Brexit.... what the public should know!

PKL

Well-Known Member
Whilst I wish we would have a 2n referendum, the government making that decision destroys all notions of democracy where the people have already voted and made their decision. However, what we know NOW, is what we should all have been informed of by mail leaflets BEFORE, in order to make an educated decision..

Prior to the referendum there was zero good information passed on to the voters about the actual potential advantages and disadvantages of leaving the EU, it was just a random notion of 'what would you like to do',,which in turn leads to a knee jerk reaction based on the Greek crisis as well as the mass immigration issues seen across europe..so no wonder we ended up with a 'leave' vote!,,,whereas if what is known now was available to the public, it would have been a 'remain' without much doubt.

however, that's democracy, we all have to live with the outcome and byproduct of our own lack of willingness to use our heads before making important decisions....and it's easy to blame the government of course, but I think a lot of people who voted with their hearts should have done some research and voted with their heads.

I especially love how David Cameron teed this all up with a big titanium driver, let it rip, and then walked away from the bomb,,and is now in hiding in a cave somewhere with a massive pension..what a coward!
 

zambezi

Well-Known Member
Hmm.. I'm sure there's some valid points in there. But I can't get past my opinion that RT is a tool of the Kremlin, who's underlying aim is to foment dissatisfaction and division in our society in order to weaken us. Find a crack, and do their best to widen it - that seems to be their MO.

Hmmm. I don't doubt that foreign powers are happy when they are facing a nation that is less than unified...BUT, these are our parliamentarians, the contents of what they say stand regardless of whether or not RT enjoyed airing the meeting.

Of this there is no doubt: if Baker's allegations are proven (and, unlike Chasey, I find him entirely credible) then May's negotiations are tantamount to treason. If the EU did indeed offer a clean Brexit and workable FTA, then she has betrayed the referendum result in an incredibly Machiavellian way.

Regardless of who supplied details of this MP's committee meeting, the electorate needed to hear this. Now we need to test the veracity of Baker's testimony. And then act on that. That is democracy. I have asked #10 to comment.
 

Chasey

Well-Known Member
Overlooking the simple fact that there won't be another referendum?

Would you put serious money on that because I wouldn't

People keep saying a second referendum is somehow undemocratic?? How is a vote by the people undemocratic?

Do people not have the democratic right to change their minds? If so why do we hold general elections every 4.5 years?

Is a snap election undemocratic?

The "undemocratic" argument makes no sense at all
 

kennyc

Well-Known Member
Would you put serious money on that because I wouldn't

People keep saying a second referendum is somehow undemocratic?? How is a vote by the people undemocratic?

Do people not have the democratic right to change their minds? If so why do we hold general elections every 4.5 years?

Is a snap election undemocratic?

The "undemocratic" argument makes no sense at all
of course it does if you are paranoid and believe you will lose because of "reasons"
 

Freeforester

Well-Known Member
"I especially love how David Cameron teed this all up with a big titanium driver, let it rip, and then walked away from the bomb,,and is now in hiding in a cave somewhere with a massive pension..what a coward!"

Seems he had little choice, given that he was obliged to honour the manifesto commitment (it's a Brit thing); what would have been rather unacceptable would have been him as a pro remain PM to have stayed to deliver on the mandate -somewhat akin to the present situation, PM May is not a believer that there is more to life & UK future prospects than the EU.

Many, it would appear, are still smarting from being on the losing side of the argument...

As to RT's 'influence', if you are looking to start shooting the messengers bringing disharmony and misinformation, then Portland Place might also be a target rich environment?
 

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
Of course what the public should also know is this.

All those trade deals lined up to activate "one minute after the Brexit clock ticked past midnight"...oh dear now Liam Fox has admitted he;'s got two, yes, two out of the sixty seven or so he boasted he'd have in place ready to go. Liam Fox. Not a "Remainer/Remoaner" but a Brexiteer. And what do we export mostly to Switzerland? Gems and precious metals. There's mass employment opportunities there.

 

Freeforester

Well-Known Member
Would you put serious money on that because I wouldn't - er, quite; how much did it cost you last time?

People keep saying a second referendum is somehow undemocratic?? How is a vote by the people undemocratic?

