Brexit discussion

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Stephen

You cannot possibly treat a Twitter poll as accurate and fact.

Anyone in the world can click and vote and may spam/bot accounts end up voting.

Also she said hijacked not hacked.

Which was basically what Mick said last year. Maybe his views on Twitter have changed?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44391539

The UK's proposed "backstop" plan for trade with the EU after Brexit has been published after an "expected" end date - of 2021 - was included in it.

It followed crunch meetings between Prime Minister Theresa May and Brexit Secretary David Davis, who insisted there had to be a cut-off date in it.

The proposal would see the UK match EU trade tariffs temporarily in order to avoid a hard Irish border post-Brexit.

Brexiteers want to ensure the backstop could not continue indefinitely.

The UK is due to leave the EU in March 2019, and the government is trying to make progress before a crucial meeting of EU leaders later this month.

Hardline Brexiteers like Guido Fawkes are going the full gammon over this, but TBH as a ‘real’ Brexiteer who has wanted the U.K. out of the EU for the last 25+ years, I’m content to take a couple of extra years to get it right. Davis was quite right to demand an end date be hard-wired into the plan, but nobody is going to get everything they wanted out of this, and insisting that everything would stop dead next March simply wasn’t realistic.

This is a sensible backstop position that should take the heat out of the Irish border issue. Even if there’s no deal concluded by next March, the U.K. has committed to tariff alignment for a further 2 years, negating the need for border checks of any kind, and easing trade arrangements with the continent also.

Under this scenario, there will only be complications if the EU chooses to create them.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Hardline Brexiteers like Guido Fawkes are going the full gammon over this, but TBH as a ‘real’ Brexiteer who has wanted the U.K. out of the EU for the last 25+ years, I’m content to take a couple of extra years to get it right. Davis was quite right to demand an end date be hard-wired into the plan, but nobody is going to get everything they wanted out of this, and insisting that everything would stop dead next March simply wasn’t realistic.

This is a sensible backstop position that should take the heat out of the Irish border issue. Even if there’s no deal concluded by next March, the U.K. has committed to tariff alignment for a further 2 years, negating the need for border checks of any kind, and easing trade arrangements with the continent also.

Under this scenario, there will only be complications if the EU chooses to create them.

How does this not just kick the can down the road? The EU and the UK still have to agree a permanent trading relationship. Time does not necessarily erase red lines (on both sides).

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

How does this not just kick the can down the road? The EU and the UK still have to agree a permanent trading relationship. Time does not necessarily erase red lines (on both sides).

Come 2021 with no solution agreed then I guess things just continue as they are.

Originally Posted by ianch99

How does this not just kick the can down the road? The EU and the UK still have to agree a permanent trading relationship. Time does not necessarily erase red lines (on both sides).

The permanent solution will be the only one on the table - some kind of facilitation deal, with trusted partners and monitoring via technology. That, however, requires time to implement. Kicking the can down the road is all HMG needs to do in order to get the plan in place. It’s hard to see what objection the EU can have, when it comes to it, if the thing is up and running anyway.

Originally Posted by Chris

Hardline Brexiteers like Guido Fawkes are going the full gammon over this, but TBH as a ‘real’ Brexiteer who has wanted the U.K. out of the EU for the last 25+ years, I’m content to take a couple of extra years to get it right. Davis was quite right to demand an end date be hard-wired into the plan, but nobody is going to get everything they wanted out of this, and insisting that everything would stop dead next March simply wasn’t realistic.

This is a sensible backstop position that should take the heat out of the Irish border issue. Even if there’s no deal concluded by next March, the U.K. has committed to tariff alignment for a further 2 years, negating the need for border checks of any kind, and easing trade arrangements with the continent also.

Under this scenario, there will only be complications if the EU chooses to create them.

Have you fallen to the Owen Jones school of politics?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

The permanent solution will be the only one on the table - some kind of facilitation deal, with trusted partners and monitoring via technology. That, however, requires time to implement. Kicking the can down the road is all HMG needs to do in order to get the plan in place. It’s hard to see what objection the EU can have, when it comes to it, if the thing is up and running anyway.

Sorry, I missed this piece of news. What plan is this exactly? You sound like we have a plan *and* it will be agreed so all we need is the time to implement it.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me ..

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

The permanent solution will be the only one on the table - some kind of facilitation deal, with trusted partners and monitoring via technology. That, however, requires time to implement. Kicking the can down the road is all HMG needs to do in order to get the plan in place. It’s hard to see what objection the EU can have, when it comes to it, if the thing is up and running anyway.

