Betrayal of 17m march

VincentHanna · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:15

Of course it's a good deal for us.

We are part of a 28 country trading block, we kept our own currency, we opt out of things we don't like and we currently have a veto against a lot of proposals.

You will never get a better deal than that.

wesimmo · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:19

gord said:
I like how this rule wasn't even prompted. They just decided and announced it to throw more spanners at the MPs. This is the sort of action which makes me question whether we should stay in the EU. If they're greasing the wheels for us to stay with exactly the same benefits/costs as our current membership, then it's clearly a good deal for them. Is it such a great deal for us or are we just here to help out Germany and France?

It was opposed by the EU so, in actual fact, the situation is the exact opposite of what you're arguing. It was the courts that made the decision based on laws, not what suits Germany and France.

RaohNS · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:25

Johno please? said:
What are a bunch of 50 -70 yr olds going to do? xD

You've clearly never read or understood the relationship between age and treachery.

What can they do? End your world.

jpaul · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:27

I need to watch below on catchup, excerpt I saw are interesting, to evaluate JRM's position in a non-scripted environment,
... BBC had not publicized it !

No leaders, but Channel 4 Brexit debate was still compelling

ver01@ · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:29

ron3003 said:
The people with financial clout vs generation rent, who could do the most damage there?

Probably the same.

gord · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:30

VincentHanna said:
You will never get a better deal than that.

I understand your sentiment and agree with the principals but you can't state that final line with such certainty. In 50 years leaving the EU may prove to be the best/worst decision, nobody knows right now.

wesimmo said:
It was opposed by the EU so, in actual fact, the situation is the exact opposite of what you're arguing. It was the courts that made the decision based on laws, not what suits Germany and France.

Ok, the Germany/France part was a bit facetious and I feel that's skewed my point. What I was saying was, isn't it a bit fishy that the ECJ coincidentally announce we can stay with our current deal and without any need for the EU's input a day before a significant vote in the UK?

Raymond Lin · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:33

gord said:
I understand your sentiment and agree with the principals but you can't state that final line with such certainty. In 50 years leaving the EU may prove to be the best/worst decision, nobody knows right now.

Ok, the Germany/France part was a bit facetious and I feel that's skewed my point. What I was saying was, isn't it a bit fishy that the ECJ coincidentally announce we can stay with our current deal and without any need for the EU's input a day before a significant vote in the UK?

And how do you know in 50 years the EU won't be a superpower in world economics?

The Court probably want to give that judgment out because if they do it say...in 3 years' time, it would be a bit pointless?

VincentHanna · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:34

jpaul said:
I need to watch below on catchup, excerpt I saw are interesting, to evaluate JRM's position in a non-scripted environment,
... BBC had not publicized it !

No leaders, but Channel 4 Brexit debate was still compelling

Why do you think BBC would publicise a debate from some backbench mp's on a rival channel?

wesimmo · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:36

gord said:
Ok, the Germany/France part was a bit facetious and I feel that's skewed my point. What I was saying was, isn't it a bit fishy that the ECJ coincidentally announce we can stay with our current deal and without any need for the EU's input a day before a significant vote in the UK?

Not really, unless you're going full time foil hat and saying the EU opposes it publically but told the courts to make the decision in the background, then the fact that the EU opposed it is more telling.

The timing is due to how events have panned out, the fact it's so close to the vote is because it had to be for the vote to be made with full facts to hand, unlike the actual referendum.

Radox-0 · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:41

gord said:
I understand your sentiment and agree with the principals but you can't state that final line with such certainty. In 50 years leaving the EU may prove to be the best/worst decision, nobody knows right now.

Ok, the Germany/France part was a bit facetious and I feel that's skewed my point. What I was saying was, isn't it a bit fishy that the ECJ coincidentally announce we can stay with our current deal and without any need for the EU's input a day before a significant vote in the UK?

