/ Vote Libdem: you know it makes sense....

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019

   Right I've decided I've had enough of all this. From where the UK is, deeply divided, a government in place but barely in power,and on the cusp of recession (along with much of Europe) , there is no way that it can ever agree a clear and united negotiating position. It will therefore either never get a decent deal or will take at least ten years from now to achieve one.

  I would still prefer to leave the EU and despise the arrogance and attitudes of the hard core remainers, but I don't think it is possible on any sensible basis or timeframe. Remaining is far from optimal and leaves us vulnerable to going down the pan with Europe or being dragged kicking and screaming into a federal state, or both . It also leaves us with Farage and his mates shrieking for the rest of eternity. But these things are brought to try us.

   So, since I'd rather have no deal than a Marxist government I shall be voting Libdem.

  Well, that's today, anyway. I reserve the right to change my mind

21
Pedro50 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Funny I'm a hard core remainer. I will be voting Lib Dem. 

1
rj_townsend 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Pedro50:

For the first time ever so will I. What a ridiculous position we're in.

Although not quite as ridiculous as the "dragged kicking ans screaming into a federal state" claim.

3
Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to rj_townsend:

> For the first time ever so will I. What a ridiculous position we're in.

> Although not quite as ridiculous as the "dragged kicking ans screaming into a federal state" claim.


You think they're joking?

9
stevieb 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Good to hear.

I think leaving the single market would be a bigger upheaval than most people realise even now, and would dominate UK political energy for a long time to come.

I will also be voting Lib Dem. I think Jo Swinson is far from impressive, but the two main party leaders are so much worse.

3
john arran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It also leaves us with Farage and his mates shrieking for the rest of eternity

The wannabe fascists' sticks and stones may break our bones but a shrieking Farage cannot hurt us.

3
jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    So, since I'd rather have no deal than a Marxist government I shall be voting Libdem.

You've lost me. Typo, or are you implying in some non-specific way that a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a Johnson-Farage train wreck?

Anyway, welcome back, let's hope we can start to put this mess behind us.

jk

2
Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

If BJ wanted to settle this there's a simple solution. He calls a second confirmatory referendum after the EU summit. Two options on the ballot, the deal he has managed to negotiate and call the whole thing off.

If he really believes the "people" are behind him then give them a once and for all vote. After Brexit is settled he can then fight an election on his principles of tax cuts for the rich, reducing tax on fuel and forcing the working class to work until they die.

Of course he won't because he knows he'd lose.

1
alastairmac 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

In Scotland it's an easy choice. A vote against Brexit. A vote against this corrosive right wing cabal. A vote against corrupt and inept Westminster rule. And a vote for democracy and self government. And voting for the SNP will I hope have the added bonus of seeing thirteen Scottish Tory MP's that support a no deal Brexit against the wishes of their constituents, pick up their P45's. 

6
Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> You've lost me. Typo, or are you implying in some non-specific way that a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a Johnson-Farage train wreck?

>

  No, I'm just saying that Corbyn would be the worst option of the lot so I could never vote from him as a way of remaining or avoiding no deal.

13
Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat: Is this you trying not to be partisan again?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> If BJ wanted to settle this there's a simple solution. He calls a second confirmatory referendum after the EU summit. Two options on the ballot, the deal he has managed to negotiate and call the whole thing off.

That's one way. The other is to try to delay everything until the UK exits without a deal at the end of October by default, while planning for an election after that in case that fails - campaigning on the basis of having done everything he could but having been cheated by the traitors, then getting re-elected in November with a majority (at least after adding in the brexit party MPs), with no deal exit in the manifesto, and doing it then. And as an added insurance policy he could see whether he can persuade any of the EU member states to veto another extension even if the UK asks for one - but he probably doesn't need that anyway.

It's difficult to see how he hasn't already won.

Dealing with the mess after no deal brexit is another matter, of course. People are going to be angry when they realise that pretty much nothing is resolved, and we'll still have to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, and they still have plenty of conditions...

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> If BJ wanted to settle this there's a simple solution. He calls a second confirmatory referendum after the EU summit. Two options on the ballot, the deal he has managed to negotiate and call the whole thing off.

>

  That doesn't settle the problem.

1) The outcome of a second referendum is too close to call.

2) If the vote is for Boris's deal then that is not the end. It is  just the beginning of negotiations for the final deal. Given the referendum will have been very close we will back in the same place: unable to agree a negotiating position and therefore destined to another ten years or more of argument and uncertainty.

Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to skog:

> That's one way. The other is to try to delay everything until the UK exits without a deal at the end of October by default

Yes but the legislation going through Parliament forces him to ask for an extension. We can't leave by default on 31st October.

1
GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I've also had enough of this but I'm struggling to see a solution.  Leaving without a deal would not be good but I have no way of knowing how bad it could be and no one on this forum is qualified to advise me. Another referendum would seem like an insult to those who voted in the first one and perhaps even a betrayal of democracy. Despite what people might like to think another referendum is NOT more democracy. Revoking article 50 would also be a a very bad idea.  IMO the only solution that would satisfy me is a General Election (essentially another referendum in all but name) but I will be waiting until the last minute to see how things pan out before committing to any party.  I hate the lot of them Tory and Labour, morally they are as bad as each other.  Lib Dems have at least been consistent and dare I say honest but I have never had any respect for their ideas finding them naive, unrealistic, expensive and woolly.

Al

16
skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

Are you quite sure he can't just waste time until 1st November?

I'm not - legislation can be passed saying that he has to go and ask, that isn't the same thing as him actually being forced to go.

I suspect parliament is kidding itself that it can control this, now. We're way past the time for that.

And how sure are you the EU would grant an extension anyway - to someone who goes because he's been forced to, and makes it clear he's going to do everything he can to sabotage it even if they do grant one?

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Splitter!  😄

1
Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    Remaining is far from optimal and leaves us vulnerable to going down the pan with Europe or being dragged kicking and screaming into a federal state, or both .

The text exempting the UK from ever closer Union

"It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."

Andy 1902 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Yes but the legislation going through Parliament forces him to ask for an extension. We can't leave by default on 31st October.

Don't count the chickens yet is my advice on that one.

skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

I'm struggling to see how another referendum could be a betrayal of democracy if a 'referendum in all but name' would not!

1
Dave Garnett 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Oddly, I usually vote Lib Dem on principle but this time I'll vote Labour tactically because it's the only chance of getting rid on the Conservative incumbent. 

2
Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   That doesn't settle the problem.

> 1) The outcome of a second referendum is too close to call.

Well, it will be decided one way or another. Foe the past year or more polls have been predicting Remain as the result of a second referendum. The last figure I saw was 53/47. I agree it could swing the other way although if a poll was held before October 31st thereby preserving BJ's pledge not to ask for an extension there wouldn't be a lot of time for a swing back to Leave.

> 2) If the vote is for Boris's deal then that is not the end. It is  just the beginning of negotiations for the final deal. Given the referendum will have been very close we will back in the same place: unable to agree a negotiating position and therefore destined to another ten years or more of argument and uncertainty.

Agreed. The only way to avoid years more of negotiating followed by Parliamentary shenanigans is to forget the whole thing !

1
Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019

Bojo's problem in a nutshell this morning.

After last weeks shenanigans, Bojo has gone to Dublin and is having a crack at pretending to be a proper politician again.

As soon as he tries that, Farage jumps on his back

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/09/brexit-latest-news-eu-no-deal-bill-royal-assent-boris-johnson-parliament-politics-live?page=with:block-5d7632168f083106f455813a#block-5d7632168f083106f455813a

Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy 1902:

> Don't count the chickens yet is my advice on that one.


How do you think he'd wriggle out of it?

Note that the Telegraph's cunning plan was comprehensively rubbished this morning.

skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Yeah, that could work though - May's deal wouldn't need the backstop if Northern Ireland was 'hived off', with the customs border being between it and Britain.

There might well even be majority support for that in Northern Ireland - not that there's time to ask them.

Post edited at 12:17
Andy 1902 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

No idea but I wouldn't put anything past him.

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> The text exempting the UK from ever closer Union

> "It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom."


  I know, but where does this leave us? Either as some sort of quasi member with no real power, or ultimately being dragged into the superstate?

  Either is unsatisfactory.

GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to skog:

Well for one moment forget all the principles, politics, economics and arguments and look at it from a personal perspective (my personal perspective). Another Referendum is telling me, quite directly, that I got it wrong, have another go till you get it right. Many were also saying that I was ignorant, racist and bigoted. Everyone seems to agree Referenda are a bad idea.  I happen to agree and in any case it would achieve nothing.  The margin would still be close, and then what? yet another.  A General Election solves these issues and would not be offensive to people like me. It also gets us back, god help us, to a Parliamentary Democracy system. If a General Election returned a party that was mandated for us to remain I would not have any serious issues, we get another vote in 5 years.  If there was a similar referendum I would never vote again.

2
Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to skog:

> Yeah, that could work though - May's deal wouldn't need the backstop if Northern Ireland was 'hived off', with the customs border being between it and Britain.

> There might well even be majority support for that in Northern Ireland - not that there's time to ask them.

The DUP would never vote for it, nor the ERG.... he'd need all the Tory MPs he's expelled and 20+ Labour MPs to vote for it. And he'd have about a week to convince them.

Post edited at 12:22
Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Well, it will be decided one way or another. Foe the past year or more polls have been predicting Remain as the result of a second referendum. The last figure I saw was 53/47. I agree it could swing the other way although if a poll was held before October 31st thereby preserving BJ's pledge not to ask for an extension there wouldn't be a lot of time for a swing back to Leave.

>

   The average of the last six months polls is, indeed 53-47 remain. But the average of the last six months before the referendum was 52-48 remain.

  So, too close to call.

skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> The DUP would never vote for it, nor the ERG.... he'd need all the Tory MPs he's expelled and 20+ Labour MPs to vote for it. And he'd have a bout a week to convince them.

Yep, not easy.

"It's this or no deal" might do it, though.

jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Ah, I see, I think, you've ruled out Johnson's new 'deal'?

If Johnson can cling on another few weeks it looks to me like he might yet get May's deal through parliament by making it difficult for the 27 to unanimously agree any extension forcing a genuine brexit/no-brexit vote in the commons. Win win for him really, it's 'brexit' either way and he's the man that made it happen. With the WA the negative effects are delayed so he get's his election in a socially stable environment while the markets bounce back from no-deal fears delivering his fake dividend. Sure Farage will take a chunk but Johnson probably gets five years in No.10.

jk

MonkeyPuzzle 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> Well for one moment forget all the principles, politics, economics and arguments and look at it from a personal perspective (my personal perspective). Another Referendum is telling me, quite directly, that I got it wrong, have another go till you get it right. Many were also saying that I was ignorant, racist and bigoted. Everyone seems to agree Referenda are a bad idea.  I happen to agree and in any case it would achieve nothing.  The margin would still be close, and then what? yet another.  A General Election solves these issues and would not be offensive to people like me. It also gets us back, god help us, to a Parliamentary Democracy system. If a General Election returned a party that was mandated for us to remain I would not have any serious issues, we get another vote in 5 years.  If there was a similar referendum I would never vote again.

Even my shitty laptop asks whether I'm sure if I want to delete something. I'd venture this is much more important.

A GE is muddied by parties' other policies and their leadership's. A right-leaning conservative who strongly wants to Remain votes for who?

1
jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Yes but the legislation going through Parliament forces him to ask for an extension. We can't leave by default on 31st October.

We definitely can!

jk

skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

I don't personally think another referendum is a good idea.

But "Another Referendum is telling me, quite directly, that I got it wrong, have another go till you get it right" is just the way you're choosing to look at it.

It'd be perfectly reasonable for it to actually be "we've narrowed things down a lot, and only have these options remaining. Leaving may or may not still mean what it appeared to you to mean before, are you still on for it on this basis?"

I still don't understand why you feel having your previous decision overturned through a general election is better than through another, slightly different, referendum, but I suppose most of this is ultimately just done on feeling anyway.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Ah, I see, I think, you've ruled out Johnson's new 'deal'?

> If Johnson can cling on another few weeks it looks to me like he might yet get May's deal through parliament by making it difficult for the 27 to unanimously agree any extension forcing a genuine brexit/no-brexit vote in the commons. Win win for him really, it's 'brexit' either way and he's the man that made it happen. With the WA the negative effects are delayed so he get's his election in a socially stable environment while the markets bounce back from no-deal fears delivering his fake dividend. Sure Farage will take a chunk but Johnson probably gets five years in No.10.

> jk

I think you’ve come up with a better plan than Cummings ever could.

Have you considered becoming Johnson’s advisor?  

Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Unless he gets a new deal by 18th October, how will we leave?

Robert Durran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

>  IMO the only solution that would satisfy me is a General Election (essentially another referendum in all but name)

I disasgree The trouble is that, even if an election is fought entirely on the Brexit issue, you could end up with a leave majority number of seats even though more votes were cast for remain parties (as probably* happened in the EU elections earlier in the year), or vice versa, because FPTP would favour the side whose vote is less split between two or more parties. So it might well come down to what electoral alliances are formed. So it's not really a proxy referendum.

Having said that, a GE is the only way to break the impasse and has to happen as soon as realistically possible after Oct 31st.

* probably, becasue Labour's position was not very clear.

Jon Stewart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

This is tremendous news! 

I hope that you are representative of all the normal, decent tories who aren't members of the "thickie right" (people who would consider voting for Johnson), and along with the normal, decent Labour voters who can see the corbyn car crash for what it is, we'll deliver a landslide for the normal, decent Jo Swinson. It'll be a triumph for the centre ground against frothing nut jobs on either side.

Bring it on. 

3
Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Ah, I see, I think, you've ruled out Johnson's new 'deal'?

>

  I believe that Johnson really wants a deal (although many leavers don't) but it seems very unlikely that it can happen.

Robert Durran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> ........Johnson gets five years in No.10.

God help us. We'd be f*cked.

Harry Jarvis 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> I've also had enough of this but I'm struggling to see a solution.  Leaving without a deal would not be good but I have no way of knowing how bad it could be and no one on this forum is qualified to advise me.

You choose whose opinion you consider worth paying attention to. Those in positions of influence advocating no deal tend to be right-wing Tories, mainly English nationalists, who are not likely to be subject to any adverse consequences by virtue of their personal wealth. Those opposed to no deal come from across the political spectrum, from One Nation Conservatives such as Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve and the other Tory rebels, to include the LibDems, much of the Labour Party, the SNP and the Greens, and then to also include whole swathes of business and industry, including the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Chambers of Commerce, the SMMT, the NFU, and on and on and on. 

Most of those will be arguing from a business perspective, so if your concerns with the EU are more related to non-economic issues such as sovereignty and immigration control, you may wish to discount the views of the business community. Discounting those views does not mean that the concerns of those groups are not real, but you are of course perfectly at liberty to make your own priorities. 

Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I know, but where does this leave us? Either as some sort of quasi member with no real power,

I don't see why that would be the case, especially if we'd made allies instead of pissing just about everybody off. 

We'd have zero influence over the US but I get the impression Brexiteers would accept anything for a trade deal with Trump's US.

GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I disasgree The trouble is that, even if an election is fought entirely on the Brexit issue, you could end up with a leave majority number of seats even though more votes were cast for remain parties (as probably* happened in the EU elections earlier in the year), or vice versa, because FPTP would favour the side whose vote is less split between two or more parties. So it might well come down to what electoral alliances are formed. So it's not really a proxy referendum.

True but we have the system we have and that is all we can work with and at least whoever is in place is only there for 5 years.  I would like to see another system but what you are saying is that even if a General Election resulted in Leave you would still not like it. At least I am accepting that if it resulted in remain I would.  It appears to me that I'm the more democratic one.

2
skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Unless he gets a new deal by 18th October, how will we leave?

You're asking the wrong question - Article 50 was implemented two and a half years ago; unless it's revoked, we're leaving.

We've seen that there are all sorts of stalling and wrecking tactics available to the government and parliament, do you really think Johnson's lot can't just muck about for a fortnight if they want to?

Post edited at 12:42
In reply to Eric9Points:

> How do you think he'd wriggle out of it?

> Note that the Telegraph's cunning plan was comprehensively rubbished this morning.

He's going to write it in invisible ink 

jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> Well for one moment forget all the principles, politics, economics and arguments and look at it from a personal perspective (my personal perspective). Another Referendum is telling me, quite directly, that I got it wrong, have another go till you get it right.

It simply isn't. It's asking if the specific thing available now, compromises and all measures up to your hopes and needs when you expressed a a preference in principal. You can cope with this idea in a hospital or when buying insurance.

> A General Election solves these issues and would not be offensive to people like me.

But it should be offensive to anyone seeking a definitive answer to the specific question tearing us apart. Our electoral system and carefully gerrymandered constituencies are evolved to answer one question and one only: Leftward or rightward this time? Shift the axis and you don't get sensible fair outcomes.

jk

Post edited at 12:47
Jon Stewart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I believe that Johnson really wants a deal (although many leavers don't) but it seems very unlikely that it can happen.

Why then, is there no sign of him removing his finger from deep up his rectum, and trying to negotiate one? All he's done is set out red lines that please the erg but are unacceptable to Europe, and then threaten to shoot himself in the face if they don't agreem

I really want a job with 3 months off every summer to go climbing and a month off over Christmas, as well my usual annual leave allowance, but saying that doesn't mean anyone's likely to come knocking on my door with it on a silver platter, while I just sit here masturbating. If I wanted that, I'd have to put some work into making it happen.

The man is a proven bullshitter. If you believe what he says, you're gullible. 

jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Unless he gets a new deal by 18th October, how will we leave?

He doesn't need to put a new deal to parliament though some tweaks would certainly help make his case, all he really needs is to force parliament's hand: deal, no deal, revoke? No-deal dies first. Doesn't matter what the deal is, they will likely settle on it over the other two options. He'll lose another chunk of his already riven party of course but the rest of parliament will be forced to vote for damage limitation.

The unanswered question is which is considered least damaging by most, May's deal or revoke?

jk

captain paranoia 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But the average of the last six months before the referendum was 52-48 remain.

52-48 has been used as 'The Will of the People' for the last three years, meaning 'the whole country just wants us to get on with Brexit'.

Why would 52-48 remain not be 'The Will of the People', meaning 'the whole country just wants us to get on with the EU'...?

Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I really want a job with 3 months off every summer to go climbing and a month off over Christmas, as well my usual annual leave allowance, but saying that doesn't mean anyone's likely to come knocking on my door with it on a silver platter, while I just sit here masturbating. If I wanted that, I'd have to put some work into making it happen.

'Work'? That's for 'girly swots' like Cameron!

Harry Jarvis 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> Well for one moment forget all the principles, politics, economics and arguments and look at it from a personal perspective (my personal perspective). Another Referendum is telling me, quite directly, that I got it wrong,

Have you made it through life so far without ever having made a mistake? Particularly when you've been unsure of the arguments, not known whose opinions to trust? Have you ever revised your own opinion when you've learned more about a particular situation? 

jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I believe that Johnson really wants a deal (although many leavers don't) but it seems very unlikely that it can happen.

Oddly I believe him on that too though I think he's deluded if he believes it possible. In theory he could have shifted the backstop border shafting the DUP (he may yet try) but that won't now bring the opposition on side given he's so weak and their positions have hardened. The EU27 won't give him anything he can't get past parliament.

jk

stevieb 09 Sep 2019
In reply to skog:

> Yeah, that could work though - May's deal wouldn't need the backstop if Northern Ireland was 'hived off', with the customs border being between it and Britain.

> There might well even be majority support for that in Northern Ireland - not that there's time to ask them.

I was always a little bit surprised that the DUP were so negative at this option. I think most of Europe saw half-in half-out of the EU as massively advantageous to NI and could have created a business boomtown (either real or brass plate).

I guess the DUP have other priorities, but Arlene is a good negotiator, so maybe a last minute change of heart can be bought.

Robert Durran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> True but we have the system we have and that is all we can work with and at least whoever is in place is only there for 5 years.  I would like to see another system but what you are saying is that even if a General Election resulted in Leave you would still not like it. At least I am accepting that if it resulted in remain I would.  It appears to me that I'm the more democratic one.

No you're not. I would have to accept it as well, even if I didn't like it. I just think that it would be far fairer to have a one issue referendum first, perhaps under an interim government, then have a GE to elect a government to deal with all the other stuff.

Post edited at 13:08
Dave Garnett 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I believe that Johnson really wants a deal (although many leavers don't) but it seems very unlikely that it can happen.

I think a deal is still possible although it would require (a) ditching May's red lines and (b) a considerable amount of extremely detailed and painstaking analysis and negotiation of exactly the sort that Johnson is completely incapable of focusing on for more than about 30 seconds.

skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> I was always a little bit surprised that the DUP were so negative at this option

They see it, quite possibly correctly, as a step towards Irish reunification.

They'd accept pretty much anything, including the return of the Troubles, before they'd accept that.

Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No you're not. I would have to accept it as  just well, even if I didn't like it. I just think that it would be far fairer to have a one issue referendum first, perhaps under an interim government, then have a GE to elect a government to deal with Al the other stuff.


Exactly and if the referendum is held in late October there will be no need for BJ to ask for an extension.

Timmd 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You think they're joking?

Aaaarrrggh!

David Cameron came back saying there'd be no further integration of the UK into the EU, that it was officially agreed. I don't often go argh etc, but how can so many people not remember/know this?

Post edited at 13:11
GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Are you suggesting then that we should have a referendum, say, every 5 years? That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

3
baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Exactly and if the referendum is held in late October there will be no need for BJ to ask for an extension.

Unless leave wins again.

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Timmd:

> Aaaarrrggh!

> David Cameron came back saying there'd be no further integration of the UK into the EU, that it was officially agreed. I don't often go argh etc, but how can so many people not remember/know this?


How can so many people join a thread without reading it?

I'll repeat "I know, but where does this leave us? Either as some sort of quasi member with no real power,or ultimately being dragged into the superstate?"

