'Trust me', Britain's May tells EU leaders she can get Brexit deal passed

[evadgib]

 

[malagateddy]

This one of the reasons that referendums are not used; if you have a close result, civil war may result.
 
Also for major constitutional issues you really need a significant majority of the electorate
 
Cameron committed his CON government and CON party to implement the result of the referendum without specifying any kind of super majority. Foolish and irresponsible.
 
Parliament was not bound in any way and parliament is sovereign
 
That might have worked save for the fact that May threw away the CON majority
 
It may now be the case that the DUP gets to decide if we remain or not!
 
It is a great pity that we don't have great statesmen on the front benches of either party!
 
I would favor a national unity government to lead the way forward. Any decision to be followed with ratification by the electorate with a super majority of some type to change the constitution from the status quo ante. 

Civil unrest will result if there is a 2nd referendum imo.
If " remain " had to win it..will it be best of 3.or 5. or 7.etc etc

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[evadgib]

10 minutes ago, malagateddy said:

Civil unrest will result if there is a 2nd referendum imo.
If " remain " had to win it..will it be best of 3.or 5. or 7.etc etc

 

[Nigel Garvie]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

My fault I'm afraid

 

I would not have expected our retired military posters to be uniformly pro Brexit.

 

There was a retired officers' lunch at the British Club yesterday and they  seemed to have mixed views like most of us.

 

What should one infer?

No problem of course, though I am puzzled for different reasons. When I said that their was a civil war in former Yugoslavia, it was taken that I did not recognize that it was a war, despite my use of the word "War", bit of a giveaway I would have thought! I was also, although I never said it, thought to believe that we should not have an army to defend us.............weird. 

 

A school colleague of mine, finished Sandhurst with the top marks academically. We attempted to congratulate, him but he insisted that the quality of the competition was such that he could take no credit. The oxymoron "Military intelligence" springs to mind. 

[janclaes47]

23 minutes ago, evadgib said:

 

First of all, how do they figure in an anonymous vote whgo voted for what?

 

Secondly, if 70 and 60% of those major parties voted for leave, why was the end result not something in the range of 65% ?

[evadgib]

15 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

A school colleague of mine, finished Sandhurst with the top marks academically. We attempted to congratulate, him but he insisted that the quality of the competition was such that he could take no credit. The oxymoron "Military intelligence" springs to mind. 

.....& what were you doing while your mate was swanning off? 

 

[My Thai Life]

3 hours ago, tebee said:

So wrong in so many ways I don't know where to start.

 

Wto deals with tariffs - tariffs are at an all time low now, most of the barriers to trade are non-tariff barriers.

 

No other country in the world relies on WTO rules for the entirety of it's trade 

 

You can eliminate tariffs on imports, but you can't make them frictionless - how are you going to collect the VAT on them if there is no paperwork? What is to stop people importing sub-standard goods?

 

You can eliminate your import tariffs, but that does not stop other people slamming taxes  and tariffs on your exports. 

 

You're not going to get the 39 billion. 

 

There is more bit I can't be bothered...

Tariffs are at an all time low? The average EU import tariff on food is 20%, this is what the EU forces member states to pay for 3rd country food imports at present. And 80% of that tariff has to be sent to the EU. The highest tariff is obviously significantly more than the average. With WTO we can set our own import tariffs, and keep 100% of the tariff.

 

In addition to which we have effectively been paying a tariff for EU food imports for decades - via the CAP subsidies. A subsidy may be thought of as a tariff at source. This of course disappears with WTO.

 

By recognising EU standards the UK precludes related non tariff barriers on EU imports. And the UK's standards will be identical for a good while after 29 March 2019. Obviously UK exporters to the EU will maintain conformance to EU standards, so non tariff barriers will be precluded in that direction too.

 

I never suggested that WTO will be the be-all-and-end-all. I said it's a starting point.

 

Of course it's not possible to control tariffs applied by other countries. And I never suggested it was.

 

VAT is already collected, so there will be no new process change there.

 

The House of Lords has already ruled that the 39b doesn't need to be paid in the event of no deal.

 

The great thing about WTO is that it actually delivers on the people's vote, unlike anything Teresa May has dreamt up since the Lancaster House speech.

 

As a non-aligned observer in this debate it seems to me that the WTO is the cleanest exit, and the most consistent with the democratic process. The alternative is many years of expensive purgatory without self-determination, but with significant damage to democracy within the UK.

 

Of course some people are scared of change, they always are.

[Grouse]

52 minutes ago, malagateddy said:

Civil unrest will result if there is a 2nd referendum imo.
If " remain " had to win it..will it be best of 3.or 5. or 7.etc etc

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Please have the common decency to read AND comprehend posts before replying. I addressed the points you raise in my original post.

[malagateddy]

Please have the common decency to read AND comprehend posts before replying. I addressed the points you raise in my original post.

