tiresom babysitting him. (2) no idea what the UK thinks, but if they see the EU as an enemy, they are slightly crazier than I thought.
|
On March 23 2019 17:45 xM(Z wrote: dudes, the point was, if you remember from couple years ago, for EU to fail/fall/disband/regress to its starting block. there were a bunch of talk about -exits back then, from Grexit to Itaexit &co, then it was the deal breaking/failing between the lefties and the righties in the European Parliament making the backstage consensus in passing laws, well, to put it likely, more contentious. in essence, the anglo-saxons wanted to neuter the germans. some aspects of that struggle are still going on but per ensemble, they' fucked it.
also, i find everyone's basic premise/expectancy that a deal should start from 'what is the best for <X>side' to be naive at best. fucking your enemy more than you fuck yourself it's a win in most scenarios.
Considering the EU just spend hours and hours negotiating how they could help the UK avoid a hard Brexit instead of just telling them to fuck off, your premise is bullshit.
|
no it's not. why wouldn't germans want the UK?. you know, just as they wanted the rest of Europe/N-Africa/Middle-East/Causasus region when they expanded the union. how is an UK subservient to EU not a win for EU?.
|
On March 23 2019 20:03 xM(Z wrote: no it's not. why wouldn't germans want the UK?. you know, just as they wanted the rest of Europe/N-Africa/Middle-East/Causasus region when they expanded the union. how is an UK subservient to EU not a win for EU?. Your premise that EU=Germany is wrong, so all conclusions you try to draw from it are wrong too.
|
He's just saying bigger EU is in the German interest. That doesn't mean Germany is the only EU member interested in that in general and avoiding hard Brexit in particular.
|
Yeah, but it plays of this idea that the EU is basically Germany controlling a bunch of other nations. Which is clearly wrong, but also very popular among eurosceptics.
|
EU=Germany is semantics(what is leading? vs what is controlling?) and i'm not an eurosceptic. as for the other accusations: who's making an european army?; all hail the Bundeswehr. But this year, far from the headlines, Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, quietly took a radical step down a path toward something that looks like an EU army while avoiding the messy politics associated with it: They announced the integration of their armed forces. Romania’s entire military won’t join the Bundeswehr, nor will the Czech armed forces become a mere German subdivision. But in the next several months each country will integrate one brigade into the German armed forces: Romania’s 81st Mechanized Brigade will join the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division, while the Czech 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade, which has served in Afghanistan and Kosovo and is considered the Czech Army’s spearhead force, will become part of the Germans’ 10th Armored Division. In doing so, they’ll follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the Bundeswehr’s 1st Armored Division. According to Carlo Masala, a professor of international politics at the University of the Bundeswehr in Munich, “The German government is showing that it’s willing to proceed with European military integration” — even if others on the continent aren’t yet . what would they need to protect?. Edit: and before anyone starts with hippie answers, you protect <interests>; physical, tangible, real interests not ideas/ideologies.
Edit more: there's no fucking way that Margret Thatchers stance on german reunification(extremely against) when Bush, Thatcher, Gorbachev and Kohl were negotiating the reunification, didn't rub off on tories of today. she said(not literally) that germans will be at it(expanding, to put it lightly) again in no time.
|
Your posts keep making it look like you're claiming Germany and the group it leads plans to protect its tangible interests now instead of just gradually increasing the cooperation inside the group that may or may not lead to to something helpful in the more distant future.
You also make it look like you're suggesting Germans being at it is something sinister. I'm not saying you're suggesting that, I'm saying that's how it looks in the eyes of "uninitiated". If you want to avoid the knee-jerk reaction posts you have to clarify Germans being at it means just them becoming an independent power instead of maintaining status quo. Or, if you believe it means something else, explain what you think it means.
|
|
|
|