Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[crouch]

3 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

1 - Show me.

"I can dismiss all of that on the basis that for most people it was not a significant consideration, and they don't give a hoot about it except for FOM."

6 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

2 - Show me.

Already posted above:

""Perhaps they value that we make our own laws, even tho most cannot name but one EU law they object to."

[thecrashingisles]

18 minutes ago, crouch said:

As regards the CFP this has been an issue of long contention and I'm pretty sure we would never have agreed this policy as part of a trade deal; the concessions were far too great.

What exactly did we concede that was far too great?

[crouch]

4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Just supposition, we don't know what price we would have put on possible offsetting benefits. 

Indeed; exactly like all those forecasts which say we'll be much worse off by 2030 under Brexit.

5 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Re. the CFP we might soon have a chance to see, in which case I suspect we will again trade fishing rights for other things we value more highly.  

More than likely but it will be our choice not a decision that is foisted on us.

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, crouch said:

More than likely but it will be our choice not a decision that is foisted on us.

Plenty of things were foisted on us, as you would see it, before we joined the EU, not least when it comes to fishing rights.  Indeed the propagandistic misattribution of this to the CFP is one of the earliest Eurosceptic tropes.

[crouch]

4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

What exactly did we concede that was far too great?

The great fisheries scandal

With disarming candour, O’Neill was to record that ‘when our negotiations opened on 30 June 1970, the problem of fisheries did not exist. It came later the same day. From then on fisheries was a major problem’.47 What lay behind his words was the most bizarre episode of the negotiations, politically so embarrassing that much of it was kept secret for three decades.
At the centre of this indisputably scandalous story lies the certainty that, some time in the months that preceded the applications for entry by Britain, Ireland, Denmark and Norway, a representative of the Six – the evidence suggests he must have been French – realised that the four new applicants would bring with them the richest, best-conserved fishing waters in Europe.
Furthermore, there was already international pressure for a major revision of the international law of the sea, to extend national control of fisheries to 200 miles (or the ‘median line’ between two nations). When this took place, the waters of the four applicants would contain well over 90 percent of western Europe’s fish, some 80 percent in seas controlled by Britain.48 It was Nye Bevan who had described Britain as an ‘island made of coal, surrounded by a sea of fish’. But potentially, these waters could bring a valuable resource to augment over-fished seas off France, Holland, Belgium and Germany.
What is also evident is that persons unknown within the Community instructed the Service Juridique of the Council of Ministers to ascertain whether a way could be devised under the Treaty of Rome to take over the fishing grounds of the applicants as a ‘common resource’, giving a right of ‘equal access’ to every member state in the Community. This much emerged from the Foreign Office files released in 2000, which included a legal opinion in French produced by the Service on 18 May 1970.49 The point which its lawyers were asked to address, described as ‘extremely delicate’, was whether a ‘judicial base’ could be established on which could rest a ‘regulation to give equal access’.
Every item of Community legislation must be authorised by reference to the powers given to the Community under the treaty, which are referred to at the start of the new law’s preamble. The opinion given by the Council lawyers shows that they first considered Article 38 of the treaty, because this mentioned ‘fisheries products’, the only reference to fish anywhere in the treaty. But ‘strict exegesis’, they concluded, showed that the article could not ‘cover anything outside the products of fishery and not fisheries themselves’. They then turned to Articles 39–43, on agricultural policy, but were forced to conclude that, since these referred only to agriculture, they did not ‘constitute perhaps the most appropriate juridical basis for the measure’. The other articles they consulted seemed even more irrelevant. Articles 52–58 on the ‘right of establishment’ had to be ruled out. To use Articles 59–66 on ‘services’ would not be ‘absolutely satisfactory’, because this would require ‘un gros effort d’interpretation’."

An excerpt from Ch 8 of this :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Deception-European-survive-Referendum/dp/1472939662/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2YF0MDCS19QS2&keywords=the+great+deception%2C+by+christopher+booker+and+richard+north&qid=1570704082&sprefix=the+great+de%2Caps%2C179&sr=8-1

There is more; much more.

[thecrashingisles]

2 minutes ago, crouch said:

The great fisheries scandal

I don't see any scandal in what you've quoted.  Just the usual tendentious ******** from a very biased source.

[crouch]

6 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

I don't see any scandal in what you've quoted.  Just the usual tendentious ******** from a very biased source.

All sources critical of the EU - biased.

All sources praising the EU - absolutely truthful; unchallengeable; disinterested and to be accepted at face value.

Yeah right.  

[thehowler]

Corbs makes it clear in his 'alternative Queen's speech' that he's minded to grant a quick GE once the extension goes in.

So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.

No mention of a 'unity govt', that ship has sailed. Swinson and the Tory rebels will never vote Corbs in as PM.

If you want a ref you can vote for Labour - he's shot the Peoples Vote fox.

Vote LibDems if you want to revoke.

