Brexit has been cancelled
- Thread starter Fragonard
- Start date
yep once that happens we can get on with leaving the EU
Been kinda hoping to read the headline " We've left " for the last 12 months.....
Ho hum.
How many more trivial obstacles will be put in our path?
First it was migration.
Now it's a piddling little border in Ireland.
Ho hum.
How many more trivial obstacles will be put in our path?
First it was migration.
Now it's a piddling little border in Ireland.
Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
At the outset, wiser heads quoted 'Hotel California'.
You all know the words, now sing along....
You all know the words, now sing along....
Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
This question comes up again and again.
Here's the answer: the UK sends 45% of its exports into the Internal Market, so that the loss of that market would cause an instant economic shock, which would then be exacerbated by loss of the inward investment that facilitates it.
It's no one's fault - in fact it's an impressive achievement (largely by Margaret Thatcher, who largely developed the Single Market in its present form) - but it's an inescapable fact of our economic life.
But ideologues still keep trying to escape it.
caveman
Member
- Location
- East Sussex.
You best learn to swim and head west Walt
Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
No need - it's coming towards us, tonight, with the report that Theresa May and Philip Hammond agree that the UK needs to be regulatorily aligned with the EU in the interests of access into the Internal Market.
You'd think this would've been looked into before serving art 50?
- Location
- Hertfordshire
The meaning of “Brexit” was never defined before the referendum. Each voter took it to mean something slightly different. Consequently, if you ask 50 Brexit voters in detail exactly what they want from Brexit you will get 50 different answers.
It’s no wonder politicians - on both sides of the house - cannot agree on the shape of the deal or even what they are negotiating towards. They truly don’t know what the 37% of the people who voted in favour of Brexit actually want, other than “Brexit”
It’s like saying to people “do you vote for weather, yes or no?”
It’s no wonder politicians - on both sides of the house - cannot agree on the shape of the deal or even what they are negotiating towards. They truly don’t know what the 37% of the people who voted in favour of Brexit actually want, other than “Brexit”
It’s like saying to people “do you vote for weather, yes or no?”
in the same way was the meaning of the EU defined when we went in to it or were some parts hidden
would the remain voters of the first ref been able to say what it was all about and what the ultimate intentions were/are
- Location
- Hertfordshire
I was too young at the time of the vote to join the common market to comment on whether it was explained in enough detail or not, so “no comment”.
I would also broadly agree that no-one knows the “ultimate intentions” of the EU as it’s a group of nations, each with their own agenda. This means that, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, no one person or one country dictates the “ultimate intentions”. The truth is that the UK had as much influence at the top table as any country.
For my part, I wrestled with the decision about how to vote virtually up to polling day. In the end, it was the fact that I didn’t know what “Brexit” meant that swayed me. Better the devil you know, and all that.
I said at the time that what should have been done is that all parties should have published two manifestos - a ‘remain’ one and a ‘leave’ one. They should then call a General Election. Once elected, we could then have an EU referendum on the relative strengths and merits of the winning party’s two manifestos. At least this would have meant we knew what we were voting for.
There is no easy solution to Brexit. The Irish border conundrum is just one example. The imbalance in trade is another: Yes we export £236bn to the rest of the EU whilst they export £318bn to us so on paper they are the losers. But that £318bn is spread across a combined population of nearly half a billion people and across a combined economy many times larger than ours, so the impact each person in the EU will feel is minor.
There is no easy solution.
caveman
Member
- Location
- East Sussex.
Agreed.
Settle in now for two cycles of Corbynista governments.
Tories are burnt toast.
To hopes of that and one of them is bob
If you export stuff to any country in the world it has to meet their rules and regs,always has always will,unless of course you sell it under the table or pretend its meets their rules (VW) and then get fined billions when caught.
Even in the eu we have the CE mark to show that it meets the internal standard
All this bull is another red herring
Even in the eu we have the CE mark to show that it meets the internal standard
All this bull is another red herring
Last edited:
- Location
- Lincolnshire.
What about the muppets in Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Difficult not to agree with Corbyn, the whole thing is a complete shambles. In other words the current government cannot deliver Brexit, a clear manifesto fail.
Since the referendum, there has been a general election called by Mrs May with the express intention of delivering brexit. The Tory manifesto carried no detailed proposals on how to do this. This week we learn from Mr Davis that government hasn’t carried out a detailed assessment of the impact of brexit. Likewise from Mr Hammond we learn that the cabinet have not discussed the desired end point of the brexit process. From Mr Johnson we here the view that the current sticking points can be ignored and the process move on to trade talks.
Difficult not to agree with Corbyn, the whole thing is a complete shambles. In other words the current government cannot deliver Brexit, a clear manifesto fail.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
I don't think there is as much divergence of opinion as you suggest, but the point is a fair one. However, I know some Remain voters who wanted the status quo to continue, some who wanted a radical decentralising overhaul of the EU and others - though fewer in number - who wanted 'ever closer union'.
Point is, if you want absolute agreement on anything, you have to be specific to the point of exclusion of everything else, which would be impracticable.
Walterp
Member
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
This, too, keeps on coming up.
The aims of the EEC were plainly set out in the Treaty of Rome and in the gradual amalgamation of the various European co-operative bodies prior to the UK's accession.
The implications were debated at length in this country. Labour was dreadfully divided over it, Enoch Powell famously resigned the Tory whip over it, everyone argued about what 'sovereignty' actually implied.
It was clear then, it's clear now: peace and prosperity can be furthered by co-operation, either thru' unionism or federalism.
Suggesting that our accession occurred otherwise is trying to create a Dolchstosslegende myth.
- Location
- Lincolnshire.
There is no fudging hard brexit. It is in effect a clear set of ideas. Johnson and Gove played down hard brexit in the referendum campaign. In other words they fudged it. The current situation calls for more instruction from the electorate IMO.