Timmd 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Fair enough. I'm still drinking coffee and aiming to function, so I'd missed that post. 

Post edited at 13:17
Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Why? So long as everyone signs up to this being a confirmatory referendum then the decision is implemented immediately.

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I don't see why that would be the case, especially if we'd made allies instead of pissing just about everybody off. 

>

  A bit late now!! We should have spent forty years building an alliance to reshape the EU but we didn't. We were just seen as awkward and difficult for trying to restrain the drive towards federalism.

  I assume that even if we now engaged fully in order to reform the EU would either be ignored or treated as awakward and difficult.

> We'd have zero influence over the US but I get the impression Brexiteers would accept anything for a trade deal with Trump's US.

>

  I think that's in your head.

1
neilh 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I know you voted leave because of your concerns over the development of the Federal State ( you had repeatebly express this view point in the past). So that is quite a change of heart.

In all thse things its a balance of views and you have always struck me as being a centre ground right Brexiter so to speak rather than hard right.

I am centre right Remainer.

I too am voting Lib Dems..if we ever get round to a next GE in the next couple of months.Welcome on board.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Why? So long as everyone signs up to this being a confirmatory referendum then the decision is implemented immediately.

Because referenda are not legally binding and there is no way remainers (Or leavers If remain won) would accept the result.

We’re locked into an endless Brexit, for ever and ever and ever.

1
Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> 52-48 has been used as 'The Will of the People' for the last three years, meaning 'the whole country just wants us to get on with Brexit'.

> Why would 52-48 remain not be 'The Will of the People', meaning 'the whole country just wants us to get on with the EU'...?


 The 48 post 2016 didn't accept the "will of the people" so why expect the 48 post a second referendum to accept it?

3
fred99 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> Well for one moment forget all the principles, politics, economics and arguments and look at it from a personal perspective (my personal perspective). Another Referendum is telling me, quite directly, that I got it wrong, have another go till you get it right. Many were also saying that I was ignorant, racist and bigoted. Everyone seems to agree Referenda are a bad idea.  I happen to agree and in any case it would achieve nothing.  The margin would still be close, and then what? yet another.  A General Election solves these issues and would not be offensive to people like me. It also gets us back, god help us, to a Parliamentary Democracy system. If a General Election returned a party that was mandated for us to remain I would not have any serious issues, we get another vote in 5 years.  If there was a similar referendum I would never vote again.


Considering that everyone that I have heard from or overheard that I know to be ignorant, racist and bigoted did vote leave, then it's not surprising that you may have been regarded as having similar views.

However the original referendum was non-binding (or else it would have had to be re-run BY LAW). Also the leave side promised an easy deal, a good deal, £350 million per week to the NHS along with god only remembers what else.

Considering the above paragraph, isn't it not reasonable to go back to the electorate, in the same manner, to find out what they (we) want, now that the overblown promises have been proven to be the out and out lies they always were.

After all, if the electorate still wants to leave, then why not ? But the shenanigans being carried out by the ultra-right-wing  extremists demonstrates to me (at least) that they don't have a cats chance in Battersea Dogs Home of getting their views through honestly, legally and legitimately.

GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to fred99:

What Postmanpat said far more effectively and succinctly than I managed.

Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>>   We'd have zero influence over the US but I get the impression Brexiteers would accept anything for a trade deal with Trump's US.

>   I think that's in your head.

No it's based on what I've observed. Brexiteers keep arguing that we can get a quick trade deal with the US. The US always play hardball  in negotiations, the only way to get it through quick would to agree to what they wanted.

What's wrong with that logic?

neilh 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Hardly surprising. It just illustrates that it is not simple and most people are connected with Europe either through their jobs or culturally ( family etc).

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> >>   We'd have zero influence over the US but I get the impression Brexiteers would accept anything for a trade deal with Trump's US.

> No it's based on what I've observed. Brexiteers keep arguing that we can get a quick trade deal with the US. The US always play hardball  in negotiations, the only way to get it through quick would to agree to what they wanted.

> What's wrong with that logic?

  You're confusing "some brexiteers" with brexiteers.

Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Because referenda are not legally binding and there is no way remainers (Or leavers If remain won) would accept the result.

I can't see any reason why it couldn't be legally binding. Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't see why Parliament can't frame legislation in any way it chooses to?

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to neilh:

> Hardly surprising. It just illustrates that it is not simple and most people are connected with Europe either through their jobs or culturally ( family etc).

I think it’s taken the Brexit debate for all people to realise how much the EU has permeated into our lives even if we seemingly have no direct or obvious connection.

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to fred99:

> Considering that everyone that I have heard from or overheard that I know to be ignorant, racist and bigoted did vote leave, then it's not surprising that you may have been regarded as having similar views.

>

   All arrogant elitist cosmopolitan leftie luvvies voted remain, but maybe not all remainers are  arrogant elitist cosmopolitan leftie luvvies. Or are you?

> However the original referendum was non-binding (or else it would have had to be re-run BY LAW). Also the leave side promised an easy deal, a good deal, £350 million per week to the NHS along with god only remembers what else.

>

  All the major parties committed to accepting the outcome, and did so by passing article 50. Both campaigns talked shite.

>

> After all, if the electorate still wants to leave, then why not ? But the shenanigans being carried out by the ultra-right-wing  extremists demonstrates to me (at least) that they don't have a cats chance in Battersea Dogs Home of getting their views through honestly, legally and legitimately.

>

  Actually they've got them through very successfully to a very large proportion of the electorate. It's parliament that won't listen.

Post edited at 13:47
2
Harry Jarvis 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> Are you suggesting then that we should have a referendum, say, every 5 years?

No, I'm not

> That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

No it isn't. 

And you have not answered my question - have you got through your life so far without making mistakes? Do you ever re-evaluate your position on decisions, or do you recognise that sometimes it's better to change course? 

There's nothing wrong with making mistakes or changing one's mind, and there's nothing wrong with admitting one's mistakes or with changing one's mind - indeed, it could be argued that sticking with an initial position made under one set of circumstances is a less credible position than amending one's position when one is made aware of a different set of circumstances. 

And of course this thread has been started by someone who has given careful consideration to his position and has changed his mind. That willingness would seem to me to be a good thing. 

GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

But surely if there were to be a second referendum it would have to be held on the same criteria as the first one.  I agree however, at least in principle, that a referendum should be under tighter control than they currently appear to be.

Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   You're confusing "some brexiteers" with brexiteers.

No, the other 'Brexiteers' have no argument at all.

There might be a Brexiteer somewhere saying, "leaving with no-deal will be great because we'll then go into protracted negotiations with the US, the EU and several other large economies".... but I haven't heard from them.

Post edited at 13:48
baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I can't see any reason why it couldn't be legally binding. Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't see why Parliament can't frame legislation in any way it chooses to?

I am obviously not an expert but I think that it’s got something to do with parliament being sovereign.

So it has to make a legally binding decision on a particular point.

So if remain won then parliament could simply vote, in accordance with a promise/law to make the referendum result binding, to revoke Article 50.

However, if leave win and Parliament has to make that happen then there has to be a law passed to enable it.

The problem would be what leave actually meant,

Sound familiar?

Lusk 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Both campaigns talked shite.

Ain't that the truth!
We should re-run the whole affair, but this time with a referee, maybe old Queenie.

"One is talking utter shite, one is dismissed."

GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

The answer to that question is so obvious that I thought it was a rhetorical but to be clear of course I've changed my mind on things.  In light of your answer, perhaps you could outline how you would  take things forward by holding another referendum. Given the potential outcomes of that what would you propose should follow?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Back to the topic of the thread. How will the Lib Dems deal with the Single Issue Party Switchers. A number of Conservatives have declared they are now Lib Dems - It seems purely on the basis of their Brexit views - whilst are miles apart on other issues such as Fox Hunting and Abortion.

Surely the Lib Dems should be selecting other candidates for those constituencies?

Andy Hardy 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> Well for one moment forget all the principles, politics, economics and arguments and look at it from a personal perspective (my personal perspective). Another Referendum is telling me, quite directly, that I got it wrong, have another go till you get it right.

The MS-DOS analogue:

">C:format c:"

"> Are you sure y/n?"

Edit because it did weird things to the format

Post edited at 13:55
MonkeyPuzzle 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    The average of the last six months polls is, indeed 53-47 remain. But the average of the last six months before the referendum was 52-48 remain.

If Vote Leave purposefully time an illegal campaign overspend for the last three days like they did last time then they could swing it, yes.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> No, I'm not

> No it isn't. 

> And you have not answered my question - have you got through your life so far without making mistakes? Do you ever re-evaluate your position on decisions, or do you recognise that sometimes it's better to change course? 

> There's nothing wrong with making mistakes or changing one's mind, and there's nothing wrong with admitting one's mistakes or with changing one's mind - indeed, it could be argued that sticking with an initial position made under one set of circumstances is a less credible position than amending one's position when one is made aware of a different set of circumstances. 

> And of course this thread has been started by someone who has given careful consideration to his position and has changed his mind. That willingness would seem to me to be a good thing. 

There used to be a saying - no longer in use because of it’s racist content - 

‘Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?’

I think that possibly applies to most people engaged in the Brexit debate on this forum.

jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>  The 48 post 2016 didn't accept the "will of the people" so why expect the 48 post a second referendum to accept it?

I don't.

A remain win gets 'brexit' out of parliament, back onto the streets for a while. If we use that newly liberated parliamentary and economic capacity well we turn the 48 into 38 then 28 with their consent by addressing their needs and concerns. Demographic shift does the rest. Get it wrong and you/they get their shot again as 58% or 68%, that's how democracy works. Likewise if the EU suddenly despite our protestations unifies as the 4th Reich you get another solid shot at leaving and I'll be there with you.

jk

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> If Vote Leave purposefully time an illegal campaign overspend for the last three days like they did last time then they could swing it, yes.


They won't need to. The government can throw money at it like they did last time...

It's a weak argument. Remain outspent leave and nevertheless lost.

Harry Jarvis 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> The answer to that question is so obvious that I thought it was a rhetorical but to be clear of course I've changed my mind on things. 

So to be clear, you would like to have the opportunity to express your opposition to a no-deal Brexit? In which case you should welcome either a second referendum, in which the question(s) ask the appropriate questions, or a general election. 

> In light of your answer, perhaps you could outline how you would  take things forward by holding another referendum. Given the potential outcomes of that what would you propose should follow?

I can't outline anything particularly useful in that regard. I honestly have no idea what the best way to proceed might be, and I don't really believe anyone who says they do know. The potential outcomes are highly uncertain. I doubt a general election would resolve anything, unless we saw the LibDems sweep to power on a back of a revoke A50 manifesto (wishful thinking on my part). A second referendum would have the benefit over the first that there are now slightly fewer unknowns than there were three years ago, but the margins are still likely to be similar to those of 2016, however the result fell. 

jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

> Back to the topic of the thread. How will the Lib Dems deal with the Single Issue Party Switchers. A number of Conservatives have declared they are now Lib Dems - It seems purely on the basis of their Brexit views - whilst are miles apart on other issues such as Fox Hunting and Abortion. Surely the Lib Dems should be selecting other candidates for those constituencies?

Some will compromise to settle in their new homes while working to make that home more comfortable for themselves. Some will move on. That's party politics, it's the art of compromise and counting. 

jk

GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Can you not see that you are doing what you accuse Brexiteers of doing.  Expecting people to support you're case  for a second referendum with incomplete information.  Don't know about you but I won't get caught like that again. And, by the by, I would support a General Election.  Did you miss that bit?

Post edited at 14:19
Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The problem would be what leave actually meant,

> Sound familiar?

It would mean the deal that the Prime Minister commends to the nation, surely?

Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to skog:

> You're asking the wrong question - Article 50 was implemented two and a half years ago; unless it's revoked, we're leaving.

> We've seen that there are all sorts of stalling and wrecking tactics available to the government and parliament, do you really think Johnson's lot can't just muck about for a fortnight if they want to?


I've just had a quick read of the bill, EU withdrawal No6 and no, he can't just dick about. If Parliament doesn't agree with what he wants to do he has to go back and ask for an extension. Even if he comes back with a deal he'll still have to ask for an extension if Parliament don't vote for it.

My money's on a referendum ...but at the very last minute.

HansStuttgart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I don't see why that would be the case, especially if we'd made allies instead of pissing just about everybody off. 

More correct would be limited power instead of no power. If the UK wants more power in Europe, it should join the euro and lead european defence and security integration.

Harry Jarvis 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> Can you not see that you are doing what you accuse Brexiteers of doing.  Expecting people to support you're case  for a second referendum with incomplete information.  Don't know about you but I won't get caught like that again. And, by the by, I would support a General Election.  Did you miss that bit?

I'm not expecting anything. Whatever is done - a second referendum or an election - the result will still be an unresolved mess. We are years from settling this situation. 

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> It would mean the deal that the Prime Minister commends to the nation, surely?

The referendum would be a choice between remain and leave.

Remain is easy - revoke and carry on as before.

But leave would be a reference to no deal or the withdrawal agreement and not any future deal.

If no deal won then the UK leaves the EU.

However, if leave with a deal won, then it is, apparently, difficult to table legislation that enables a withdrawal agreement as it wouldn’t be legally binding on future governments and it has no guarantee as to how future negotiations would progress.

Hence Labours difficulty with supporting the May withdrawal agreement due to their concerns about what would follow i.e. workers rights, environment standards, etc.

Part of the problem is the continued use of deal instead of withdrawal agreement which simply appears to confuse the Brexit issue in people’s minds.

HansStuttgart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Nempnett Thrubwell:

> Back to the topic of the thread. How will the Lib Dems deal with the Single Issue Party Switchers. A number of Conservatives have declared they are now Lib Dems - It seems purely on the basis of their Brexit views - whilst are miles apart on other issues such as Fox Hunting and Abortion.

Ideally they'd use the one-off votes due to the brexit crisis as a hammer to brake the FPTP system. Go into the election with only two goals: revoke a50 and set up a route towards PR. If they achieve this (small chance, I know....) their regular support gives them a decent amount of MPs and power in the future.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> More correct would be limited power instead of no power. If the UK wants more power in Europe, it should join the euro and lead european defence and security integration.

The UK alongside the US has been leading EU defence for years.

And paying for the privilege.

The EU countries don’t seem to be keen to acknowledge this fact. Would it be wrong if I was to judge the worth of a country by its unwillingness to defend its own citizens?

4
Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The referendum would be a choice between remain and leave.

> Remain is easy - revoke and carry on as before.

> But leave would be a reference to no deal or the withdrawal agreement and not any future deal.

The Withdrawl agreement should be the default leave option. 

No deal would in no way be decisive, it just means we go back straight back to negotiations but in a weaker position. It shouldn't be talked about as a credible option, it only is because the media have been treating the likes of JRM with kid gloves, allowing them to spout bullshit unchallenged.

Post edited at 14:46
baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> The Withdrawl agreement should be the default leave option. 

> No deal would in no way be decisive, it just means we go back straight back to negotiations but in a weaker position. It shouldn't be talked about as a credible option, it only is because the media have been treating the likes of JRM with kid gloves, allowing them to spout bullshit unchallenged.

I would say that May’s withdrawal agreement is one negotiated and I use that word loosely, by a remainer who had an interest in it being so bad that nobody would want it. It’s dismal performance in Parliament, suffering the largest vote against it, shows how poor it is.

Some might say that it was the best deal possible but we’l never know.

Holding a referendum with the two options being remain or May’s WA would be Hobson’s choice for many leavers.

Eric9Points 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

I don't disagree with any of that really, just the point about timing.

Yes, when I learned over a year ago that almost all of what had been agreed only covered the 2 year withdrawal period I was flabbergasted. I believe however, that it would be up to the Prime Minister to recommend what he thinks is best.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I don't disagree with any of that really, just the point about timing.

> Yes, when I learned over a year ago that almost all of what had been agreed only covered the 2 year withdrawal period I was flabbergasted. I believe however, that it would be up to the Prime Minister to recommend what he thinks is best.

I’m sure I remember Barnier saying, a long time ago, that the transition period was meant to be a time to implement the future arrangements that had been agreed between the EU and the UK and not as a period of negotiations.

Instead we’ve spent years arguing about a withdrawal agreement and haven’t even begun to negotiate any future agreement.

Northern Star 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>  The 48 post 2016 didn't accept the "will of the people" so why expect the 48 post a second referendum to accept it?


Because we are so much further along in the process now.  The first referendum was like trying to make a decision to buy a house based on just an estate agents glossy brochure.  The next referendum would be about whether you still wanted to buy that same house now that the survey and searches have been done and they have revealed some significant structural issues and that the highways agency have plans to build a brand new bypass at the bottom of your garden in two years time.  

Post edited at 15:03
Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I would say that May’s withdrawal agreement is one negotiated and I use that word loosely, by a remainer who had an interest in it being so bad that nobody would want it. It’s dismal performance in Parliament, suffering the largest vote against it, shows how poor it is.

People forget May tried to push here own Chequers deal which was markedly different.

> Some might say that it was the best deal possible but we’l never know.

Given the red lines on each side, it was... the deal was always going to be a logical outcome rather than some clever ploy. If Labour adopt it as the leave option in a referendum, and I think they should.... there will be constant reminders that both Bojo and Jacob Rees Mogg voted for it.

> Holding a referendum with the two options being remain or May’s WA would be Hobson’s choice for many leavers.

Only because their expectations were way out of line to begin with.

Harry Jarvis 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> The Withdrawl agreement should be the default leave option. 

> No deal would in no way be decisive, it just means we go back straight back to negotiations but in a weaker position.

Even if the WA was accepted, we would still be straight back into negotiations with the EU to address the long-term relationships. I'm not sure this is understood by those advocating a 'clean break'.

Ramblin dave 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I would say that May’s withdrawal agreement is one negotiated and I use that word loosely, by a remainer who had an interest in it being so bad that nobody would want it. It’s dismal performance in Parliament, suffering the largest vote against it, shows how poor it is.

> Some might say that it was the best deal possible but we’l never know.

Genuine question - what do you think could be better about it? What would you change that would make it better for us but also not a total no-go for the EU27?

I'd say that it failed so dismally because it attempted to offer a compromise between two sides who both thought they could win outright if they rejected any compromise. I mean, I think it's a dreadful outcome but that's because I think a hard Brexit is an extremely bad idea. If you insist on a hard Brexit, it's hard to see what better alternative was going to be available.

Ramblin dave 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Even if the WA was accepted, we would still be straight back into negotiations with the EU to address the long-term relationships. I'm not sure this is understood by those advocating a 'clean break'.

I'm not sure that anything much is understood by those advocating a "clean break", to be honest. They're thinking in pat little soundbites as if the everyday reality for people who have to work to put food on the table or use public services is an irrelevant distraction that we shouldn't worry about.

Edit - and one of the things that scares me most about no-deal - even more than the direct economic fallout - is who the next scapegoats are going to be when the everyday reality catches up with the people who've been sold on the idea that no deal is the answer, only to find out that the promised land is actually paved with turds. Because I have a nasty feeling that it's not going to be the populist nationalists who campaigned for Leave that get the blame and face the anger.

Post edited at 15:16
Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Even if the WA was accepted, we would still be straight back into negotiations with the EU to address the long-term relationships. I'm not sure this is understood by those advocating a 'clean break'.

Sure, but we wouldn't actually be sinking in the shit while carrying out those negotiations. I think people also forget the EU don't actually want us in the WA transition long term. From their point of view we'd get a lot of the customs union advantages without the obligations.

I've usually heard the term 'clean break' from those advocating no deal.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Only because their expectations were way out of line to begin with.

My expectations were for close ties to Europe without being in the political side of the EU.

We’ve spent years just trying to leave the EU and so haven’t even begun to address my expectations 

The major stumbling block has been the withdrawal agreement which is necessary to protect the interests of the EU and the GFA.

The WA shouldn’t be necessary because a future agreement between the EU and the UK would render it redundant.

Negotiating a future agreement at the same time as negotiating the withdrawal agreement might have allowed us to leave the EU by now.

The cynic in me says that it was a cunning plan to have withdrawal negotiations before future relationship negotiations as a way to delay or prevent Brexit.

If it was it’s working  very well.

Post edited at 15:17
HansStuttgart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I’m sure I remember Barnier saying, a long time ago, that the transition period was meant to be a time to implement the future arrangements that had been agreed between the EU and the UK and not as a period of negotiations.

> Instead we’ve spent years arguing about a withdrawal agreement and haven’t even begun to negotiate any future agreement.


Because the UK took forever to agree to the wording of the WA and still does not have a clue about what it wants for the FR.

The UK should have just agreed to the proposals for citizen's rights and the backstop 2 years ago and moved on from there.

Mike Stretford 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The major stumbling block has been the withdrawal agreement which is necessary to protect the interests of the EU and the GFA.

> The WA shouldn’t be necessary because a future agreement between the EU and the UK would render it redundant.

I'm sorry but that's just technically wrong. A Canada style FTA would still require a special arrangement for NI, which currently the DUP would not agree to. When it comes to the trade deal, May's red lines (which were imposed on her by Brexiteers) all point to a Canada style FTA.

Post edited at 15:23
Greenbanks 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

<My expectations were for close ties to Europe without being in the political side of the EU>

As opposed to being in bed with Trump et al (heaven forbid)

HansStuttgart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The UK alongside the US has been leading EU defence for years.

I said defence integration, not defence

> And paying for the privilege.

the UK pays slightly more per capita than the other EU countries, but it is questionable that this money is spent on behalf of european security. Did the invasion of Iraq make the EU more secure? I cannot answer that.

The real defence is now predominantly done by:

Ukraine against Russia

East4+baltics against Russia (supported by most western EU countries, inc the UK)

Southern border:

the lion's share is done by France and Italy. After that, Spain, Greece, Portugal, UK, NL, Germany, etc.

