-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Leave or Remain?
- Thread starter andy w
- Start date
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Yeah, but we took our country back innit.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
The rich?Who's winning?
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
From Sky News
Lewis Goodall, Political Correspondent
It was said in the early 20th century that had Otto von Bismarck lived, the First World War would never have taken place.
The old Prussian chancellor was considered to be so great a statesman that he could square any diplomatic circle.
After the testy press conference between Michel Barnier and David Davis, we might wish he were still alive today to help us all out.
But I think even Bismarck wouldn't have known what to do with Brexit.
From what we have seen from the three rounds of talks so far, the negotiations cannot succeed. If they go on as they are, Britain will fall out of the EU without a deal - something neither side wants (although it would be more damaging to the UK).
And that is because of a mistake Theresa May made on day one of becoming prime minister. She adopted the language and approach of the Leave campaign, hook, line and sinker and she failed to prepare the way for the inevitable compromise which would be part of any bespoke deal.
Why would anyone be a member of a club if all of its benefits could be accrued by not being a member? The club would quickly go out of business.
It was the rhetoric of the Leave campaign throughout the referendum that there would be little to no cost as a result of the UK leaving the European Union. They argued that the EU would give the UK a trade deal equal to that which we enjoy now with full access to the single market and no customs checks at the border because it would be in the EU's interest to do so. This could all be done without freedom of movement and with minimal contributions to the EU budget (if any).
I'm afraid much of this was total nonsense. And Mrs May regurgitated it ad nauseam from the day she became prime minister.
She didn't need to. She was in a unique position. As a reluctant Remainer, she had not made any of the outlandish claims of the Leave campaign. She could have levelled with the British people and said: "You have voted for this. I will deliver the very best deal I can. But there will in the short term be some sacrifice, what we will have will inevitably, at least in the short term, be different to that which we have had as members."
Such a sentiment would have been a blisteringly clear statement of self-evident truth. How could it be otherwise?
Why would anyone be a member of a club if all of its benefits could be accrued by not being a member? The club would quickly go out of business.
And that's why Michel Barnier kept talking about "consequences" on Thursday. Again and again he repeated the mantra: "I've always said Brexit would have many consequences…unfortunately they are not being discussed in the United Kingdom." He implied that British politicians were not being clear with the voters.
Indeed they are not. We've had half a dozen government position papers which make no mention of those consequences. Those papers still peddle the same government fantasy: that we can achieve similar if not identical arrangements to what we have now but with new bespoke deals over each area with independent bodies overseeing them, for example, a new customs union and an independent court to enforce legal disputes.
In the short term that is not going to happen. Even if the EU wished it and showed the "flexibility" David Davis kept banging on about, there would just not be enough time. And they don't want to do it anyway. The cardinal imperative on the EU side is not - as it is for us - to have a mutually beneficial deal but instead that the UK must pay some price as a means of keeping the precious single market intact and uncompromised.
Mrs May has not made that clear with the public and now she is trapped. She must meet impossible promises not of her making but of her parroting. What she should do now is to change tack before it's too late and make clear that many of the promises made in the referendum are not possible in the short term.
But she can say that they might be in the future. The best chance the UK has is to agree to stay in the customs union and the single market for a lengthy transition, potentially for the next five to 10 years. In that time the UK would be able to work on a long term trade agreement and achieve the vision the Prime Minister set out in her Lancaster House speech.
A lengthy transition would allow Brussels to say that Britain had paid a price. That in order to keep the economic advantages of the EU she had to stay in its institutions whilst being in the cold outside for some time. She would have no say in its rules and she wouldn't be able to negotiate new trade deals. She would also have to continue to pay substantial sums and be part of the ECJ. The UK would be in the "political purgatory" Theresa May would say she wanted to avoid. An EU waiting room for misbehaving children.
But it need not be a permanent stay on the naughty step. A simple deal which established the status quo for a lengthy period would be quick to ratify throughout the EU. In return the EU would agree to spend the next five or so years on working a new relationship.
In other words, we might be able to have our cake and eat it too but we'll have to go on a diet in the meantime.
What is more, it may also be politically possible. It is basically the Labour party's position now. There would be enough Tory MPs who believed in it or who could be cajoled to get it through the Commons. It would probably cost May her premiership as she would lose the support of her Brexiteer powerbase, but her political career is almost certainly over after Brexit anyway.
We are leaving the European Union. Suggesting we won't is a Remainer fantasy. It would poison the well of democratic politics forever if we didn't.
But the idea we can leave cleanly in two years with the benefits we have now is just as much a fantasy on the Leave side. After all, it takes five to 10 years to join the EU. Why shouldn't it take a similar length of time to leave?
Elections have consequences. Referenda are once in a generation events, and the shadows they cast are longest of all. It's about time the government, from the Prime Minister down, admitted it.
Politics after all, as Bismarck so famously said, is the art of the possible.
Sky Views is a series of comment pieces by Sky News editors and correspondents, published every morning.
Lewis Goodall, Political Correspondent
It was said in the early 20th century that had Otto von Bismarck lived, the First World War would never have taken place.
The old Prussian chancellor was considered to be so great a statesman that he could square any diplomatic circle.
After the testy press conference between Michel Barnier and David Davis, we might wish he were still alive today to help us all out.
But I think even Bismarck wouldn't have known what to do with Brexit.
From what we have seen from the three rounds of talks so far, the negotiations cannot succeed. If they go on as they are, Britain will fall out of the EU without a deal - something neither side wants (although it would be more damaging to the UK).
