…and I’ve just seen post #417. Oh well. No personal rancour is intended in this debate, and I hope Novelty Bobble works out whatever is going on IRL.
it is worth the emphasis that it was not only on the ascension to the Euro that they deliberately fabricated statistics (they were not otherwise eligible), but that the actual active fabrication for the deliberate deception of the Eurozone authorities continued until just before the crisis.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The idea that Europeans (or their governments since the distinction seems to matter to some) are less flexible than the British seems odd. How about the Spanish? Are they demanding special treatment from the EU? Are the French complying with Brussels’ rules? The Germans? the Poles? Are the Italians demanding that EU rules be renegotiated? No. Yet we’re asked to believe it’s the British who are more flexible??
Here’s one explanation of why Britain joined the EU in the first place.
Is Britain being flexible on free movement of individuals as part of a trade deal?
That will depend on who is negotiating the trade deal. May has been, throughout the whole process, absolutely insistent that Freedom of Movement will end. This is probably the biggest factor in determining the scope of the deal the EU is willing to offer her as it effectively rules out Single Market membership. Corbyn, by contrast, has not insisted on ending Freedom of Movement. He is being a little coy about it - his recent Guardian editorialspeaks of “…setting migration policies to meet the needs of the economy, not fuelling xenophobia with phoney immigration targets or thresholds”. That’s not coming out and saying he’ll end Freedom of Movement, but it’s not saying he’ll sign up to it either.
There are about 4 Million EU nationals resident in the UK and there are about 1 Million UK Nationals resident in EU countries.
The EU Nationals are mainlyy of working age and paying tax. The UK Nationals in the EU are mainly retired folk escaping the cold northern climate. They are very dependent on the health services in the EU countries. If they had to pay for private health insurance many could not afford it.
May spends a lot of time trying to appease the Brexit supporters with forceful pronouncements about how we are going to secure our borders, only allow in the most qualified people and resolutely oppose the ‘Free mobility of Labour’ that the EU is so fond of.
On the other hand, she knows full well that UK is in a much weaker bargaining position. If Spain were to ask UK residents to pay for private medical insurance it would result in thousands of elderly, sick people returning back to the UK creating a big crisis in the NHS. If EU residents left the UK there would be severe shortages of workers in many key areas of the economy.
UK politicians position on immigration has always been to loudly say they are going to control immigration and quietly do exactly the opposite. May spent years in the Home Office running a department that is widely regarded as something of a joke in Government circles.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Brilliant! 
- Please stop saying that the referendum was non-binding.
The government sent out a leaflet to all households, at the households’ own expense mind you, making the case for Remain but saying “we will implement your decision [on whether to leave the EU].” That doesn’t sound “advisory” to me. Everyone understood at the time that the referendum was for real.
It was non-binding only in some legalistic sense that desperate people might resort to. In the real world, it was politically binding. MPs get this, even if you don’t.
- The idea that Leave had an unfair advantage, due to Aaron Banks’ money, or possibly Russia, is preposterous.
If one side had an unfair advantage, it was probably Remain, with the machinery of Whitehall at its disposal (and sometimes with quite direct taxpayer funding, as with the propaganda leaflet mentioned in point (1) ). I don’t know how much that is worth in political campaigning money terms, but it must be huge. In comparison, a few million here or there on the Leave side is chicken feed.
I think that if the referendum had been run strictly fairly, Leave might have won by a bigger margin.
Leaflets are not the law. They are simply an advertising.
the political aspect your posters have noted. The advisoyr is the issue of the law.
Sure, it’s politically binding. Hence the pressure for a second referendum from those who recognise that the only legiitimate way to supersede a politically binding mandate is with a fresh, and equally politically binding, mandate.