Okdokay..but only if you promise to be on your best behaviour and be oh so mannerly and massively respectful to all the Wonderful Brexiteers who make the Forum what it is.[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Grouse]

9 minutes ago, malagateddy said:

Okdokay..but only if you promise to be on your best behaviour and be oh so mannerly and massively respectful to all the Wonderful Brexiteers who make the Forum what it is.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

OK I hereby agree to give all Brexiters the full respect to which they are entitled.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

OK I hereby agree to give all Brexiters the full respect to which they are entitled.

And we will treat remainers with the full respect they deserve x2

[Nigel Garvie]

3 hours ago, tebee said:

It's not decisive - if it were decisive would we have been having 2 and a half years of arguments about how decisive it was ? 

 

For referenda that do constitutional changes that can affect a generation or more you need a supermajority - a straight majority just leads to the sort of divisive  argument we've had since the referendum. 

 

Such a narrow margin can mean that by the time you come to implement a policy it is no longer the will of the people.

 

Given the respective ages of the two sides  this is almost certainly already the case with brexit due to natural attrition of the older leave voters.

 

Look at the age divide in this recent poll 

 

 

 

tebee is correct, clearly we are not in a decisive situation.

I am not anti-EU, however, if following the referendum, no illegalities were discovered, and a Brexit deal had been negotiated that resulted in even a fraction of the things that we were promised, being achieved, I would have reluctantly accepted it. Nothing has been achieved.

 

The reason we have a parliament is because it is able to react to changing circumstances promptly, referendums can't do that, which is one of the main reasons why we rarely have them. 

 

Whatever their views, I imagine that there are hardly any posters on this forum who cannot see, that after 2 awful years of piss poor negotiation, that circumstances have actually changed. Parliament is sovereign, and should come up with a solution. If they can't do that, then returning the question to the people, who have had a chance to see what Brexit ACTUALLY means seems like the only possible option.

 

There are those, on this forum and off it, who believe that we should leave on whatever terms they personally voted on, with very limited understanding of the implications, in 2016. If they are hard Brexiteers then they - for some unimaginable reason - believe that the vote gives them the right to demand a Brexit on their own personal terms - it doesn't, and no doubt expect that Boris, Gove, J R-M etc should have the right to take over control of parliament - they don't - to deliver their own personal style Brexit.

 

The problem is that quite apart from Remainers, there appear to be millions of "Soft Brexiteers", who don't want us to leave on terms that they - rightly or wrongly - believe would be damaging to the economy, or some other interest of theirs.

 

Can the Hard Brexiteers or the "Just leave" brigade recognize that these "Soft Brexiteers" have rights as well. 

 

Hard Brexit, was not one of the options on the ballot paper, and it is clear that there is nothing remotely near a  majority in Westminster or the country for this option. 

 

Now that's democracy  - live with it. 

 

 

[Nigel Garvie]

45 minutes ago, evadgib said:

.....& what were you doing while your mate was swanning off? 

 

Colleague, I believe I wrote, either way your picture is amusing, but my attempts to enlist in both WW1 and WW11, were refused on the basis that I hadn't yet been born, not fair really. You appear to be talking from a position of experience, so you will no doubt wish to enlighten me as to your own glorious military career. If it involved WW11 you'll be looking forward to that letter from the Queen.

[Grouse]

21 minutes ago, vogie said:

And we will treat remainers with the full respect they deserve x2

Thank you. That's very kind.

[flossie35]

12 hours ago, terryw said:

She is a national embarrasment and the Tories will reap the whirlwind at the next Election if they do not get us out of the EU on March 29th.

When her deal is the only one possible, and when it makes us worse off than staying in, why should people be annoyed if we don't leave? Latest polls suggest that most people would be very pleased to stay.

[dunroaming]

I can't see how this can get resolved without it going back to the people.  I know all the arguments for and against so we don't need to go over them again.  But if the options are no deal or no Brexit then I cannot see how either would be acceptable for the government to sign off on, let alone getting it through parliament.

 

I am not looking for further debate on the rights or wrongs, we are never going to agree on those and nobody is going to change their views on it.  It is just tedious and profoundly boring now.  It is just an observation

[evadgib]

5 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Colleague, I believe I wrote, either way your picture is amusing, but my attempts to enlist in both WW1 and WW11, were refused on the basis that I hadn't yet been born, not fair really. You appear to be talking from a position of experience, so you will no doubt wish to enlighten me as to your own glorious military career. If it involved WW11 you'll be looking forward to that letter from the Queen.

'School colleague' suggests you could easily have been a 'trinity tiddlywinker' too; albeit in the modern era. 

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 hours ago, malagateddy said:

Civil unrest will result if there is a 2nd referendum imo.
If " remain " had to win it..will it be best of 3.or 5. or 7.etc etc

Civil unrest is not a result of a referendum. It’s a result of criminals. 

[brewsterbudgen]

Civil unrest is not a result of a referendum. It’s a result of criminals. 

I doubt the extreme right/UKIP/Tommy Robinson supporters need a referendum to set them off.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[My Thai Life]

19 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Civil unrest is not a result of a referendum. It’s a result of criminals. 

