Plant Parenthood.
So today parliament had eight (8!!!) votes on what the path of Brexit should be.
All eight votes failed, most by a wide margin.
No Deal rejected 400 - 160
Common Market rejected 283 - 188
EFTA & EEA rejected 377 - 65
Customs Union rejected 272 - 264
Labours ‘plan’ rejected 307 - 237
Revoke article 50 rejected 293 -184
Public vote rejected 295 - 268
WTO terms 422 - 139
Last edited by Noir; 03-27-2019 at 06:02 PM.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Thatcherite Minion
Doesn't all of this confirm what I've been saying ? Chaos ... dysfunctionality. This is what rules in today's UK Parliament.Originally Posted by Noir
The House of Commons is clear about what it doesn't support ... the EU-Mrs May's deal. They are far from usefully clear about what they DO support ... to the point where nothing at all, in terms of actual 'progress', can be settled on as a way forward.
We reached this point, in its simplest terms, because the Will of the People was then interfered with, tinkered with, by political considerations. The original Brexit Referendum was very clear: do the citizens of the United Kingdom support continued membership of the EU, or, should we exit it ? The clear vote came back: WE SHOULD EXIT.
Pretty much all that's happened since has worked to interfere with that simple decision.
Mrs May started off well enough. She wanted to do a deal with the EU (as Article 50 provides for) to make our exit as painless as possible. She declared, very reasonably, that if she got a bad deal ... leaving with NO deal, was preferable to accepting it.
Then political machinations set in, with the chaos mounting out of it.
The EU prevaricated, stalled talks, stopped any useful progress, stone dead.
Near to the end of the 2 year period they had to negotiate, suddenly, they made a lot of 'progress' .. reaching a deal with us. Precious little time remained to negotiate any alternative ... 'surprise, surprise'. We had to go with that deal.
Mrs May did nothing to counter that bullying, her principal mistake. She went back to the UK, determined to sell the deal as a 'good' deal. Suddenly ... a bad deal was a good deal, instead. Because she said so.
The UK Parliament didn't agree. It disagreed so strongly that it gave her an historic defeat in the Commons, by voting it down by a massive, unprecedented margin.
Mrs May single-mindedly carried on, not learning a thing. Yes, she did consult with Brussels. Brussels didn't budge, however. They wanted their dodgy deal to succeed, and they didn't care about the extent of its initial failure to be democratically ratified. THEIR way HAD to win, because they said so.
So ... attempt No 2 in the Commons. Mrs May again put her deal to the vote. Again (though by a smaller margin) ... it failed to be ratified, again.
Fast-forward, past Bercow's pronouncement as Speaker of the Commons, which saw him dredge up an ancient ruling dating back to 1604 (!!), banning further repeats of duplicate motions being resubmitted during a single Parliamentary session (this apparently stopping Mrs May from making a third attempt ??) ... to today, with Parliament as a whole taking charge of the process of choosing a successful way forward. They had a shot at it -- more precisely, eight shots at it. Eight motions, proposing different preferences over how to go forward on Brexit ... ALL DEFEATED.
Chaos, and dysfunction rules. Why ? Because the process of Brexit has been watered down by political interferences. Nobody voted for a Brexit 'with a deal' ... we instead voted to see Brexit succeed.
But ... BREXIT IS NOT SUCCEEDING. IT'S STILL STALLED.
The EU has injected time limits. Apparently, the only one now valid is April 12th, unless Mrs May can overcome obstacles to submit her 'deal' for yet a THIRD time. Mrs May has provided a 'sweetener', promising to quit as PM if in turn Parliament ratifies her deal.
The DUP hasn't been persuaded by that.
So, chaos and dysfunction rules.
Why ?
BECAUSE POLITICAL MACHINATIONS HAVE INTRODUCED DYSFUNCTIONAL COMPLICATIONS.
We're being ruled by self-serving interests, where the democratic decision made on 23rd June 2016 (!!) has been superseded by them.