But it’s not legally binding. This isn’t just nitpicking; it’s important. If the referendum had any legal effect, then legal mechanisms would have been available to address problems or deficiencies in the referendum process. In an election, if there are electoral abuses you can go to court to get the outcome of the election anulled, and the election repeated. This mechanism isn’t available in relation to the referendum, because it had no legal outcome that a court could anull. It was always up to Parliament to assess what mandate the referendum conferred - a political judgment.
Which means that you can’t give parliament a free pass, arguing that its responsibility for Brexit is effectively dissolved by the referendum outcome. Parliament has to be satisfied that whatever is done is mandated by the referendum outcome. Which means yes, they have to be satisfied that the referendum outcome is not rendered politically illegitimate by corrupt practices. But it also means yes, they have to be satisfied that the referendum confers a mandate for the particular form of Brexit that is being implemented. YOu can’t (without attracting ridicule or worse) take the view that the referendum confers an irresistible mandate to leave the UK on whatever terms can be managed, however disastrous, however different from the terms promoted in support of the “Leave” vote, however damaging they may be to particular communities in the UK.
If you actually want to remove power from Parliament, and/or absolve Parliament from the responsibility for making judgments and decisions that, legally, remain its to make,. you need to seek a legally binding, self-executing referendum. That’s not what the UK had. The referendum gives Parliament a mandate, but it doesn’t deprive parliament of control or absolve it of responsiblity.
Here is the Court’s press release:
This changes everything!
And nothing.
It is interesting that the UK has a clear(ish) route to remain. It opens up a possibility that didn’t exist before. But, similar to UDS’ and dominic65’s discussion above, there is an important distinction between the legally possible and the politically possible, and A50 revocation has not (I would say) achieved the latter.
There are two routes to A50 revocation. The first is a second referendum, with Remain on the ballot. There are some hard questions to be asked about what else should be on that ballot - indeed, whether there should be only two options, or three. In any event, it is unlikely that even if we could quickly agree on the basic form of the question, we would be able to agree and authorise the process of the referendum before March 2019. Would it, for example, be legally binding and self-executing? Or would it merely deliver a political mandate? To establish that, and pass the necessary supporting legislation, and set up campaigns etc. etc. would require us to ask for an extension to the March 2019 deadline. We would probably get one, but not an infinite one, so we’re looking at a fairly rushed campaign. Can the various pro-Remain forces get their act together to deliver a winning campaign? One that doesn’t involve any implication of “you idiots got it wrong last time, now for god’s sake listen to your betters and give us the right answer”?. Can they win in the face of the obvious betrayal narrative that Leave will be running with?
Option 2 is for Parliament to exercise its sovereignty, in a return to representative democracy. There are various obstacles to this: MP’s unwillingness to enter the job market is just one of them. I wouldn’t even like to say whether the sum [Pro-Remain MPs] plus [better-Remain-than-this-dog’s-dinner MPs] equals a parliamentary majority even before the whips get involved. It would all get pretty nasty and there would be a backlash of people who felt that they were being ignored by Westminster (not entirely unfairly). I discount the lurid predictions of rioting in the streets, but there’s no question that it would add to the political disenchantment that got us into this mess in the first place.
So, and I could easily be wrong, my feeling is that this opens a door that [del]no-one[/del] not enough people will be willing or able to walk through.
Well, that is a new one I’ll admit. Brexit on guitar player.:p;):D.
Welcome to the Dope!
Brexit reminds me of a very thick and self confident schoolboy taking a test. The Master has been hinting the correct answers for the entire class and has now outright told him and he still stubbornly refuses.
I can’t see this as anything but a Get Out of Gaol Free card.
For fuck’s sake use it.
Looks like tomorrow’s vote on the Withdrawal Agreement has been/is about to be pulled. The PM is making a statement on Exiting the European Union to the House at 3:30 GMT.
Chaos reigns, drums in the deep, the centre cannot hold.
Doesn’t the ruling give the UK the ability to effectively unilaterally extend the Article 50 period by two years? The government could pull the plug and start over, like Brexit is a broken modem.