The Advocate General gave his opinion on it last week, generally speaking the ECJ will follow the advocates general's findings in a majority of cases, so this firm ruling by the ECJ should not have been a surprise.

gord · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:41

Raymond Lin said:
And how do you know in 50 years the EU won't be a superpower in world economics?

Exactly my point, we can't talk in absolutes, which is why I flagged the "You will never get a better deal than that." line.

wesimmo said:
Not really, unless you're going full-time foil hat and saying the EU opposes it publically but told the courts to make the decision in the background, then the fact that the EU opposed it is more telling.

The timing is due to how events have panned out, the fact it's so close to the vote is because it had to be for the vote to be made with full facts to hand, unlike the actual referendum.

I'm cynical of the timing, being this close to our vote, but I'm not unrolling any foil just yet. As you and Ramond both point out, better to have the facts on the table than not and if this is the quickest they could announce it then so be it.

Randomface74 · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:43

wesimmo said:
The whole argument about whether we should have a second referendum hinges on one simple fact.
If you voted remain you knew exactly what you were voting for

Nope. Remain was framed as "voting for things to stay the same". But that's not what remaining in the EU means. If you remain in the EU you follow the future direction of the EU. At the bare minimum people should have been told what the EU's plans for the future were.

wesimmo said:
whereas, as has been proven by the chaos in trying to define how we Leave, people voting for Leave had no idea what they were voting for.

Nope. People who voted leave chose to take back control of laws, borders, and money.
People arguing for remain seem to focus on the economic arguments, but fail to understand what sovereignty is or why it matters.
Leave voters understand there are economic consequences, but are prepared to accept them, because leaving political control of the EU is vital to the future of the UK as a sovereign nation.

wesimmo said:
I doubt there are many Remain voters who have changed their mind since, there are plenty of Leave voters who, now they've realised it's not quite as simple as was made out, and we're not actually that powerful that the EU will roll over for us, will have changed their mind.

There probably are more leave voters who would switch to remain than the other way around - because the TV has been full of scare stories about how the people got it wrong. That's a tactic by those with vested interests to prepare voters to vote remain in a 2nd referendum.
I am a Remain voter who would switch to vote Leave. Whilst I was always pro-Brexit, I thought leaving via an advisory referendum was weak so that's why I voted Remain - with the intention to vote for a Leave-supporting party in a general election, which would have a better chance of success. As it happens we had a general election anyway, but I couldn't have foreseen that.
"not quite as simple as was made out" - I think this is condescending, the Leave position is more nuanced than Remain, I think those who argue Remain haven't really understood the Leave position fully. It's not the leavers who haven't understood their own position, it's the remainers who haven't understood it. I've lost count of how many times I've heard "why would you vote for something that would make you financially worse off, I don't get it".
The question of whether the UK can actually leave the EU - both legally and practically - is vital to this whole thing. If the UK is not able to leave, that's a sign that no member state can leave, which means all member states have given up their "sovereign nation" status. If the UK does not leave, a consequence should be riots in all EU member states demanding the immediate dissolution of the EU.

Raymond Lin · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:46

gord said:
Exactly my point, we can't talk in absolutes, which is why I flagged the "You will never get a better deal than that." line.

That is a fact though, we, being one of the founding member states, got a lot of perks many that joined later on do not have.

The fact is our GDP isn't the largest in euro, nevermind against the whole of EU if we were alone, so what bargaining power do we have against the EU when it comes to trade, or anything? hence any Brexit deal will be a bad deal compared to what we have now.

chroniclard · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:49

billysielu said:
Nope. Remain was framed as "voting for things to stay the same". But that's not what remaining in the EU means. If you remain in the EU you follow the future direction of the EU. At the bare minimum people should have been told what the EU's plans for the future were.

Nope. People who voted leave chose to take back control of laws, borders, and money.
People arguing for remain seem to focus on the economic arguments, but fail to understand what sovereignty is or why it matters.
Leave voters understand there are economic consequences, but are prepared to accept them, because leaving political control of the EU is vital to the future of the UK as a sovereign nation.