We should get out, now, minus a deal. Ah, but .. we can't, because Parliament has banned that 'option'. Except ... dysfunction is pushing us towards crashing out, on 12th April, because everyone is following self-serving agendas ...
... AND ... DEMOCRACY, THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE, BE DAMNED .....
It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!
Senior Member
Thatcherite Minion
All went well ... to begin with. Then, two things happened: first, the EU did their utmost to stall 'deal' talks, and secondly, Mrs May didn't have the backbone to stand up to EU bullying.
So, she caved into it, accepted a dodgy deal, reneged on her word to 'quit the EU without any deal in preference to leaving with a bad deal', and she's been pushing it for all she's worth, ever since.
Hers has been a display of weakness. Even her Government has no unity of purpose behind it. Mrs May doesn't lead it, and if she tries to, she's rewarded by resignations from those disagreeing with her chosen direction.
I believe she's been well-intentioned (many here strongly disagree). Her problem is, and always has been, that she's no natural leader .. something that makes her fundamentally weak.
Self-serving agendas have drowned out the simple 'in or out' Brexit decision arrived at from our Referendum. The EU has capitalised to the fullest extent they can. We've even had Donald Tusk, for the EU, 'helpfully' reminding us that we can abandon Brexit unilaterally if we want and keep within the EU (.. the only thing we CAN do, unilaterally !!).
I think we'll crash out of the EU on the new 'due' date of April 12th. At least, I hope so ... because I think Theresa May was correct at the beginning: leaving minus a deal is better than leaving with a bad one.
Time will tell, though. There's way too much chaos going on to be sure of anything.
Last edited by Drummond; 03-27-2019 at 08:10 PM.
Senior Member
At least the Brexiteers are a nicer type of citizen. This shouldn't be a surprise when one is being compared to the power hungry, Euro 'One Worlders':
WATCH – Delingpole: Brexiteers Much Nicer than Remainers, Experts Confirm
Brexiteers are much nicer people than Remainers, experts have confirmed.
We know thanks to research produced by political analyst Matthew Goodwin. On every metric, Brexiteers turn out to be kinder, more generous spirited, more tolerant and forgiving than spiteful, nasty, vengeful, bitter Remainers.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...s-say-experts/
Drummond thanked this post
Plant Parenthood.
Yes, I think if I had to choose a few words to describe myself they would be spiteful, nasty, vengeful, and bitter
Also if your interested in Goodwins work I would suggest going to this thread https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status...286369792?s=21 which goes through some of the data and sets the tone for Goodwins work with “why I am worried...we’ve had several bits of research which suggest that Britain is becoming more polarised and divided”
Ofcourse the article you’ve quoted does nothing to try and heighten polarisation and division
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Plant Parenthood.
More scaremongering - this time brought to you by, er, looking at investment trends between the U.K. and EU 27 over 6 years, for the 3 years since the Brexit vote and compared to the 3 years before that.
The total amount of capital invested in the EU27 surged 43 per cent in the three years to the first quarter of 2019, compared with the preceding three years, according to fDi Markets, an FT-owned database of cross-border investment. This is in sharp contrast to the UK, which has experienced a 30 per cent drop in investment. About $340bn of capital has been invested in the 27 remaining EU states in that period, up from $237bn in the previous three years, fDi found. The biggest increase came from European companies spending beyond their national borders, including companies from the UK investing in another EU country.
https://amp.ft.com/content/93c681ca-...mpression=true
When oh when will the /Remoaners/ shut up and accept that we voted for this kind of investment slump and just be happy it’s not dropped more than 30%!??
Last edited by Noir; 06-11-2019 at 06:37 AM.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Thatcherite Minion
In a word: 'Jitters'.
It's the lack of certainty about where, exactly, the Brexit process is going, that's creating a climate where those who'd invest don't know precisely what it is they're investing in !!
We've got Parliament's dysfunctionality to contend with ... where 'interested parties' are interpreting Brexit THEIR way, and not just getting on with it, as their electorate want (!!). We've got, by contrast, the EU's intransigence, and their sticking to their one line, 'come what may'.
