Crosswords4 mins ago
Pm 'must Listen' To Other Parties Over Brexit Says Cameron
http://
What are the chances May will listen ? After all, not listening is part of the reason that she is in the mess that she is in today.
Do bloody difficult women ( and men ) ever listen ?
What are the chances May will listen ? After all, not listening is part of the reason that she is in the mess that she is in today.
Do bloody difficult women ( and men ) ever listen ?
Answers
//Mrs May also said “Brexit means Brexit”// That doesn't mean anything.
08:56 Wed 14th Jun 2017
I've been busy doing other things, Hans. But, in short... no, I don't think so. Certainly not in practice: for example, it would leave millions of Europeans in this country (and British Citizens in the EU) stranded overnight in terms of legal status; and we have many financial commitments that can hardly be cancelling unilaterally without wrecking everything. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons you can't just leave the EU overnight without telling them, but those two will do.
I suppose you could also add the irreparable damage to the UK's diplomatic reputation, for why should a country ever trust us to meet our commitments and honour Treaty obligations in future arrangements if we've shown we're happy to toss them aside on a whim?
Parliament of course has the legal power to repeal the 1972 Act, but then Samson had the power to pull the columns down. Doesn't mean it was a good idea.
I suppose you could also add the irreparable damage to the UK's diplomatic reputation, for why should a country ever trust us to meet our commitments and honour Treaty obligations in future arrangements if we've shown we're happy to toss them aside on a whim?
Parliament of course has the legal power to repeal the 1972 Act, but then Samson had the power to pull the columns down. Doesn't mean it was a good idea.
Hi whiskeryron...Hope you are keeping well. I think you might be the most senior member of AB and are a voice I always listen to. However, I am unaware of any suggestion from the Electorate that the Conservatives should form a Coalition with Labour.
@jim360...Teresa May has already promised for the next Queen's Speech, to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and encompass all existing EU law into British law... It will be interesting to see if she keeps her promise, which I believe was made, last year, to Andrew Marr in a BBC interview.
Hans.
@jim360...Teresa May has already promised for the next Queen's Speech, to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and encompass all existing EU law into British law... It will be interesting to see if she keeps her promise, which I believe was made, last year, to Andrew Marr in a BBC interview.
Hans.
"I've never met a single 'leaver' who wanted anything but what is termed a 'hard brexit'"
With all due respect YMB, that is completely irrelevant. The social circle you happen to inhabit is so small as to be completely insignificant. For every person you know who favours hard Brexit, I know someone who voted Leave because they thought it would end up in EEA membership. One works as an engineer, another as a journalist.
But that doesn't mean anything, it's just anecdote. We know that these ideas exist - both of the Leave campaigns voiced them repeatedly. What we don't know is the respective influence they had. Everyone just blithely assumes that their view is the common sense one.
It's a maddening level of reality denial. There were always multiple Brexits represented on the campaign regardless of what was on the ballot paper. In fact the Leave Campaign simply switched between them whenever it was convenient. It was an epic case of bait-and-switch.
With all due respect YMB, that is completely irrelevant. The social circle you happen to inhabit is so small as to be completely insignificant. For every person you know who favours hard Brexit, I know someone who voted Leave because they thought it would end up in EEA membership. One works as an engineer, another as a journalist.
But that doesn't mean anything, it's just anecdote. We know that these ideas exist - both of the Leave campaigns voiced them repeatedly. What we don't know is the respective influence they had. Everyone just blithely assumes that their view is the common sense one.
It's a maddening level of reality denial. There were always multiple Brexits represented on the campaign regardless of what was on the ballot paper. In fact the Leave Campaign simply switched between them whenever it was convenient. It was an epic case of bait-and-switch.
Also just to pre-empt the response of "well they shouldn't have voted leave then," yes I know. It was a dumb thing for those people to do. But, alas, they did it. And if they did, it's highly likely they were not alone.
This is why the binary in/out choice of that referendum were fundamentally out of step with reality...
This is why the binary in/out choice of that referendum were fundamentally out of step with reality...
Since the European Economic Area also insists on the four impostitions, namely free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, it would be a very unusual thinking person that thought that would be remotely acceptable, given the views on regaining border control, which was one of the main drivers to exit. 'Goods' is fine, it is trade related: the rest is, at best, highly questionable. Clearly it wasn't going to be a reasonable option. Consequently there was only exit option on the ballot paper.