There probably are more leave voters who would switch to remain than the other way around - because the TV has been full of scare stories about how the people got it wrong. That's a tactic by those with vested interests to prepare voters to vote remain in a 2nd referendum.
I am a Remain voter who would switch to vote Leave. Whilst I was always pro-Brexit, I thought leaving via an advisory referendum was weak so that's why I voted Remain - with the intention to vote for a Leave-supporting party in a general election, which would have a better chance of success. As it happens we had a general election anyway, but I couldn't have foreseen that.
"not quite as simple as was made out" - I think this is condescending, the Leave position is more nuanced than Remain, I think those who argue Remain haven't really understood the Leave position fully. It's not the leavers who haven't understood their own position, it's the remainers who haven't understood it. I've lost count of how many times I've heard "why would you vote for something that would make you financially worse off, I don't get it".
The question of whether the UK can actually leave the EU - both legally and practically - is vital to this whole thing. If the UK is not able to leave, that's a sign that no member state can leave, which means all member states have given up their "sovereign nation" status. If the UK does not leave, a consequence should be riots in all EU member states demanding the immediate dissolution of the EU.

Nothing to do with the ability to leave, we have that ability as we are and always have been sovereign, its that leaving is really not good for the country as a whole.

Your post is nothing but project fear.

VincentHanna · 10 Dec 2018 at 10:51

We have always been sovereign, and based on the absolutely farcical May government over the past two years I (bizarrely) currently trust the EU more than our own government...How has it come to that?

Johno please? · 10 Dec 2018 at 11:04

ron3003 said:
The people with financial clout vs generation rent, who could do the most damage there?

I meant physically as in response to someone saying "All hell will break loose. Just hope doesn't come to it as a repeat of the riots in the 80s would be utter chaos."

Theyll be sat at home moaning about it, but thats it.

Randomface74 · 10 Dec 2018 at 11:07

chroniclard said:
Nothing to do with the ability to leave, we have that ability as we are and always have been sovereign, its that leaving is really not good for the country as a whole.

Your post is nothing but project fear.

VincentHanna said:
We have always been sovereign, and based on the absolutely farcical May government over the past two years I (bizarrely) currently trust the EU more than our own government...How has it come to that?

OK well if you guys want to continue not understanding sovereignty that's your call.
If you want to learn something, here's a couple of good books:

Sovereignty: The Origin and Future of a Political Concept (Columbia Studies in Political Thought / Political History) Paperback – 5 May 2015
by Dieter Grimm (Author), Belinda Cooper (Author)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sovereignty-Political-Concept-Columbia-Studies/dp/0231164254/

The Rule of Law Paperback – 24 Feb 2011
by Tom Bingham (Author)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rule-Law-Tom-Bingham/dp/014103453X/

gettothechopper · 10 Dec 2018 at 11:08

if 17m want to march about being betrayed - id be glad to join them in their protest of the people who have betrayed them (Gove, Boris, Farage, JRM, David Davis, Raab etc)

Deleted User 234324 · 10 Dec 2018 at 11:09

chroniclard said:
Nothing to do with the ability to leave, we have that ability as we are and always have been sovereign, its that leaving is really not good for the country as a whole.

Your post is nothing but project fear.

And yours isn't?

Things being worse require us to sit back and do nothing after March. Are we really going to do that or will we actually being doing something to ensure that doesn't happen.

Which ever way you voted you can't predict what will happen, you might be able to make an educated guess, but it's still a guess.

Most of the experts that have come out saying doom and gloom in 2016 so far have been wrong on all fronts.

krooton · 10 Dec 2018 at 11:09

billysielu said:
People arguing for remain seem to focus on the economic arguments, but fail to understand what sovereignty is or why it matters.

Please do enlighten us, I have yet to see any logical/rational explanation of what sovereignty is, how we don't have it, and why we need it.