UKH

   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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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. 

  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.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

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...

  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.

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

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

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?

Splitter!  😄

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."

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

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

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. 

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.

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

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...

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

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

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.

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

  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.

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.

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.

   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.

Yep, not easy.

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

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

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?

We definitely can!

jk

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.

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

Have you considered becoming Johnson’s advisor?  

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

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.

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. 

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

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

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. 

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.

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.

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?

He's going to write it in invisible ink 

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.

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

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. 

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

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'...?

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

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? 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Unless leave wins again.

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?"

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

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

  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.

  I think that's in your head.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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).

  You're confusing "some brexiteers" with brexiteers.

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 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.

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

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

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

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. 

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.

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.

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?

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."

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?

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?

The MS-DOS analogue:

">C:format c:"

"> Are you sure y/n?"

Edit because it did weird things to the format

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.

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.

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

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.

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. 

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. 

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.  

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

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.

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

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'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

<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)

I said defence integration, not defence

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.

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.

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

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.

We still haven’t agreed to the WA.

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.

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 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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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,

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.

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 ? 

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=1648203...

  Send them to the gulag comrade!

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

Cancel         OK

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

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?"

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?

Good lord! We are in agreement

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?"

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..

And me.

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

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

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).

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 completely made up. Total, utter MYTH.

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

I’m sorry.

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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

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.

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. 

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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. 

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). 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Fixed that for you.

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.

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

jk

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?

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.

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.

It's too important to take on trust. 

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?

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.

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.

Yes

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!

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I hope you're right.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

 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.

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.

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

Rubbish, that’s just a political declaration.

Look at what is in the treaty

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Meanwhile, the European project trundles on - 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/31/mario-draghi-lays-out-plan...

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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. 

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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-b...

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

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/07/world/europe/brexit-impact-o...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Again, things can change.

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

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. 

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?

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

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?

You seem to be arguing against the entire EU project.

What, like the UK then?

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.

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

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,

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.

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. 

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

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.

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. 

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

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

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

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.  

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. 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

  Well let's hope so

  Great photo album, by the way.

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

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 ! 

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

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

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.

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!

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. 

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.

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

Guildford?

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.

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

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.

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

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'.

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.'

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-...

Perhaps find an American climbing forum where you can tell them all how they're doing everything wrong?

Of course it was Rom. You do realise the Japanese and Italians were on the other side in WW1?

Is this in code?

I get the feeling that any facts which contradict you get labeled as irrelevant.

Well perhaps you could lend me your time machine because as far as I'm aware we're still pre-Brexit.

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.

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?

England isn't an independent state. It hasn't had a sovereign parliament since 1707. 

One of the funniest comments I've ever read on UKC, someone said "Unfortunately Cyprus has the internet."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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!

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.

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.

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.

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) 

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.

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.

Well that's exactly the problem. They should be independent OR leave other countries alone.

Lehman Brothers, RBS, LLoyds,  etc etc etc

Well take for example most countries that ever existed in history. Most of them FAILED. The ones that lasted longer than other were decentralised.

Well that is exactly the problem isn't it. Britain is the state.

Yes, so ?

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.

Pre-brexit vote.

Entirely sure.

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.

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).

You're right about the value of your opinion.

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'm seriously thinking of moving to Scotland. I'd rather be Scottish than British.

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

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.

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. 

You could well end up in a Scotland that is independent of the UK and not in the EU.
The worst of both worlds...

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?

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

What is a pre-brexit vote?

I'm not.

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.

How finely do you have to slice your state to make it democratic?

Sticht babe, the Oracle has spoken.
We are not worthy.  I'm off to flush me head down the bog.

Whilst I'm no fan of his cause, Salmond was far better than Cameron.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Yes, definitely about right.

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.

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? 

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. 

Yes

Well put. 

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?

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. 

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.

Indeed I have recently flown the coop, having found all the cuccos.

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? 

That sense of identity is crucial - I dont think partisans of any side can avoid its touch!

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.

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.