The Germans should get their act together and built a decent army with a large and capable air force.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Genuine question - what do you think could be better about it? What would you change that would make it better for us but also not a total no-go for the EU27?

> I'd say that it failed so dismally because it attempted to offer a compromise between two sides who both thought they could win outright if they rejected any compromise. I mean, I think it's a dreadful outcome but that's because I think a hard Brexit is an extremely bad idea. If you insist on a hard Brexit, it's hard to see what better alternative was going to be available.

The WA should have been negotiated along with the future agreement.

We could have guaranteed the rights of EU citizens in the UK straight away. It would have been a good thing to do.

Any disagreement about the financial settlement would have been easier to resolve if the depth of our future involvement with the EU was known.

Agreement on a future trade deal would have made a back stop unnecessary.

But we are where we are.

I haven’t changed my previous position that I’d rather stay in the EU than take the WA.

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> Because we are so much further along in the process now. 

>

  If that hasn't convinced them to vote for it why would it convince them to accept that result??

neilh 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

The withdrawl agreemnt also protect us. It defines during the period of the agreement things like UK citizens rights in Europe( in case you have missed the boat there are over 1 million UK citizens living and working in the EU) and what happens on trade during this period.

So its a two way street.

It illustrates, despite what people think, how complicated these things are.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> Because the UK took forever to agree to the wording of the WA and still does not have a clue about what it wants for the FR.

> The UK should have just agreed to the proposals for citizen's rights and the backstop 2 years ago and moved on from there.

We still haven’t agreed to the WA.

HansStuttgart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The cynic in me says that it was a cunning plan to have withdrawal negotiations before future relationship negotiations as a way to delay or prevent Brexit.

The EU does not want the UK to stay, it wants the UK to sign the WA and move on towards the future relationship.

The EU wants to separate the WA and the FR so that the UK cannot use the border in Ireland as leverage in the trade negotiations.

HansStuttgart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> We still haven’t agreed to the WA.


we are still waiting for ratification and agreement from parliament (also the EU parliament...), yes. But the wording is fixed and agreed by the UK government. It won't change anymore.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> we are still waiting for ratification and agreement from parliament (also the EU parliament...), yes. But the wording is fixed and agreed by the UK government. It won't change anymore.

Then it won’t be passed by Parliament.

Let’s hope that the EU’s plans for a no deal Brexit are as advanced as they say they are.

The New NickB 09 Sep 2019
In reply to neilh:

The 2016 referendum wasn’t legally binding, which is a big part of the problem. It was shoddily thought out and lacked adequate checks and balances. However, there is nothing stopping future referendums from being binding. We have had several that were.

A legally binding referendum would have to follow the Venice Commission Code of Practice.

Post edited at 15:42
jkarran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I would say that May’s withdrawal agreement is one negotiated and I use that word loosely, by a remainer who had an interest in it being so bad that nobody would want it. It’s dismal performance in Parliament, suffering the largest vote against it, shows how poor it is.

If you're holding out for 'better' you'll need the patience of Job. Anyway I challenge you to even define better.

> Some might say that it was the best deal possible but we’l never know.

It's the compromise between the May's and the EU's 'red lines'. Draw them differently you get a different compromise. Gain or lose some leverage and you get a different compromise. Which 'red line' would you change?

> Holding a referendum with the two options being remain or May’s WA would be Hobson’s choice for many leavers.

It's what's available. No deal is basically a hard kick in the balls then May's deal, add that to the list if you must but I wouldn't be holding a candle for that if I were a leaver.

jk

Shani 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Labour aren't offering Marxism. Check your Overton Window! ;)

Ramblin dave 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Then it won’t be passed by Parliament.

> Let’s hope that the EU’s plans for a no deal Brexit are as advanced as they say they are.

It's not the EU's plans that I'm worried about.

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I quite liked your idea of winning a referendum, remaining in the EU and removing any desire to leave in the future by addressing the issues that undoubtedly contributed to or caused Brexit. It’s a plan with many merits.

Unfortunately it’s perfectly possible that both of us will end up disappointed,

baron 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> It's not the EU's plans that I'm worried about.

I wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about the UK’s no deal plans - we don’t have any.

Ramblin dave 09 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about the UK’s no deal plans - we don’t have any.

Well, I believe that we've been stockpiling body bags, so that's all good. We may also have plans to mobilise the army in event of food riots, too.

Pefa 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So, since I'd rather have no deal than a Marxist government I shall be voting Libdem.

Ahem. 

Have the CPGB become a major party overnight or something ? Where is this phantom Marxist government you see and tell me do you see them everywhere you are ? 

> Well, that's today, anyway. I reserve the right to change my mind. 

Ah! At least you don't do a full de Pliffliffle and just lie without any ambiguity. 

Although it's no surprise as Tories and Lib dems are completely interchangeable models that come with the same interlocking mechanisms designed ready at the flick of a £ sign switch on effing over the poor and giving much more money to the rich. 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2321005128137712&id=1648203758751189

Post edited at 16:33
3
Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Although it's no surprise as Tories and Lib dems are completely interchangeable models that come with the same interlocking mechanisms designed ready at the flick of a £ sign switch on effing over the poor and giving much more money to the rich. 

>

  Send them to the gulag comrade!

wercat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Even my shitty laptop asks whether I'm sure if I want to delete something. I'd venture this is much more important.

Delete All Your EU Rights and those of All UK Citizens and their children?

Cancel         OK

wercat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

That bloody referendum didn't even give my wife a vote even though she's lived here longer than some jonny come lately's who voted for out AND thought about it harder than idiots like the Stobarts manager on TV who voted according to the spin of a coin

Would a second betterly conceived and executed referendum really tell her she was wrong?

Also, when has there EVER been a single issue general election.  We already had dishonest politicians claiming that there was a majority who voted for Brexit parties as if that was the only issue in the campaign and the only issue that people voted on.    You'd have to have MPs only standing as Brexit or Remain candidates and I can't see that being practical as they all come with party political history

Post edited at 18:00
wercat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I do wonder about Microsoft.  The fact that placing a formatted blank disk in a machine transferred control to the machine code "Non System Disk" display program on the floppy worried me immensely - no wonder boot sector infectors became popular, or pranksters editing the message to "Format C: Delete All files Y/N?"

GridNorth 09 Sep 2019
In reply to wercat:

This is one of the problems with the media reporting on these issues, they do not always follow through and unless you have a specific interest, as you do, you forget. I wouldn't want to comment on your individual circumstances but my understanding was that TM had given assurances with regard to the rights of EU citizens in the UK  but the EU had not confirmed similar rights for UK citizens abroad.  Am I wrong?

Duncan Bourne 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Good lord! We are in agreement

1
MonkeyPuzzle 09 Sep 2019
In reply to wercat:

> Delete All Your EU Rights and those of All UK Citizens and their children?

> Cancel         OK

Exactly. Even the irritating paperclip would be useful right now. "It looks like you're trying to f*ck up your country's economy, standing and reputation for no reason. Would you like to have a word with yourself?"

Roadrunner6 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

It's 4 years on from you fear mongerers saying Europe is going down the pan and its as strong as anywhere in the world..

None of the problems people point at about it are solved by it breaking up..

Deadeye 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Pedro50:

> Funny I'm a hard core remainer. I will be voting Lib Dem. 


And me.

Postmanpat 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> It's 4 years on from you fear mongerers saying Europe is going down the pan and its as strong as anywhere in the world..>

None of the problems people point at about it are solved .

1
Robert Durran 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Pedro50:

> Funny I'm a hard core remainer. I will be voting Lib Dem. 

All hard core remainers MUST vote tactically against the Conservatives, whether that is Lib Dem, Labour or SNP. 

Post edited at 19:35
1
skog 09 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

>  my understanding was that TM had given assurances with regard to the rights of EU citizens in the UK  but the EU had not confirmed similar rights for UK citizens abroad.  Am I wrong?

TM's offer of rights was part of her deal, which hasn't been passed.

The EU can't unilaterally offer rights, as it isn't a country. It can and did make them part of the deal, which its members agreed to sign up to, but the UK hasn't accepted.

Some EU countries have made unilateral guarantees for UK citizens there; others haven't. And any can, of course, change their mind on this if, for example, they elect a government more hostile to immigration, that may want to keep Italian jobs for Italian people, or the like. And I don't think there's anything in place for UK citizens that live in one EU/EEA country and travel to work in another (as is fairly common in a number of places).

RomTheBear 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I know, but where does this leave us? Either as some sort of quasi member with no real power, or ultimately being dragged into the superstate?

Why no real power ? As long as you are in the treaty then you’ve got your veto and your vote that’s real power. And you can’t be dragged into a superstate (in case you still believe this bullshit myth) because you’ve got a veto.

>   Either is unsatisfactory.

Either is completely made up. Total, utter MYTH.

RomTheBear 09 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

You voted for a 16 inch penis and it didn’t happen.

I’m sorry.

Post edited at 21:48
HansStuttgart 09 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Why no real power ? As long as you are in the treaty then you’ve got your veto and your vote that’s real power. And you can’t be dragged into a superstate (in case you still believe this bullshit myth) because you’ve got a veto.

I generally agree with your points, but not here.

What happens if you use your veto power? Answer: you annoy the other countries and lose goodwill. Goodwill is power in the EU. Do this often enough and you lose real power.

Superstate is a completely exagerated term. But federalisation will continue, because it is the only possible solution (that has been identified so far) to the remaining fundamental flaws in the working of the single market and other EU structures. At some point the next crisis will expose one of these flaws and there will be an unavoidable momentum towards a littble bit more integration of the member states.

Snyggapa 10 Sep 2019
In reply to wercat:

> That bloody referendum didn't even give my wife a vote even though she's lived here longer than some jonny come lately's who voted for out AND thought about it harder than idiots like the Stobarts manager on TV who voted according to the spin of a coin

Same here - my misses has lived in this country, had a full time job in this country and paid tax exclusively in this country for about 25 years. This country has been her home for much longer than it has been necessary to have been born here in order to have a vote, yet she wasn't allowed to vote. 

RomTheBear 10 Sep 2019
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> I generally agree with your points, but not here.

> What happens if you use your veto power? Answer: you annoy the other countries and lose goodwill. Goodwill is power in the EU. Do this often enough and you lose real power.

Rubbish. In the EU what matters is your influence in the council and that, goodwill or not, you have NONE if you are not in it. Sure goodwill helps but vote matters more, and anyway, no goodwill with a vote is better than no goodwill without one.

> Superstate is a completely exagerated term. But federalisation will continue, because it is the only possible solution (that has been identified so far) to the remaining fundamental flaws in the working of the single market and other EU structures. At some point the next crisis will expose one of these flaws and there will be an unavoidable momentum towards a littble bit more integration of the member states.

Completely disagree, what you see as flaws I see as strength. It is the lack of centralisation and imperfect integration that makes the system, as whole, extremely resilient. In fact I dare say it’s getting stronger after each crisis.

Just look at the effect of Brexit: it hasn’t shaken the EU that much in fact probably has strengthened it. However in the UK it has led to a complete meltdown. 

Post edited at 06:18
neilh 10 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

True. But there are a lot of nervous EU countries ranging from Ireland( very nervous) to Holland.

Northern Star 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> All hard core remainers MUST vote tactically against the Conservatives, whether that is Lib Dem, Labour or SNP.

I totally disagree with that.

Labour are still officially a Leave party so why would you vote for them?  The Lib Dems and Greens are the only true Remain parties so one of these would be getting my vote.

If people voted for what they actually believed in rather than trying to be all tactical then we might get somewhere here in the UK.  The reason that Green & Environmental policies are not very much on the agenda at the moment is because 1,000's of people who would have voted green instead voted for Labour or the Tories, just to keep out which ever one of those two they personally hate the most. 

If those same people had voted Green instead then true, they might not win many more seats, but their vastly increased share of the vote would mean that the two main parties would have to stand up and listen (much in the way that Boris and his cronies are now implementing policies of the Brexit party despite them not having a single MP).

The other benefit is that long term, an increased share of the vote for the smaller parties allows momentum to build, for party funding to increase, election by election, until all of a sudden they are a major player - a real alternative.

So long as people keep voting tactically though then that will never happen and Labour and the Conservatives will simply carry on doing what they have always done, from well inside their own bubbles.  The result is that we'll simply get the same sh*t we've always had.

Jon Stewart 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

To not vote tactically is to not vote for what you want. 

We don't have proportional representation. To vote as if we do is to fail to understand the rules of the game. 

john arran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> If people voted for what they actually believed in rather than trying to be all tactical then we might get somewhere here in the UK. 

Ideologically, you're spot on. Practically, the only outcome of voting for what you believe in right now (unless it happened to be a majority view anyway) would be to increase the likelihood of those on the other side - who are voting tactically - of denying you any hope of having what you believe in coming to pass.

wercat 10 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You voted for a 16 inch penis and it didn’t happen.

> I’m sorry.


Well it did, it just went to the rich and influential

Robert Durran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> Labour are still officially a Leave party so why would you vote for them?  The Lib Dems and Greens are the only true Remain parties so one of these would be getting my vote.

This election is all about stopping Brexit (or at least getting a confirmatory vote). If you vote Lib Dem in a constituency where the Labour candidate is the only one with a realistic chance of getting rid a of a conservative MP, then you are effectively voting for a Conservative MP and for Brexit. It really is as simple as that.

I shall be volting SNP to get rid of a Conservative even though I am very equivocal about independence. A vote for the SNP could even be seen (in the light of Brexit) as a vote against independence!

Post edited at 09:04
Northern Star 10 Sep 2019
In reply to john arran:

Short term (i.e. the next election) you are right, but long term I think you are wrong.  It will take 2 or 3 political cycles for momentum to build and for things to change, but change they will if people vote true to their beliefs.  

If we just carry on voting for Con/Lab the way we always have then both parties will take it as a mandate not to really change anything.  That said, an increased vote for Greens would mean that even if Con/Lab still get into government, both parties will have to take notice of this and adopt a more environmentally focused stance to keep the votes with them.  This could be really decisive if there was no significant majority.

Short term tactical voting to keep the current Con/Lab tit for tat - or long term thinking to bring about a real change - it's your choice.

john arran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

I was really only talking about short term, but even longer term, as long as we have to suffer FPTP, tactical voting will always make sense because the views of voters whose preferred candidate doesn't get elected can and will continue to be ignored. It's a very poor state of affairs but trying to solve it by convincing everyone to ignore the reality of tactical voting effectiveness would be utterly futile. The only likely way of it being changed is through electoral reform. And I'm not holding my breath.

summo 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> To not vote tactically is to not vote for what you want. 

Yes. But often tactically voting is a vote against what you dislike, not what you desire. 

People often vote for change, they don't know what, it's the "can't be any worse than the last lot" mentality. 

> We don't have proportional representation. To vote as if we do is to fail to understand the rules of the game. 

True. But also the UK hasn't quite got it's head around coalitions. The whole opposing benches in the commons is a little dated. If it wasn't for the ridiculous cost, the commons needs a new building so there are at least enough seats for everyone.(that or get rid of a 100+ mps). 

Mike Stretford 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> Short term tactical voting to keep the current Con/Lab tit for tat - or long term thinking to bring about a real change - it's your choice.

That clearly isn't the choice in this election. It's no-deal Brexit and 5 years of Bojo, possibly in coalition with the Brexit party, or what can only be described as a more progressive coalition of Labour/Lib dems/SNP. That's it.

There will no change be from a Tory government, why would there be? Their policy of uniting the right wing vote would have succeeded, as it did in the 80s. They will have no interest in environmental issues, as that is not what their target voters are interested in (see the US right now).

Sorry to dismiss your idealism, but I grew up in the 80s, in a constituency the Tories didn't need..... I don't want to see the same mistakes again.

Edit: I actually think the Greens will repeat what they did in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, and only put a handful of candidate up in seats they might win.

Post edited at 10:42
Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> This election is all about stopping Brexit (or at least getting a confirmatory vote). If you vote Lib Dem in a constituency where the Labour candidate is the only one with a realistic chance of getting rid a of a conservative MP, then you are effectively voting for a Conservative MP and for Brexit. It really is as simple as that.

> I shall be volting SNP to get rid of a Conservative even though I am very equivocal about independence. A vote for the SNP could even be seen (in the light of Brexit) as a vote against independence!


A vote for labour is a vote for brexit. Corbyn has been a brexiter his entire political life, he wants brexit, he's in charge and all this fence sitting is just so he can steal the votes of remainers.

3
GridNorth 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> They will have no interest in environmental issues, as that is not what their target voters are interested in (see the US right now).

That's a bit of a sweeping statement.  I voted Conservative in a Conservative heartland and many of my neighbours did but they all care about the environment. As far as the US is concerned could it not simply be the case that many of their voters see things like the Paris Accord as disadvantaging them whilst allowing India, China etc. to carry on polluting unopposed. Is that really the same as not caring about the environment?

Mike Stretford 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> A vote for labour is a vote for brexit. Corbyn has been a brexiter his entire political life, he wants brexit, he's in charge and all this fence sitting is just so he can steal the votes of remainers.

It's a vote for a confirmatory referendum, which realistically is the only way out of Brexit. Corbyn clearly has a eurosceptic past, but the Labour party is democratic, hence the policy favoured by the membership.

2
Northern Star 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> A vote for labour is a vote for brexit. Corbyn has been a brexiter his entire political life, he wants brexit, he's in charge and all this fence sitting is just so he can steal the votes of remainers.

This exactly.  If you don't want Brexit then simply vote for a partly that is clear on its pro EU stance, rather than one that bends with the wind, without a clear policy on anything and a thinly disguised 'Jeremy Corbyn for PM' over what's best for the country agenda. 

Vote for positive change, rather than vote negatively simply to stick one over on someone you don't like.

1
Northern Star 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> It's a vote for a confirmatory referendum, which realistically is the only way out of Brexit. Corbyn clearly has a eurosceptic past, but the Labour party is democratic, hence the policy favoured by the membership.

It's only very recently been promised by Corbyn - perhaps because you know, the Lib Dems seem to be getting more votes with their clear Brexit policy and their consistent supporting a confirmatory referendum.  It's the best shot Jezza's got at becoming PM.  Hmmm - wonder why he's finally come round to the idea?

1
john arran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> wonder why he's finally come round to the idea?

Apparently it's because "the Labour party is democratic, hence the policy favoured by the membership", and really nothing at all to do with the non-democratic leader realising that coming around to the idea is the absolute minimum he needs to do to stop further hemorrhaging of votes to Libdems and Greens. If the Labour party was genuinely democratic it would have made the idea a core policy a long time ago. 

1
Mike Stretford 10 Sep 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Apparently it's because "the Labour party is democratic, hence the policy favoured by the membership"

I'm a member and have taken part in a pretty robust discussion. The basis of the policy was agreed at conference last year.  But you write me off as a mug, and criticise me without even bother to reply directly, that's just the sort of thing we need John.

Of course there's an element of electoral strategy, that's politics..... major shift in policy from the Lib Dems yesterday, but not a word about that. I won't be using that to score points as right now there's a much bigger picture to focus on.

1
john arran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Oh perlease. It's quite clear that Corbyn has been doing all he can within the bounds of ambiguous wording to make sure Labour policy more accurately reflects his preferred stance than that of the membership at conference. To deny that is to bury your head firmly either in the sand or up his arse.

1
Robert Durran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> A vote for labour is a vote for brexit. Corbyn has been a brexiter his entire political life, he wants brexit, he's in charge and all this fence sitting is just so he can steal the votes of remainers.

So do you think it is better to vote tactically for Labour or vote Lib Dem, thereby getting a Conservative rather than a Labour MP if you want to stop Brexit.

Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> So do you think it is better to vote tactically for Labour or vote Lib Dem, thereby getting a Conservative rather than a Labour MP if you want to stop Brexit.

If you return a Labour MP, you get brexit. If you return a Tory MP, you get brexit.

If you want to stop brexit you have to return a green / lib dem / SNP MP

3
Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Corbyn and his inner circle are not going to change their tune. Every time he speaks on brexit it's "we will get a better brexit than the Tories" he is utterly mealy mouthed about stopping brexit,  which right now, without any time on the clock left to run down, needs to happen.

3
Mike Stretford 10 Sep 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Oh perlease. It's quite clear that Corbyn has been doing all he can within the bounds of ambiguous wording to make sure Labour policy more accurately reflects his preferred stance than that of the membership at conference. To deny that is to bury your head firmly either in the sand or up his arse.

If you're going to use puerile language and accuse me of having my head up Corbyn's arse, I suspect I'm banging my head against a brick wall having any kind of sensible discussion with you. Here goes anyway.

As I say, there has been robust discussion within Labour, there is a split, and Corbyn's eurosceptic views are well know. For all that, the discussion would have concluded earlier were it not for the fact that many labour constituencies voted leave, and funnily enough Labour would prefer not to lose those seats. Most Mps are remain, but the leave MPs in the most vulnerable seats would have kept the debate alive even if the leadership had tried to shut it down.

I'm not going to reply in kind but I do think you've got this modern trait of massively oversimplifying and personifying what are pretty complex situations. I'd urge you and others not to enable no-deal and 5 years of Bojo by voting for an idealised but extremely improbable outcome.

2
RomTheBear 10 Sep 2019
In reply to neilh:

> True. But there are a lot of nervous EU countries ranging from Ireland( very nervous) to Holland.

Nervous ? If there is one country which is having a nervous breakdown it’s the UK. Sorry I was in Ireland last week as a matter of fact, didn’t get nervosity you’re talking about.

1
Mike Stretford 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> If you return a Labour MP, you get a confirmatory referendum. If you return a Tory MP, you get brexit.

Fixed that for you.

jkarran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Northern Star:

> This exactly.  If you don't want Brexit then simply vote for a partly that is clear on its pro EU stance, rather than one that bends with the wind, without a clear policy on anything and a thinly disguised 'Jeremy Corbyn for PM' over what's best for the country agenda. 

