European Elections 23rd May

[chalkies_shorts]

I seriously have questions over the professionalism of those who have tried so far. First of all separating the withdrawal agreement from the trade deal and then the withdrawal agreement itself. I think a lot of leavers see it as an agreement dictated by Brussels. A lot of leavers also can't believe we never seriously played the no deal card or had businessmen involved. So many fuck ups.
I think this has hardened leavers towards no deal.
It will be interesting to see if the allegations are eventually proven. I don't doubt farage sails close to the wind but I'd argue it's not a level playing field to start with.

[Sir red ken]

How is it that you fuckwits determine that anyone against a no deal (or, simply) Brexit (following a non-legally binding, advisory referendum), is a traitor?

Anyone who's for controlled immegration is a racist. Ergo, anyone who wants to stay in the eussr is a traitor. Simples

[Abrahammer]

Anyone who's for controlled immegration is a racist. Ergo, anyone who wants to stay in the eussr is a traitor. Simples

 

I feel sorry for CS, a sensible reasoned approach when backing up his beliefs in wanting Brexit.  Then you have the others who make it up as they go along

[StfcRusty]

Anyone who's for controlled immegration is a racist. Ergo, anyone who wants to stay in the eussr is a traitor. Simples

Are you a Barry Stanton tribute act?  You’re like some sixth form performance art project. At least, I hope you are...

[Oldwembley69]

Whilst it would prolong matters maybe revoking article 50 would be a sensible option.  Gives time to start agian with proper negotiations and an agreed stance all parties having had their input. The 2016 result is still the goal but hopefully any agreement will be a better one and not in the EU's favour. May should not have negotiated alone and have taken a wider consultation before she started.

[chalkies_shorts]

Two problems revoking article 50.
1. Apparently it can't be used just to buy time. There must be good reason to do it.
2. Would parliament enact it again.
MPs enacted it knowing they would have to agree a deal or we would leave without a deal. It's up to them to live up to what they overwhelmingly agreed.

[Oldwembley69]

Surely good reason is we can't get a consensus. EU don't want a no deal brexit and about time we started to push them on this matter. Seems we have just laid back and taken it. We need to start making it uncomfortable for them. Yes a pain to keep this going but does take away the 'cliff edge'

[Sir red ken]

Are you a Barry Stanton tribute act?  You’re like some sixth form performance art project. At least, I hope you are...

"Six form performance art project" I'd take that any day, nicest thing anyones ever said about me on this site!

[Reg Smeeton]

Surely good reason is we can't get a consensus. EU don't want a no deal brexit and about time we started to push them on this matter. Seems we have just laid back and taken it. We need to start making it uncomfortable for them. Yes a pain to keep this going but does take away the 'cliff edge'

Although the EU don't want no deal, it is us seeking to leave and untie 40 years+ of generally benficial areas of shared sovereignty.  To give a small example of the sort of idiocy our resident no deal chums want to land us with, is energy.

As part of the EU we're in something called the Internal Energy Market.  This enables such things as surplus electrictity generated say in France, which has a lot of nuclear and spare capacity, which it sells to us via under channel cables.... spare capacity can flow the other way if necessary, but UK doesn't generate suffoicient energy to meet its needs especially if you get harsh climate change events like last years Beast from the East. 

Further gas can be traded within the EU free of tariff, increasingly important as North Sea supplies dwindle.  Leave without a deal and become a 3rd country and straight away you lose those benefits... of course you can still buy the products , but they cease to be tariff free.  It's estimated that no deal would put an extra £500 mill, onto electricty costs which will be passed onto consumers.... further gas costs would be raised by £6 bn...  to be passed to industry and domestic users.

[Oldwembley69]

Yes but if they have excess energy and need to sell it it's a buyers market. Can't see them saying no if you make an offer. In fact could well get a better deal. If we had not sold out our energy utilities and water we would be in a better place and not held to ransom. Remember we only voted for a common marker. Everything else has been agreed by governments of all colours without consultation. That's why the 2016 result happened. France gets over 60% of the agricultural budget so their farmers can do nothing then holds us to ransom on energy!! Very equal!!

[Batch]

Two problems revoking article 50.
1. Apparently it can't be used just to buy time. There must be good reason to do it.
2. Would parliament enact it again.
MPs enacted it knowing they would have to agree a deal or we would leave without a deal. It's up to them to live up to what they overwhelmingly agreed.

absolutely no chance parliament would unilaterally revoke A50, and rightly so.

In the unlikely event it does get revoked, it has to be because the people changed their mind (i.e. ref #2).

I don't think ref #2 is likely either.

[Reg Smeeton]

Yes but if they have excess energy and need to sell it it's a buyers market. Can't see them saying no if you make an offer. In fact could well get a better deal. If we had not sold out our energy utilities and water we would be in a better place and not held to ransom. Remember we only voted for a common marker. Everything else has been agreed by governments of all colours without consultation. That's why the 2016 result happened. France gets over 60% of the agricultural budget so their farmers can do nothing then holds us to ransom on energy!! Very equal!!

I've some bad news for you.... you vote in government, it does stuff, it doesn't consult you along the way.  Should you not like what it does you can vote it out every 4 or 5 years.

The only time I can recall being held to ransom on fuel, was the OPEC oil crisis of the 70's. Proper fucked the economy, and made joining the nascent EU even more necessary.  We then had the sight of Sheikh Yemani appearing on the Beeb to address the British people and explain, although the country was going down the pan, this wasn't OPEC's aim, and all would be good as long as we paid triple for the price of petrol and oil overnight. Yet to see Macron pitch up on the box.

The process of adjustment ripped inflation through the economy, savings became worthless overnight, and wages bought you fuck all. I remember getting a 25% pay rise, in order to bring it back up to basic living standard.

CAP isn't great and needs further reform, but governments will subsidise farmers, as feeding your populus is a basic requirement in a civilsed country... which is why there's increasing concern about the growth of food banks.

[ReadingRed]

Basically it’s been 40% Remain and 35% no deal.  Taking UKIP as Brexit Party, the most improved parties as against 2014 have been LDs and Greens.

Alternatively
6,085,140: number of people who signed Revoke Article 50 petition, which was dismissed by Brexiters as ‘not 17.4m people’.
5,244,893: number of people who voted for Brexit Party, which Brexiters now believe gives them a mandate for ‘no-deal’.

[Sir red ken]

Just a hypothetical question regarding a 3rd referendum the first one in the 70's was for remain even though the public were mislead with a promise of a new deal which wasn't forth coming. The 2nd ref. 2016 was dave's deal or leave which even with the government spunking 9 million pounds of tax payers and nearly all media outlets supporting remain, remain lost. Now the fist ref. was immediate remain. The second ref hasn't been honoured, as we know a remain vote would have been in the blink of an eye. So why should the 3rd vote be binding? Its just keep voting untill you get the right result. What's more if I and many others don't like the result can we have another ref, or is only remain binding?

[Arriba]

What was Dave's deal?