So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[Freggyragh]

Why? Has he got a moat, or paying for a flat for a French MEP?

[guzzi]

 

 

 

For me, one of the most inexcusable near silences was that of Labour and Corbyn. When he did eventually speak up, Corbyn spoke with such obvious insincerity that his message outshone his lukewarm words. He did very little more than say that on balance, he supported remain. He urged no one to vote remain, he did nothing to point out the material benefits that the EU brings to economically disadvantaged areas. It was exactly those Labour voting areas that were key in swinging it in favour of 'leave'.

 

A more vigorous Labour campaign that focussed on getting the facts out would have made a difference,

But I thought the reasons for remaining were obvious, why did people need it pointing out to them by their leaders? If the material benefits need spelling out so graphically then it seems the whole premise for remaining isn't quite so clear cut.

Both sides of the argument needed to be cogently put. The exit side did so pursusivly, notwithstanding that much of what they said was untrue. The remain side was poor, and relied too much on negatives about leaving, and failed to get the benefits of membership across clearly. Corbin, effectively, bolstered leave whilst he mouthed support for remain.

 

 

But all we've heard since the vote are the negatives about leaving and nothing really about the benefits of membership. Seems to me like the argument for remaining is very flimsy if it's more focused on undermining the opposition argument than outlining the merits of it's own position.

 

 

 

I can understand that view. But there is an alternative narrative , which is that as the UK government engages with the realities of leaving the EU, the negatives become more and more obvious, and the media, quite correctly, reports what emerges. For example, the cost of the 'divorce settlement', the Gibraltar situation and the contradiction between maintaining free market access and controlling immigration from EU countries.

 

The leave side, understandably, didn't mention any of that in their campaign, and remain failed to get those points out effectively either.

 

In short, the question that is emerging and becoming a herd of elephants in the room is 'why the hell are we doing this?'.

Edited April 8, 2017 by guzzi

[quilp]

In short, the question that is emerging and becoming a herd of elephants in the room is 'why the hell are we doing this?'.

Sounds like more of the usual unfounded gloominess.

[Freggyragh]

Look carefully and you'll see that Guzzi backed up his gloominess with three illustrations. Three of the most innocuous, granted. He didn't even mention Ireland, Scotland, security, academia, loss of prestige, recruitment of skilled workers, loss of any control over non-tariff trading regs and standards, the devalued pound, visas or the healthcare costs of 800,000 returning pensioners.

[quilp]

Well we'll just have to bloody well wait and see won't we? Reminder: Brexit hasn't happened yet.

[guzzi]

 

In short, the question that is emerging and becoming a herd of elephants in the room is 'why the hell are we doing this?'.

Sounds like more of the usual unfounded gloominess.

 

 

 

Hardly unfounded. We have invoked article 50 and set out our negotiating position and received responses from the EU citing exactly those issues as red lines.

 

I am gloomy, it's quite true. Gloomy at losing my rights as an EU citizen, gloomy about the UK leaving the European project, gloomy at turning the clock back to a 19th century Europe of nation states with all that followed. Above all, what the community has secured is peace in Western Europe and this is now in jeopardy.

 

All because of a cat fight in the Tory party, as Guy Verhofstad said, and because the alienated and disaffected of the UK were lied to.

 

I understand fully that this view will probably attract an epithet with -tard appended to it from some quarters.

[woody2]

 

 

 

 

For me, one of the most inexcusable near silences was that of Labour and Corbyn. When he did eventually speak up, Corbyn spoke with such obvious insincerity that his message outshone his lukewarm words. He did very little more than say that on balance, he supported remain. He urged no one to vote remain, he did nothing to point out the material benefits that the EU brings to economically disadvantaged areas. It was exactly those Labour voting areas that were key in swinging it in favour of 'leave'.

 

A more vigorous Labour campaign that focussed on getting the facts out would have made a difference,

But I thought the reasons for remaining were obvious, why did people need it pointing out to them by their leaders? If the material benefits need spelling out so graphically then it seems the whole premise for remaining isn't quite so clear cut.

Both sides of the argument needed to be cogently put. The exit side did so pursusivly, notwithstanding that much of what they said was untrue. The remain side was poor, and relied too much on negatives about leaving, and failed to get the benefits of membership across clearly. Corbin, effectively, bolstered leave whilst he mouthed support for remain.

 

 

But all we've heard since the vote are the negatives about leaving and nothing really about the benefits of membership. Seems to me like the argument for remaining is very flimsy if it's more focused on undermining the opposition argument than outlining the merits of it's own position.

 

 

 

I can understand that view. But there is an alternative narrative , which is that as the UK government engages with the realities of leaving the EU, the negatives become more and more obvious, and the media, quite correctly, reports what emerges. For example, the cost of the 'divorce settlement', the Gibraltar situation and the contradiction between maintaining free market access and controlling immigration from EU countries.

 

The leave side, understandably, didn't mention any of that in their campaign, and remain failed to get those points out effectively either.

 

In short, the question that is emerging and becoming a herd of elephants in the room is 'why the hell are we doing this?'.

 

can you back any of this bullshit up.....

[woody2]

Look carefully and you'll see that Guzzi backed up his gloominess with three illustrations. Three of the most innocuous, granted. He didn't even mention Ireland, Scotland, security, academia, loss of prestige, recruitment of skilled workers, loss of any control over non-tariff trading regs and standards, the devalued pound, visas or the healthcare costs of 800,000 returning pensioners.

uk pays regardless.....

[guzzi]

@woody I don't want to bloat quote, but yes, see my post 1584 and also the press over the last few weeks since the article 50 letter was delivered.

[pongo]

Well we'll just have to bloody well wait and see won't we? Reminder: Brexit hasn't happened yet.

Fingers crossed eh! But wait and see is not an economic plan. It's lackadaisical and careless. It means proceeding with a thing without having regard for the potential consequences, breaking something to see what happens. This is not the laissez faire position which some imagine.

 

The reactionary contrarians who have pushed for the Brexit will be blamed for almost everything which goes wrong from now on. Which is entirely deserved given the way in which anti-Europeans and troublemakers have simplistically shaped and styled debate over many years. They have created the mood. It's no good them now calling for people to come together.

[woody2]

@woody I don't want to bloat quote, but yes, see my post 1584 and also the press over the last few weeks since the article 50 letter was delivered.

so just bullshit then as you have nothing to backup your claims....

[mojomonkey]

 

@woody I don't want to bloat quote, but yes, see my post 1584 and also the press over the last few weeks since the article 50 letter was delivered.

so just bullshit then as you have nothing to backup your claims....

Oh, the irony.

[guzzi]

 

@woody I don't want to bloat quote, but yes, see my post 1584 and also the press over the last few weeks since the article 50 letter was delivered.

so just bullshit then as you have nothing to backup your claims....

 

 

 

Woody, there's no need to insult me. The point is that I'm backing up my statement about the elephant in the room with facts that have been well reported in the press, viz. the EU's documented responses on the issues I've quoted.

[quilp]

What about all the press and media you choose not to read?

[guzzi]

What about all the press and media you choose not to read?

 

 

Well that goes for everything, doesn't it? I was quoting EU responses to the UK invocation of article 50. The full text has been reported in the press. I wasn't quoting media op ed.