If people vote in a due legal democratic process and the result is subverted by powerful interest groups, then what recourse to the people have other than civil unrest?

 

The price of diesel is sufficient cause for civil unrest in France. How much more so would be the subversion of democracy in the UK?

 

I would have been happy to accept either result, but the attempt to subvert the legitimate result is completely unacceptable to me.

[My Thai Life]

The ageist arguments put forward by many on the remain side just don't work for me. Someone who has substantial experience of life, work, politics etc is likely to be far more informed about the issues than a teenager with close to zero adult life experience.

[roo860]

The ageist arguments put forward by many on the remain side just don't work for me. Someone who has substantial experience of life, work, politics etc is likely to be far more informed about the issues than a teenager with close to zero adult life experience.

More likely to get off his arse and go and vote as well.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[welovesundaysatspace]

30 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

If people vote in a due legal democratic process and the result is subverted by powerful interest groups, then what recourse to the people have other than civil unrest?

If people vote in a due legal democratic process and those who didn’t get it their way try to subvert the result through civil unrest, then that’s criminal and has nothing to do with democracy. 

 

 

 

[janclaes47]

555555555555

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/video-may-confronts-juncker-thatcher-style-handbag-moment-brexit-103419217.html

[mommysboy]

6 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

In the short term of course it is, any major disruption to business is. When will you understand some basic points, particularly that Brexit is not a short term project.

 

There's a lot of misunderstanding about the WTO option, so I'll try to clarify some points:

 

- WTO is just the starting point, not the end-point

- WTO is just free trade, actually the free-est of free tade

- most of the world operates on WTO rules

- WTO rules would allow us to operate with frictionless zero tariff imports from the EU in key sectors if we chose to

- WTO rules would allow us to reduce costs of imports in key sectors, notably food

- following on from the previous point: we currently pay a huge amount to import food from the EU - in the form of CAP subsidies, these disappear with WTO (tariffs always need to be considered together with subsidies, quotas and non-tariff barriers)

- WTO does not require a hard border in Ireland, and renders the backstop discussion irrelevant

- WTO allows the 39 billion to be used at home

- WTO is available now - this is an important point - one thing we can all agree on is that much of the last 2 years has been wasted - WTO would bring that to an immediate end

- WTO would put the UK in a much stronger negotiating position for future EU talks

- currently the UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. 

- currently the UK sends to the EU 80% of the tariffs it collects on imports from 3rd countries, with WTO the UK keeps 100% of the tariffs collected.

I would prefer a Brexit exit- for the time being- as most people know.  This is because the Government is in such a mess; evidently.  But the vote does need to be acted upon at some point.

 

But I agree with MTL's summary of our WTO option.  There could be a shock initially.  Crucially, it is the only option that can deliver on the vote regarding those deep issues of control that the winners voted for.

 

Really though, this is about management and co-operation.  The so called 'No deal' need not lead to disaster. When people want to sell and others want to buy, ways can usually be found!  Remember, also, the EU enjoys a very big trade surplus with the UK.  Yes, I do believe French farmers would get a touch miffed within a very short period of time if they experienced undue difficulties exporting to the UK.

[beautifulthailand99]

We are going to remain and 

3 hours ago, tebee said:

 

nebulous bint !

[rixalex]

Now, why would anyone ever want to trust May?

This from the man who is keen for the politicians who promised to abide by the referendum to now treat it purely as an "opinion poll".

You want trustworthy politicians but only when it suits you. When it doesn't, duplicitous is just fine.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tomacht8]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

The ageist arguments put forward by many on the remain side just don't work for me. Someone who has substantial experience of life, work, politics etc is likely to be far more informed about the issues than a teenager with close to zero adult life experience.

Life experience is the strength of the elderly. On the other hand, learning abilities decrease with increasing age.

[beautifulthailand99]

12 minutes ago, rixalex said:

This from the man who is keen for the politicians who promised to abide by the referendum to now treat it purely as an "opinion poll".

You want trustworthy politicians but only when it suits you. When it doesn't, duplicitous is just fine.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. Groucho Marx
 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

If people vote in a due legal democratic process and the result is subverted by powerful interest groups, then what recourse to the people have other than civil unrest?

 

The price of diesel is sufficient cause for civil unrest in France. How much more so would be the subversion of democracy in the UK?

 

I would have been happy to accept either result, but the attempt to subvert the legitimate result is completely unacceptable to me.

You are entirely incorrect. I have explained all the points to you but you plough on regardless. Do you have trouble comprehending cogent arguement? The referendum was advisory. Parliament did not agree to be bound by the advice. The CONs called it burning longer have majority to deliver it. Two years later, most of us have learnt more. I suspect that Brexit no longer has any form of majority.

 

Frankly, the French could teach us some lessons on how to get a reasonable life with good schools, hospitals, pensions, short working weeks and many other aspects of life. Pass the Beaujolais Toto!