I get the idealism but it's no good if you split the remain vote to return a tory or a kipper. We have to work with what we have and we have to take every opportunity we get as if it's our last for now. We can gently pursue electoral reform or a greener agenda in the years to come but if brexit passes it consumes the next decade minimum and destroys our welfare state, we'll be starting from scratch. We need to vote with our heads, a vote for Labour as the best hope not-brexit party in a given constituency will do, their MPs are committed, the membership is committed, the electoral arithmetic will do the rest to bind them to a referendum which is the only right and fair way forward through this mess. Labour are a necessary part of a coalition of opposition, that's a fact baked into our electoral landscape so in this case we have to be the wind Labour bends to. It's not ideal, Corbyn does not deserve power but it's the reality we face if we want a chance to stop brexit or its worst effects.

> Vote for positive change, rather than vote negatively simply to stick one over on someone you don't like.

Yes it does but that's not always a luxury we can afford.

jk

Robert Durran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> If you return a Labour MP, you get brexit. If you return a Tory MP, you get brexit.

So are you seriously saying that returning a Labour or Conservative MP makes no difference to the chances of getting a referendum and therefore Brexit happening?

Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I have absolutely zero confidence that JC would campaign for remain against a deal he had been seen to get from the EU in any confirmatory referendum. I also have doubts that a 2nd referendum would have the option to remain on it, there are just too many chances for the leadership to alter their positions.

There has been too much obfuscation for too long from Corbyn. He should poo or get off the potty.

john arran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> If you're going to use puerile language and accuse me of having my head up Corbyn's arse ...

If I was going to do that I would have been quite happy doing it explicitly. I think you're taking personal offence at generalities.

Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Fixed that for you.

It's too important to take on trust. 

1
Robert Durran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

You havn't answerd my question.

In a seat which might only be won by the Conservatives or Labour, a Lib Dem vote rather than Labour vote incresaes the chances of a Conservative rather than a Labour MP being returned. You are effectively choosing a Conservative over a Labour MP. Is this what you want to do?

Post edited at 13:45
Mike Stretford 10 Sep 2019
In reply to john arran:

> If I was going to do that I would have been quite happy doing it explicitly. I think you're taking personal offence at generalities.

I'm not offended but it is exasperating and demoralising, if I'm honest. I've spent evenings patiently arguing for remain policies. In the coming months I'll lose a couple of days to campaigning in vulnerable northern seats, defending the referendum policy. Not something I enjoy and I'd much rather be out climbing. I do read posts like yours and think 'what's the feckin point'!

There's a chance to rule out no-deal, get a referendum, and stop Boris. There's no chance of LibDems/SNP/Greens forming a majority government... that's out there with the Brexiteer fantasies.

Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

OK are you saying that there is categorically no chance of a Green / LD / SNP winner in your constituency? (I missed that bit)

If my only choice is Labour or Con. then I'd vote Labour - but without any great expectation that I would be acting to stop brexit.

Robert Durran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> OK are you saying that there is categorically no chance of a Green / LD / SNP winner in your constituency? (I missed that bit)

Yes

> If my only choice is Labour or Con. then I'd vote Labour - but without any great expectation that I would be acting to stop brexit.

You could vote Lib Dem, but they have no chance of winning.

So it sounds like you would vote tactically where it might make a difference after all!

john arran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> There's a chance to rule out no-deal, get a referendum, and stop Boris. There's no chance of LibDems/SNP/Greens forming a majority government... that's out there with the Brexiteer fantasies.

Just as frustrating for many of us too. I would love to be able to vote Labour again but it is very hard to consider doing so while the leader is so unelectable and, much more importantly, seems to be forever trying to find a way to make Brexit happen, against the apparent wishes both of the party and of traditional Labour voters.

Nobody will be forming a government or coalition without 50% of MPs, certainly not one that will be able to achieve anything, so it really comes down to whether the Leave coalition delivers more MPs than the coalition of the others. I think voters should vote tactically for the most likely non-Leave party in each constituency (phrasing it thus to be inclusive of hedge-sitting Labour), and for me the more Labour ends up being reliant on a significant number of coalition MPs, the less chance Corbyn will be able to weasel out of a referendum or campaign for red unicorns.

Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, but reluctantly. I live in a Tory / LD seat so I know which way to vote (this time, at least)

Mike Stretford 10 Sep 2019
In reply to john arran:

> Nobody will be forming a government or coalition without 50% of MPs, certainly not one that will be able to achieve anything, so it really comes down to whether the Leave coalition delivers more MPs than the coalition of the others. I think voters should vote tactically for the most likely non-Leave party in each constituency (phrasing it thus to be inclusive of hedge-sitting Labour), and for me the more Labour ends up being reliant on a significant number of coalition MPs, the less chance Corbyn will be able to weasel out of a referendum or campaign for red unicorns.

Fine. The point is there are not that many Lab/Lib Dem marginals, a handful actually, and that's where your argument is relevant

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat

By bashing Labour you are much more likely to damage Labour in the many Tory/Labour marginals, thus helping Bojo achieve his 50% of MPs (or even worse, Bojo & Farage coalition).

Edit: On another thread I've been trying to persuade a Labour supporter to vote Lib Dems in a Con/Lib Dem marginal... I am consistent on this!

Post edited at 14:59
Robert Durran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Yes, but reluctantly. I live in a Tory / LD seat so I know which way to vote (this time, at least)

Ok. Voting Lib Dem is obviously the best choice then!

1
john arran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I'm not bashing Labour, I'm bashing Corbyn, just as I would any Leaver. What irritates me sometimes about some blinkered Labour fans - and I'm not including you in this group - is when they say things like 'any vote other than for Labour is a vote for the Tories', which is simply rubbish and damaging not just to the chances of some Libdem, SNP or Green candidates who may be in with the best chance of keeping a Tory Leaver out, but also discredits the Labour party itself by showing such ignorance of the way FPTP requires tactical voting at times.

jkarran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I have absolutely zero confidence that JC would campaign for remain against a deal he had been seen to get from the EU in any confirmatory referendum.

I don't care if he does or doesn't, all that matters for now is getting past this crisis then securing that chance to for the public to give unambiguous informed consent for the particular type of brexit available. On delivering that Labour are now clear. That policy comes with risks but the the PLP are no longer part of the problem.

jk

Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

And what happens if Corbyn wins a GE, disappears off to Brussels, rolls TM's turd of a deal in glitter and campaigns for the shiny bauble? What happens if he welches on the idea of having remain on the ballot? As I said upthread, if I had to choose between Lab and Con, I'd vote Lab, but I can't say that I believe it will have the required effect.

jkarran 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> And what happens if Corbyn wins a GE, disappears off to Brussels, rolls TM's turd of a deal in glitter and campaigns for the shiny bauble?

I think that's exactly what he'll do. The EU will have limited patience with renegotiation, any new deal will have to be hung on the bones of the old. It's perfectly reasonable to reuse good work, only change what's necessary.

> What happens if he welches on the idea of having remain on the ballot?

How? You think his MPs the unions and party members will quietly roll over without protest or that he can do it alone? You think that wouldn't have terminal consequences for the Labour party at the next election? He's been too timid too long but he's not mad or stupid, nor are his team.

> As I said upthread, if I had to choose between Lab and Con, I'd vote Lab, but I can't say that I believe it will have the required effect.

I don't see anything in it for the Labour leadership to trick their voters, members, MPs and funders into brexit. Corbyn doesn't have the power or the powers of persuasion to pull it off and it doesn't make political sense, if he can steady the ship he gives the Labour party a serious shot at governing. Add to that the almost inevitable constraints of minority government, he's going to have to play a straight bat.

jk

Post edited at 16:50
Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I hope you're right.

Stichtplate 10 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Completely disagree, what you see as flaws I see as strength. It is the lack of centralisation and imperfect integration that makes the system, as whole, extremely resilient.

You better have word with the EU if you see imperfect integration as a strength...does the phrase 'ever closer union' ring any bells?

>In fact I dare say it’s getting stronger after each crisis.

Hmm...I suppose the union will just get stronger and stronger if more countries leave then? Perhaps when it's just France we'll see a rock solid EU.

> Just look at the effect of Brexit: it hasn’t shaken the EU that much in fact probably has strengthened it. However in the UK it has led to a complete meltdown. 

You sure Brexit leaves the EU stronger and unshaken? In purely economic terms, according to the EU's own figures, the UK has the union's second biggest economy, equivalent to the GDP of 19 smaller member states. 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20170410-1

Eric9Points 10 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> That's a bit of a sweeping statement.  I voted Conservative in a Conservative heartland and many of my neighbours did but they all care about the environment. 

I'm sure you do care for the environment but are you aware that they are floating the idea of cutting fuel duty? 

Eric9Points 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> If my only choice is Labour or Con. then I'd vote Labour - but without any great expectation that I would be acting to stop brexit.

If Labour get in they'll renegotiate the withdrawal agreement based on requesting a customs union thereby negating the NI border problem and they would then put the negotiated deal to a second referendum with an option of remaining in the EU.

Surely you knew this? It's what the party has been saying for the last two or three months.

RomTheBear 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> You better have word with the EU if you see imperfect integration as a strength...does the phrase 'ever closer union' ring any bells?

It was "ever closer union of the people of europe. It's nothing more than a prefectly good and sensible humanist ideal for Europe and has nothing to do with political or economic integration.

And yes I see imperfect integration as a strength.

> >In fact I dare say it’s getting stronger after each crisis.

> Hmm...I suppose the union will just get stronger and stronger if more countries leave then? Perhaps when it's just France we'll see a rock solid EU.

That's the thing, everybody can now see in Europe what leaving does ands that has pretty much dissuaded everybody else.

> You sure Brexit leaves the EU stronger and unshaken? In purely economic terms, according to the EU's own figures, the UK has the union's second biggest economy, equivalent to the GDP of 19 smaller member states. 

True, but the EU would grow back to its original GDP in less than a decade, even assuming low growth. Beside I think that whatever happens the UK will stay in the economic umbrella of the EU whether it likes it or not

Stichtplate 10 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It was "ever closer union of the people of europe. It's nothing more than a prefectly good and sensible humanist ideal for Europe and has nothing to do with political or economic integration.

Afraid not. The phrase is to be found in a European treaty, signed by heads of state and specifically aimed at political integration.

The Solemn Declaration added “closer union among Member States, as well as the peoples of Europe”.

Between Member States, ie political entities. The phrase has real meaning, it's not just wishy-washy fraternal greetings.

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7230

> And yes I see imperfect integration as a strength.

 The firm my wife works for was recently acquired by 3M. I asked how it'd go across if she came out with 'I see imperfect integration as a strength.'  Oh, how she laughed.

> That's the thing, everybody can now see in Europe what leaving does ands that has pretty much dissuaded everybody else.

Not really. The Uk hasn't left yet (I'm all on board with the prospect of economic mayhem when it does) and what the UK has is half the unemployment of the EU average along with almost twice the wage growth.

> True, but the EU would grow back to its original GDP in less than a decade, even assuming low growth. Beside I think that whatever happens the UK will stay in the economic umbrella of the EU whether it likes it or not

That's pretty meaningless. Yeah it'll probably grow back to pre-brexit levels in a decade, but it'll have lost the growth potential of the UK's 17% of EU GDP forever. 

However you cut it Brexit isn't just a disaster for the UK, it's a disaster for the EU as well.

edit: typo

Post edited at 22:16
RomTheBear 10 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Afraid not. The phrase is to be found in a European treaty, signed by heads of state and specifically aimed at political integration.

> The Solemn Declaration added “closer union among Member States, as well as the peoples of Europe”.

Rubbish, that’s just a political declaration.

Look at what is in the treaty

> Between Member States, ie political entities.

You are completely, utterly, totally, WRONG. There is absolutely NOTHING in EU treaties that forces EU states towards greater political integration. In fact, almost the opposites, a principle of subsidiarity applies and ant further political integration would require new treaties.

In fact if you need any evidence you can just look at Brexit. There is absolutely nothing preventing a state from not integrating, and in fact, leaving, if they want to.

>  The firm my wife works for was recently acquired by 3M. I asked how it'd go across if she came out with 'I see imperfect integration as a strength.'  Oh, how she laughed.

Probably, yet, she’d be right. History proves it. Centralised, integrated states all failed badly, quickly. 

It’s not that hard to see why, any policy error blows the entire thing. In a decentralised system if one part of the system blows up, the rest can carry on, and in fact can even learn from the mistake.

Systems that are organised organically tend to resist shocks better than optimised, integrated systems.

> Not really. The Uk hasn't left yet (I'm all on board with the prospect of economic mayhem when it does) and what the UK has is half the unemployment of the EU average along with almost twice the wage growth.

Actually the current wage growth and low unemployment is a very bad thing. Why ? Because it comes from labour shortages not from productivity increases. We will pay the price for this. Either through inflation or other mechanism. There is no free lunch.

> That's pretty meaningless. Yeah it'll probably grow back to pre-brexit levels in a decade, but it'll have lost the growth potential of the UK's 17% of EU GDP forever. 

No, what I’ve said was very meaningful, as I put in perspective the size of the UK economy in relation to what is produced every year in the EU economy. However what you alluded to just now is indeed meaningless, you are confusing growth with volume.

> However you cut it Brexit isn't just a disaster for the UK, it's a disaster for the EU as well.

I completely disagree, and if you lived on the continent you’d probably have a different view. The reality is that for the vast majority of people in the rest of the EU, this will make zero difference to them whether UK is in or out. However that’s not true the other way around.

I actually think that brexit has made the EU stronger, the UK took the bullet and showed everybody what not to do.

Post edited at 23:42
baron 10 Sep 2019
Stichtplate 11 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Rubbish, that’s just a political declaration.

> Look at what is in the treaty

OK, so what you're saying is that a political declaration on closer union is nothing to do with political integration??? How do you think the EU can advance ever closer union in everything from economics to immigration without addressing political integration is beyond me. Once again your assessment seems completely at odds with most of the internet. Just try googling 'EU political integration'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_integration

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp181122.en.html

Do you not think that the mere existence of an EU parliament might hint that political integration is an EU aim?

> You are completely, utterly, totally, WRONG. There is absolutely NOTHING in EU treaties that forces EU states towards greater political integration. In fact, almost the opposites, a principle of subsidiarity applies and ant further political integration would require new treaties.

If you can point me to where I've said member states will be forced? I've said it's a declared aim.

> In fact if you need any evidence you can just look at Brexit. There is absolutely nothing preventing a state from not integrating, and in fact, leaving, if they want to.

Never said otherwise.

> Probably, yet, she’d be right. History proves it. Centralised, integrated states all failed badly, quickly. 

Do you ever back up huge sweeping statements with any actual facts? Integrated systems that are well suited to playing nicely together are highly desirable in any large complex organisation. As far as centralisation goes, yet again you're attempting to foist upon me an argument I've not made.

> It’s not that hard to see why, any policy error blows the entire thing. In a decentralised system if one part of the system blows up, the rest can carry on, and in fact can even learn from the mistake.

See above. Ive not mentioned centralised power. Integration and centralisation are not the same thing.

> Systems that are organised organically tend to resist shocks better than optimised, integrated systems.

Unsubstantiated bollocks. From battleships to postal services to supranational governments, well integrated systems out perform badly integrated systems. To state otherwise is idiocy.

> Actually the current wage growth and low unemployment is a very bad thing. Why ? Because it comes from labour shortages not from productivity increases. We will pay the price for this. Either through inflation or other mechanism. There is no free lunch.

Yeah, Low unemployment and wage rises are bad. Does that mean high unemployment and low wage growth is good?

Answer me this, if the UK economic environment is so toxic how come we have 3.7 million EU nationals living here, most of whom came to work, as opposed to 0.8 million UK nationals living in the EU, most of whom have moved in order to retire in the sun?

> No, what I’ve said was very meaningful, as I put in perspective the size of the UK economy in relation to what is produced every year in the EU economy. However what you alluded to just now is indeed meaningless, you are confusing growth with volume.

> I completely disagree, and if you lived on the continent you’d probably have a different view. The reality is that for the vast majority of people in the rest of the EU, this will make zero difference to them whether UK is in or out. However that’s not true the other way around.

We aren't talking about what people think, we're talking about Brexit's impact on the European project. Do you think if France had chosen to leave the EU the average Brit would give a stuff?

> I actually think that brexit has made the EU stronger, the UK took the bullet and showed everybody what not to do.

Yeah, of course the EU is stronger if Brexit goes ahead. The EU loses a population equivalent to its 16 smaller members and a GDP equal to 19 members and it's going to be stronger. I'm sure if your legs dropped off you'd gain upper body strength, still not a good outcome though is it.

1
RomTheBear 11 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> OK, so what you're saying is that a political declaration on closer union is nothing to do with political integration??? How do you think the EU can advance ever closer union in everything from economics to immigration without addressing political integration is beyond me. Once again your assessment seems completely at odds with most of the internet. Just try googling 'EU political integration'.

> Do you not think that the mere existence of an EU parliament might hint that political integration is an EU aim?

Political integration and cooperation is not the same as political union. 

> If you can point me to where I've said member states will be forced? I've said it's a declared aim.

Well you claimed that ever closer union was a requirement, which it clearly is not.

> Never said otherwise.

> Do you ever back up huge sweeping statements with any actual facts? Integrated systems that are well suited to playing nicely together are highly desirable in any large complex organisation. As far as centralisation goes, yet again you're attempting to foist upon me an argument I've not made.

Well your argument was clearly about an European superstate and the ever closer union, so it was about centralisation, not integration.

A degree of non-integration is necessary for robustness. Highly integrated and streamlined system are highly efficient but fail if any of their constituent part fail.

The best example has to be the global financial system, the more integrated it is, the more unpredictable and unstable it is. 

> See above. Ive not mentioned centralised power. Integration and centralisation are not the same thing.

> Unsubstantiated bollocks. From battleships to postal services to supranational governments, well integrated systems out perform badly integrated systems. To state otherwise is idiocy.

And yet one of the most stable country in thew world is Switzerland, and non-integrated mess with different jurisdiction, different laws, everywhere, several languages and cultures, and local decision making. 

> Yeah, Low unemployment and wage rises are bad. Does that mean high unemployment and low wage growth is good?

Wage rise are bad if they are the result of staff shortages in instead of productivity increase. It does not logically follow that high unemployment and low wage growth is good.

> Answer me this, if the UK economic environment is so toxic how come we have 3.7 million EU nationals living here, most of whom came to work, as opposed to 0.8 million UK nationals living in the EU, most of whom have moved in order to retire in the sun?

Things are not static. Look at where EU net migration is now.

> We aren't talking about what people think, we're talking about Brexit's impact on the European project.

So far, I think the impact is positive for the EU.  Just when Europeans doubted the usefulness of the EU project Brexit and Trump have completely reversed the trend, and highlighted the need for a stronger EU that can defend europeans interests an increasingly aggressive world.

> Do you think if France had chosen to leave the EU the average Brit would give a stuff?

No, and that's exactly why it is resilient. You can lose a part without losing the whole. Of course up to a point.

> Yeah, of course the EU is stronger if Brexit goes ahead. The EU loses a population equivalent to its 16 smaller members and a GDP equal to 19 members and it's going to be stronger. I'm sure if your legs dropped off you'd gain upper body strength, still not a good outcome though is it.

It's all a question of scale. If you hit your bones they become stronger. Of course over a certain threshold they break.

Post edited at 11:45
1
Stichtplate 11 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Political integration and cooperation is not the same as political union. 

Obviously.

> Well you claimed that ever closer union was a requirement, which it clearly is not.

For the second time. Never claimed it was a requirement.

> Well your argument was clearly about an European superstate and the ever closer union, so it was about centralisation, not integration.

No. Never mentioned centralisation. Never mentioned superstate. All I did was refute your statement...

 It was "ever closer union of the people of europe. It's nothing more than a prefectly good and sensible humanist ideal for Europe and has nothing to do with political or economic integration."

...and point out 'ever closer union' has real substance as a driver. It's not just a "humanist ideal".

> A degree of non-integration is necessary for robustness. Highly integrated and streamlined system are highly efficient but fail if any of their constituent part fail. 

Where as badly integrated complex systems have failure and f*ck ups baked in. Which do you think is preferable? Would you buy a PC with badly integrated systems? a car? a supranational state?

> The best example has to be the global financial system, the more integrated it is, the more unpredictable and unstable it is. 

No. That's a very poor example because in some areas of the global financial system (say, transferring large sums of money electronically) without a high degree of integration stuff just wouldn't work. In other areas, like stock markets, integration can present as a weakness due to the markets running on herd instinct. You'll have to be more specific with your examples if you want to show integration as a negative.

> And yet one of the most stable country in thew world is Switzerland, and non-integrated mess with different jurisdiction, different laws, everywhere, several languages and cultures, and local decision making. 

Switzerland, with a political system that devolves much of its power to its citizens; they had 10 national referendums last year. Luckily the Swiss population is smaller than London's. How do you see that working out for the system we're actually discussing, the EU?

> Wage rise are bad if they are the result of staff shortages in instead of productivity increase. It does not logically follow that high unemployment and low wage growth is good.

Your original position was that the UK's low unemployment and recent high wage growth are both bad things. 

> Things are not static. Look at where EU net migration is now.

Currently 57,000 more EU nationals are moving to the UK annually than leaving. Seems people are still voting with their feet.

> So far, I think the impact is positive for the EU.  Just when Europeans doubted the usefulness of the EU project Brexit and Trump have completely reversed the trend, and highlighted the need for a stronger EU that can defend europeans interests an increasingly aggressive world.

Can you link to any credible source that supports this view?

Meanwhile, the view that Brexit is an actual disaster for the EU...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/02/eu-could-declare-no-deal-brexit-as-major-natural-disaster

https://blogs.imf.org/2018/08/10/the-long-term-impact-of-brexit-on-the-european-union/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/07/world/europe/brexit-impact-on-european-union.html

> No, and that's exactly why it is resilient. You can lose a part without losing the whole. Of course up to a point.

