Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

May has apparently stated that the UK is looking for a 'bespoke' plan to leave the UK, so based on that it could be a mix of many options on a menu of choices.
Admittedly most remainers (one in particular) will say we won't have choices as it's the EU who will decide ultimately, but I don't think that will be the case and there will be compromises on both sides, it's inevitable.

You mention a closer liason, I think we know that won't work, unless as stated there are compromises, however leaving is non-negotiable as that based on May's unambiguous message 'Brexit is Brexit' is not on any table.

The dual level membership has been muted, but again any form of retained membership of the EU would not in my opinion be Brexit, I can't think anyone who voted leave would entertain such an idea, and would see it as a climbdown by the establishment.The UK got that with Cameron (climbdown), which is why we are where we are.

I noticed today that apparently there is talk of single market access and caps on immigration being put forward as an option by the Govt Brexit team.
Apparently the option is on May's desk for her to mull over on her return tomorrow. I'll not post a link, as it will give one particular Remainer a coronary, and as it comes from the list of unreliable sources it will be ridiculed.

Post the link if its relevant.

An option that keeps SM access I expect will be a key priority for many in govt.

I'm not at all surprised this is linked to an 'attempt' to do something about migration as part of a request to the EU - they may even badger some concessions from the EU, though it will be interesting to see how different they are to what Dave got, plus how they would be enacted even if pushed through - how did our govt do with the non-EU cap? Its almost as if they'd decided that capping migration and making recruitment harder for business was not in the best interests of the UK economy! Who knew?

And what price concessions? Rescind banking access for passporting? That would be a good play from the EU - "sure, go off and be bigoted about EU immigration, we'll let you limit numbers, but you won't need that banking income as you're all going back to fishing, no? Nigel tells us 'the little people' have spoken, what can he mean.....lol...."

[Derek Smith]

don'tbesilly said:

May has apparently stated that the UK is looking for a 'bespoke' plan to leave the UK, so based on that it could be a mix of many options on a menu of choices.
Admittedly most remainers (one in particular) will say we won't have choices as it's the EU who will decide ultimately, but I don't think that will be the case and there will be compromises on both sides, it's inevitable.

You mention a closer liason, I think we know that won't work, unless as stated there are compromises, however leaving is non-negotiable as that based on May's unambiguous message 'Brexit is Brexit' is not on any table.

The dual level membership has been muted, but again any form of retained membership of the EU would not in my opinion be Brexit, I can't think anyone who voted leave would entertain such an idea, and would see it as a climbdown by the establishment.The UK got that with Cameron (climbdown), which is why we are where we are.

I noticed today that apparently there is talk of single market access and caps on immigration being put forward as an option by the Govt Brexit team.
Apparently the option is on May's desk for her to mull over on her return tomorrow. I'll not post a link, as it will give one particular Remainer a coronary, and as it comes from the list of unreliable sources it will be ridiculed.

I'm not sure why you think brexit is brexit is unambiguous. No one knows what she meant by that. It could mean anything.

Further, we have the German Vice Chancellor saying “. . . so now we need to make sure that we don’t allow Britain to keep the nice things, so to speak, related to Europe while taking no responsibility.”

The negotiations will be difficult. The suggestion that the eu will try and squeeze the UK was one prevalent pre referendum.

We have no idea what concessions we will have to agree to.

[FiF]

don'tbesilly said:

The Guardian article is nearly 6 weeks old, time doesn't stand still.
The article has seen umpteen pieces of fish since it was published

On a point of order the DT piece was published on August 27, the Guardian had a piece published late on that day, which has now been pulled, from what I can see, and rewritten published on August 28. Even the rewritten piece covers the same general subject area and still from the typical Guardian remainer angle. Nothing new there then.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

May has apparently stated that the UK is looking for a 'bespoke' plan to leave the UK, so based on that it could be a mix of many options on a menu of choices.
Admittedly most remainers (one in particular) will say we won't have choices as it's the EU who will decide ultimately, but I don't think that will be the case and there will be compromises on both sides, it's inevitable.

You mention a closer liason, I think we know that won't work, unless as stated there are compromises, however leaving is non-negotiable as that based on May's unambiguous message 'Brexit is Brexit' is not on any table.

The dual level membership has been muted, but again any form of retained membership of the EU would not in my opinion be Brexit, I can't think anyone who voted leave would entertain such an idea, and would see it as a climbdown by the establishment.The UK got that with Cameron (climbdown), which is why we are where we are.

