Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Is Your Mp On The List Of Shame?
35 Answers
Answers
I didn't mean it in that way (this time ;) ). I've expressed before that I think this bill should go through the House, unamended, and it follows that the overwhelming acceptance on Wednesday is welcome -- and yes, it was a valid vote. What I was mainly wondering is whether or not this result serves to hide the growing disconnect between MPs and the people they are meant to represent. I think most people in this country want the Government and Parliament to get on with the decision made on June 23rd, and make it work. I was only wondering if a majority of MPs really agreed.
But anyway.
But anyway.
"...and thanks to this vote we may never have the chance to use that phrase [the UK as a whole] again.
As has been pointed out, Andrew, the UK will still exist, with or without the Scots. But leaving that aside, how much money have you placed on Scotland voting for independence (should they be granted a second referendum, that is)?
Most Scots are not taken in by the foolish tantrums displayed by Ms Sturgeon and her chums; most of them know what side their bread is buttered; most of them know that Scotland is not economically viable as an independent nation; most of them know that an independent Scotland will never be admitted to the EU in its current form; most of them (perhaps you?) know that only 16% (and falling) of Scotland's exports go to the EU compared to the 63% that go to the rest of the UK; most of them know that sacrificing membership of a club which buys two-thirds of your goods to possibly (but improbably) retain membership of a market that buys about a quarter of that amount is foolish. That's why most of them (as in 2014) will still vote to remain as part of the UK.
One way or the other Scotland will no longer be part of the EU. The most likely scenario is that it will leave as part of the United Kingdom. Those Scots not yet accustomed to that idea would do well to get used to it.
As has been pointed out, Andrew, the UK will still exist, with or without the Scots. But leaving that aside, how much money have you placed on Scotland voting for independence (should they be granted a second referendum, that is)?
Most Scots are not taken in by the foolish tantrums displayed by Ms Sturgeon and her chums; most of them know what side their bread is buttered; most of them know that Scotland is not economically viable as an independent nation; most of them know that an independent Scotland will never be admitted to the EU in its current form; most of them (perhaps you?) know that only 16% (and falling) of Scotland's exports go to the EU compared to the 63% that go to the rest of the UK; most of them know that sacrificing membership of a club which buys two-thirds of your goods to possibly (but improbably) retain membership of a market that buys about a quarter of that amount is foolish. That's why most of them (as in 2014) will still vote to remain as part of the UK.
One way or the other Scotland will no longer be part of the EU. The most likely scenario is that it will leave as part of the United Kingdom. Those Scots not yet accustomed to that idea would do well to get used to it.
I'm not whinging about the vote but lets just say, I'm holding a lot in reserve for when the nitty gritty of the deal/s starts to be discussed. In anticipation of you saying 'if it gets tough or looks unfavourable, we'll just leave' all I can say is, you have more faith in our politicians to either bargain hard or make the decision to just quit than I do.
But this whinging (especially from the likes of Farron and Clegg) is seeking to conjoin the act of starting to leave with the details of leaving..
The 114 MPs who voted against the motion yesterday were voting against giving the PM authority to trigger A50. Some (like Kenneth Clarke) simply on the basis that they did not want the UK to leave. But others, such as the LibDems and many Labour Members, on the basis (so we are told) that since they didn’t have the details of the likely outcome of exit talks they couldn’t give the PM what they saw as carte blanche. So I won’t step forward to what happens if they don’t like the eventual outcome of those discussions. That’s for another day. But these members seem to believe that there is some connection between a successful outcome and actually leaving when there is not (for the same question continually rears its head – “what happens if the deal is ‘unacceptable’”). Leaving aside the fact that negotiations cannot begin and so they cannot have details until A50 is triggered, there seems no satisfactory answer to that question and in fact I don’t believe anybody in Parliament has even posed it when the dissenters put their point.
I don’t have much faith in any politicians. But Parliament needs to be prepared for the fact that it might be necessary to simply walk away from any deal that is not suitable – and that is any deal which leaves the UK enthralled to the EU or any of its subsidiary institutions. Should the EU (which, as far as I know, has not yet published any of its plans how it might approach the negotiations) remain as beligerent as some of its senior officials have seemed to indicate it might, there will be no other option. Personally I simply want to see the UK revert to the same status as any other normal country outside the EU. Anything must be infinitely better than the utter shambolic madhouse that is currently the EU.
The 114 MPs who voted against the motion yesterday were voting against giving the PM authority to trigger A50. Some (like Kenneth Clarke) simply on the basis that they did not want the UK to leave. But others, such as the LibDems and many Labour Members, on the basis (so we are told) that since they didn’t have the details of the likely outcome of exit talks they couldn’t give the PM what they saw as carte blanche. So I won’t step forward to what happens if they don’t like the eventual outcome of those discussions. That’s for another day. But these members seem to believe that there is some connection between a successful outcome and actually leaving when there is not (for the same question continually rears its head – “what happens if the deal is ‘unacceptable’”). Leaving aside the fact that negotiations cannot begin and so they cannot have details until A50 is triggered, there seems no satisfactory answer to that question and in fact I don’t believe anybody in Parliament has even posed it when the dissenters put their point.
I don’t have much faith in any politicians. But Parliament needs to be prepared for the fact that it might be necessary to simply walk away from any deal that is not suitable – and that is any deal which leaves the UK enthralled to the EU or any of its subsidiary institutions. Should the EU (which, as far as I know, has not yet published any of its plans how it might approach the negotiations) remain as beligerent as some of its senior officials have seemed to indicate it might, there will be no other option. Personally I simply want to see the UK revert to the same status as any other normal country outside the EU. Anything must be infinitely better than the utter shambolic madhouse that is currently the EU.
" But others, such as the LibDems and many Labour Members, on the basis (so we are told) that since they didn’t have the details of the likely outcome of exit talks they couldn’t give the PM what they saw as carte blanche."
Hmph ! Since the whole point of a negotiation table to to thrash out an agreement that wasn't known before negotiations start that is the most insane excuse going. Effectively it's saying, "We don't wish to start a process because we don't know in advance exactly how it'll turn out." Maybe they are in the wrong business and should get out of politics.
In any case Article 50 is to kick off the EU to do their 2 year time-waste to say we can go now, whereas the negotiations are all about creating a new relationship after the event: so it's not really relevant to the recent vote anyway.
Hmph ! Since the whole point of a negotiation table to to thrash out an agreement that wasn't known before negotiations start that is the most insane excuse going. Effectively it's saying, "We don't wish to start a process because we don't know in advance exactly how it'll turn out." Maybe they are in the wrong business and should get out of politics.
In any case Article 50 is to kick off the EU to do their 2 year time-waste to say we can go now, whereas the negotiations are all about creating a new relationship after the event: so it's not really relevant to the recent vote anyway.
Latest Posts
Writing Ideas Organiser Software
Technology31 mins ago
Body & Soul38 mins ago
Star Wars Quix...f A O Mozz....
Film, Media & TV80 mins ago
ChatterBank110 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles119 mins ago