> It's all a question of scale. If you hit your bones they become stronger. Of course over a certain threshold they break.

So far, your only indication of how Brexit will strengthen the EU is its deterrent value. Not exactly much of an upside then.

RomTheBear 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Obviously.

> For the second time. Never claimed it was a requirement.

> No. Never mentioned centralisation. Never mentioned superstate. All I did was refute your statement...

>  It was "ever closer union of the people of europe. It's nothing more than a prefectly good and sensible humanist ideal for Europe and has nothing to do with political or economic integration."

> ...and point out 'ever closer union' has real substance as a driver. It's not just a "humanist ideal".

Well sorry but that’s pretty much just that, an ideal, it had no legal value, there is no requirent to move towards an ever closer political union. That’s just plain bullshit.

> Where as badly integrated complex systems have failure and f*ck ups baked in. Which do you think is preferable? Would you buy a PC with badly integrated systems? a car? a supranational state?

Certain things I want well integrated and others I don’t.

Things that are well integrated tend to not like disorder and unpredictability. My car doesn’t get better if I smash it into a wall. 

> No. That's a very poor example because in some areas of the global financial system (say, transferring large sums of money electronically) without a high degree of integration stuff just wouldn't work. In other areas, like stock markets, integration can present as a weakness due to the markets running on herd instinct. You'll have to be more specific with your examples if you want to show integration as a negative.

No, it’s a very good example, yes you are correct that many things wouldn’t work without integration in the financial system but that’s also what makes it very sensitive to volatility.

For example, it’s now possible to withdraw money electronically in a second all across the world. The downside is that a bank run can happen instantly, overnight. That’s pretty much what happened to Iceland.

It’s more efficient but also more unstable. I think we are too obssesed with efficient and wee are building very dangerous political system that can’t cope with an unpredictable future.

> Switzerland, with a political system that devolves much of its power to its citizens; they had 10 national referendums last year. Luckily the Swiss population is smaller than London's. How do you see that working out for the system we're actually discussing, the EU?

Well there are similarities in the EU, a principle of subsidiarity, decentralised decision making, very different legal system and economies, different cultures.

The issue are the big nations states themselves. It’s pretty obvious to me. The EU would work better if all the countries were the size of say, Danemark. We need to break it down further basically.

> Your original position was that the UK's low unemployment and recent high wage growth are both bad things. 

It’s bad if it due to shortages instead of productivity increase.

> Currently 57,000 more EU nationals are moving to the UK annually than leaving. Seems people are still voting with their feet.

Again, things can change.

> Can you link to any credible source that supports this view?

> Meanwhile, the view that Brexit is an actual disaster for the EU...

> So far, your only indication of how Brexit will strengthen the EU is its deterrent value. Not exactly much of an upside then.

You call it deterrent, I call it learning through trial and error.

Post edited at 06:23
summo 12 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

What about the eu's new leader's appointment of a minister to protect European society and culture from migration? Interesting choice of words she had.

I think she is about to do more harm than good. Juncker spent his most productive years turning Luxembourg into a tax haven. The new girl is young and has an agenda, which looks likely to divide Europe more, despite it being the opposite of the EU super state she desires. 

2
MischaHY 12 Sep 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Can you link to any credible source that supports this view?

Anecdotally speaking and living in Germany the last three years I've seen a noticeable shift from curiosity/confusion to absolute derision. People used to laugh at the audacity, now they frown and talk about the importance of cohesiveness. 

It does seem at least the people around me are learning a lesson at the expense of the UK.   

Stichtplate 12 Sep 2019
In reply to MischaHY:

> Anecdotally speaking and living in Germany the last three years I've seen a noticeable shift from curiosity/confusion to absolute derision. People used to laugh at the audacity, now they frown and talk about the importance of cohesiveness. 

> It does seem at least the people around me are learning a lesson at the expense of the UK.   

As I've already written; apart from deterrent, any any credible sources supporting Brexit leading to a stronger EU?

Stichtplate 12 Sep 2019
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well sorry but that’s pretty much just that, an ideal, it had no legal value, there is no requirent to move towards an ever closer political union. That’s just plain bullshit.

I can see how you get so muddled when you can't seem to process simple information. For the third time, I didn't say it was a requirement. It's an aim. That's how governments (national or supranational work), they don't set out legislation to compel themselves to act, they produce policy and then set it in motion. If you'd bothered clicking on the link (why bother, you already know everything) you'd see 'ever closer union' has featured in every big EU treaty since 1957, and it's not just an 'ideal' as you keep insisting, it's been enacted in everything from monetary union to the removal of internal borders to moves towards common defence. 

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7230

> Certain things I want well integrated and others I don’t.

> Things that are well integrated tend to not like disorder and unpredictability. My car doesn’t get better if I smash it into a wall. 

> No, it’s a very good example, yes you are correct that many things wouldn’t work without integration in the financial system but that’s also what makes it very sensitive to volatility.

> For example, it’s now possible to withdraw money electronically in a second all across the world. The downside is that a bank run can happen instantly, overnight. That’s pretty much what happened to Iceland.

Yes integration is how you can withdraw money across the world. Well done. So you either accept volatility as the price or you go back to the Knights Templar looking after your international cash transfers. The great crash of 1929 decimated world stock markets in 5 days, so what level of historical financial integration do you see as ideal?

> It’s more efficient but also more unstable. I think we are too obssesed with efficient and wee are building very dangerous political system that can’t cope with an unpredictable future.

You seem to be arguing against the entire EU project.

> Well there are similarities in the EU, a principle of subsidiarity, decentralised decision making, very different legal system and economies, different cultures.

What, like the UK then?

> The issue are the big nations states themselves. It’s pretty obvious to me. The EU would work better if all the countries were the size of say, Danemark. We need to break it down further basically.

Right, so your recipe for decreasing European volatility is to break down big countries into smaller sovereign states? Bit like the Medieval Europe then. You have read about Medieval Europe? Incessant warfare and constant political and social volatility.

> It’s bad if it due to shortages instead of productivity increase.

> Again, things can change.

Another way of saying 'I have no evidence to support my view'.

> You call it deterrent, I call it learning through trial and error.

Whatever. Learning a lesson at the expense of losing population equivalent to 16 smaller EU states and GDP of 19 smaller states, hardly represent the EU getting stronger,

RomTheBear 10:18 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I can see how you get so muddled when you can't seem to process simple information. For the third time, I didn't say it was a requirement. It's an aim. That's how governments (national or supranational work), they don't set out legislation to compel themselves to act, they produce policy and then set it in motion. If you'd bothered clicking on the link (why bother, you already know everything) you'd see 'ever closer union' has featured in every big EU treaty since 1957, and it's not just an 'ideal' as you keep insisting, it's been enacted in everything from monetary union to the removal of internal borders to moves towards common defence. 

So   you are saying now that this  was a completely voluntary process of integration, and not something  forced on anybody by some law.

We agree then.

> Yes integration is how you can withdraw money across the world. Well done. So you either accept volatility as the price or you go back to the Knights Templar looking after your international cash transfers. The great crash of 1929 decimated world stock markets in 5 days, so what level of historical financial integration do you see as ideal?

First of all we need to break it down, massively. A system where one bank collapsing fucks everybody else is completely unstable. You need a system where if a bank collapses it doesn’t matter at all, and in fact improves the system by getting rid of a bad company.

The same goes with your state, you want it to not fuck everybody else when they fail. 

> You seem to be arguing against the entire EU project.

No, I think the EU project makes big states redundant, as it is a system where smaller entities can thrive.

> What, like the UK then?

The UK is the exact opposite. There is is no subisidiarity, Westminster can impose anything it wants on anybody with a simple majority vote in the House of Commons. You can’t even leave the UK without permission.

> Right, so your recipe for decreasing European volatility is to break down big countries into smaller sovereign states? Bit like the Medieval Europe then. You have read about Medieval Europe? Incessant warfare and constant political and social volatility.

Most of the people killed in war ever in world history were killed during the second world war, at a time where we had big powerful states.

They key is to have a common army to keep the peace and prevent people from fighting, and make sure people can trade and move. Then there are less means and less reasons for infighting, despite wide disparities of cultures. 

> Another way of saying 'I have no evidence to support my view'.

No, just a way of saying if you think things always stay as they are, you are complacent.

> Whatever. Learning a lesson at the expense of losing population equivalent to 16 smaller EU states and GDP of 19 smaller states, hardly represent the EU getting stronger,

Well, time will tell, but so far I think that Brexit may well have saved Europe.

Post edited at 10:39
1
cb294 10:32 Mon
In reply to baron:

The UK alongside the US has been pursuing or supporting illegal wars all over the place for years. The best thing Schröder ever did for Germany was too keep us out of Iraq. Merkel should have been shot for treason when she returned from the US where she told Bush that she would have joined the fun had she been in power yet.

CB

Pan Ron 11:49 Mon
In reply to Postmanpat:

From being a long-time Lib.Dem supporter I'm not sure I could vote for them given today's announcement of over-ruling the referendum result. 

Fine if you follow that up with a second, better constructed, referendum.  But to annul it and refuse to re-run a referendum would be a terrible idea and points to the LDs being out of touch with half the population.  Some obviously say it should never have been put to a vote in the first place.  But that is little solace to the huge numbers who voted for it, and no doubt their frustration will manifest in even more extreme ways - probably more extreme parties who seem more willing to overturn the current order.  

4
summo 11:50 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Most of the people killed in war ever in world history were killed during the second world war, at a time where we had big powerful states.

Relative to global population it's likely the three kingdoms war 200AD ish, and the expansion if the Mongol empire killed more. 

Brexit saves the eu!? Optimism. It's border line recession now, restarting QE and likely about to be burdened further by rocketing fuel costs and a US / Iran war. Oh and the decline of the USA when his tax cuts, trade war and increased borrowing come home to roost.

I don't see anything rosey on the horizon and Brexit is just an irrelevant side show in the global scheme of things. 

2
krikoman 11:55 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> From being a long-time Lib.Dem supporter I'm not sure I could vote for them given today's announcement of over-ruling the referendum result. 

My thoughts too, surely it would have been much better to back a second referendum, to out right ignore the result is almost as bad as pushing for a no deal.

I'm not sure Swinson is very good for the party, she has some weird ideas and seems very biased IMHO.

Stichtplate 12:02 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> So   you are saying now that this  was a completely voluntary process of integration, and not something  forced on anybody by some law.

For the fourth time now...Never Said Otherwise.

> We agree then.

Only if you insist on completely misrepresenting what we disagreed on in the first place

> First of all we need to break it down, massively. A system where one bank collapsing f*cks everybody else is completely unstable. You need a system where if a bank collapses it doesn’t matter at all, and in fact improves the system by getting rid of a bad company.

Can you name any instance where one isolated bank failure has brought the entire system down? Entire banking systems only fail due to underlying systemic issues. You should know that if you work in finance.

> The same goes with your state, you want it to not f*ck everybody else when they fail. 

Can you provide any instance of a single isolated state failing and f*cking everyone else?

> No, I think the EU project makes big states redundant, as it is a system where smaller entities can thrive.

The USA is federalised. Are you telling us the USA isn't a big state?

> The UK is the exact opposite. There is is no subisidiarity, Westminster can impose anything it wants on anybody with a simple majority vote in the House of Commons. You can’t even leave the UK without permission.

Yet again you twist the argument we were actually having to fit the argument you'd like to have now. The country being compared to the UK was Switzerland. Certainly not entirely similar but not the exact opposite either. 

The Swiss Federal Constitution declares the cantons to be sovereign to the extent that their sovereignty is not limited by federal law. Areas specifically reserved to the Confederation are the armed forces, currency, the postal service, telecommunications, immigration into and emigration from the country, granting asylum, conducting foreign relations with sovereign states, civil and criminal law, weights and measures, and customs duties.

Also worth noting that Swiss cantons can't vote themselves independent. Very strange that you should hold Switzerland up as an ideal in the first place given the amount of vitriol you've poured on the UK for the series of screw up that recently denied EU nationals their lawful voting rights. Foreign nationals have no Swiss federal voting rights and only a small minority of cantons grant them a vote on local issues.

> Most of the people killed in war ever in world history were killed during the second world war, at a time where we had big powerful states.

We had more big powerful states at the outbreak of WW1. The Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire we still in existence, the Russian empire was a size it wouldn't again attain until conquering half of Europe in WW2 and the size of the British empire peaked in 1914. WW2's huge death toll was the result of totalitarian and highly militarised states fighting a modern war with mechanised armies and advanced weaponry.

> They key is to have a common army to keep the peace and prevent people from fighting, and make sure people can trade and move. Then there are less means and less reasons for infighting, despite wide disparities of cultures. 

If you need an army to keep the peace then you haven't got much peace in the first place. You are aware of the sort of places peacekeeping forces have to be deployed? You should, you live in one.

> No, just a way of saying if you think things always stay as they are, you are complacent.

Yet another argument twisted because you can't understand the concept of discussion, just point scoring. You said...

> Things are not static. Look at where EU net migration is now.

To which I replied...

Currently 57,000 more EU nationals are moving to the UK annually than leaving. Seems people are still voting with their feet.

If the fact that we've had net EU migration of half a million since 2016's referendum doesn't indicate that all is not rosy within the EU economic environment then I don't know what will. That's not me being complacent, that's just looking at the figures.

> Well, time will tell, but so far I think that Brexit may well have saved Europe.

How exactly will time tell if Brexit will save Europe? What did it need saving from? and how on Earth will you compare outcomes?

Post edited at 12:06
Rob Exile Ward 12:30 Mon
In reply to krikoman:

I don't understand the 'no 2nd referendum' policy either.

Could it be that we have managed to acquire the 3 worst party leaders simultaneously? 

stevieb 12:40 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> From being a long-time Lib.Dem supporter I'm not sure I could vote for them given today's announcement of over-ruling the referendum result. 

I think this is acceptable from a logical perspective, but it seems like a political mistake. 

This is a policy for a Lib Dem majority government. If the Lib Dems got their first majority in 100 years then that is a mandate for total remain, every bit as much as if Brexit party got a majority , that would be a mandate for the whatever is in their manifesto. 

However it looks politically naive. It is a controversial policy which they will have almost no chance of delivering. It seems like an own goal, but maybe it plays well to their target voters. 

Dave Garnett 13:56 Mon
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I don't understand the 'no 2nd referendum' policy either.

Perhaps they think there should be at least one party that is completely clear on EU membership.

 I don’t know whether it will pay off electorally, but all this baying from the Mail that it’s undemocratic is absurd.  It’s the definition of democracy.  If they get a majority, we stay in.

The dangerous idea that’s starting to  get established here is that once there’s been a referendum,the decision can’t ever be reversed and even takes precedence over a subsequent election. It’s explicitly a move to a populist direct model replacing representative parliamentary democracy.

alastairmac 14:07 Mon
In reply to Postmanpat:

Tories in disguise. An increasingly shabby collection of opportunists without principles. And they should remove the word democrat ( and possibly liberal) from their name.... since Jo Swinson and Willie Rennie have decided that no matter how Scottish voters respond to the question of self government they intend to disregard the views of the Scottish electorate. Jo and Willie don't like the idea apparently.

They only sniff of power they'll get of course is if they ride on the coat tails of their coalition colleagues in the Tory Party. 

9
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I was listening to the ex tory who joined the Libdems last week talking on the radio about this. His explanation for the policy was the libdems will only reverse and abandon Brexit if they win a majority. The logic being that if they won a majority, it would be because of this proposal and therefore give them the mandate to proceed with it.

RomTheBear 14:22 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

> For the fourth time now...Never Said Otherwise.

> Only if you insist on completely misrepresenting what we disagreed on in the first place

> Can you name any instance where one isolated bank failure has brought the entire system down? Entire banking systems only fail due to underlying systemic issues. You should know that if you work in finance.

Many times over. That’s exactly why states have had to bail out banks so many times in history.

And I am very aware of the underlying systemic issues, the problem is that our financial system is organised in such a way that a systemic issue somewhere can have ramifications everywhere. So for example, a few large US banks that have taken too much risk can bring down the entire financial system in the UK.

Who pays ? You and me.

> Can you provide any instance of a single isolated state failing and f*cking everyone else?

Well yes very easy, for example England taking the UK out of the EU due the total failure of its political system, f*cking in its stride Scotland and Northen Ireland.

> The USA is federalised. Are you telling us the USA isn't a big state?

it is but they have a very strong federal system which has worked extremely well. Unfortunately they have been moving towards more and more centralisation and giving up more and more of what made it a great system.

> Also worth noting that Swiss cantons can't vote themselves independent. Very strange that you should hold Switzerland up as an ideal in the first place given the amount of vitriol you've poured on the UK for the series of screw up that recently denied EU nationals their lawful voting rights. Foreign nationals have no Swiss federal voting rights and only a small minority of cantons grant them a vote on local issues.

> We had more big powerful states at the outbreak of WW1.

very true, but WWII was really just the natural continuation of WWI

> If you need an army to keep the peace then you haven't got much peace in the first place. You are aware of the sort of places peacekeeping forces have to be deployed? You should, you live in one.

You should to, you love in one, as far as I know there is an army in the UK as well.

> Yet another argument twisted because you can't understand the concept of discussion, just point scoring. You said...

> > Things are not static. Look at where EU net migration is now.

> To which I replied...

> Currently 57,000 more EU nationals are moving to the UK annually than leaving. Seems people are still voting with their feet.

> If the fact that we've had net EU migration of half a million since 2016's referendum doesn't indicate that all is not rosy within the EU economic environment then I don't know what will. That's not me being complacent, that's just looking at the figures.

No, that’s just you not understanding that 1) it can change very quickly 2) it’s completely irrelevant. 

> How exactly will time tell if Brexit will save Europe? What did it need saving from? and how on Earth will you compare outcomes?

I’m just looking at the support for the European Union pre and post Brexit, and the fact that the european populist parties have pretty much all gave up on promoting the destruction of the EU after that, because doing so is now electoral suicide.

I knew a lot of people on the contient who were quite supportive of Brexit. They have now all shut up, as nobody can argue it’s a good idea anymore.

Except of course in the UK where as far as I can tell we are all still deep in the reality distortion field.

Post edited at 14:26
4
Rob Exile Ward 14:54 Mon
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

That makes some sense I suppose ... But if I was. Brexiter would I feel cheated? Not that it is likely to happen, of course ... Maybe a more pragmatic commitment to a 2nd referendum would be more achievable?

Postmanpat 14:56 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

> Tories in disguise.

>

  Well let's hope so

  Great photo album, by the way.

1
Lusk 15:02 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

Why do you keep engaging with RtB, some kind of masochism?
The guy has clearly modeled himself using the likes of Johnson as a template.
Do yourself a favour mate, get off the interweb and get your arse down the pub

1
Pyreneenemec 15:03 Mon
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> . But if I was. Brexiter would I feel cheated?.

Given that generally Brexiteers fail to see 'the larger picture' I think I can safely assume that they will soon get over it ! On the plus side, even if things just continue as before, they haven't lost anything ! 

1
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    I shall be voting Libdem.

Wow!  BTW, what's the weather like in Damascus?

Lusk 16:33 Mon
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I shall be voting Labour.

Good man, I knew you'd see the light in the end

Pan Ron 16:36 Mon
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> The dangerous idea that’s starting to  get established here is that once there’s been a referendum,the decision can’t ever be reversed 

To be fair, that's not really what they're saying. Their issue is that after a referendum the outcome may be ignored completely or fillibustered until no action is possible. 

I've never heard a Brexiteer claim that there is no room for putting it to the vote again in future. They simply want a reasonable timeframe to elapse - especially as many people would be happier if Brexiteers had never had a say anyway.

Post edited at 16:37
2
Lusk 16:42 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

It'll be at least four years when we get another (if we do).
That's a reasonable time frame in my book, plenty of shit's gone under the bridge in 4 years!

Timmd 16:49 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I've never heard a Brexiteer claim that there is no room for putting it to the vote again in future. They simply want a reasonable timeframe to elapse - especially as many people would be happier if Brexiteers had never had a say anyway.

Have you also heard Brexiters say they would be happy with a second vote happening? I've heard a few Brexiters talking about 'The people have spoken' and not having any time for another say/vote. 

Post edited at 16:59
freeflyer 17:05 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

Yours is a viable viewpoint which will no doubt lose them support, however in terms of differentiation, we now have Tory/Brexit/UKIP for Brexit at any cost, Labour for a referendum, and LibDem or Green to stay in, any which way.

I'm in the unusual position of being registered to vote in two constituencies currently, both Tory majority and LibDem in the past, including one who recently lost the Tory whip.

I would rather be dead in a ditch than vote Tory, and Corbyn and Momentum do not float my boat, so it's likely I'll be voting LibDem, in whichever constituency I feel it can make a difference, if I don't vote for the now independent but excellent incumbent.

Lusk 17:08 Mon
In reply to freeflyer:

> ... in whichever constituency I feel it can make a difference.

Never mind your freedom of movement in Europe, you've magically got freedom of movement about UK constituencies ... awesome!

Oceanrower 17:33 Mon
In reply to freeflyer:

> Tory majority and LibDem in the past, including one who recently lost the Tory whip.

Guildford?

The New NickB 17:36 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I've never heard a Brexiteer claim that there is no room for putting it to the vote again in future. They simply want a reasonable timeframe to elapse - especially as many people would be happier if Brexiteers had never had a say anyway.

Strange, because the standard line on social  media and for my sins I have engaged with hundreds trotting this line, is that another vote would be undemocratic and it must be implemented before anyone can even think about asking what people want.

wercat 17:51 Mon
In reply to The New NickB:

Indeed the assertion, ignorant of constitution or the law of such, flies totally contrary to the ancient principle that, except for international obligations entered into by treaty, Parliament cannot be bound, even by itself.   A glorified opinion poll certainly would not bind Parliament or limit its sovereignty.