Particularly, we've got the EU's rules to contend with, while we're still a member. Such as, we're not allowed to strike out for ourselves and make our own, non-EU affiliated, trade deals !
Lack of certainty. Lack of direction, our taking a clear path leading to a clear Brexit. Lack of trading freedoms, courtesy of EU control-freakery. Here's why investors don't know what they'd be investing in !!
The sooner we get out of the EU, the sooner all this will be cleared up ... and the brakes will no longer be applied to our trading (and, therefore, investment) potential. Less faffing about, more decisive action !! That's the answer, Noir.
Plant Parenthood.
Some more “scaremongering” this time from Pascal Lamy and Roberto Azevêdo, and what would they know? After all they only have 14 years combined experience as directors of the WTO.
In the run-up to the new Brexit deadline of 31st October hardline Leavers insist ever louder that Britain could simply walk away from the EU with no adverse consequences. They say the World Trade Organisation provides a perfectly good alternative framework and there is nothing to worry about. Boris Johnson, the frontrunner to be prime minister, has sided with them.
Based in Geneva, the WTO has 164 members, of which Britain is already one. It establishes a “base level” trading framework across the world, which countries build on with their own preferential free trade deals (like the EU internal market). It has rules and a court system which member states can use to enforce them. But relative to the single market, and the deals with third countries we enjoy in virtue of membership, a WTO Brexit would not offer very liberal trade terms at all.
Azevêdo, arguably the most important trade official in the world, said “in simple factual terms in this scenario, you could expect to see the application of tariffs between the UK and EU where currently there are none.” He was at pains to remain neutral, and stressed the lack of detailed WTO forecasting, but those tariffs “would clearly have an effect.” Tariffs are by definition a hindrance to open and free trade.
For Pascal Lamy, Director General of the WTO from 2005 to 2013, “Jumping brutally from trade league one (the internal market without borders) to trade league three (a WTO, multilaterally committed trade regime for goods and services) would certainly hurt.” That conveys the risk of Britain simply walking away from talks, especially when the EU accounts for almost half of UK exports.
Yet this reading is by no means universal. In particular, some Leavers have claimed that the WTO provides for continued tariff-free trade in the event of no-deal. In a recent BBC leadership debate Johnson referred to the now-infamous “Gatt 24, or whatever it happens to be,” a clause from WTO forerunner the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that would allegedly preserve low tariffs in the event of a crash out.
What is the truth of the matter? Alarmingly, when I put this question to Azevêdo, he said Gatt 24 would simply not apply with a no-deal outcome. “Article XXIV of the GATT is simply the provision of global trade law under which free trade agreements and customs unions are concluded,” he explained. The problem is that it only kicks in in the event of such a deal being struck. “If there is no agreement, then Article XXIV would not apply, and the standard WTO terms would.”
These “standard WTO terms” would include increased tariffs on British goods imported into the continent, 10 per cent on cars and rising to more than 35 per cent for dairy products. In addition there would be extra bureaucratic hurdles for businesses to leap over on things like product standards and sanitary checks. The rules do little for services, which make up 80 per cent of the British economy and close to half of exports.
As Lamy explained, under WTO rules, Britain could not just lower tariffs specifically for EU trade because without the formal framework of a deal that would count as granting unfair, privileged access. The “WTO regime implies tariffs which have to apply to all [the UK’s] trade partners,” he said. There is no simple way around this and the EU is bound by the same rules.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ec...f-a-wto-brexit
Last edited by Noir; 07-09-2019 at 05:32 AM.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Thatcherite Minion
I'm glad we can agree that it's scaremongering. Well done, Noir ! There's hope for you yet.
Along with most Brits, now, Noir, I'm thoroughly sick of seeing this whole Brexit saga creep along, minus a resolution of it. I want it done 'n' dusted. Dealt with. Finished.