Tory if you want "we'll try our best but be ready to leave with no deal".

[thehowler]

7 minutes ago, crouch said:

All sources critical of the EU - biased.

All sources praising the EU - absolutely truthful; unchallengeable; disinterested and to be accepted at face value.

Yeah right.  

Now you're getting it.

[thehowler]

And a bit more...from the Gruniad, ref only to this discussion.

If you want a 2nd ref, vote Labour.

Q: Some Labour MPs want a referendum before an election. Are you committed to an election first? And when should it be?

Corbyn says he is proposing a second referendum when a Labour government is elected. People would have a choice between remain and a deal.

[thecrashingisles]

1 hour ago, crouch said:

All sources critical of the EU - biased.

All sources praising the EU - absolutely truthful; unchallengeable; disinterested and to be accepted at face value.

Yeah right.  

Richard North hardly even counts as a source.  He's an egomaniac propagandist.  No wonder he appeals to you.

[crouch]

3 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

He's an egomaniac propagandist. 

Looked in a mirror lately?

[winkie]

18 hours ago, Biggus said:

You're forgetting the leave postion.

'All immigration is always good in all circumstances! I read To Kill a Mockingbird and that proves it!'

Nothing to do with leave or remain.....human nature, we like what we know, sometimes people feel others are a threat because the believe rightly or wrongly they will take away what they have or are used to.....dilute their history, culture or values......are reluctant to face change......when we live in a forever changing world.....can deny or embrace it, there will never be a perfect world....the perfect bubble never lasts. 

[thecrashingisles]

7 minutes ago, crouch said:

Looked in a mirror lately?

I'm not an apologist for terrorism, unlike Mr North.

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by thecrashingisles

[zugzwang]

1 hour ago, crouch said:

An excerpt from Ch 8 of this :

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Deception-European-survive-Referendum/dp/1472939662/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2YF0MDCS19QS2&keywords=the+great+deception%2C+by+christopher+booker+and+richard+north&qid=1570704082&sprefix=the+great+de%2Caps%2C179&sr=8-1

There is more; much more.

You're citing Christopher Booker, scientifically illiterate climate change denialist and periphrastic windbag, to make your case?

https://reaction.life/strange-case-bregretter-christopher-booker/

Quote

What are we to make of Christopher Booker, the veteran Sunday Telegraph columnist who for decades led the Fleet Street charge against British membership of the EU? Booker campaigned loudly on everything that he said was un-British and undemocratic about Europe, from the tyranny of the Court of Justice to the survival of the English oak and the London double-decker bus.

He was the patron saint of Leave, a one-time John the Baptist who, from being a voice crying in the wilderness, had ended up centre-stage.

According to his bestselling 2003 study, The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive?, written with his long-time collaborator Richard North, remaining in the EU threatened Britain with confusion and chaos. The European Project had overreached itself and was a gamble doomed to failure. Thirteen years on, in his preface to the updated “referendum edition” of his monograph, Booker wrote witheringly of the ongoing crisis of the euro, which, he said, “had reduced large parts of the EU to misery and penury”.

For 43 years, he went on (and on), Britain had been ruled by an anonymous and amorphous system of government centred on the Berlaymont Building in Brussels. To add to everything else, there was now “the great migration catastrophe,” as millions of refugees flooded into Europe from the Middle East and Africa. Politicians in the UK had shown themselves ignorant of how the European Union actually worked, what its rules were, what the core principles were that drove it – “let alone how, if it came to the crunch, we could in any practical sense manage to extricate ourselves from it.”

The Great Deception was preceded by Castle of Lies: Why Britain Must Get out of Europe, published in 1997. In this dark polemic, again written with Richard North, Britain’s political class were represented as helpless puppets. The “Euro-system,” the authors assured readers, was by now inflicting so much damage on Britain “that the only course is to leave the EU”. 

Booker’s message was a weekly drumbeat that won him enthusiastic support across the Tory world. In his columns in the lead-up to the June 23 referendum, he was almost beside himself in his condemnation of Brussels. “Global governance” had made the EU irrelevant, he snorted. And just to rub it in, Theresa May had used Europe to smuggle gay marriage onto the statute books. The solution was obvious. We had to leave. His only concern was that the “catalogue of horrors” that was Project Fear – the attempt by Cameron and Osborne to portray Article 50 as a suicide note – would win the day for Remain.

Yet come the blessed morn, come the result, Booker was less than exultant. “The cards of Britain’s future seem suddenly to have been scattered in all directions,” he wrote. “Now Humpty Dumpty has fallen so unexpectedly off his wall, where are all the king’s men to put him together again?”

Where indeed?

As he saw it, the last people to decide how Britain should proceed were the leaders of the Vote Leave campaign, who he feared would lose us the battle by their refusal to offer a properly worked-out “exit” plan – one that could neutralise Project Fear by allowing the UK, like Norway, to continue trading inside the Single Market.

