The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

1…7273757778…83

Comments

  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    Madcap

    We can't know what is in people's hearts.

    I'm saying that I can't think how anyone with openly racist views could vote for anything other than Leave.

    It's not really that important anyway, since no one is saying that 'Leavers are racist', so it's a bit of a sideline.

    Mr G. 1 and 2 agree, number 3, you are correct, no one is saying this, but the "all racists would have voted leave" is plainly wrong. As simonc says, racism takes many forms and not all racists are overt. There are plenty of "decent" racists out there in middle England that would have undoubtedly voted remain for economic reasons but are no less racist than the shaven headed brigade. The phrase "all racists would have voted leave" is a deliberate slur against anyone that voted leave.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    MrsGrey said:

    TheMadcapLaughs said:



    It was worded in this way to show that you don`t have to be a shaven headed, card carrying thug to be a racist.

    Strange as it may seem, I actually know that.


    I didn`t doubt that for a minute Mrs G. I thought after 75 pages we had overcome the myth that all racists voted leave. All overt racists may well have voted leave, but there would be plenty of middle England racists that voted remain. I don`t know why the racist card keeps raising its head.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    I can't think why someone with stated racist views would choose to remain in the EU, especially given the focus on immigration control in the run-up to the vote.

    I don`t think that being concerned over immigration has much to do with racism. I think they are two separate issues. Even Mrs Merkel has voiced concerns (over her own judgement) in having a totally "open door" policy. The anti immigration stance obviously appeals to racists which is a crying shame since as a topic immigration needs to be discussed openly and honestly without the word "racist" hovering overhead. I am a firm believer in open borders and free movement as concepts, but experience appears to show that (in the World we currently live) free and open borders seem to be both dangerous and divisive wherein the exact opposite should be true.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    The phrase "all racists would have voted leave" is a deliberate slur against anyone that voted leave.
    No, it really isn't, and I don't see how you get to that.

    I think that for some Leavers to ignore the racist element of the Leave vote (and parts of its campaign) is either naive or disingenuous, and using the 'well your saying we're all racist' card is a cheap rhetorical trick with no basis in fact.
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    Interesting piece here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38227674
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    Mr G, I have and do acknowledge the racist element in the leave vote. But "all racists voted leave" is plainly an incorrect statement, but one that is used regularly by remainers (not just on here). A statement that has no value whatsoever, but is regularly used, has one purpose, and that is to denigrate by association. If you believe the statement to be correct and factual then fine. If you have any doubt as to the validity and accuracy of the statement, why use it.
    The statement seems to be a popular one and one that goes unchallenged when quite obviously the statement is a nonsense.
    And please show me which leavers have chosen to ignore the racist element of the leave campaign.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    I disagree that it is a nonsense, and I'm not even sure it's an overstatement.

    However, I'm not going to discuss it further, as I see it as a peripheral issue that I have had my say on. You've seen what I've written and will have to be satisfied, or otherwise, with that.
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    grey_til_I_dye said:

    I disagree that it is a nonsense, and I'm not even sure it's an overstatement.

    However, I'm not going to discuss it further, as I see it as a peripheral issue that I have had my say on. You've seen what I've written and will have to be satisfied, or otherwise, with that.

    But what am I going to do with the rest of my day. Bored now.
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    Do you know anything about the theory of anarchism? ;wink
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    ;lol
  • TheMadcapLaughsTheMadcapLaughs
    Well its funny you should say that......................... ;lol
  • IronHerbIronHerb
    Nooooooooooo
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    Definitely a good reason to leave the EU
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38233852

    Oh, wait a minute, let me actually read that ;hmm
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited December 2016
    The government amendment has passed by 461 votes to 89 - a majority of 372.
    Labour + Lib Dems. Sold their birthright for a mess of pottage.