Parliament has to look beyond any flaws in a referendum and all that it entails as that was simply the action of a government with no greater authority to bind it in the future than those who pass any law  whose scope is internal to the UK

If that has changed then we have an entirely new constitution based on law by popular demand

Post edited at 17:53
Stichtplate 17:52 Mon
In reply to Lusk:

> Why do you keep engaging with RtB, some kind of masochism?

My main motivation is that he'll answer one of my posts with his signature " Double Face Palm"... and I can snigger uncontrollably over my laptop.

> Do yourself a favour mate, get off the interweb and get your arse down the pub

I'm in the pub AND on the interweb. I'm multi-tasking.

Stichtplate 18:08 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Many times over. That’s exactly why states have had to bail out banks so many times in history.

> And I am very aware of the underlying systemic issues, the problem is that our financial system is organised in such a way that a systemic issue somewhere can have ramifications everywhere. So for example, a few large US banks that have taken too much risk can bring down the entire financial system in the UK.

So in answer to my actual question: 'No, despite my earlier assertion, I can't name an instance where a single bank brought down the entire system'.

> Who pays ? You and me.

If you say so.

> Well yes very easy, for example England taking the UK out of the EU due the total failure of its political system, f*cking in its stride Scotland and Northen Ireland.

So in answer to my actual question: 'No, despite my earlier assertion, I can't name an single isolated state failing and f*cking everyone else.'

Here's a website my kids like which explains why England isn't a state, but the UK is (Jeez...proper off your game today Rom).

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/01/the-difference-between-the-uk-england-and-great-britain/

> it is but they have a very strong federal system which has worked extremely well. Unfortunately they have been moving towards more and more centralisation and giving up more and more of what made it a great system.

Perhaps find an American climbing forum where you can tell them all how they're doing everything wrong?

> very true, but WWII was really just the natural continuation of WWI

Of course it was Rom. You do realise the Japanese and Italians were on the other side in WW1?

> You should to, you love in one, as far as I know there is an army in the UK as well.

Is this in code?

> No, that’s just you not understanding that 1) it can change very quickly 2) it’s completely irrelevant. 

I get the feeling that any facts which contradict you get labeled as irrelevant.

> I’m just looking at the support for the European Union pre and post Brexit, and the fact that the european populist parties have pretty much all gave up on promoting the destruction of the EU after that, because doing so is now electoral suicide.

Well perhaps you could lend me your time machine because as far as I'm aware we're still pre-Brexit.

> I knew a lot of people on the contient who were quite supportive of Brexit. They have now all shut up, as nobody can argue it’s a good idea anymore.

Are you sure that's why they've shut up Rom? I get the feeling that lots of people might not enjoy your style of discussion in real life.

> Except of course in the UK where as far as I can tell we are all still deep in the reality distortion field.

All of us? You do actually notice what the vast majority of ukc posters have been saying about brexit for the last few years haven't you?

rogerwebb 18:16 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well yes very easy, for example England taking the UK out of the EU due the total failure of its political system, f*cking in its stride Scotland and Northen Ireland.

England isn't an independent state. It hasn't had a sovereign parliament since 1707. 

Lusk 18:21 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

One of the funniest comments I've ever read on UKC, someone said "Unfortunately Cyprus has the internet."

1
alastairmac 18:36 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

But the sad truth is that this whole catastrophic mess is being driven by English nationalism. And the democratic imbalance that is built into the way in which the UK works means that Scotland as nation, once again, is effectively powerless to oppose the way in which it is dragging us along. No matter how we vote. The truth is that Westminster serves England but it ceased to serve Scotland a long time ago and "Britain" has for some time been a synonym for "England". And "Britishness" has very little to so with the culture, language, history and political instincts of Scotland. Which it has tried hard to erode. That's why a change is long overdue.

2
alastairmac 18:37 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

But the sad truth is that this whole catastrophic mess is being driven by English nationalism. And the democratic imbalance that is built into the way in which the UK works means that Scotland as nation, once again, is effectively powerless to oppose the way in which it is dragging us along. No matter how we vote. The truth is that Westminster serves England but it ceased to serve Scotland a long time ago and "Britain" has for some time been a synonym for "England". And "Britishness" has very little to do with the culture, language, history and political instincts of Scotland. Which it has tried hard to erode. That's why a change is long overdue.

4
Pan Ron 18:43 Mon
In reply to The New NickB:

That's pretty much my point; Brexiteers expect that Brexit will be given a try, given the length of time between the referendum that took us in to the EU and the one that was supposed to take us out.

You dont think Remainers would complain if, having won the referendum, brexiteers got another bash at it 3 years later? Now imagine if that was granted without the winning result ever having been implemented?  This is a major kick in the teeth to Brexit voters and just proves all their beliefs in bureaucratic, unaccountable, overlords.

2
elsewhere 18:56 Mon
In reply to Pan Ron:

There is no solution that generates no complaints. It was the brexiteers job to unify the UK with a good plan. They didn't.

Brexiteers have had 3 years to deliver on their promised easiest deal in history they campaigned on. If they're upset if we give up on their failure to deliver, tough! We should not have indefinite patience with failure.

Post edited at 19:01
rogerwebb 19:09 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

I think we disagree on this one! I am sure the arguments will be rehearsed again next year.

It was more a comment on the assertion that the brexit vote was an example of the collapse of one state bringing down others independent of it. This doesn't seem to have happened in modern times. 

Lusk 19:57 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

> But the sad truth is that this whole catastrophic mess is being driven by English nationalism.

I disagree with that.
In my worthless opinion, Leave vote was primarily driven by 6 years of austerity and 'The People' seeing however many billions of GBP being handed over to EU every year.
That, and a general 'pissed offness' with our own government, who needs an extra layer on top sunning itself in Brussels and elsewhere.

The cries of Nationalism, racism, xenophobia are the bleatings of a pathetic bunch of (in their own deluded minds) superior fanatical Remainers, of whom there are several examples on this forum - you know who you are!

6
alastairmac 20:06 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

Hi Roger. Technically you're right of course. But it is inescapably the case that you've got one country and parliament imposing its politics and their consequences on another. But as you say, hopefully Scottish voters will have their chance to decisively tell Westminster how we feel about that....soon.

Stichtplate 20:07 Mon
In reply to Lusk:

> That, and a general 'pissed offness' with our own government, who needs an extra layer on top sunning itself in Brussels and elsewhere.

Exactly this. However misguided. I couldn't count the number of times I heard variants of this theme in the run up to the election. Heard bugger all that could be categorised as racism or xenophobia and very little hardcore Nationalism outside of the odd delusional reminiscence on a mythical past that never actually existed.

1
john arran 20:15 Mon
In reply to Lusk:

> In my worthless opinion, Leave vote was primarily driven by 6 years of austerity and 'The People' seeing however many billions of GBP being handed over to EU every year.

Austerity, absolutely. Spot on, and no wonder the UK population wanted to grind an ax on anyone in a position of authority it could.

But billions "handed over to EU"? Most definitely not.

"The People" certainly didn't spontaneously decide to class this as a great injustice, and if they'd done the calculations and realised that our net contributions to the EU amounted to a fraction of 1% of UK GDP there surely would have been few who thought that was worthy of a huge Leave campaign. As it was, such a relatively small figure was presented (by those with other motives) in absolute rather than relative terms, making it sound much bigger and scarier, and that there would be something tangible and valuable to be gained from no longer having to pay these sums. It was therefore "driven" not by EU costs but by whatever ulterior motives those at the helm of the Leave campaign harboured. We're still unsure as to exactly what those motives were precisely but the 2020 Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, passed in 2016, is commonly cited as a principal factor.

rogerwebb 20:23 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

One of us is going to be exceptionally disappointed. I fear it will make the brexit debate seem rational, simple, reasonably conducted and not that divisive.

(that applies to elements on both sides) 

GridNorth 20:34 Mon
In reply to Lusk:

I agree but it would be wrong to consider the events that led to the brexit vote being recent.  Mistrust, dissatisfaction and disillusionment with the EU has been festering for many, many years.  Many of those in Parliament who wish to remain have either refused to acknowledge this or simply did not care.

1
Robert Durran 21:15 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

> One of us is going to be exceptionally disappointed. I fear it will make the brexit debate seem rational, simple, reasonably conducted and not that divisive.

It needn't be so divisive if Sturgeon sticks to her stated wish that it is not so. She can do this by learning from the Brexit shambles and having a referendum asking for authorisation to negotiate in an inclusive cross party way with the UK and with the EU and then subjecting any deals to a confirmatory vote. If she does this, I would almost certainly vote Yes in the first vote, but if she went for a single Yes/No vote I would probably vote No.

RomTheBear 21:16 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

> England isn't an independent state. It hasn't had a sovereign parliament since 1707. 

Well that's exactly the problem. They should be independent OR leave other countries alone.

1
RomTheBear 21:25 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

> So in answer to my actual question: 'No, despite my earlier assertion, I can't name an instance where a single bank brought down the entire system'.

Lehman Brothers, RBS, LLoyds,  etc etc etc

> If you say so.

> So in answer to my actual question: 'No, despite my earlier assertion, I can't name an single isolated state failing and f*cking everyone else.'

Well take for example most countries that ever existed in history. Most of them FAILED. The ones that lasted longer than other were decentralised.

> Here's a website my kids like which explains why England isn't a state, but the UK is (Jeez...proper off your game today Rom).

Well that is exactly the problem isn't it. Britain is the state.

> Of course it was Rom. You do realise the Japanese and Italians were on the other side in WW1?

Yes, so ?

> Is this in code?

> I get the feeling that any facts which contradict you get labeled as irrelevant.

No, it just irrelevant. Even if we had a falling wage 5% year on year it would still make sense for someone from Bulgaria to come to the UK, so the idea that somehow high immigration means there are no issues is just completely bollocks. So when numbers are getting divided by three in the space of three years you should notice.

> Well perhaps you could lend me your time machine because as far as I'm aware we're still pre-Brexit.

Pre-brexit vote.

> Are you sure that's why they've shut up Rom? I get the feeling that lots of people might not enjoy your style of discussion in real life.

Entirely sure.

> All of us? You do actually notice what the vast majority of ukc posters have been saying about brexit for the last few years haven't you?

No no no, even remainers are in the reality distortion field, BIG TIME. In fac t probably more than leavers. I've been saying for a while that they are deluded about that's happening, and the situation we are in now is directly attributable to their complacency.

Post edited at 21:26
2
Dr.S at work 21:25 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

democratic imbalance?

If its one person one vote then it seems reasonbaly balanced - slight advantage to Scotland at 92k people per MP vs England at 105k. The Welsh do pretty well mind at 78.5k per MP.

If you mean democracy as one country one vote - then no, its not 'democratic' but I dont think folk generally think in that way. Its seems rather Nationalistic to do so.

The current democratic imbalance within the UK is that the English are underepresented post devolution - if there is a surge in english nationalism, it is at least in part fuelled by the devolution offered to the other constituent nation states and denied to England (or its regions).

Rob Exile Ward 21:25 Mon
In reply to Lusk:

You're right about the value of your opinion.

1
alastairmac 21:43 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

The movement for self government in Scotland is by its nature liberal, democratic and inclusive. It's about building a better future for our country and the next generation. But the British state doesn't give up what I'm afraid it regards as its possessions easily. So I'm sure Westminster won't make it an easy process. But that kind of opposition to positive change is not unusual when a country is trying to win or regain its independence. It may take longer than some would like but I think the outcome is inevitable. Because the option is continuing to submit to an exploitative and undemocratic union that doesn't work for Scotland or the Scottish people. It's holding us back. The only demographic opposed to independence now are those over 60 years of age and the appetite for independence is now sharper than ever and growing every day. 

1
Rob Exile Ward 21:46 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

I'm seriously thinking of moving to Scotland. I'd rather be Scottish than British.

1
Andy Farnell 21:54 Mon
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm still waiting for a concrete, valid, viable economic reason for leaving. Mainly because I'm not a millionaire with wadges of cash in tax havens.

Andy F

Lusk 21:55 Mon
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

According to the SNP, Scotland's such a fabulous place, they're begging for immigrants.
Fill your boots Jock!

I can see it now, Scotland, enjoy a beautiful retirement with 1000s of fellow rich privileged middle class dullards.

Post edited at 22:01
4
alastairmac 22:02 Mon
In reply to Dr.S at work:

It's a simple fact that Scotland and Scottish voters keep voting for progressive, liberal and socially responsible government and getting something quite different. That's not democratic. Self government for a country like Scotland is normal. Being governed by a parliament in another country isn't normal. And it disadvantages Scotland economically, politically and culturally. The substantial and growing gulf between the kind of government English voters seem to want and the kind of Government and country we want to build in Scotland makes the point really. I hope many more people that share that view of the world come up North to help make it happen. 

FactorXXX 22:06 Mon
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm seriously thinking of moving to Scotland. I'd rather be Scottish than British.

You could well end up in a Scotland that is independent of the UK and not in the EU.
The worst of both worlds...

Lusk 22:10 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

Here's a question for you, what's your opinion of the mighty Salmond, the champion of Scottish independence?
Mine of Cameron - total and utter spineless piece of shit.  Loses vote and disappears. Ring any bells?

RomTheBear 22:14 Mon
In reply to FactorXXX:

> You could well end up in a Scotland that is independent of the UK and not in the EU.

NO,  NO, being out of the UK and out of the EU is still better than being in the UK and out of the EU.

In fact being in the EU would be very nice and very useful for a small country like Scotland, but as it is the priority for Scotland is to leave what is becoming an authoritarian state behind ASAP. 

2
Stichtplate 22:14 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Lehman Brothers, RBS, LLoyds,  etc etc etc

So to back up your assertion that a single bank failure can screw everyone else, you list the multiple banks involved in the 2008 crash? You could just hold your hand up and admit you had mistakenly posted something that was wrong. It won't kill you. Honest.

> Well take for example most countries that ever existed in history. Most of them FAILED. The ones that lasted longer than other were decentralised.

What are you on about now? All I asked you to do was name a single occasion when, as you intimated, a single state failing was able to "f*ck everybody else"? Rather than desperately running off on mad tangents, you could just admit you were talking bollocks again.

and anyway. this latest assertion is just as misinformed as your last. Just have a look at this list of the world's oldest countries, decentralised power just doesn't come into it. Neither does political system. Many of the countries listed were colonised, formed their own empires were fought over, carved up and reformed multiple times. These countries longevity is based on innate coherence amongst the people that lived there...a fluid but recognisable continuity of language, culture, history and lineage.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-oldest-countries-in-the-world.html

Absolutely f*ck all to do with centralised power.

> Well that is exactly the problem isn't it. Britain is the state.

I thought you said England was the state...oh dear, You did. I think I see what is exactly the problem, you got something wrong again, but can't admit it

> Yes, so ?

You said WW2 was a natural continuation of WW1, only of the 3 main axis powers, 2 swapped sides in the interval. Doesn't seem much of a natural continuation does it? If Japan and Italy were carrying on the same grievances from 1918 they wouldn't be fighting with the Germans would they.

> No, it just irrelevant. Even if we had a falling wage 5% year on year it would still make sense for someone from Bulgaria to come to the UK, so the idea that somehow high immigration means there are no issues is just completely bollocks. So when numbers are getting divided by three in the space of three years you should notice.

Ahh, so your whole argument is that the UK is completely economically f*cked and the EU has become much stronger but "it would still make sense for someone from Bulgaria to come to the UK", up root their whole lives and book passage on a sinking ship? Having been exposed to your thought processes for a couple of years now, I can see that probably does make sense to you.

> Pre-brexit vote.

What is a pre-brexit vote?

> Entirely sure.

I'm not.

> No no no, even remainers are in the reality distortion field, BIG TIME. In fac t probably more than leavers. I've been saying for a while that they are deluded about that's happening, and the situation we are in now is directly attributable to their complacency.

Yes we know how you've been telling us all how deluded and complacent we are. Leavers, remainers, doesn't matter. We're all WRONG. You know how you were saying about all those people on the continent who used to discuss Brexit with you, but mysteriously won't anymore? Well....

Edit: sorry. Forgot to add the link.

Post edited at 22:18
1
Dr.S at work 22:17 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

How finely do you have to slice your state to make it democratic?

Lusk 22:20 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

Sticht babe, the Oracle has spoken.
We are not worthy.  I'm off to flush me head down the bog.

2
Dr.S at work 22:23 Mon
In reply to Lusk:

Whilst I'm no fan of his cause, Salmond was far better than Cameron.

Robert Durran 22:23 Mon
In reply to Dr.S at work

> The current democratic imbalance within the UK is that the English are underepresented post devolution - if there is a surge in english nationalism, it is at least in part fuelled by the devolution offered to the other constituent nation states and denied to England (or its regions).

Whether you see the situation like that or as England exercising power over the other UK nations, I think the best solution would be to have a federal UK of equal nations. Ideally within a federal Europe.

1
rogerwebb 22:30 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

> The movement for self government in Scotland is by its nature liberal, democratic and inclusive. It's about building a better future for our country and the next generation. But the British state doesn't give up what I'm afraid it regards as its possessions easily. So I'm sure Westminster won't make it an easy process. But that kind of opposition to positive change is not unusual when a country is trying to win or regain its independence. It may take longer than some would like but I think the outcome is inevitable. Because the option is continuing to submit to an exploitative and undemocratic union that doesn't work for Scotland or the Scottish people. It's holding us back. The only demographic opposed to independence now are those over 60 years of age and the appetite for independence is now sharper than ever and growing every day. 

I am afraid there is little I can agree with in that. 

The similarities with the views of those who argue that brexit is about delivering a better future and involves removing a country from an exploitative and undemocratic union and the liklihood that that future won't be as advertised are all too apparent. As has been the terminology used to denigrate those who disagree 'traitor', 'quisling' etc. The last referendum didn't feel like the result would be liberal and inclusive, this one will radicalise people on both sides to a greater extent. Robert points out it needn't be that way but I suspect he is firstly hopelessly optimistic about the possibility of a confirmatory referendum and secondly hasn't addressed the consequences if the first referendum results in independence and the confirmatory one rejects it after people realise in, Herman Van Rompuy's words, it will be as hard as brexit (an underestimate I suspect).

That is before we start thinking about identity. I don't doubt the current leadership of the SNP's sincerity in hoping and intending to do things in a calm and measured way. I do doubt their ability to keep it like that.

The pity is that if on UK level we had fully engaged with the EU the current trauma could have been avoided and if both the Scottish and Westminster parliaments worked together with a desire to do the best for all of the country the whole, to my mind deeply damaging, independence debate would be unnecessary.

Emigration suddenly seems attractive. 

alastairmac 22:32 Mon
In reply to Dr.S at work:

I don't think we'll agree if your starting point is refusing to accept that Scotland and England are quite distinct countries that are in a political union. My simple assertion, which you may choose to disagree with, is that union is now fundamentally broken and actively disadvantages Scotland. The only logical response to that is independence or a new and radically different federal structure. The only illogical response is to pretend the UK still works. Either way the future of Scotland should and will be determined by this generation of Scottish voters.

Post edited at 22:32
Dr.S at work 22:32 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

Its not England exercising power - its the average UK voter exercising power.

Totally agree on the federal nature - I'm not sure how 'equal nations' work - as they are not by population - so either England is subdivided somehow or the Federal bit is very light touch - foreign policy/defence and a general framework with most state activity at the 'nation' or below level seems about right.

Just ditching FPTP for westminster and going for a system similar to that used for MSP and AM would do for a start.

Robert Durran 22:38 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

> Robert points out it needn't be that way but I suspect he is firstly hopelessly optimistic about the possibility of a confirmatory referendum and secondly hasn't addressed the consequences if the first referendum results in independence and the confirmatory one rejects it after people realise in, Herman Van Rompuy's words, it will be as hard as brexit (an underestimate I suspect).

The first referendum wouldn't "result in independence" - it would simply be to decide whether we wanted to find out what a (possibly) acceptable independence might look like. The second referendum (unlike a second Brexit one) could never be seen as reversing the first one.

Lusk 22:40 Mon
In reply to Dr.S at work:

It's gone beyond a joke now.
We need a system where we can hold these people to account.
Resigning and running away is just not good enough anymore.  I want payback!

Robert Durran 22:43 Mon
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Its not England exercising power - its the average UK voter exercising power.

I didn't say it was - just that some people see it like that; people see a succession of divisive conservative UK governments, when an independent  Scotland would have had none.

> Totally agree on the federal nature - I'm not sure how 'equal nations' work - as they are not by population - so either England is subdivided somehow or the Federal bit is very light touch - foreign policy/defence and a general framework with most state activity at the 'nation' or below level seems about right.

Yes, definitely about right.

Dr.S at work 22:45 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

Scotland and England are clearly distinct, they are (to my mind) also clearly part of a whole.

Does the set up need changing - yes of course it does. And it has been changing, I'd argue to Scotlands advantage, via devolution. That process needs to go further and spread across the whole of the UK so that local/regional/national are allowed to develop whilst maintaining a sensible level of UK wide governance.

As to whose gift Scotlands future is in? - of course her peoples, any attempt to deny that generality would be a very strong argument for the end of the UK. I think without the brexit disaster it would have been pretty reasonable to argue for a 10-30 year gap before the next test of the question - with brexit its entirely fair to ask the question much sooner.

Just as with brexit however - better to remain and reform than split and sunder.

rogerwebb 22:48 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

Ah, I misread you. I don't however think such a format would get past the more fundamentalist nationalists.

And, with whom would such a withdrawal agreement be negotiated? Could the UK government negotiate on behalf of the future rUK? Or would it have to be a no deal and then let the two new states work it out? 

rogerwebb 22:50 Mon
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Scotland and England are clearly distinct, they are (to my mind) also clearly part of a whole.

I think that what partisans in this debate often forget is that not all of us have an identity other than British. Whether we like it or not identity is important. I remember after the EU result I was surprised at how personally I took my immenent loss of that part of my sense of self. 