Three weeks later, indulging in a fit of historical guilt, he reminded his readers of how, in 1972, Britain had betrayed its friends in the Commonwealth by joining a customs union that would “devastate” their exports – the very same customs union, as it happens, that he now considers essential to Britain’s economic survival. But time, like guilt, moves on, it seems. By the time the Prime Minister announced her intention to go for a hard Brexit, Booker had come to the view that Tory Leavers were “hubristic, ignorant and laughable”.

His peculiar odyssey was almost at journey’s end. In his most recent column, beneath the headline “The dangerous Brexit ultras are pushing Theresa May towards catastrophe”, he went the whole hog, lining up with no less than Michel Barnier, head of the EU’s Brexit negotiating team, who, in addition to insisting that Britain would have to pay as much as £60 billion as its entry fee to more substantive talks, warned of 12,000 British trucks stuck each day between London and Dover as they attempted to gain admission to the European market.

So much for the confusion and chaos of remaining.

“If it had been honestly explained last summer that leaving the EU would mean not just saying goodbye to all the political stuff [you know, the stuff he had been banging on about for years], but also the sight of trucks backing up from Dover to London, and thousands of exporters finding it impossible to continue trading with the EU at all, a hefty majority would have voted to Remain.”

Well, cut my legs off and call me Shorty!

 

[crouch]

4 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

I'm not an apologist for terrorism, unlike Mr North.

 

Trash the author; never engage the argument.

[crouch]

3 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

You're citing Christopher Booker, scientifically illiterate climate change denialist and periphrastic windbag, to make your case?

Have you actually read his book? It's well over 1000 pages and it has a huge number of quotes from primary sources. There's very little "I believe" or "I think" or "In my opinion" but quite a few facts, in fact thousands of them.

Can you give me an instance of where he has the facts wrong or is placing an unreasonable interpretation on those facts?

It sounds awfully like a case of trash the author and that means his arguments are trash.

Sources who criticize the EU: biased; crackpot; not to be taken seriously.

Sources in favour of the EU: impeccable; absolutely truthful; unbiased; disinterested and can be taken at face value with absolute confidence. 

[wish I could afford one]

15 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

Remain vs Leave? round 2?

No, that's just asking the same question again.  This time it should be actionable real options vs unicorn options.  Right now that seems to be Leave with no deal vs Revoke A50.

I just wish there were some grown ups in the room.  Given a result of 52 vs 48 surely EEA plus rejoin EFTA plus figure out how to deal with NI/RoI border within that as discussed a few pages back might actually get somewhere.  This extremism has to stop as it's just getting us nowhere and likely making things actually worse.

[Bruce Banner]

So, the opinion of friends here, in France, is that they, and 80% of Europeans have absolutely no idea what BJ wants "He is a crazy man and says something different every day". I said to one friend that I'm getting to be ashamed of being British. 

[wish I could afford one]

14 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I would let the leave campaign decide what form of Brexit should go on the ballot, with the proviso that it must be a deliverable option no unicorns.

So back to Barnier's chart decide on their red lines and pick one of the available options.

WTO would be fine, if that's what they wanted to campaign on. 

 

That's probably a better idea than mine.  From what I see that option has to be No Deal though as the red lines stop everything else.

[IMHAL]

2 hours ago, crouch said:

1 - "I can dismiss all of that on the basis that for most people it was not a significant consideration, and they don't give a hoot about it except for FOM."

Already posted above:

2 - ""Perhaps they value that we make our own laws, even tho most cannot name but one EU law they object to."

Learn to read

1 - I said, I could dismiss those two policies 'because' for most most people [those two policies] were not significant considerations... not because I do not consider the price of food relevant. If you can prove that those two policies where significant considerations [for the majority] and that they knew the  effect on food prices, then you may have a point..... but you don't.  

2 - I simply stated that they may value our ability to make laws... and then I make the point, even tho most cannot state a law that they dislike. Again, we are back to the first point in bold.

 

 

 

[winkie]

Remain is still well and truly on the table....remain as we are is open to negotiation, you could say that about all other 27 nations, everything will and is always shifting, nothing stands still.....the majority of UK citizens did not vote to leave and the majority certainly do not want to leave with no prior agreement/arrangement or known way forward......no fear.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

3 hours ago, allfiredup said:

Seeing as Universities are known to be a hotbed of EU nationalism its hardly surprising

Complete rubbish. 

[longgone]

9 minutes ago, winkie said:

Remain is still well and truly on the table....remain as we are is open to negotiation, you could say that about all other 27 nations, everything will and is always shifting, nothing stands still.....the majority of UK citizens did not vote to leave and the majority certainly do not want to leave with no prior agreement/arrangement or known way forward......no fear.

i can get a eu passport nay bothered. 

 

[winkie]

5 minutes ago, longgone said:

i can get a eu passport nay bothered. 

 

Good for you......the more that can do so and want to the better wouldn't you say.