Hard or Soft Brexit?

[Tangled up in Blue]

Like the study says, you need to accept that you are racist and sexist.

Or you could become an Imam and teach Islam...No complaints about sexism in those classes.

:hijacked:You might be interested in French writer Michel Houellebecq's wonderful novel Submission.

It's a fictional account of how a French academic's life is turned upside down by a (democratic) Muslim takeover in France.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

How about considering this? The choice of hard Brexit is more to do with the Conservative's maintenence of power than the country's wellbeing. By choosing any other option May would face a future with a divided party, continually being sniped upon from the right for any concession to the EU, even if our links were far lighter. The additional benefit would be that it would render UKIP obsolete, removing an election threat from the right and many UKIP members would drift back into the Conservative party (probably from whence they came). This would more than compensate for the risk of one or two losses from the remain side of the party, the large majority of disgruntled Tory remain MP's would buckle under .........they know which side their political toast is buttered on. Few would be prepared to throw away the prospect of a Tory majority that, with boundary changes and weak opposition, could last throughout the twenties, for something so vain as principles.
In that way, May is no different from Cameron in calculating her and her party's interests first. From a Tory party political point of view, Cameron made the right choice in calling a referendum...........his only error was to put his support behind the losing side.:smile:

 

[callan]

How about considering this? The choice of hard Brexit is more to do with the Conservative's maintenence of power than the country's wellbeing. By choosing any other option May would face a future with a divided party, continually being sniped upon from the right for any concession to the EU, even if our links were far lighter. The additional benefit would be that it would render UKIP obsolete, removing an election threat from the right and many UKIP members would drift back into the Conservative party (probably from whence they came). This would more than compensate for the risk of one or two losses from the remain side of the party, the large majority of disgruntled Tory remain MP's would buckle under .........they know which side their political toast is buttered on. Few would be prepared to throw away the prospect of a Tory majority that, with boundary changes and weak opposition, could last throughout the twenties, for something so vain as principles.
In that way, May is no different from Cameron in calculating her and her party's interests first. From a Tory party political point of view, Cameron made the right choice in calling a referendum...........his only error was to put his support behind the losing side.:smile:

Whilst all of the above may be correct, Camerons government were the first to make good a promise to give the UK a choice on membership of the EU....whatever his motives were, under our present system he had a mandate to do so.

I do wonder if Milliband had decided to offer a referendum if we would be where we are now.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38641208

Mrs May will reveal all later.Or will she? :winking:

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Whilst all of the above may be correct, Camerons government were the first to make good a promise to give the UK a choice on membership of the EU....whatever his motives were, under our present system he had a mandate to do so.

I do wonder if Milliband had decided to offer a referendum if we would be where we are now.

.........and of course, if the Labour Party, in its wisdom, had opted for David rather than Ed, he may just well have done.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Whilst all of the above may be correct, Camerons government were the first to make good a promise to give the UK a choice on membership of the EU....whatever his motives were, under our present system he had a mandate to do so.

I do wonder if Milliband had decided to offer a referendum if we would be where we are now.

Why offer a choice of fundamental change that will effect generations to come on something that had never seen a majority of people in favour of change for any notable amount of time? To appease the Tory right was the only reason and that was not an issue Milliband had to contend with.

 

[callan]

Why offer a choice of fundamental change that will effect generations to come on something that had never seen a majority of people in favour of change for any notable amount of time? To appease the Tory right was the only reason and that was not an issue Milliband had to contend with.

As you are well aware previously Referendums had been offered to the electorate but not delivered, I'm not trying to claim that the Conservatives were not at 6's and 7's over the EU, but there certainly was an appetite among the electorate for a say in membership....a cursory appreciation of the result tells us that.

As far as change is concerned the EU has changed as indeed has the UK from how we were on original membership, and yet these changes which are/were significant had not been put to the electorate...despite promises by both Labour and Tory governments that they would do so.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

As you are well aware previously Referendums had been offered to the electorate but not delivered, I'm not trying to claim that the Conservatives were at 6's and 7's over the EU, but there certainly was an appetite among the electorate for a say in membership....a cursory appreciation of the result tells us that.

