Joining (Eventually) Inaccessible 240V...
Home & Garden0 min ago
Finally A P M With The Balls To Tell It Like It Is.....
66 Answers
https:/
Yes, collaborators is the correct term, bang on Boris.
Yes, collaborators is the correct term, bang on Boris.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I didn't hope the Deal would succeed, as a matter of fact. I vastly prefer it to a No-Deal Brexit, but that's not even remotely the same thing.
Oh, and adding further weight to how much of a lie it is that May et al never wanted Brexit really, they also spent a couple of billion pounds on preparing for a No Deal Brexit before being effectively forced to abandon it by Parliament, and also assigned thousands of Civil Servants across Whitehall and beyond to the task of preparing for Brexit, thus sapping energy and expertise from every other sector of government for the better part of a year or more.
How anyone can take seriously the notion that it was all a con is beyond me. The truth is that the closest this country has come to exiting the EU was blocked by Brexit supporters. Not wholly unreasonably -- the WA suited neither side on its own merits -- but it would have seen the UK formally leave the EU this year, and leave it properly by about 2025 at the latest.
Oh, and adding further weight to how much of a lie it is that May et al never wanted Brexit really, they also spent a couple of billion pounds on preparing for a No Deal Brexit before being effectively forced to abandon it by Parliament, and also assigned thousands of Civil Servants across Whitehall and beyond to the task of preparing for Brexit, thus sapping energy and expertise from every other sector of government for the better part of a year or more.
How anyone can take seriously the notion that it was all a con is beyond me. The truth is that the closest this country has come to exiting the EU was blocked by Brexit supporters. Not wholly unreasonably -- the WA suited neither side on its own merits -- but it would have seen the UK formally leave the EU this year, and leave it properly by about 2025 at the latest.
//People who don't want to support a No Deal Brexit, given all the signs that it will be harmful, are far from collaborators. People who still think Remaining in the EU is best for the country are not collaborators either.//
Don't disagree with any of that and certainly don't impugn the honour of anyone who is a Remainer.
But people who have that honest conviction will act in a morally consistent way. For instance, they would not do either of the following:
(1) expose the country to economic disaster by voting for a referendum given the stupidity of the electorate, and the power of populist demagogues like Farage.
(2) vote to trigger Article 50 which set a two year absolute deadline on our leaving the EU, irrespective of any arrangements which might or might not be agreed between the EU and the UK in the interim. As was pointed out by Cameron, Osbourne, Grieve, Hammond etc at the time: the default is that we lose EU preferences and are forced to trade on WTO terms.
Voting for either one of the above would make the country's future prosperity hostage to fortune. And no principled politician would take the risk of allowing an ignorant, ill-informed and easily influenced electorate to decide such an issue of moment.
So the Remainer who has done either one of these (and let's face it, they all have, to a Hammond and a Soubrey, done both). These are not the the principled people person described in Jim's post.
PS: dare say we could have a thread about what constitutes "honesty". I would have thought it's the kind of thing most of could agree about, but obviously not.)
Don't disagree with any of that and certainly don't impugn the honour of anyone who is a Remainer.
But people who have that honest conviction will act in a morally consistent way. For instance, they would not do either of the following:
(1) expose the country to economic disaster by voting for a referendum given the stupidity of the electorate, and the power of populist demagogues like Farage.
(2) vote to trigger Article 50 which set a two year absolute deadline on our leaving the EU, irrespective of any arrangements which might or might not be agreed between the EU and the UK in the interim. As was pointed out by Cameron, Osbourne, Grieve, Hammond etc at the time: the default is that we lose EU preferences and are forced to trade on WTO terms.
Voting for either one of the above would make the country's future prosperity hostage to fortune. And no principled politician would take the risk of allowing an ignorant, ill-informed and easily influenced electorate to decide such an issue of moment.
So the Remainer who has done either one of these (and let's face it, they all have, to a Hammond and a Soubrey, done both). These are not the the principled people person described in Jim's post.
PS: dare say we could have a thread about what constitutes "honesty". I would have thought it's the kind of thing most of could agree about, but obviously not.)
Dear me, I've just read this:
"it [the May 'deal']would have seen the UK formally leave the EU this year, and leave it properly by about 2025 at the latest".
The "Deal" tied us to the customs union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ for ever. Or until such times as the EU agreed to ending the backstop. Whichever came later.
"it [the May 'deal']would have seen the UK formally leave the EU this year, and leave it properly by about 2025 at the latest".
The "Deal" tied us to the customs union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ for ever. Or until such times as the EU agreed to ending the backstop. Whichever came later.
It's also possible for people to make mistakes while still being honest. It's true that MPs who wanted us to remain in the EU should have fought the case harder even before the referendum, but "eurosceptism-lite" was I guess just a fashion. And I still maintain that there was a complacency on the part of Remain supporters that offering the decision to the people would be fine because they'd make the "right decision" in the end, and then got found out. Hence, for example, the lack of planning for a "Leave" outcome before the referendum, and the immediate resignations of Cameron and Osborne (the complacents-in-chief).
After that they were more or less trapped into voting for Article 50, once it was rushed through so early. Or rather they trapped themselves. Maybe the hope was that a deal that was more or less acceptable would emerge from the negotiations. Or maybe it's a lack of principle after all. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
After that they were more or less trapped into voting for Article 50, once it was rushed through so early. Or rather they trapped themselves. Maybe the hope was that a deal that was more or less acceptable would emerge from the negotiations. Or maybe it's a lack of principle after all. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Given the three choices of remaining, leaving with this deal, or leaving with No Deal, I choose Remain. If you exclude that, I choose leaving with a withdrawal agreement -- ideally one that smooths out the transition and minimises the disruption. There's no "yeah but no but". Just another example of either accidentally or deliberately misinterpreting my position.
// The "Deal" tied us to the customs union and the jurisdiction of the ECJ for ever. Or until such times as the EU agreed to ending the backstop. Whichever came later. //
While I will technically concede this point (actually until 20xx rather than "forever", but for both of us I suppose the end of the century is basically forever), it ignores the practical strain on both EU and UK that a "half-in, half-out" UK would provide. Neither side would want this situation to continue indefinitely, least of all the EU. So yes, technically 2025 has no basis in the content of the WA, but I would still have expected that year (or earlier) to have marked the endpoint of some sort of halfway exit.
While I will technically concede this point (actually until 20xx rather than "forever", but for both of us I suppose the end of the century is basically forever), it ignores the practical strain on both EU and UK that a "half-in, half-out" UK would provide. Neither side would want this situation to continue indefinitely, least of all the EU. So yes, technically 2025 has no basis in the content of the WA, but I would still have expected that year (or earlier) to have marked the endpoint of some sort of halfway exit.
Hindsight, as I say, is a wonderful thing. There's a logical at least that explains the actions of MPs, even remain-supporting ones (ie, most of them). But the ones who really lacked principles were the leaders of the campaign, Cameron especially. Making a promise and then instantly running away from the consequences.
^^^Well apparently, the EU will immediately welcome an independent Scotland with open arms without having to bother with irrelevant things like proving they meet the EUs financial requirements, they will be awash with money, even though the English subsidise the Scots, and each and every household will be given their very own pet Unicorn.
Delusional doesn't even begin to cover it.
Delusional doesn't even begin to cover it.
Latest Posts
Funny They Don't Seem To Have Any...
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Spectator N0 2684 : Romans 5 By...
Crosswords6 mins ago
A Question About Gifts And Tax
Business & Finance14 mins ago