I noticed today that apparently there is talk of single market access and caps on immigration being put forward as an option by the Govt Brexit team.
Apparently the option is on May's desk for her to mull over on her return tomorrow. I'll not post a link, as it will give one particular Remainer a coronary, and as it comes from the list of unreliable sources it will be ridiculed.

Post the link if its relevant.

An option that keeps SM access I expect will be a key priority for many in govt.

I'm not at all surprised this is linked to an 'attempt' to do something about migration as part of a request to the EU - they may even badger some concessions from the EU, though it will be interesting to see how different they are to what Dave got, plus how they would be enacted even if pushed through - how did our govt do with the non-EU cap? Its almost as if they'd decided that capping migration and making recruitment harder for business was not in the best interests of the UK economy! Who knew?

And what price concessions? Rescind banking access for passporting? That would be a good play from the EU - "sure, go off and be bigoted about EU immigration, we'll let you limit numbers, but you won't need that banking income as you're all going back to fishing, no? Nigel tells us 'the little people' have spoken, what can he mean.....lol...."

It didn't take long and it fitted

Your two favourite subjects as is often the norm ///ajd, immigration and Farage, it's like a cocktail for you.

I can't be bothered to find the link in honesty, I read it this morning, if you want to think it was a figment of my imagination, crack on.

///ajd said:

"sure, go off and be bigoted about EU immigration, we'll let you limit numbers,

Please explain how wanting to curb immigration is bigoted in your world?

[don'tbesilly]

Derek Smith said:

don'tbesilly said:

May has apparently stated that the UK is looking for a 'bespoke' plan to leave the UK, so based on that it could be a mix of many options on a menu of choices.
Admittedly most remainers (one in particular) will say we won't have choices as it's the EU who will decide ultimately, but I don't think that will be the case and there will be compromises on both sides, it's inevitable.

You mention a closer liason, I think we know that won't work, unless as stated there are compromises, however leaving is non-negotiable as that based on May's unambiguous message 'Brexit is Brexit' is not on any table.

The dual level membership has been muted, but again any form of retained membership of the EU would not in my opinion be Brexit, I can't think anyone who voted leave would entertain such an idea, and would see it as a climbdown by the establishment.The UK got that with Cameron (climbdown), which is why we are where we are.

I noticed today that apparently there is talk of single market access and caps on immigration being put forward as an option by the Govt Brexit team.
Apparently the option is on May's desk for her to mull over on her return tomorrow. I'll not post a link, as it will give one particular Remainer a coronary, and as it comes from the list of unreliable sources it will be ridiculed.

I'm not sure why you think brexit is brexit is unambiguous. No one knows what she meant by that. It could mean anything.

Further, we have the German Vice Chancellor saying “. . . so now we need to make sure that we don’t allow Britain to keep the nice things, so to speak, related to Europe while taking no responsibility.”

The negotiations will be difficult. The suggestion that the eu will try and squeeze the UK was one prevalent pre referendum.

We have no idea what concessions we will have to agree to.

We seem to going around in circles Derek.

We both agree that Brexit is as yet undetermined, however leaving the EU is NOT, is that unambiguous enough for you.

There may well be concessions, we might not be able to keep all the goodies that were in the party bag, we have agreed to that in our earlier exchanges.

I'd be surprised if the EU did make things easy for the UK in leaving their union, after all, with umpteen other countries champing at the bit to leave the EU there desperate to hang onto as many countries as they can, their pot of money is going to shrink quite dramatically when the UK leave.

Who knows, some of the 350m may well make it to the NHS WHEN WE LEAVE (where's that spoon )

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

Please explain how wanting to curb immigration is bigoted in your world?

The link must be unconvincing if you won't post it - is it really that bad?

One argument is that immigration is actually good for our economy.

So why would anyone want to limit immigration - unless they just don't like foreigners?

So many here have confirmed immigration has never aftected them personally, so why are they so against it and want to curb immigration? There was a link earlier about how some remainers now regret no saying more about immigration - and having a proper debate instead of allowing Farage to run away with his 'breaking point' rhetoric. Sure there are pluses and minuses but the sentiment is blown out of all proportion. Some brexit posters from here are even defending Tommy Robinson in another thread.

Curb by 'how much' is an answer never provided.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

Please explain how wanting to curb immigration is bigoted in your world?

The link must be unconvincing if you won't post it - is it really that bad?

One argument is that immigration is actually good for our economy.

So why would anyone want to limit immigration - unless they just don't like foreigners?