And that is because of a mistake Theresa May made on day one of becoming prime minister. She adopted the language and approach of the Leave campaign, hook, line and sinker and she failed to prepare the way for the inevitable compromise which would be part of any bespoke deal.
Why would anyone be a member of a club if all of its benefits could be accrued by not being a member? The club would quickly go out of business.
It was the rhetoric of the Leave campaign throughout the referendum that there would be little to no cost as a result of the UK leaving the European Union. They argued that the EU would give the UK a trade deal equal to that which we enjoy now with full access to the single market and no customs checks at the border because it would be in the EU's interest to do so. This could all be done without freedom of movement and with minimal contributions to the EU budget (if any).
I'm afraid much of this was total nonsense. And Mrs May regurgitated it ad nauseam from the day she became prime minister.
She didn't need to. She was in a unique position. As a reluctant Remainer, she had not made any of the outlandish claims of the Leave campaign. She could have levelled with the British people and said: "You have voted for this. I will deliver the very best deal I can. But there will in the short term be some sacrifice, what we will have will inevitably, at least in the short term, be different to that which we have had as members."
Such a sentiment would have been a blisteringly clear statement of self-evident truth. How could it be otherwise?
Why would anyone be a member of a club if all of its benefits could be accrued by not being a member? The club would quickly go out of business.
And that's why Michel Barnier kept talking about "consequences" on Thursday. Again and again he repeated the mantra: "I've always said Brexit would have many consequences…unfortunately they are not being discussed in the United Kingdom." He implied that British politicians were not being clear with the voters.
Indeed they are not. We've had half a dozen government position papers which make no mention of those consequences. Those papers still peddle the same government fantasy: that we can achieve similar if not identical arrangements to what we have now but with new bespoke deals over each area with independent bodies overseeing them, for example, a new customs union and an independent court to enforce legal disputes.
In the short term that is not going to happen. Even if the EU wished it and showed the "flexibility" David Davis kept banging on about, there would just not be enough time. And they don't want to do it anyway. The cardinal imperative on the EU side is not - as it is for us - to have a mutually beneficial deal but instead that the UK must pay some price as a means of keeping the precious single market intact and uncompromised.
Mrs May has not made that clear with the public and now she is trapped. She must meet impossible promises not of her making but of her parroting. What she should do now is to change tack before it's too late and make clear that many of the promises made in the referendum are not possible in the short term.
But she can say that they might be in the future. The best chance the UK has is to agree to stay in the customs union and the single market for a lengthy transition, potentially for the next five to 10 years. In that time the UK would be able to work on a long term trade agreement and achieve the vision the Prime Minister set out in her Lancaster House speech.
A lengthy transition would allow Brussels to say that Britain had paid a price. That in order to keep the economic advantages of the EU she had to stay in its institutions whilst being in the cold outside for some time. She would have no say in its rules and she wouldn't be able to negotiate new trade deals. She would also have to continue to pay substantial sums and be part of the ECJ. The UK would be in the "political purgatory" Theresa May would say she wanted to avoid. An EU waiting room for misbehaving children.
But it need not be a permanent stay on the naughty step. A simple deal which established the status quo for a lengthy period would be quick to ratify throughout the EU. In return the EU would agree to spend the next five or so years on working a new relationship.
In other words, we might be able to have our cake and eat it too but we'll have to go on a diet in the meantime.
What is more, it may also be politically possible. It is basically the Labour party's position now. There would be enough Tory MPs who believed in it or who could be cajoled to get it through the Commons. It would probably cost May her premiership as she would lose the support of her Brexiteer powerbase, but her political career is almost certainly over after Brexit anyway.
We are leaving the European Union. Suggesting we won't is a Remainer fantasy. It would poison the well of democratic politics forever if we didn't.
But the idea we can leave cleanly in two years with the benefits we have now is just as much a fantasy on the Leave side. After all, it takes five to 10 years to join the EU. Why shouldn't it take a similar length of time to leave?
Elections have consequences. Referenda are once in a generation events, and the shadows they cast are longest of all. It's about time the government, from the Prime Minister down, admitted it.
Politics after all, as Bismarck so famously said, is the art of the possible.
Sky Views is a series of comment pieces by Sky News editors and correspondents, published every morning.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
And this is why Moggy is being lined up as the saviour of the Conservatives, May will be brushed aside and he shall save the day! Well, not really, but he'll put the blame for everything onto May and start with a clean slate so that he can insist all the feck ups were the old lot and nowt to do with his party at all dontchaknow.
Mikinton
Well-Known Forumite
Nice article, though I'm not sure about the Bismarck thing. One of the main reasons the First World War turned out the way it did was because of the Franco-Prussian War 40 years earlier in which Bismarck played a ("the") prominent role.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Which has meant
Thatlist
Of socalled 'news' organisations
Has turned their propaganda up to 10
And there are enough of them and enough of the TBCerrs to confuse and control tuthas into thinking ( or rather not ) that this is still going well
Really
It's the same type of people
Who complain they can't get a doctor's appointment and then march on down to the polling station and vote Conservative
We are surrounded by the stupid and the belligerent who feed from the Daily Mail and poison the rest of us
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Moat brexiteers I know seem to think that getting no deal with the EU somehow shows them that they can't walk all over us, and are starting to mutter that maybe Moggy would be a better man for the job. Which, funnily enough, is exactly what I see in the right wing press.