Facts:
1. To judge by all the scaremongering the 'Remain' side has come up with, the UK will suffer 'financial Armageddon' the moment Brexit kicks in, especially if it's without any implemented deal. We'll 'lose masses of trade' with the EU. Businesses will flee our shores en masse, like rats leaving a sinking ship. However, the TRUTH is that trade will continue on, much as before ... just not on quite such advantageous terms.
2. A 'no deal' Brexit will see us 39 billion pounds sterling better off, since we'll owe the EU nothing if they don't agree a viable deal. It'll help cushion us from short-term 'losses'.
3. We won't be sitting on our hands once this all kicks off. We'll be doing deals ! IF repeat, IF, our diplomats can get it through their heads that they must stop insulting Trump's Administration (!), we should (hopefully, though it depends on how much damage our idiocy has already caused) be able to agree lucrative deals with the US.
4. We'll survive it all. Oh, yes, we will ! Certainly we won't be free of short-term problems, but, in the longer term, we'll not only survive but thrive. Free of EU domination, free in fact to agree OUR deals as WE choose them ... we can determine our own fate, not have it decided for us by the EU's power-hungry bureaucracy and laws. OUR laws, Noir, will be OURS again, to fully shape as WE choose.
I'm 'sorry' if you find all of this offensive, Noir. All I can say, is .... get over it.
Plant Parenthood.
You appear to not of read a single word of what was quoted by Azevêdo and Lamy.
If you also agree that an animals suffering should be avoided rather than encouraged, consider what steps you can take.
Thatcherite Minion
Let's say that I had read every single word.
So what ?
Whatever they have to say is, at best, speculative. They can't ACTUALLY see into the future. They've no foreknowledge of what deals we'll strike, or how lucrative they'll be, or, EXACTLY how our future business relationship(s) with the EU will ultimately pan out. And ... tell me, Noir, if I did a proper check, would I find (as if it isn't obvious, anyway !!!) that these people were merely following their own agendas, complete with biases and prejudices, and then insisting that we not only buy into them, but knuckle under to them ??
'Sieg Heil' ....
There's no substitute for reality. The reality of Brexit hasn't yet happened. We'll only truly see its effects when they do happen.
Foreign speculators don't have the 'jump' on us when it comes to assessing our own future, Noir, and trying to dictate what it 'must' seem to be. OUR fate is OURS to determine, whether you like it, or not.
There's a word for that freedom.
BREXIT.
And whether you like it or not ... it's been voted for. An electoral majority, as the recent MEP elections amply proved, are now CLAMOURING for its implementation.
If you don't like that ... well ... TOUGH.
Last edited by Drummond; 07-09-2019 at 11:34 AM.
Super Minion
I thought you two might consider an American point-of-view from a writer that is pro-Trump on most things, though acknowledges that he may just have a personality difficulty or two:
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morri...or-stupid-guy/
Trump Escalates Fight With May: Ambassador A “Very Stupid Guy”
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 10:01 am on July 9, 2019
This bizarre, personal spat with our closest ally began yesterday when Donald Trump declared a de facto persona non grata status for Kim Darroch on Twitter. The British ambassador to the US had offered his professional observations of Trump and the administration in confidential memos to Theresa May, which then got leaked to the media. The outgoing prime minister noted — rightly — that Darroch was doing his job with those memos, although they have promised to open an investigation into the embarrassing leak of the memos.
That wasn’t good enough for Trump, who went on the Twitter warpath again this morning:
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
The wacky Ambassador that the U.K. foisted upon the United States is not someone we are thrilled with, a very stupid guy. He should speak to his country, and Prime Minister May, about their failed Brexit negotiation, and not be upset with my criticism of how badly it was...
55.5K
4:48 AM - Jul 9, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
25.3K people are talking about this
✔@realDonaldTrump
· 4h
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
...handled. I told @theresa_may how to do that deal, but she went her own foolish way-was unable to get it done. A disaster! I don’t know the Ambassador but have been told he is a pompous fool. Tell him the USA now has the best Economy & Military anywhere in the World, by far...