> Does the set up need changing - yes of course it does. And it has been changing, I'd argue to Scotlands advantage, via devolution. 

> As to whose gift Scotlands future is in? - of course her peoples, any attempt to deny that generality would be a very strong argument for the end of the UK. 

Yes

> Just as with brexit however - better to remain and reform than split and sunder.

Well put. 

Post edited at 23:01
Stichtplate 22:54 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

> It's a simple fact that Scotland and Scottish voters keep voting for progressive, liberal and socially responsible government and getting something quite different. 

I'd agree with you there. The Scottish government already controls education, health, rural affairs, transport and the justice system. They might not have full control of taxation but it's hard to see what steps Scotland could take that would better the 20% per capita spend Scots currently enjoy above what is spent south of the border. So in the areas that the SNP has had full control over for the last 12 years, what are the big improvements that fill you with such enthusiasm for an independent future? Compared to England drug deaths are up hugely, suicide rates are up, educational attainment is down, the Edinburgh tram debacle doesn't bode well for transport and as for rural affairs...doesn't Scotland still have some of the most feudal land ownership statistics in Europe.

I've asked this before of SNP true believers on here, so far with no response. Just what concrete improvements has the SNP made for Scottish people over the last 12 years in power, to inspire such solid confidence in an independent future? and also, do you feel nothing for abandoning the rest of the UK not living in the South-East that are actually more politically aligned with our fellow Brits North of the border?

2
alastairmac 22:55 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

I think that view is needlessly bleak. I hope you stay and participate in building the kind of Scotland that becomes a beacon for liberal values, tolerance and sustainable economic growth. Powered by the next generation and a new Scottish enlightenment! Self government for a country like Scotland is normal. Being government by a parliament in the much bigger country next door isn't healthy or normal. 

Dr.S at work 23:03 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

Are there any examples of other countries Scotlands size that entered into a political union 300 years ago with their larger neighbour, and have maintained a very high degree of devolution throughout that period? I agree its not normal, but that does not make it unhealthy.

freeflyer 23:05 Mon
In reply to Oceanrower:

Indeed I have recently flown the coop, having found all the cuccos.

rogerwebb 23:08 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

> I think that view is needlessly bleak. I hope you stay and participate in building the kind of Scotland that becomes a beacon for liberal values, tolerance and sustainable economic growth. Powered by the next generation and a new Scottish enlightenment! Self government for a country like Scotland is normal. Being government by a parliament in the much bigger country next door isn't healthy or normal. 

Well there is the difference, you see two countries, I see one. True it is constituted by a union of older countries but they too are unions of even older countries. 

My view is bleak I accept but I see nothing in the denouement of brexit to give any cause for an optimistic view on independence. A split country, economic turmoil, a hard border with the neighbours, what could possibly go wrong? 

Dr.S at work 23:16 Mon
In reply to rogerwebb:

That sense of identity is crucial - I dont think partisans of any side can avoid its touch!

alastairmac 23:18 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

Firstly I'm not an SNP supporter. I'm sure you know that a significant number of people that support independence in Scotland vote for Labour, the Greens and even a few for the Lib Dems. It's a broad church.

However, I think most non partisan observers would agree that recent ( minority and majority) SNP governments have provided stable, strategically sound and most importantly productive government. Even with the substantial restrictions put in place by the matters reserved to Westminster and the limited economic levers available within the current constitutional settlement.

The facts you quote are largely inaccurate. Employment is higher in Scotland than it is in England at present. The Scottish NHS is performing extremely well and entry rates to Scottish Universities are at record levels. The record on sustainable energy is uniquely impressive and the level of innovation and dynamism in a range of rapidly growing economic sectors is directly linked to support from Holyrood. Did you know Glasgow has the largest space and satellite technology cluster in Europe? I could go on....

Just imaging what we could do if we retained our wealth rather than being billed for things we don't want and get no benefit from.... like HS2, Trident, Crossrail, Brexit....again, I could go on.

So the lesson is don't believe everything you read in the London based newspapers or hear on Radio 4. 

So if all that sounds good, come up and join us......just don't call us Brits.

Post edited at 23:21
Robert Durran 23:21 Mon
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I've asked this before of SNP true believers on here, so far with no response. Just what concrete improvements has the SNP made for Scottish people over the last 12 years in power, to inspire such solid confidence in an independent future?

Being an independence true believer is not the same thing as being an SNP true believer. A vote for independence is not a  vote for the SNP and their policies (other than the independence one). Independence is purely and simply about Scotland being able to elect the government of its choice. The thing that irked me most about  Salmond's campaign in the first referendum was the way he seemed to be treating it as a potential mandate for the SNP (or even himself!) to govern in perpetuity; there was no legitimate place for putting forward actual policies that might be put in place after independence. Yes, there is a strong argument for independence on the grounds that there is a broadly social democratic consensus in Scotland, but what part a necessarily reinvented SNP might play in the mix after independence should be irrelavant to the independence debate.

Dr.S at work 23:27 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

> The facts you quote are largely inaccurate. Employment is higher in Scotland than it is in England at present. The Scottish NHS is performing extremely well and entry rates to Scottish Universities are at record levels. The record on sustainable energy is uniquely impressive and the level of innovation and dynamism in a range of rapidly growing economic sectors is directly linked to support from Holyrood. Did you know Glasgow has the largest space and satellite technology cluster in Europe? I could go on....

Gosh, Scotland really IS being dragged down by the millstone of the UK!
rogerwebb 23:40 Mon
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Being an independence true believer is not the same thing as being an SNP true believer. A vote for independence is not a  vote for the SNP and their policies (other than the independence one). Independence is purely and simply about Scotland being able to elect the government of its choice. The thing that irked me most about  Salmond's campaign in the first referendum was the way he seemed to be treating it as a potential mandate for the SNP (or even himself!) to govern in perpetuity; there was no legitimate place for putting forward actual policies that might be put in place after independence. Yes, there is a strong argument for independence on the grounds that there is a broadly social democratic consensus in Scotland, but what part a necessarily reinvented SNP might play in the mix after independence should be irrelavant to the independence debate.

Quite right, equally opposing independence doesn't mean you aren't part of that apparent social democratic consensus.

Lusk 23:51 Mon
In reply to Dr.S at work:

I found this snippet particularly funny: "entry rates to Scottish Universities are at record levels."

3
Stichtplate 23:55 Mon
In reply to alastairmac:

I'll admit you paint a rosy picture and I was completely ignorant of Glasgow's link to the space industry, but that negatives I'd highlighted, especially drug deaths and suicide rates, are simply a matter of public record and not a product of London spin. 

I can well understand the desire to be unharnessed from the muppets in Westminster, but that's a desire shared by most in the country. While you might not want to be referred to as a Brit, that's what I am, my wife's Welsh and you only have to go back 3 generations to find people in my family from the other 3 nations. It takes me 20 to be over the border into Wales and the drive to Edinburgh takes less than half the time it takes to get to London.

All the despair and frustration at being ripped out of the EU against my will would hit me twice as hard if Scotland left the Union, and this time I wouldn't even get a vote. Britain is a small country, geographically, culturally and historically, Scotland is a huge piece of who we are as a nation and who many of us are as individuals.

1
Stichtplate 00:01 Tue
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Being an independence true believer is not the same thing as being an SNP true believer. A vote for independence is not a  vote for the SNP and their policies (other than the independence one). Independence is purely and simply about Scotland being able to elect the government of its choice. The thing that irked me most about  Salmond's campaign in the first referendum was the way he seemed to be treating it as a potential mandate for the SNP (or even himself!) to govern in perpetuity; there was no legitimate place for putting forward actual policies that might be put in place after independence. Yes, there is a strong argument for independence on the grounds that there is a broadly social democratic consensus in Scotland, but what part a necessarily reinvented SNP might play in the mix after independence should be irrelavant to the independence debate.

Thanks for the correction. In my mind I'd almost entirely conflated independence and SNP when the movement obviously has a much wider support. All I can say is that 90% of the arguments for the UK staying in the EU can be applied to Scotland staying in the union, only the separation of assets, liabilities and fraternal bonds, will be far more devastating after 300 years of mutual dependence.

3
rogerwebb 00:03 Tue
In reply to alastairmac:

> So if all that sounds good, come up and join us......just don't call us Brits.

Some of 'us' are Brits. 

RomTheBear 05:56 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Thanks for the correction. In my mind I'd almost entirely conflated independence and SNP when the movement obviously has a much wider support. All I can say is that 90% of the arguments for the UK staying in the EU can be applied to Scotland leaving the union.

funny, I’d say most most of the argument for the UK staying in the EU can be applied to Scotland leaving the union.

2
Pan Ron 06:52 Tue
In reply to elsewhere:

> It was the brexiteers job to unify the UK with a good plan. They didn't.

> Brexiteers have had 3 years to deliver on their promised easiest deal in history they campaigned on. If they're upset if we give up on their failure to deliver, tough! We should not have indefinite patience with failure.

Who exactly are the Brexiteers you are referring to?  The 17.4 million who voted for it?  Or the Remain-supporting politicians who then begrudgingly sought to implement it amidst varying parliamentary support?  Remain continues to fail to understand that there is another side to the Brexit debate and, despite the failures of MPs tasked with delivering it, completely dismissing what they voted for is understandably going to stir a massive backlash.  Be careful what you wish for.

3
elsewhere 07:20 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

If it is not the fault of brexiteers that means they are such bullied ineffective misunderstood weaklings of UK politics that they bear no responsibility for failure.

You cannot simultaneously be powerful and free from blame.

if brexiteers are such victims as you say they are unfit to lead domestically and far less fit to represent us internationally.

Post edited at 07:43
Robert Durran 07:26 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Thanks for the correction. In my mind I'd almost entirely conflated independence and SNP when the movement obviously has a much wider support. 

I think it works both ways; you can vote for the SNP as a competent party of government without being an independence believer.

RomTheBear 07:49 Tue
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think it works both ways; you can vote for the SNP as a competent party of government without being an independence believer.

Indeed, being ideologically motivated on independence leaves the SNP free to pursue pragmatic policies on every other issue.

Stichtplate 08:38 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> funny, I’d say most most of the argument for the UK staying in the EU can be applied to Scotland leaving the union.

Really? Care to outline those arguments, or is this yet more empty posturing?

2
Pan Ron 10:10 Tue
In reply to elsewhere:

> If it is not the fault of brexiteers that means they are such bullied ineffective misunderstood weaklings of UK politics that they bear no responsibility for failure.

> You cannot simultaneously be powerful and free from blame.

> if brexiteers are such victims as you say they are unfit to lead domestically and far less fit to represent us internationally.

Quite an interesting outlook.  Surely the fact that people who normally do not vote at all came out so strongly in support of Brexit, and when polled continuously say they are willing to take a financial hit if it means they can gain some sort of control over how British society operates, would point to powerlessness prior to the referendum?  It's not their fault that the media and MPs overwhelmingly fall over themselves to be seen as more socially liberal than the person next to them, and therefore that their own views are routinely ignored.

Try looking at what you wrote and swap Brexiteer for any other section of society who would be denied a voice and routinely, and unfairly, abused with labels akin to "racist", "fascist", "stupid", "ignorant" and "nazi"....then consider why the Remain side, and their form of liberal idealism, is so hated and considered self-serving.  And if you then completely and entirely disregard the referendum result, think for a moment what incentive 17+ million people should have to in any way embrace the system which has just royally shafted them.

6
freeflyer 10:22 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

I’ve always felt that EU farming policy is one area where we have little control. Can anyone comment on the likely effect of removing CAP and replacing it with something more sane and appropriate for the UK? Maybe there is something to be gained from Brexit after all?

Mike Stretford 10:22 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Quite an interesting outlook.  Surely the fact that people who normally do not vote at all came out so strongly in support of Brexit, and when polled continuously say they are willing to take a financial hit if it means they can gain some sort of control over how British society operates,

You are making shit up, again. 4% increase turnout from general elections and you have no idea how they voted in the 52-48 referendum, or who they are.

You don't know British society, and you don't understand the varied reasons people voted leave. For some reason you seek to promote division... I'm glad you have little influence. I really do get the impression you've been hanging round too many right wing websites.

Post edited at 10:38
1
Ian W 11:02 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Quite an interesting outlook.  Surely the fact that people who normally do not vote at all came out so strongly in support of Brexit, and when polled continuously say they are willing to take a financial hit if it means they can gain some sort of control over how British society operates, would point to powerlessness prior to the referendum?  It's not their fault that the media and MPs overwhelmingly fall over themselves to be seen as more socially liberal than the person next to them, and therefore that their own views are routinely ignored.

> Try looking at what you wrote and swap Brexiteer for any other section of society who would be denied a voice and routinely, and unfairly, abused with labels akin to "racist", "fascist", "stupid", "ignorant" and "nazi"....then consider why the Remain side, and their form of liberal idealism, is so hated and considered self-serving.  And if you then completely and entirely disregard the referendum result, think for a moment what incentive 17+ million people should have to in any way embrace the system which has just royally shafted them.

The system will not have shafted them; the system will have protected them from the effects of a poorly informed and thought out decision. Which is why we have a parliamentary democracy, rather than a direct democracy, with the priority being the overall well being of the country, and its citizens as a whole.

1
alastairmac 11:47 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

Britain isn't a country and it never has been. The UK is a partnership of nations. Britishness was created as an act of political expediency. That's why the majority of people in Scotland identify as Scottish not British. It's an untidy identity, we've always been a mongrel nation and proud of it, but it's one based on a very distinct shared culture. And while I sympathise with the regret you'd feel if Scotland left the UK, our ties with Europe and every bit as important as our ties with England. In terms of culture and values, if not economics, quite possibly more so. The current situation is democratically intolerable and Scotland now needs self government which must inevitably be outwith the union. I'm shocked at how Westminster politicians and the London based media are trying to normalise the idea that keeping Scotland in a union against the will of its people is somehow acceptable. Or sustainable. And as for how we'll get on, to quote Neal Ascherson "This is a nation at home in hard stony times. It will find its own way in the world". 

Pan Ron 12:46 Tue
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Seems like a pretty standard reaction to Brexit voters (despite me being a Remainer).  An alternative viewpoint is presented and you lose your shit.    Ever consider that Remain is every bit as divisive as Leave?

If what I've posted is me "seeking to promote division" then you are the epitome of Remainer stupidity.  Only your way is acceptable.  Only your way is right.  Opposing viewpoints are harmful and divisive.

7
In reply to alastairmac:

> Britain isn't a country and it never has been. The UK is a partnership of nations. Britishness was created as an act of political expediency. That's why the majority of people in Scotland identify as Scottish not British. 

British identity is older than either Scottish or English identity, the Scots and English both being post Roman invaders into Britain.

Pan Ron 12:52 Tue
In reply to Ian W:

> The system will not have shafted them; the system will have protected them from the effects of a poorly informed and thought out decision.

Not something we know for sure.  In the short-term, yes.  In the medium to long-term, we don't.  And if Brexiteers, through Brexit, got a Britain they felt more comfortable in, one where they don't feel they (the majority) are being "shafted", then who is being protected by not going through with Brexit?

I oppose Brexit, voted against, don't want it, and will be (and currently am being through pointless contingency planning and uncertainty) be directly impacted.  But I also understand why many voted for it.  Remainers continue to be incapable of grasping that.  Given these seem to be the same remainers who usually complain about purely economic arguments being used to justify social policy it is all the more surprising.

> Which is why we have a parliamentary democracy, rather than a direct democracy, with the priority being the overall well being of the country, and its citizens as a whole.

They vote for art.50 then act against it.  Perhaps parliament is utterly disfunctional right now.

2
Mike Stretford 12:56 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Seems like a pretty standard reaction to Brexit voters (despite me being a Remainer).  An alternative viewpoint is presented and you lose your shit. 

 Not losing any shit.

>  Ever consider that Remain is every bit as divisive as Leave?

Yes.

> If what I've posted is me "seeking to promote division" then you are the epitome of Remainer stupidity.  Only your way is acceptable.  Only your way is right.  Opposing viewpoints are harmful and divisive.

Rubbish. I know lots of leavers, and respect some of their views. I'm open to many opinions... but not yours. Your portrayal of our society is wrong, and divisive.

You haven't dealt my specific points, just replied with the usual cliched insults... that's what gives the impression you spend too much time on certain websites and links.

1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm seriously thinking of moving to Scotland. I'd rather be Scottish than British.


It's never too late to seek help - https://www.englandrugby.com/participation

Stichtplate 13:46 Tue
In reply to alastairmac:

> Britain isn't a country and it never has been.

Easy statement to make, much harder to prove. We have a unified flag, head of state, national anthem, language, foreign embassies, army, navy, airforce, the list is endless; basically everything with 'royal' or 'national' in the title. Most importantly, millions of your fellow citizens regard Britain as a country. If you want more concrete proof, there are over 100,000 war memorials dotted around the UK, dedicated to men and women who died for their country. I've seen more than a few of them and more than a few memorial services and I can't remember any inscription or remembrance speech specifying that those people died for England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland rather than Britain as a whole.

 >The UK is a partnership of nations. Britishness was created as an act of political expediency. That's why the majority of people in Scotland identify as Scottish not British. It's an untidy identity, we've always been a mongrel nation and proud of it, but it's one based on a very distinct shared culture.

Every country is a partnership of people created out of political expediency. We're lucky to have a unifying language and natural geographic boundaries to our island home. Not every nation is so lucky.

>And while I sympathise with the regret you'd feel if Scotland left the UK, our ties with Europe and every bit as important as our ties with England. In terms of culture and values, if not economics, quite possibly more so.

Culture and values, closer to Europe than England? Seriously? The sports you play, the TV shows you watch, the music you listen to, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and the films and plays you go to see; all correspond far more closely with the rest of the UK than the continent. To insist otherwise is pure fantasy.

>The current situation is democratically intolerable and Scotland now needs self government which must inevitably be outwith the union. I'm shocked at how Westminster politicians and the London based media are trying to normalise the idea that keeping Scotland in a union against the will of its people is somehow acceptable. Or sustainable. And as for how we'll get on, to quote Neal Ascherson "This is a nation at home in hard stony times. It will find its own way in the world". 

This last would have more impact if the overwhelming majority of Scots clearly wanted out. Claiming that Westminster is "keeping Scotland in a union against the will" goes too far. The last referendum vote was 55% against independence. 

Post edited at 13:48
1
Bob Kemp 13:50 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

More big generalisations... those 17.5 million were not all disaffected and powerless. A lot of them were Conservative middle class voters remember? 

elsewhere 14:50 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Who exactly are the Brexiteers you are referring to?  The 17.4 million who voted for it?  Or the Remain-supporting politicians who then begrudgingly sought to implement it amidst varying parliamentary support?  Remain continues to fail to understand that there is another side to the Brexit debate and, despite the failures of MPs tasked with delivering it, completely dismissing what they voted for is understandably going to stir a massive backlash.  Be careful what you wish for.

Yours is a curious but consistent perspective that you always defend a weak and bullied victim unable to take responsibility for failure. In this case those you regard as so weak and bullied victims they cannot be responsible for their failures include the government tasked with delivering a good brexit deal (aka "the easiest deal in history").

If they are so weak and bullied as to be not responsible for their failures they do not deserve to in government. I want to be represented internationally by something less prone to being weak and bullied. And people who accept their responsibilities.

Post edited at 14:53
Pan Ron 14:57 Tue
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Not losing any shit.

No?  Well it certainly escalated quickly then if the post you responded to was so offensive that you found it to "promote division"?  Perhaps you need to define the limits of what one is allowed to say in this brave new world. 

>  Ever consider that Remain is every bit as divisive as Leave?

You have, yet you react as you do?

> I know lots of leavers, and respect some of their views. I'm open to many opinions... but not yours. Your portrayal of our society is wrong, and divisive.

You might as well be telling me you have black friends too.

If venturing forward the opinions I did is enough to have you claiming I know nothing about British society, nor understand anything about why people voted leave, and that I must inhabit right-wing websites, then it begs the question of just how tolerant and open you really are to anything that departs from your norm.

> You haven't dealt my specific points, just replied with the usual cliched insults...

It's not easy as you didn't seem to make any points other than ad-hom.  You can return to your echo-chamber.  I'll have people like you to "thank" when, if we're even lucky enough to get a second referendum, Brexit still prevails.

4
Pan Ron 15:02 Tue
In reply to elsewhere:

> Yours is a curious but consistent perspective that you always defend a weak and bullied victim unable to take responsibility for failure. In this case those you regard as so weak and bullied victims they cannot be responsible for their failures include the government tasked with delivering a good brexit deal (aka "the easiest deal in history").

I would have thought, on here especially, defending the weak and bullied was the thing to do?  And claiming they are simply unable to take responsibility for their own failure was very much out of fashion?  So not sure how you expect Brexit voters to take responsibility for a parliament that failed to deliver Brexit - I doubt you'd lay the blame for all those deaths in Iraq on the laps of Labour voters would you? 

> I want to be represented internationally by something less prone to being weak and bullied. And people who accept their responsibilities.

I'd love that as well.  Good luck expecting that from any party in the current line-up.  Labour, Lib Dem, Conservatives and even Green appear equally inept.  So again, I don't see how you can blame the average UK citizen who voted for Brexit for all this.

Pan Ron 15:05 Tue
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> More big generalisations... those 17.5 million were not all disaffected and powerless. A lot of them were Conservative middle class voters remember? 

Clearly missing the point.  To use your analogy, Labour or Green are likewise not parties of the disaffected and powerless either as a lot of them are middle class voters.

Laying it out in real simple terms.  No major party was offering as policy removal from the EU (for all that this meant).  Despite a majority of the population clearly wanting that.  Then, they finally got their say via a referendum.  The rest is history (though seemingly we want to re-write that).

