Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Brexiteers meet realty...l
(12-07-2017, 10:11 AM)Beano16 Wrote: The UK team are trying to square a circle that can't be squared, negotiation is about exchange not donation
which is all we have seen to date.

It's also the differences between how the British legal system works and the continental system of law.
(12-06-2017, 05:32 PM)Protheroe Wrote: Arf

Excellent. The first step of acceptance is always the most important. Now, can we start working on an end to all this madness by reaching a sensible solution that is deliverable and should be acceptable to a significant majority in the circumstances. Something Norwayish. The only downside will be seeing Farage and MDP in khaki.

Your suggestion on assuming to leave on WTO terms and working back from there is eminently sensible and should have been a cornerstone of the leave campaign.
It would have been beneficial in two ways.

  1. It would have provided a plan, with a mandate, on how we leave 
  2. You wouldn't have won
It was the cornerstone of my Leave campaign. People in Bromsgrove District knew exactly what they were voting for.
(12-07-2017, 01:00 PM)Protheroe Wrote: It was the cornerstone of my Leave campaign. People in Bromsgrove District knew exactly what they were voting for.

At least one of the leaders of the leave campaign had integrity then.
(12-08-2017, 08:06 AM)Zoltanger Wrote:
(12-07-2017, 01:00 PM)Protheroe Wrote: It was the cornerstone of my Leave campaign. People in Bromsgrove District knew exactly what they were voting for.

At least one of the leaders of the leave campaign had integrity then.

Arf. I was far from the only one.
So far today we have learnt from Theresa May that Brexit will be neither soft nor hard, & from David Davis that the Irish border agreement is both not legally enforceable & more than legally enforceable. So that's all clear then.
MorningStar: "Britain behaving like a gangster': European Parliament to harden Brexit stance as David Davis accused of 'undermining trust"

-This is deadly serious. It is possible to have less than zero credibility.
Brexiteers will regret their pact with Farage (Todays Times)
rachel sylvester
Ministers who exploited fears about immigration to win the EU referendum are wrong to think they can ignore it now
‘How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot in the Caribbean by providence, impoverished, in squalor grow up to be a hero and a scholar?” starts the opening number of Hamilton, the hit Broadway musical which arrives in London this month.
Lin-Manuel Miranda’s extraordinary hip-hop history about Alexander Hamilton, “the ten-dollar founding father without a father”, is not just an award-winning show. In America, this story of an immigrant who makes it to the top, with an ethnically diverse cast, has become a symbol of liberal values that provokes contrasting responses. Michelle Obama described it as “the best piece of art in any form I have ever seen in my life” while Donald Trump denounced it on Twitter as “highly over-rated”.
n this country, where the show is already sold out until June next year, the political resonances are also becoming clear. At one preview last week the greatest cheer of the night came after the line: “Immigrants, we get the job done”. Yet the unashamedly cosmopolitan message is a reminder that many of the starkest divisions in the UK, highlighted by the Brexit vote, are currently being ignored by the political class, with potentially dangerous consequences.
Theresa May bought herself some time last week with her deal to start talks about a deal on Britain’s departure from the EU but nothing has been resolved. The constructive ambiguity of the wording of the agreement on Ireland is already creaking and the constructive criticism from Tory Eurosceptics on the divorce bill will soon turn into something more destructive.
More importantly, the cabinet has yet to agree what the eventual relationship between the UK and the EU should be. There are profound differences between ministers about how synchronised the British economy should remain with the European single market. And somehow, amid all the debate about “Canada plus plus plus” versus “Norway minus minus minus”, the cultural significance of the Leave vote has been forgotten.
Instead of the populist message about taking back control over the country’s borders that dominated the referendum campaign, the discussion is all about regulatory alignment and the remit of the ECJ. It’s as if politicians are speaking a completely different language to the white working-class voters in the Brexit heartlands who were expressing their frustration with the speed of change in their communities.
There’s a reason for this mismatch. The cabinet’s leading Brexiteers — Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox — are all themselves instinctively in favour of immigration. Indeed Mr Fox once had to be slapped down by the prime minister in cabinet when he suggested that any fall in the number of EU migrants could be outstripped by a rise in arrivals from other countries. For these liberal “buccaneers” the whole point of leaving the EU is to create a more open, “global” Britain that is outward-looking and welcoming to foreigners.
To them, controlling the free movement of people is about ensuring there is parliamentary approval of the system rather than reducing the numbers coming into this country. They recoil from the xenophobia of Nigel Farage but they won the EU referendum by tapping into the more protectionist, anti-immigrant mood he embodies as well as the free market confidence of Eurosceptics like them.
Consciously or not, the Tories in the official Vote Leave campaign struck a Faustian (or Faragian) pact with the Ukip-dominated Leave.EU movement. Even if they did not play the race card overtly themselves they benefited from it being played by others. Publicly they condemned Mr Farage’s “breaking point” poster, showing a queue of migrants, but privately they capitalised on its message. As the Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi said at the time, Vote Leave (backed by Mr Gove and Mr Johnson) ran a “nudge nudge, wink wink xenophobic” campaign. One ad claimed, misleadingly, that: “Turkey (76 million) is joining the EU”.
Of course, immigration was not the driving force for all Brexit voters but Dominic Cummings, the Vote Leave campaign strategist, admits his camp would not have got to the critical 52 per cent without it. As he wrote on his blog: “Immigration was a baseball bat that just needed picking up at the right time and in the right way”.
Having bludgeoned their way to victory by playing on some people’s worst instincts the Brexiteers are now failing to face up to the consequences of the forces they unleashed. The expectations raised by the Leave campaign on immigration, as on so much else, cannot be met, at least not in a way that avoids enormous damage to the economy and public services. From agriculture to the NHS and higher education, cabinet ministers look for ways to let free movement continue by the back door while failing to make a proper case for foreign workers.
The anti-establishment rebels who won the referendum with declarations that “the British people have had enough of experts” allow themselves to be governed by lawyers and bureaucrats who understand the minutiae of trade deals. Meanwhile, Labour ducks the hard choices by calling for the “easy movement” of people and membership of “a single market” while failing to set out what either means. It’s both naive and irresponsible. There is a real danger that Brexit voters will feel betrayed and start listening to more extreme populist voices.
Reality is taking hold in the EU negotiations and compromises are being made, but so far immigration — the issue that dominated the referendum campaign — has been virtually ignored. The trade-off between access to the single market and free movement controls must be acknowledged and explicitly addressed by the cabinet as part of the discussion about the end state of the UK’s relations with the EU.
The Brexiteers also have a duty to explain this clearly and frankly to their voters, making a positive case for immigration instead of pretending to themselves they never exploited public fears. That might also go some way to alleviating the concerns of Remain supporters who worry their country is turning inwards on itself.
The Leave campaign whipped up emotions on immigration but now it is time for some hard-headed reason. Instead of being thumbs up with Donald Trump, the cabinet Brexiteers should capture the spirit of Hamilton. As one rap lyric that could have been written for the Brexit negotiations goes: “You want a revolution, I want a revelation”.
I know it
Cardiff law school (whose publications have credited me in the past) know it
The only folk who don't seem to know it are half the cabinet

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)