So many here have confirmed immigration has never aftected them personally, so why are they so against it and want to curb immigration? There was a link earlier about how some remainers now regret no saying more about immigration - and having a proper debate instead of allowing Farage to run away with his 'breaking point' rhetoric. Sure there are pluses and minuses but the sentiment is blown out of all proportion. Some brexit posters from here are even defending Tommy Robinson in another thread.

Curb by 'how much' is an answer never provided.

You are like the character of drew barrymore in 50 first dates, only without the attractive personality.

[Derek Smith]

don'tbesilly said:

We seem to going around in circles Derek.

We both agree that Brexit is as yet undetermined, however leaving the EU is NOT, is that unambiguous enough for you.

There may well be concessions, we might not be able to keep all the goodies that were in the party bag, we have agreed to that in our earlier exchanges.

I'd be surprised if the EU did make things easy for the UK in leaving their union, after all, with umpteen other countries champing at the bit to leave the EU there desperate to hang onto as many countries as they can, their pot of money is going to shrink quite dramatically when the UK leave.

Who knows, some of the 350m may well make it to the NHS WHEN WE LEAVE (where's that spoon )

Just saying that we will definitely leave dosen't make it so. No one knows what May meant by brexit means brexit. It was a soundbite, a necessity after the vote. But, as I have said, nothing is set in stone. It is politics; anything is possible. Many a slip and suchlike. You can shout that it is done and dusted but that changes nothing.

I'm not going around in circles. I'm not the one predicting anything. I am, however, saying that history shows us that political machinations are present at all times. There is no legal requirement for the government to conform to the vote. Whilst there is pressure to follow it, we don't know.

I think it is probable that we will leave, very probable, but I am not silly or conceited enough to say that I know what MPs will do. I posted a quote from an emeritus Oxofrd law professor's suggestion that a/ a vote was needed to activate article 50, that if it was done without a vote then it could be challenged, and that activating it did not mean we were committed to leave. It was challenged by those who were not retired law professors, their decision being he was wrong.

I tend to go with professors.

So it would appear that a vote is required. That alone is enough to make anyone open-minded think that it isn't a done deal.

[Hugo a Gogo]

don'tbesilly said:

...umpteen other countries champing at the bit to leave the EU ...

how many is umpteen exactly, and which ones are they?

as far as I know, in 5 or 6 countries someone has suggested a referendum, mostly right wingers

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

You are like the character of drew barrymore in 50 first dates, only without the attractive personality.

it's so dull isn't it.

[Elysium]

FiF said:

It doesn't need a link to the Guardian, to raise the issue of the legal challenge as that's mentioned by the DT, as is the opposition in the Lords which could delay things for years, also the possibility that delays to declaring article 50 could mean that the EU27 make moves to carry on ignoring UK, which I would suggest we seeing the beginnings even now. Also reference and link to Gus O'Donnell's comments, and the opposition that will emerge once the Labour leadership battle has resolved.

Compare that to the Guardian coverage of the same topic at the same time, and whether the DT is accurately reporting a genuine decision, or kite flying, or speculation from sources which will be eventually denied or simple column filling guff, I know which article I reckon is the better balanced, and it ain't the Guardian, which may explain why they've now hidden it away unless you know where to look.

Anyway stick to Guardian if you guys want, it impresses because it fits your bias. Some of us read the Guardian too, but only as one elemental part of an attempt to see the wider picture from as many angles as time allows.

I don't read any of the newspapers in particular as they are all biased to some extent. In this case the link to the Guardian article was simply intended to illustrate the lack of depth in the daily telegraph piece. Particularly as the telegraph failed to mention the undertaking given by the government to the high court.

It's clear that government wants the ability to push this through without a vote. That is why they have chosen to defend the challenges. We have known this for many weeks.

The telegraph article does not add anything new and the reference to 'sources' does not suggest to me that they have an insight into Mays intentions.

If the high court holds that a commons vote is required, then we will have one. this all fits with Mays timescale of no action until early 2017 anyway.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

Please explain how wanting to curb immigration is bigoted in your world?

The link must be unconvincing if you won't post it - is it really that bad?

One argument is that immigration is actually good for our economy.

So why would anyone want to limit immigration - unless they just don't like foreigners?

So many here have confirmed immigration has never aftected them personally, so why are they so against it and want to curb immigration? There was a link earlier about how some remainers now regret no saying more about immigration - and having a proper debate instead of allowing Farage to run away with his 'breaking point' rhetoric. Sure there are pluses and minuses but the sentiment is blown out of all proportion. Some brexit posters from here are even defending Tommy Robinson in another thread.