1
elsewhere 15:14 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I would have thought, on here especially, defending the weak and bullied was the thing to do?  And claiming they are simply unable to take responsibility for their own failure was very much out of fashion?  So not sure how you expect Brexit voters to take responsibility for a parliament that failed to deliver Brexit - I doubt you'd lay the blame for all those deaths in Iraq on the laps of Labour voters would you? 

> I'd love that as well.  Good luck expecting that from any party in the current line-up.  Labour, Lib Dem, Conservatives and even Green appear equally inept.  So again, I don't see how you can blame the average UK citizen who voted for Brexit for all this.

I think the Brexiteers as weak and bullied is in your head. I hold them responsible or "to blame" for their actions as any other grown adults. You blame the remainers as if Brexiteeers were not grown adults.

Mike Stretford 15:21 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

> > Not losing any shit.

> No?  Well it certainly escalated quickly then

We obviously have different definitions of 'escalate'. I'm just chatting online.

> if the post you responded to was so offensive that you found it to "promote division"? 

I don't need need to be offended by something to observe that it promotes division.

> Perhaps you need to define the limits of what one is allowed to say in this brave new world. 

I never said you weren't allowed to say anything.

> >  Ever consider that Remain is every bit as divisive as Leave?

> You have, yet you react as you do?

I don't.

> You might as well be telling me you have black friends too.

Cliche. I live and work in the UK, I'm sourrounded by leave voters, and I talk to them.

> If venturing forward the opinions I did is enough to have you claiming I know nothing about British society, nor understand anything about why people voted leave, and that I must inhabit right-wing websites, then it begs the question of just how tolerant and open you really are to anything that departs from your norm.

There is no 'norm' opinion. You have a particular habit of gross and mass generalisation of both remain and leaver voters. I pointed that out and it seems to have touched a nerve.

> It's not easy as you didn't seem to make any points other than ad-hom.  

Yes I did. I pointed out the numerical margins which clearly contradict your sweeping generalisations. You ignored it.

> You can return to your echo-chamber.  I'll have people like you to "thank" when, if we're even lucky enough to get a second referendum, Brexit still prevails.

Back to cliches.

Post edited at 15:22
2
Ian W 16:49 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Not something we know for sure.  In the short-term, yes.  In the medium to long-term, we don't.  And if Brexiteers, through Brexit, got a Britain they felt more comfortable in, one where they don't feel they (the majority) are being "shafted", then who is being protected by not going through with Brexit?

They wont feel so comfortable when the economy goes south, by which time it will be too late.....the huge majority of the population judge a government on the economy; very few other policies get a look in. There will inevitably be some kind of backlash against this, as people realise they have been taken for mugs, and at least they'll have the hard evidence.

> They vote for art.50 then act against it.  Perhaps parliament is utterly disfunctional right now.

You aren't usually given to such understatement!! 

alastairmac 16:54 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

The latest polling suggests that there is now a small majority in favour of independence. Among those under 60 it's a very significant majority. While we continue to return a majority of independence supporting MP's and MSP's to both Holyrood and Westminster. And the Britain you refer to feels quite alien and anachronistic to many modern Scots ( although clearly not all). It always seems to come back to echoes of colonialism, wars fought many years ago and attempts to enforce a  union jack waving "British" culture that was never more than a political prop. Nothing positive or future facing. And increasingly toxic and sinister. So I think we must agree to disagree. If you cannot even accept that Scotland is a distinct nation with its own identity, culture and aspirations, then I'm not going to convince you. But I hope you and others in England will support the right of Scottish voters to make the choice when it comes to who governs us.....and oppose the rhetoric of those that oppose that right. We now want our country back please.

2
Bob Kemp 17:09 Tue
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Clearly missing the point.  To use your analogy, Labour or Green are likewise not parties of the disaffected and powerless either as a lot of them are middle class voters.

> Laying it out in real simple terms.  No major party was offering as policy removal from the EU (for all that this meant).  Despite a majority of the population clearly wanting that.  Then, they finally got their say via a referendum.  The rest is history (though seemingly we want to re-write that).

When I pick up on the fact that you are over-generalising I am not missing any point. You do it all the time. You've done it again in this response: a majority of the population did not want 'removal from the EU' - a majority of those who voted in the referendum did. 

elsewhere 17:15 Tue
In reply to alastairmac:

> But I hope you and others in England will support the right of Scottish voters to make the choice when it comes to who governs us.....and oppose the rhetoric of those that oppose that right.

Poll: Majority across Britain back second Scottish independence vote

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/poll-majority-across-britain-back-second-scottish-independence-vote-1-5004594

Poll suggests UK voters support Northern Ireland border poll

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0915/1076014-referendums-poll/

Mike Stretford 17:21 Tue
In reply to elsewhere:

Poll suggests UK voters support Northern Ireland border poll

That's a good point. I know that one is for re-unification or not, but we could have one in NI just to sort out the backstop, stay in the EU customs union or the UK customs union. Still keep UK citizenship.

Stichtplate 17:24 Tue
In reply to alastairmac:

> The latest polling suggests that there is now a small majority in favour of independence. Among those under 60 it's a very significant majority. While we continue to return a majority of independence supporting MP's and MSP's to both Holyrood and Westminster. 

So still roughly 50/50 then.

>And the Britain you refer to feels quite alien and anachronistic to many modern Scots ( although clearly not all).

So the rest of Britain somehow feels ‘alien and anachronistic’ very curious. I visit Scotland fairly often and it really doesn’t seem like I’m being shot into the future. As to the rest of Britain feeling alien, Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff and even Dublin all feel a damn sight more familiar to me than Berlin, Paris or Rome. The language is the same, the pubs, the retail chains even most of the billboards.

I can only assume you view the rest of the UK through very selective eyes.

>It always seems to come back to echoes of colonialism, wars fought many years ago and attempts to enforce a  union jack waving "British" culture that was never more than a political prop. 

Of course flag waving and nationalism are political props, that’s the same the world over. If anything that particular strain of identity politics is weaker in England than the rest of the UK. Ask yourself which of the nations is the only one without a national political party? And if an “England first” party popped up, the vast majority of the English electorate would recoil in horror.

>Nothing positive or future facing. And increasingly toxic and sinister.

Fair point if you’re talking about the Tory party but if your talking about everything South of your border then you’re off your nut mate.

>So I think we must agree to disagree. If you cannot even accept that Scotland is a distinct nation with its own identity, culture and aspirations, then I'm not going to convince you. But I hope you and others in England will support the right of Scottish voters to make the choice when it comes to who governs us.....and oppose the rhetoric of those that oppose that right. We now want our country back please.

Sure Scotland is a distinct nation, that’s a matter of history. As far as a separate culture goes, within the context of the Uk, many regions could lay equal claim to separate culture. Scotland is still a damn sight more aligned with uk cultural norms than anywhere else in the world.

You finish with “we now want our country back please”.... now where did I last hear that demand from someone speaking for only half of the electorate?

1
Tyler 17:30 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> We're lucky to have a unifying language and natural geographic boundaries to our island home.

I think the Welsh would argue that the unifying language was forced on them by oppression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not

I mostly feel British (when I don't is during sporting events) but I'd say that makes me unusual in my home town. I suspect anyone in the UK who feels a very strong national identity would feel it towards one of the home countries rather than to Britain or the UK, those who feel British as against English, Welsh etc probably don't feel that strongly about national identity anyway. 

> Culture and values, closer to Europe than England? Seriously? The sports you play, the TV shows you watch, the music you listen to, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and the films and plays you go to see; all correspond far more closely with the rest of the UK than the continent. To insist otherwise is pure fantasy.

That's only true if you place national identity above all else. I don't feel a greater kinship with the current cabinet than I do with my work colleagues in Poland, I've got less in common with someone who lives in inner city London listening to drill music than I do with a French climber.

Post edited at 17:38
RomTheBear 17:50 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Really? Care to outline those arguments, or is this yet more empty posturing?

Well, for example, a very important important argument for staying in the EU is preserving Freedom of movement. Scotland having no control over immigration policy, it would not be able to continue this policy unless it left the UK.

summo 17:57 Tue
In reply to alastairmac:

>  We now want our country back please.

Which bit exactly do you want?

Before it became part of Scotland or Caledonia wasn't the area between Carlisle and Perth-ish part of Northumbria? 

Perhaps Northumbria would like central and lowland Scotland back?

Before that Glasgow and Edinburgh have been Roman areas, as you'll well know there was a wall or earth dyke more northern than Hadrians for a little while, perhaps we should speak to Italy first?

Oh, then there were the Vikings who held parts of west and northern coast's for a while.

Which point in history do you want to go back to? The only historically undisputed part of Caledonia are parts of the highlands and north east coast. 

Post edited at 18:00
3
rogerwebb 18:02 Tue
In reply to alastairmac:

> And the Britain you refer to feels quite alien and anachronistic to many modern Scots ( although clearly not all). It always seems to come back to echoes of colonialism, wars fought many years ago and attempts to enforce a  union jack waving "British" culture that was never more than a political prop. Nothing positive or future facing. And increasingly toxic and sinister.

That's curious. Despite the current crisis the Britain I live in has very little of that. In my time we have moved on. I now live in a multi cultural society, that gives equal rights to all whatever their gender, religion or sexual orientation. It certainly doesn't enforce union jack waving and as for echoes of colonialism it appears rather more to be a country that is facing up to the less salubrious elements of its past.

The flag wavers are a minority. It doesn't really matter what the flag is but a bunch of people marching with massed flags are usually intimidating someone.

> But I hope you and others in England will support the right of Scottish voters to make the choice when it comes to who governs us.....and oppose the rhetoric of those that oppose that right.

I quite agree, the liberals have become very undemocratic

>We now want our country back please.

So do I, I don't want it divided.

RomTheBear 18:13 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Culture and values, closer to Europe than England? Seriously? The sports you play, the TV shows you watch, the music you listen to, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and the films and plays you go to see; all correspond far more closely with the rest of the UK than the continent. To insist otherwise is pure fantasy.

Your comment unwittingly exposes glaringly the issue. Identity is not one dimensional and one can identify as Scottish, British and European to varying degree and feel varying degree of closeness to different cultural identities.

You may not understand it and dismiss it as a fantasy, but I for example, and many of my Scottish friends, identify culturally as Scottish first and European second, and only marginally British.

The refusal to acknowledge this diversity and complexity of cultural identities is pretty much the cultural root of Brexit. And that's absolutely fine by me BTW if England wants to preserve the exclusiveness of English identity, however trying to impose it on others is immoral.

As for the qualification fo the UK as a country, I think you are correct to say it is a country. It has all the features of one. But it is a country of countries. Unfortunately the constitutional system doesn't reflect that at all, and is at breaking point.

Post edited at 18:18
2
rogerwebb 18:17 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Well, for example, a very important important argument for staying in the EU is preserving Freedom of movement. Scotland having no control over immigration policy, it would not be able to continue this policy unless it left the UK.


What happens to freedom of movement within the island of Great Britain if an independent Scotland were to join the EU and the rUK was not a member? Don't get me wrong I would prefer it if we all stayed in the EU but, as it appears we aren't these questions will need to be answered.

(this is a question as much as anything, I have a bad feeling that none of us will like the answer (except perhaps some serious xenophobes)) 

1
RomTheBear 18:22 Tue
In reply to rogerwebb:

> What happens to freedom of movement within the island of Great Britain if an independent Scotland were to join the EU and the rUK was not a member? Don't get me wrong I would prefer it if we all stayed in the EU but, as it appears we aren't these questions will need to be answered.

There is no reason to think an iScotland wouldn't continue to let English people come in freely, I have never heard stopping English people from entering Scotland as a motivation for Scottish independence. 

rogerwebb 18:24 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You may not understand it and dismiss it as a fantasy, but I for example, and many of my Scottish friends, identify culturally as Scottish first and European second, and only marginally British.

And equally I think that you may not understand that many of us identify as British, our roots are too diverse to narrow it down any further.

1
rogerwebb 18:33 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There is no reason to think an iScotland wouldn't continue to let English people come in freely,.

I don't doubt it would, EU rules may make it a tad more complicated though.

>I have never heard stopping English people from entering Scotland as a motivation for Scottish independence. 

Oh I have, to my face. More than once.

I would like to think that they are a minority.


 

Stichtplate 18:38 Tue
In reply to Tyler:

> I think the Welsh would argue that the unifying language was forced on them by oppression.

It's only a very small minority of Welsh people who still feel impacted by a policy of lingual suppression that ended over 70 years ago. How about the liberation provided by speaking a language that is understood and spoken the world over (half my family is Welsh).

> I mostly feel British (when I don't is during sporting events) but I'd say that makes me unusual in my home town. I suspect anyone in the UK who feels a very strong national identity would feel it towards one of the home countries rather than to Britain or the UK, those who feel British as against English, Welsh etc probably don't feel that strongly about national identity anyway. 

I feel much the same as you. What little national feeling I possess only seems to rear its head at the prospect of less than 2 million voters having the power to rip apart a state of 67 million people that has existed for over 300 years.

> That's only true if you place national identity above all else. I don't feel a greater kinship with the current cabinet than I do with my work colleagues in Poland, I've got less in common with someone who lives in inner city London listening to drill music than I do with a French climber.

I'm not talking about national identity here, I'm talking about day to day reality, the cultural norms that surround us. Do you honestly not think you couldn't wake up in any high street in the UK and instantly Know you were in the UK? and conversely if you woke up in any continental high street, you'd know you weren't in the UK.

Stichtplate 18:47 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Your comment unwittingly exposes glaringly the issue. Identity is not one dimensional and one can identify as Scottish, British and European to varying degree and feel varying degree of closeness to different cultural identities.

Your comment unwittingly exposes your own peculiar obsession. Read my post. The part you quoted doesn't mention identity, it is purely about the reality of the UK's cultural environment.

> You may not understand it and dismiss it as a fantasy, but I for example, and many of my Scottish friends, identify culturally as Scottish first and European second, and only marginally British.

No, I completely understand it.

> The refusal to acknowledge this diversity and complexity of cultural identities is pretty much the cultural root of Brexit. And that's absolutely fine by me BTW if England wants to preserve the exclusiveness of English identity, however trying to impose it on others is immoral.

I'm not refusing to acknowledge anything and 'English identity' is the most ephemeral of all the home nations, you'd have a job imposing such a flimsy construct on anyone.

> As for the qualification fo the UK as a country, I think you are correct to say it is a country. It has all the features of one. But it is a country of countries. Unfortunately the constitutional system doesn't reflect that at all, and is at breaking point.

At last. We actually agree.

alastairmac 18:56 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

The difference is....since the days of Jimmy Maxton, Keir Hardie and John MacLean, the demands for Scottish independence have been led by a desire to create a liberal, egalitarian and socially responsible republic. 

1
Stichtplate 20:27 Tue
In reply to alastairmac:

> The difference is....since the days of Jimmy Maxton, Keir Hardie and John MacLean, the demands for Scottish independence have been led by a desire to create a liberal, egalitarian and socially responsible republic. 

You want a liberal, egalitarian and socially responsible republic? Join the club. It's just that I'd like to see that for all 67 million of us and not just the 5 million that happen to live on the Northern bit of our island.

1
Rob Exile Ward 20:58 Tue
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think it will be easier for me to move to Scotland than persuade 17.2 million that they're plain wrong.

Timmd 23:40 Tue
In reply to alastairmac:

>....But that kind of opposition to positive change is not unusual when a country is trying to win or regain its independence. It may take longer than some would like but I think the outcome is inevitable. Because the option is continuing to submit to an exploitative and undemocratic union that doesn't work for Scotland or the Scottish people. It's holding us back....

I wholly support Scotland's right to choose independence should it wish to, so in a spirit of genuine enquiry, in what way(s) do some people feel that Westminster is holding Scotland back? 

Post edited at 23:43
RomTheBear 00:07 Wed
In reply to Stichtplate:

> You want a liberal, egalitarian and socially responsible republic? Join the club.

The problem is that you have a majority in England who doesn't want that. And it is perfectly their right. What is not right is forcing it on others.

RomTheBear 00:22 Wed
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Your comment unwittingly exposes your own peculiar obsession. Read my post. The part you quoted doesn't mention identity, it is purely about the reality of the UK's cultural environment.

No, it's you simply not being able to process it. The UK cultural environment isn't one-dimensional and people may belong to lots of different cultural tribes, and many may feel than the "British" cultural tribe is not the first on their list. 

2
RomTheBear 00:31 Wed
In reply to Stichtplate:

> It's only a very small minority of Welsh people who still feel impacted by a policy of lingual suppression that ended over 70 years ago. How about the liberation provided by speaking a language that is understood and spoken the world over (half my family is Welsh).

Maybe because the welsh speaking community has been decimated over the course of several centuries, nearly dying out at some point. Ho and BTW they didn't need to lose their language to be able to speak English.

> I'm not talking about national identity here, I'm talking about day to day reality, the cultural norms that surround us. Do you honestly not think you couldn't wake up in any high street in the UK and instantly Know you were in the UK? and conversely if you woke up in any continental high street, you'd know you weren't in the UK.

Not an argument. I could wake up in London and I would know instantly I'm not in Glasgow.

2
RomTheBear 00:38 Wed
In reply to rogerwebb:

> I don't doubt it would, EU rules may make it a tad more complicated though.

Why would it ? EU countries are free to apply any restrictions or lack of they want to non-EU nationals. If an iScotland wanted to let British nationals in without restrictions, as it most certainly would, it could. No EU rule can prevent that. 

> Oh I have, to my face. More than once.

Very sorry to hear that. The silver lining is that at least you can understand how EU nationals in the UK feel about Brexit. 

2
birdie num num 02:11 Wed
In reply to Postmanpat:

I believe the LibDems are soon to change their name to the illiberal undemocrats

1
rogerwebb 07:16 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Why would it ? EU countries are free to apply any restrictions or lack of they want to non-EU nationals. If an iScotland wanted to let British nationals in without restrictions, as it most certainly would, it could. No EU rule can prevent that. 

You are correct it is the removal of the EU rules that may cause a problem not their imposition. How the situation develops would depend upon the level of cooperation that the two governments achieved.If there is a common travel area as with the Irish Republic all well and good. Otherwise perhaps not. How the CTA continues though may become an issue yet. No EU country at present has a CTA with a non EU/EEA member as far as I am aware. 

> Very sorry to hear that. The silver lining is that at least you can understand how EU nationals in the UK feel about Brexit. 

Rarely do internet comments make me angry.

This one does.

I might say 'at least there's a silver lining now EU citizens in Scotland know how I feel about independence' 

It would be equally offensive.

There is no silver lining for anyone, anywhere, ever in being told to 'f*ck off back to where they came from' 

I am sure however that you did not mean to frame your point quite like that. 

Jon Stewart 07:39 Wed
In reply to birdie num num:

> I believe the LibDems are soon to change their name to the illiberal undemocrats

Why? I hadn't realised they planned to install themselves by force. The conference season has certainly got off to a controversial start! 

1
Stichtplate 07:48 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The problem is that you have a majority in England who doesn't want that. And it is perfectly their right. What is not right is forcing it on others.

You do understand the basis for the democratic system don't you? I've not been governed by who I've voted for since 1997. 

Stichtplate 07:50 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, it's you simply not being able to process it. The UK cultural environment isn't one-dimensional and people may belong to lots of different cultural tribes, and many may feel than the "British" cultural tribe is not the first on their list. 

No, you're simply unable to process what I'm writing. I wrote...

The sports you play, the TV shows you watch, the music you listen to, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and the films and plays you go to see; all correspond far more closely with the rest of the UK than the continent. 

That is simply the cultural wallpaper that surrounds the vast majority of those who live in these islands.

Stichtplate 07:55 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Maybe because the welsh speaking community has been decimated over the course of several centuries, nearly dying out at some point. Ho and BTW they didn't need to lose their language to be able to speak English.

You do understand where English came from? I doubt there are many countries speaking languages that didn't originate elsewhere to a greater or lesser extent.

> Not an argument. I could wake up in London and I would know instantly I'm not in Glasgow.

You could wake up outside a Mcdonalds, opposite a Weatherspoons, covered by a copy of the Sun and blasted by the exhaust of a passing black cab and know instantly which UK city you were in without prior knowledge of that exact location? Bollocks.

summo 08:03 Wed
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Not an argument. I could wake up in London and I would know instantly I'm not in Glasgow.

That would depend where you woke up? 

Face down in the Clyde isn't likely different to the Thames? 

1
RomTheBear 08:49 Wed
In reply to summo:

> That would depend where you woke up? 

> Face down in the Clyde isn't likely different to the Thames? 

True that !

RomTheBear 08:51 Wed
In reply to Stichtplate:

> You do understand where English came from? I doubt there are many countries speaking languages that didn't originate elsewhere to a greater or lesser extent.

So ? I’m not sure what your point is.

> You could wake up outside a Mcdonalds, opposite a Weatherspoons, covered by a copy of the Sun and blasted by the exhaust of a passing black cab and know instantly which UK city you were in without prior knowledge of that exact location? Bollocks.

Bravo, you have just highlighted the ridiculousness of your stupid argument.

Post edited at 08:54
2
RomTheBear 09:19 Wed
In reply to Stichtplate:

> No, you're simply unable to process what I'm writing. I wrote...

> The sports you play, the TV shows you watch, the music you listen to, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and the films and plays you go to see; all correspond far more closely with the rest of the UK than the continent. 

> That is simply the cultural wallpaper that surrounds the vast majority of those who live in these islands.

You still don’t understand it, and still are peddling this stupid one dimensional view. And in doing so you are promoting monolithic and exceptionality vision of British culture, which is exactly what many in Scotland reject.

It is perfectly possible, for example, for a catholic in northern Ireland to feel culturally closer to say, Poland than the UK, in the religious space, but feel closer to UK when it comes to language.

Similarly there is probably as much or more cultural differences between a welsh sheep farmer and a Londoner than there is between, say, a Berliner and a Londoner.

I recognise completely that there are elements of common British culture, I simply reject that it has to be exclusive and the basis of a centralised state.

2

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.