On Wed 3 Apr at 7:03pm SHS wrote:
'EU says it would not open talks with UK after no-deal Brexit until it agrees to divorce bill and Irish backstop'.
Regardless of whether you're a remainer or leaver, isn't it obvious that the UK has lost a war without a fight? Almost everything we want to do now has to have permission from the E.U. and we're constantly told off, threatened or disciplined in some other way. No friendship there at all.
On Wed 3 Apr at 7:42pm Green Sleeves wrote:
Get a grip. The European Union is not some malevolent dictatorship. Stop reading nonsense media and work towards acknowledging facts.
On Wed 3 Apr at 8:39pm Tom Pain wrote:
We know that the commission are all frightfully nice chaps but not being able to vote them in or out is a tad worrying for some. European history shows that once in a while a bad egg can sneak into the henhouse.
On Wed 3 Apr at 10:25pm A Person wrote:
We entered into a legally-binding international treaty. The terms are (and were) completely clear. Anyone who did any basic research before (and after) the referendum vote would very quickly have discovered that the "red lines" laid down by Mrs May were not deliverable without causing us considerable damage, and in particular it would have been completely obvious that Ireland was going to be a huge problem (where there is another international treaty in force).
Mrs May triggered Article 50 before she had formulated even the most basic of plans, so the EU has had to work largely in the dark. They're not being difficult: they're just trying to protect the integrity of the rest of their membership.
We're in all kinds of trouble here in the UK and it is not the EU's fault. We are the laughing stock of the world. Well done everyone.
On Thu 4 Apr at 7:30am nancy wrote:
Mrs Ed Balls is a traitor in my eyes. How can remainers say that 51% isn't a true majority but are happy when their motion gets through on ONE vote?
On Thu 4 Apr at 7:37am Sussex Jim wrote:
We now have a fox in the henhouse. Determined to wreck democracy.
On Thu 4 Apr at 9:26am Ed Can Do wrote:
You can't vote for the EU commission but up until recently you could vote for the EU parliament who appoints them. You can't vote for senior members of the civil service in the UK either, you vote for the politicians who pick those people.
On Thu 4 Apr at 11:20am A Person wrote:
Yay: Jim and I agree. There is a fox in the henhouse. It's called the ERG and it's absolutely hell-bent on wrecking the UK and its place in the world.
Nancy: I don't think anyone's saying that 52% isn't a majority. The problem is that it's a majority won by dint of lawbreaking, misrepresentation on a massive scale, and straightforward lying.
The thing about democracy is that it operates at lots of different levels. One of those levels - arguably a very high level - is in parliament. Another would be asking the electorate to give their opinion on a matter which is clearly deadlocked in parliament seems eminently sensible to me just as a means of breaking that deadlock. Why is that not democratic?
On Thu 4 Apr at 12:04pm Tom Pain wrote:
The big problem is a lack of clarity, so many conflicting currents of opinion and no-one knowing where they arise or where they're going. Here we have Mrs May an EU supporter in charge of exiting the EU so her failure to get a consensus is highly suspicious. In fact it's obvious that she wants to stay in and is wrecking any chance of getting out. She's the crafty one in the henhouse. The ERG are at least doing what it says on their tin!
On Thu 4 Apr at 1:13pm A Person wrote:
Not really, Tom Pain, unless you honestly think that she laid down her "red lines" (the things she insisted any withdrawal agreement would have to contain before parliament would ratify it) with the intention of splitting her party and the country, putting us in real danger of leaving without a deal (and the economic catastrophe that would represent) so that Brexit wouldn't happen.
I think Mrs May is just an old-fashioned ideologue whose fatal flaw is the complete inability to compromise on anything, or even just listen to different ideas. I certainly see no evidence whatsoever of a Machiavellian strategist at work - if only.
Thatcher would simply never have allowed this to reach this stage with so little consultation. And as you can possibly tell, Thatcher is not my favourite politician; however at least she had a grasp of consequences (until the poll tax that is).
On Thu 4 Apr at 1:44pm Basil wrote:
A Person, are you sure Thatcher knew the consequences of her actions? Do you think she realised her economic policies would lead to an enforced recession and three million unemployed (she was the most unpopular prime minister in history until the Falklands War)? Do you think she realised her 'economies' would convince the Argentines the UK was prepared to give up the Falklands, encouraging them to invade? Do you think she realised her mean-minded suburban mentality would lead to a society in which any sense of community and public service broke down, with no sign of it ever being repaired? I doubt it. The woman was a moron, but one who served the rich well.
On Thu 4 Apr at 2:24pm Sussex Jim wrote:
A Person, you are quite correct in saying that Mrs. Thatcher would never have allowed the current farce to drag on. Arguably the greatest peacetime PM we have ever had, she faced the unenviable task of removing hopelessly uncompetitive nationalised industries; but gave those stuck forever in local authority rented accommodation the chance to become homeowners.
Theresa May is not "Maggie May" by any means. The only connection is that they are both female. And both were for the EU. But times are different now- a generation later the EU is taking the mickey out of us; and the people have voted to LEAVE.. TM (not MT) will go down in history as the doggedly dictatorial woman who reduced our fine country to a democracy in name only, for ever.
On Thu 4 Apr at 4:21pm A Person wrote:
Basil: sadly I do think she knew exactly what the consequences were, and actually Sussex Jim's post demonstrates exactly how and why.
Thatcher believed that your worth to society is largely measured in stuff. She believed that everyone must compete and the fewer safety nets there were the more motivated people would be to win. Selling off council houses was pretty classic, particularly when the legislation forbade local authorities using the proceeds to build new social housing. There are an awful lot of people who would give a lot to be "stuck in local authority rented accommodation". If you can persuade enough people that (a) stuff matters and (b) they won't be the 50% who lose out, then you'll win elections. Exactly as Jim says.
However I would not call her a moron: I think she was someone who knew exactly what she was doing and what she was trying to achieve by doing it. I do think that by the end of her "reign" she was a little bit mad and, like May, quite incapable of listening to warnings. I don't know if May is mad but I do know she is incredibly secretive and deaf to reason.