These aren't retiring wallflowers OG and they were convinced by aspects of Vote Leave's propaganda, which oscillated between what is now called hard and soft Brexit wildly depending on circumstances.
That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not about a few people I happen to know, because that's a dumb way to make judgements about the world. It's about the fact that the campaigning was fought with multiple, wildly contradictory understandings of Brexit at hand.
That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not about a few people I happen to know, because that's a dumb way to make judgements about the world. It's about the fact that the campaigning was fought with multiple, wildly contradictory understandings of Brexit at hand.
What I find puzzling - to say the least - is how the whole Brexit discussion has been reduced to nothing but 'trade'. The real issues why most people voted out was as N. Farage said, "We want our country back".
Throughout there has been no debate about the major issues of the ever increasing enlargement of the EU to basket-case economies for political reasons, the formation of a European Army and the helplessness of the EU to control its own borders, the pressure from Turkey to join in order to add a Muslim dictatorship to the heart of Europe and many more extremely important issues.
Throughout there has been no debate about the major issues of the ever increasing enlargement of the EU to basket-case economies for political reasons, the formation of a European Army and the helplessness of the EU to control its own borders, the pressure from Turkey to join in order to add a Muslim dictatorship to the heart of Europe and many more extremely important issues.
I've said it before on here several times previously so it can't hurt to repeat it.
The day after the referendum I asked 12 people I know who had voted 'leave' why they did so. I got a range of answers.
2 said ''Because I hate that Bast**d Cameron''
2 said ''Because it was Thatcher that got us in it''
8 said ''To get rid of the b******y Immigrants ''
The day after the referendum I asked 12 people I know who had voted 'leave' why they did so. I got a range of answers.
2 said ''Because I hate that Bast**d Cameron''
2 said ''Because it was Thatcher that got us in it''
8 said ''To get rid of the b******y Immigrants ''
Don't recall any leave propaganda, as it wasn't needed. Certainty I don't recall any mention of soft and hard prior to the result being announced and some folk, having lost the referendum, wanting to water the result down by claiming differences. The argument was always to get out but see if the negotiations would result in the EU catching a dose of common sense and agreeing a deal without insisting on their usual unacceptable demands. We'd not turn our nose up at a tariff free movement of goods out of spite, but the suspicion is that the EU won't agree to such a win/win deal out of vindictiveness and fear.
//Don't recall any leave propaganda//
Really?
Come on OG. I was a staunch Remainer but even I'll admit that my side's tactics were not the most upstanding and honest and the same is true for Leave.
What about that stonking great £350m lie that was plastered all over Johnson's battlebus? What about Hannan promising that leaving would permit more migrants to come while Farage promised the opposite? What about Gove saying "we've had enough of experts" in response to repeated warnings by qualified people and groups?
Do these not strike you as just a tad propagandistic?
Really?
Come on OG. I was a staunch Remainer but even I'll admit that my side's tactics were not the most upstanding and honest and the same is true for Leave.
What about that stonking great £350m lie that was plastered all over Johnson's battlebus? What about Hannan promising that leaving would permit more migrants to come while Farage promised the opposite? What about Gove saying "we've had enough of experts" in response to repeated warnings by qualified people and groups?
Do these not strike you as just a tad propagandistic?
As I have pointed out umpteen times, there was no £350m lie plastered all over Johnson's battlebus. There was the remainer blatant lie that there was, but anyone who checked instead of just believed could see there wasn't. (I accept there could be discussion over the £350m figure because of the temporary "rebate" but it was perfectly valid to include it.)
Control of immigration would allow more or less immigration from the various parts of the world as the government of the day desires, it's perfectly reasonable to have different views but both are feasible.
Belittling experts that were apparently consistently getting forecasts wrong, was fair enough.
As I say, the leavers didn't need propaganda. They simply had to counter "project fear".
Control of immigration would allow more or less immigration from the various parts of the world as the government of the day desires, it's perfectly reasonable to have different views but both are feasible.
Belittling experts that were apparently consistently getting forecasts wrong, was fair enough.
As I say, the leavers didn't need propaganda. They simply had to counter "project fear".
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.