✔@realDonaldTrump
....and they are both only getting bigger, better and stronger.....Thank you, Mr. President!
43.8K
4:48 AM - Jul 9, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
15.9K people are talking about this
It’s worth noting that Darroch has served as ambassador to the US for more than three years, first starting almost exactly a year before Trump’s inauguration. Given the close nature of the relationship between the UK and the US, it seems rather remarkable that Trump has yet to even meet with Darroch. It’s just as remarkable to call someone “a very stupid guy” and a “pompous fool” in the same paragraph as an admission like “I don’t know the Ambassador.” Wouldn’t it be a good idea to meet the British ambassador first before coming to those conclusions?
Trump made sure that one recent opportunity to do so went nowhere. Darroch got “uninvited” from a dinner Trump attended last night, CBS News reports, and the US is increasing pressure on May’s government to make a change:
... (video)
Even this is pointless, or perhaps even worse. May is only a caretaker PM now, waiting for Tories to pick a new PM before leaving the office. She doesn’t have enough political juice to make any significant changes. Furthermore, Trump’s public tantrum may make it even more difficult for May’s replacement to act. British career diplomats won’t take kindly to the personal attacks Darroch is enduring and will put plenty of pressure on the next PM not to incentivize such attacks in the future, even if some of them agree with Trump’s assessment of May’s performance on Brexit. This is just making it tougher on either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt to replace Darroch when the time comes, and it will certainly mean that the next envoy won’t be Nigel Farage or anyone of his temperament.
It’s tough to see the upside for Trump, too. Right now he needs the UK to help rally the rest of our European allies to keep Iran isolated, which matters a lot more than Darroch’s privately expressed opinions about Trump. The Brits have been somewhat more sympathetic to our arguments on Iran than some other European leaders angry over Trump’s reversal on the JCPOA. This only erodes the diplomatic cohesion necessary to generate a reluctant unity against Tehran.
The only possible point there might be to this nasty feud with a diplomat of our closest ally is as a distraction from something else. Even that possibility sounds ominous, as it’s tough to envision any positive development worth distracting from to achieve as to justify this diplomatic rift.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Thatcherite Minion
I've done a small bit of research on Ed Morrissey. From what I've seen, he's broadly pro-Conservative (.. all to the good ... I suspected that he might not be ...).
However, and as you hint, Morrissey reserves for himself some critical judgmentality against Trump. But, has he only just started along that road ?
See this .... including comments made in an interview, from Morrissey, about Trump, from years ago ...
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/24/50681...=1562692111137
Republican radio host Ed Morrisey was not enthusiastic about Donald Trump during the campaign. But he voted for him and is now heartened by most of Trump's cabinet picks.... I mean, I think I still have some skepticism about Donald Trump.So I question your claim that Morrissey is 'pro-Trump on most things'. My research seems to tell me that Morrissey is a Conservative, but with deep reservations about Trump personally.I think one thing that we can probably look forward to is the fact that because Donald Trump is coming in as a less popular president-elect than probably we've seen in quite a long period of time - maybe Nixon would be the closest analog to this - there's going to be a lot more incentives for Congress and for the states to assert more of their own jurisdiction. And I think that that would be a positive outcome.
Maybe he's thought again, afterwards ? I don't know. But his comments on the current US-UK diplomatic issue over the UK's ambassador (and more) suggests to me that his reservations persist .. and take the form of wanting to see Trump and his actions 'reined in'.
This is not an 'enthusiastic' Trump supporter !!
Super Minion
If you mean is he like Sean Hannity, meaning Trump really could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and the writer find a ready excuse? No. If you mean he finds every opportunity to bash Trump? No.
As you say, he is most definitely conservative. He is 'for' the President succeeding, but is not without criticism. I do believe he voted for Trump and thus far, intends to repeat that.
In any case, you are focused on the messenger, rather than the message. I really expect more from you.
"The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