    A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a credible Opposition. ;doh

    #shameonthem
  • NEoldironNEoldiron
    Say hello to the Brexiteers' messiah:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/10/arron-banks-man-who-bought-brexit

  • OutcastLondonerOutcastLondoner
    He was on Twitter yesterday trying to tell Mary Beard, one of the most prominent classicists, that he knew more about Roman history than her. (Then couldn't answer any of her questions).
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    MrsGrey said:

    The government amendment has passed by 461 votes to 89 - a majority of 372.
    Labour + Lib Dems. Sold their birthright for a mess of pottage.

    A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a credible Opposition. ;doh

    #shameonthem

    Gary Linikers twitter feed.

    The only current credible opposition.
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    outcast ;lol

    suz ;ok (And in this instance, Ken Clarke ;puzzled )
  • SuzanneClaretSuzanneClaret
    Ken Clarke!

    We are doomed..... ;doh
  • grey_til_I_dyegrey_til_I_dye
    edited December 2016


  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    MrsGrey said:

    The government amendment has passed by 461 votes to 89 - a majority of 372.
    Labour + Lib Dems. Sold their birthright for a mess of pottage.

    A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a credible Opposition. ;doh

    #shameonthem

    or they respected the referendum result ?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited December 2016
    No imo.

    The issue isn't about respecting the result, it is about holding the government to account for how it goes about implementing it, and securing a voice/representation for all their constituents (those who voted leave and those who voted remain) in that process. The former is the job of the opposition, and the latter is the job of all MPs.

  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    but they did that by securing the amendment for a detailed plan ?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    What 'detailed' plan?
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited December 2016
    Like this:

    Dear Parliament. Please see below our plan. Thanks. The Government.

    Government Plan

    Send article 50 notification - end March.
    Meetings with EU exit comnittee - April onwards.
    Aim: get best deal possible while securing control over immigration.
    Deadline: Christmas 2018.
    Jan - March 2019, get 'big Bill' through Parliament.


    ;beer
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    I am sure Labour and certainly the Lib Dems would have argued for more than that and I imagine if the government broke the formulation of a detailed plan then they could vote against the "big Bill" come March for lack of a detailed plan...
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    They did argue for it. But they didn't get it.

    And yes, they may well seek to affect future legislation along the way. But they won't vote against the 'Big Bill' - which (although it's not clear exactly what it will include) is the bill that will put into law all the stuff that would disappear on the day we are officially out of the EU - that's 2 years after.*

    And they've given away an important bargaining chip by agreeing that Article 50 should be triggered in March next year, they've weakened their hand.




    * Apologies, my dates in the earlier post were wrong. I've corrected them.
  • YeoldhammerYeoldhammer
    I thought the agreement was for a detailed plan in place before the vote is triggered for Article 50 which was passed and the trade off for that was that Labour would support the government in triggering Article 50 ? plus wasn't the agreement that post negotiation the UK government would de-facto all European rules anyway and then dissect that over the years post-brexit for what they wanted to keep and what they didn't want (depending on what the UK secures through negotiations with the EU that it can pick and choose)
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited December 2016
    Yeoldhammer said:

    I thought the agreement was for a detailed plan in place before the vote is triggered for Article 50 which was passed and the trade off for that was that Labour would support the government in triggering Article 50 ?

    The exact wording was that the govt must

    “commit to publishing [its] plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked,”

    Nothing about details of any sort.

    But just in case, they also agreed the get-out clause: there “should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered.”

    So if MPs call for more details than what are published, the govt will just invoke that last bit.. ;doh
  • MrsGreyMrsGrey
    edited December 2016
    Yeoldhammer said:

    plus wasn't the agreement that post negotiation the UK government would de-facto all European rules anyway and then dissect that over the years post-brexit for what they wanted to keep and what they didn't want (depending on what the UK secures through negotiations with the EU that it can pick and choose)

    No exactly an agreement, no.

    TM has said there will be a 'Great Repeal Bill' announced in the Queen's Speech next May 2017.

    This will be enacted on 'Exit Day' - probably March 2019, but maybe before. It will do as you say, transpose all EU-derived laws etc into domestic law.

    That's what I thought you meant by the Big Bill, and why I said Labour + Lib Dems wouldn't vote against it.
This discussion has been closed.