As far as change is concerned the EU has changed as indeed has the UK from how we were on original membership, and yet these changes which are/were significant had not been put to the electorate...despite promises by both Labour and Tory governments that they would do so.

I think the result was a 'moment in time' thing. And that Labour would never have delivered a referendum as they did not have the impetus of internal splits like the Tories did (and do).

 

[callan]

I think the result was a 'moment in time' thing. And that Labour would never have delivered a referendum as they did not have the impetus of internal splits like the Tories did (and do).

Perhaps then previous Labour governments should have been more honest when offering Referendums in the past.

 

[EastStandBlue]

May arguing that no deal would be better than a bad deal is just laughably incoherent.

 

[callan]

May arguing that no deal would be better than a bad deal is just laughably incoherent.

I think her argument is that No deal affects them as much as us....in other words we won't accept a punitive deal as some on the continent seem to want.

 

[mrsblue]

I think her argument is that No deal affects them as much as us....in other words we won't accept a punitive deal as some on the continent seem to want.

Exactly this !

The EU are trying the tough line approach as they know if other nations see the UK prosper outside the zone,then the union will collapse like a deck of cards.

Germany will be sweating...how many German cars are purchased here.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

As you are well aware previously Referendums had been offered to the electorate but not delivered, I'm not trying to claim that the Conservatives were not at 6's and 7's over the EU, but there certainly was an appetite among the electorate for a say in membership....a cursory appreciation of the result tells us that.

As far as change is concerned the EU has changed as indeed has the UK from how we were on original membership, and yet these changes which are/were significant had not been put to the electorate...despite promises by both Labour and Tory governments that they would do so.

If you're talking about Maastricht,Ken Clarke (and others),would certainly dispute that claim.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Perhaps then previous Labour governments should have been more honest when offering Referendums in the past.

It seems to me you either believe in Parliamentary democracy or you don't.

Thought that one of the more interesting things to emerge from TM's speech was that (inevitably) both Houses of Parliament will be offered the chance to debate and vote on the eventual deal.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter what TM says.What matters is what the EU decides.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

.........and of course, if the Labour Party, in its wisdom, had opted for David rather than Ed, he may just well have done.

Nobody tainted with Iraq (like DM) will ever be leader of the Labour party.

 

[callan]

If you're talking about Maastricht,Ken Clarke (and others),would certainly dispute that claim.

I was talking about Referendums that have been offered by previous governments but not delivered.

It seems to me you either belive in Parliamentary democracy or you don't.

Thought that one of the more interesting things to emerge from TM's specch was that (inevitably) both Houses of Parliament will be offered the chance to debate and vote on the eventual deal.

You will take my advice of course and further research what she is offering Parliament and the Lords.
For me this needs further clarification.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I was talking about Referendums that have been offered by previous governments but not delivered

.

Presumably you, (and the Tory party rebels), would argue that a referendum over Maastricht was promised, if not "offered" nor "delivered?"

 

[callan]

.

Presumably you, (and the Tory party rebels), would argue that a referendum over Maastricht was promised, if not "offered" nor "delivered?"

I am arguing that referendums have been offered by governments, but not delivered....presumably you would agree that this has happened?

"We will put it — the EU Constitution — to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote." — Labour Party manifesto, May 2005

"We will have a referendum on the constitution in any event — and that is a Government promise." — Tony Blair, The Sun, May 13, 2005

"Well, if it were necessary to hold a referendum, of course [we wouldn't hesitate]. I suspect that the best deal for Britain will be won, where we will get what we want, at this summit." — Gordon Brown, GMTV, June 19, 2007

"We would not agree to a deal that crossed the red lines, therefore, we did not believe a referendum would be necessary." — Later that day, Downing Street website

"The manifesto is what we put to the public. We've got to honour that manifesto." — Gordon Brown, BBC 1 Politics Show, June 24, 2007

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

peu importe ‏@MateuilB 5 hil y a 5 heures "Je te quitte, par contre on continue de coucher ensemble quand j'ai envie." La sortie de l'UE des anglais.

 

[Benfleet A1]

peu importe ‏@MateuilB 5 hil y a 5 heures "Je te quitte, par contre on continue de coucher ensemble quand j'ai envie." La sortie de l'UE des anglais.

And for those of us on this side of the channel?