- as you keep saying, not I. Better to put your energies into looking to the future, which seems to lie beyond the EU in its current form, or would you put serious money on that continuing unchanged?
 

zambezi

Well-Known Member
...As to RT's 'influence', if you are looking to start shooting the messengers bringing disharmony and misinformation, then Portland Place might also be a target rich environment?
Love it! But there is one HUGE difference. In the RT piece the cameras are rolling, uninterrupted, recording MP discussion and allowing viewers to weigh and discern what is discussed. What the Biased Bombast Collective do is stitch disparate clips, selectively edit, voice over recorded dialogue to skew emphasis, "explain" to us what it all means, etc. I doubt Kuenssberg has ever let the facts speak for themselves.
 

paultap

Well-Known Member
And RT have accomplished exactly what they wanted. They are the Loki of the news broadcasters. They sow half truths and spread division. Be careful not to get suckered into their trap.

It's difficult to see how RT could have manipulated this evidence, other than to get it posted on YouTube for all to see. I've not heard a single thing about this in the newspapers or on any TV channel, so you have to at least give RT the credit for getting this out into the public domain.

If this evidence is false and I very much doubt that it is, then let the government refute the claims and show us the evidence to the contrary.

The government indeed "appears" to be hopelessly weak and incompetent in its negotiations with the EU, unless of course, the powers to be, ARE planning to give us Brexit in name only. This now very much appears to be the case.

What happened to May's "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".... now she is trying to hold her own party to ransom by threatening No deal as being worse than her capitulation of a deal, with the no 10 machine doing its best to churn out supporting scare story tactics and treasury reports in support. Also we are now being told we might get no Brexit at all!

As Steve Baker says, you hardly ever hear ministers rebutting scare stores from the media and the Remain side and so it is left for people like Jacob Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage to do it. Anyone with this train of thought is then immediately labelled as a HARD brexiteer by the majority of the media, press and the Remain side as if they are a group of fanatics for wanting to honour the result of the referendum!

Even leaving Boris Johnson aside, you have to ask yourselves why people such as Steve Baker, David Davis and latterly Dominic Rabb have all resigned over the government's stance to the Brexit negotiations.... I think Steve Baker's evidence, as given to the MP's committee in the above video, answers that question.
 

Rory

Well-Known Member
I am not denying the evidence (and I am not a remainer) but I just urge caution with a lot of what RT puts out - it is a state run (Russian) media outlet that is wont to play havoc. I do not trust BBC either as it has a very clear bias despite claiming to be neutral. With any broadcaster, ask why they are putting it out (with whatever view point or slant) and more especially, where is the money coming from? There are seeds of truth in all articles, but do not take everything at face value.
 

oowee

Well-Known Member
It's difficult to see how RT could have manipulated this evidence, other than to get it posted on YouTube for all to see. I've not heard a single thing about this in the newspapers or on any TV channel, so you have to at least give RT the credit for getting this out into the public domain.

If this evidence is false and I very much doubt that it is, then let the government refute the claims and show us the evidence to the contrary.

The government indeed "appears" to be hopelessly weak and incompetent in its negotiations with the EU, unless of course, the powers to be, ARE planning to give us Brexit in name only. This now very much appears to be the case.

What happened to May's "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal".... now she is trying to hold her own party to ransom by threatening No deal as being worse than her capitulation of a deal, with the no 10 machine doing its best to churn out supporting scare story tactics and treasury reports in support. Also we are now being told we might get no Brexit at all!

As Steve Baker says, you hardly ever hear ministers rebutting scare stores from the media and the Remain side and so it is left for people like Jacob Rees Mogg and Nigel Farage to do it. Anyone with this train of thought is then immediately labelled as a HARD brexiteer by the majority of the media, press and the Remain side as if they are a group of fanatics for wanting to honour the result of the referendum!

Even leaving Boris Johnson aside, you have to ask yourselves why people such as Steve Baker, David Davis and latterly Dominic Rabb have all resigned over the government's stance to the Brexit negotiations.... I think Steve Baker's evidence, as given to the MP's committee in the above video, answers that question.
False no but it's half a picture. The trade deal that was offered by the EU is not one that the Tory party or parliament was ready to sign up for.