Curb by 'how much' is an answer never provided.

You are like the character of drew barrymore in 50 first dates, only without the attractive personality.

You asked for an explanation.

If you don't like the answer, most intelligent grown ups are able to debate the issue, rather than resorting to personal insults.

How much are you wanting to curb immigration by then? Will you trot out the "limit to those who we need to go ve a job to?" line? How many is that then?

What do you mean there are no stats and you have no idea? LOL!!

[s2art]

///ajd said:

Curb by 'how much' is an answer never provided.

Its been repeated many times; the objective is to get immigration down to 100,000 or less, per year.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

Please explain how wanting to curb immigration is bigoted in your world?

The link must be unconvincing if you won't post it - is it really that bad?

One argument is that immigration is actually good for our economy.

So why would anyone want to limit immigration - unless they just don't like foreigners?

So many here have confirmed immigration has never aftected them personally, so why are they so against it and want to curb immigration? There was a link earlier about how some remainers now regret no saying more about immigration - and having a proper debate instead of allowing Farage to run away with his 'breaking point' rhetoric. Sure there are pluses and minuses but the sentiment is blown out of all proportion. Some brexit posters from here are even defending Tommy Robinson in another thread.

Curb by 'how much' is an answer never provided.

You are like the character of drew barrymore in 50 first dates, only without the attractive personality.

You asked for an explanation.

If you don't like the answer, most intelligent grown ups are able to debate the issue, rather than resorting to personal insults.

How much are you wanting to curb immigration by then? Will you trot out the "limit to those who we need to go ve a job to?" line? How many is that then?

What do you mean there are no stats and you have no idea? LOL!!

I didn't ask for anything, I made a statement that you are like the character of drew barrymore in 50 first dates, only without the attractive personality.

If you haven't seen the film, check it out, it's quite amusing and drew is very nice.

If you have seen the film, maybe you should do what drews characters family did and make a tape with all the answers we have already given you featured, so you can play that every morning to populate the part of your memory that is dysfunctional. That way maybe you won't keep asking the same questions which have been answered by people already many times.

[anonymous-user]

bmw535i said:

jsf said:

You are like the character of drew barrymore in 50 first dates, only without the attractive personality.

it's so dull isn't it.

The film is great, ///ajd not so much.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

I didn't ask for anything, I made a statement that you are like the character of drew barrymore in 50 first dates, only without the attractive personality.

If you haven't seen the film, check it out, it's quite amusing and drew is very nice.

If you have seen the film, maybe you should do what drews characters family did and make a tape with all the answers we have already given you featured, so you can play that every morning to populate the part of your memory that is dysfunctional. That way maybe you won't keep asking the same questions which have been answered by people already many times.

Ah yes, I see you decided to insult me after I answered a question from someone else.

Good skills, reinforce those stereotypes.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Ah yes, I see you decided to insult me after I answered a question from someone else.

Good skills, reinforce those stereotypes.

What stereotypes?

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

I didn't ask for anything, I made a statement that you are like the character of drew barrymore in 50 first dates, only without the attractive personality.

If you haven't seen the film, check it out, it's quite amusing and drew is very nice.

If you have seen the film, maybe you should do what drews characters family did and make a tape with all the answers we have already given you featured, so you can play that every morning to populate the part of your memory that is dysfunctional. That way maybe you won't keep asking the same questions which have been answered by people already many times.

Ah yes, I see you decided to insult me after I answered a question from someone else.

Good skills, reinforce those stereotypes.

It's not an insult.

I am concerned for your short term memory function, based on your inability to recall answers people have given you multiple times.

[///ajd]

s2art said:

///ajd said:

Curb by 'how much' is an answer never provided.

Its been repeated many times; the objective is to get immigration down to 100,000 or less, per year.

Is it? The official campaigns never declared a number, for obvious reasons.

Wasn't May down to get non-EU immigration down below 100,000? With all the controls and points systems in place, how is that going?

Hmmm, perhaps we need the migrants anyway? Brexiteer favourite the express seems to think so:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/n...

Looks like limiting to a low number could fuel a jobs crisis......

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

Is it? The official campaigns never declared a number, for obvious reasons.

Wasn't May down to get non-EU immigration down below 100,000? With all the controls and points systems in place, how is that going?

Hmmm, perhaps we need the migrants anyway? Brexiteer favourite the express seems to think so:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/n...

Looks like limiting to a low number could fuel a jobs crisis......

read page 30 onwards.