Some have resigned because of dogma / political positioning others because they do not have the intellect or work ethic for the task in hand, others would approach the negotiations in a different way.
 

zambezi

Well-Known Member
...The trade deal that was offered by the EU is not one that the Tory party or parliament was ready to sign up for.
Where do you draw substance to back that assertion? In Baker's testimony to the MPs, a full and clear Brexit plus FTAs were on the table whilst he and Davis were in the Brexit entourage. But the only thing May offered up to parliamentary scrutiny at the end of over 2 years scheming was a half-baked Withdrawl which she declared was the only deal on the table.

It now seems pretty clear that it was NOT the only deal on the table. Rather, it is the only deal she will offer to the country. Time for leadership change.
 

Bavarianbrit

Well-Known Member
Anyone fancy chipping in with me to buy a landing craft?
There is a Ramsgate job offer now open again with lots of subsidies available.
BB
 

oowee

Well-Known Member
He is right saying they were / are on the table but they are dismissed by UK Govt as not being a full or fair offer. So it has been discussed, dismissed and not pursued.

Tusk
"It should come as no surprise that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement. I hope that it will be ambitious and advanced – and we will do our best, as we did with other partners, such as Canada recently," EU Council chief Donald Tusk said, adding, "but anyway it will only be a trade agreement".
"The EU cannot grant the rights of Norway, with the obligations of Canada," Tusk said, who described May's approach as "pick and mix".

Ivan Rogers
"The Canada deal is actually good FTA by world standards. But it does not deliver the Canadians a uniform position in the EU market. (Or vice versa). The general provisions in services liberalisation are counteracted by more than 500 sectoral or regional exemptions – often relating to corporate form, to the necessary qualifications of service providers, or to discrimination on grounds of nationality.
None of which are legal internally in the EU. But all of which can and will be applied to us when we leave.
And all of which are perfectly legal under WTO rules, whatever those who witter on endlessly about the marvels of WTO terms, without understanding or wishing to, the difference between them and Single Market terms, tell you.
Because WTO terms, which are critically important, are merely a foundation upon which you build when seeking deeper freeing up trade, bilaterally, plurilaterally or regionally, via FTAs or less ambitious agreements. And services trade is extremely hard to liberalise as you are dealing with entrenched cultural preferences and intractable regulatory barriers. "

Sky news
"Despite talk of liberalising trade in services between Canada and the EU, the agreement is far from comprehensive - with hundreds of exceptions listed - and CETA does not guarantee Canadian firms an EU financial services "passport".
This means they will still face hurdles to trading freely on the continent.
CETA also does not remove non-tariff barriers such as EU rules of origin requirements, while some sensitive agricultural products such as eggs or chicken are not covered by the agreement."










15
trade negotiation, that leaving the Single Market makes trade, notably in services in which we are world class, LESS free. Much less free. Because we are closing off ways in which our world class firms can provide services seamlessly cross border.
 

zambezi

Well-Known Member
He is right saying they were / are on the table but they are dismissed by UK Govt as not being a full or fair offer. So it has been discussed, dismissed and not pursued.
I understand the thrust of what you say, and cannot disagree with the basic premise. In simplistic terms, the UK-EU relationship needs to settle somewhere on a continuum that looks a bit like the following:

NO Brexit - May's Withdrawl proposal - EEA - FTA - WTO

For UK services to have the fewest bumps in the road, we need to accept one of the two options on the left of that spectrum. If we pursue any of the other three possibilities, then a severance of the customs union means we have no better access to the EU than Canada [in your example].

What this thread and wider social media seems to be resonating with is this: the price the EU is placing on the left-hand models is too high. [ECJ primacy, NI backstop, £39bn, Westminster remains a parochial council, etc] Nothing in the Withdrawl agreement can abrogate the very high value citizens of the UK place on those items. No trade, no access, no financial gain.

Better UK negotiators could have found a more mutually equitable position nearer the right of middle position.
 

Chasey

Well-Known Member
By you maybe but I certainly haven't changed my mind. I suppose we could have the best of 5 referendums just like penalty shoot outs?

Of course you haven't, there are die hards for every cult, belief and religion, but in the face of overwhelming evidence more than enough have crossed to the remain camp

Id like to see Sunderland's vote again, I am suspecting a very different outcome :D
 

Top