It's not hard to see what objection the EU can have to it as the UK is suggesting it reneges on its signed agreement from December 2017. The EU won't accept this and we'll stay in the customs union indefinitely. There is no magic Harry Potteresque solution to the Irish border issue.

Leading Brexiteers are claiming that they weren’t told that Britain was planning to stay in an EU customs union indefinitely. But they were.
It’s there in black and white in paragraph 49 of the agreement Theresa May signed in the early hours on December 8 last year: “In the absence of agreed solutions, the UK will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support… the all-island economy [in Ireland].”
In short, we agreed to a backstop. We would stay fully signed up to the EU’s rules and regulations unless the Cabinet, our Parliament and all other member states managed to agree on an alternative solution to the Irish border problem.
The British Government asserted this was all part of a short-lived transition that would last only to 2020, but that was not what the text negotiated with the EU said.
...Britain is staying in a customs union with the EU indefinitely. That’s a good outcome. The only surprise is that Brexiteers are so surprised to find out.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...-a3857641.html

---------- Post added at 18:30 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Sorry, I missed this piece of news. What plan is this exactly? You sound like we have a plan *and* it will be agreed so all we need is the time to implement it.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me ..

There's two items of wishful thinking - Maxfac and a £20bn per year proposed solution which won't work. It's realistically a customs union or hard border with Ireland. No ifs or buts. The hard Brexiters lost this argument back in December.

---------- Post added at 18:44 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

It is not a fiasco leaving the EU.

It's a shame The Spectator hasn't contacted you, Mick.

It’s impossible to find a Leaver who thinks the whole process is going well. No surprise there.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/...brexit-divide/

[Carth]

A few off the cuff questions . .

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will cause a massive uplift in the amount of housing available, and therefore cure the homeless problem we have?

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will lead to a huge reduction in the criminal activities we are now seeing so much of?

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will create many thousands of new jobs (that don't depend on benefit top-ups)?

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will turn the NHS into an institution that manages its role and finances efficiently?

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will massively increase the standard of education in this country?

in my opinion, for the little it's worth, it makes no difference if we stay or leave, we'd actually lost years ago.

Did you get those from "Leading Questions R Us"?

You missed out "have you stopped beating your wife?" and "why is everything so bad?"...

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am not sure I have this right but you are saying that you do not agree with Rees Mogg on the EU (and possibly other policies): policies that will shape and define the future, prosperity and welfare of the country, your children (if you have them), etc. You would, however, vote for him because of your shared belief system?

I find this strange to say the least ..

Pretty much spot on, but it goes a bit farther than that. So yes, you got it, but there is a deeper reason. So for example across Christianity there is a conundrum that always has one answer: the question is that of works VS faith.

So the basic question is this, do you have faith alone which will get you into heaven or must you earn your way into it, through deeds?

In Galations 2: 16 Paul says this:

know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[a] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Then, James says this: (James 2: 14 through 17)

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead

Now, this argument is both futile and unanswerable in the first place - Paul gets close to answering it, himself in Romans 7 15 through 24:

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

See the answer is one and the same, every single time. You are covered by God's grace through belief and if that belief is sincere and you have Christ in your heart, the acts will follow naturally because of your faith - the deeds will come naturally because you truly are a Christian.

Now for what I personally care about as a Christian I would expect to come naturally to my every day life. It doesn't always, but as I have Christ in my heart my desire is to do His work. Because the faith is there, the rest comes as second nature.

Now in regards to JRM, the shared faith leads me to believe that his deeds will follow suit - he has Christ in his heart (which I truly believe that he does) and I believe that his acts will follow accordingly. Given every chance he got, he refused to abandon his Catholic principles and stood firm in his opposition to gay marriage and abortion. He had every single chance to say something like "it is a settled matter" etc etc, but he did not. This is what I was saying to Mick...public opinion is one thing but so long as your own principles do not get compromised along the way, you are good.

You mentioned the future of our children in your post so firstly yes, I am a mother, and I have a 10 year old thank you for asking. I believe that he (specifically) is the member with the most value for the sanctity of life. For me, that is the single biggest issue and most important (along with faith in general) and yes, that over-rides the other issue(s) that you have mentioned. If we leave the EU...oh well. So long as he defines that a child must never be killed in the womb, I will support him.

This is also something I can share with politicians of other denominations, within the same faith - like Frank Fields who is a politician from the other side of the aisle. He is an outstanding advocate for the poor and needy (again as Christ taught us) and he has campaigned tirelessly for the more vulnerable in our society (the disabled, elderly, poor etc). He also was a phenomenal supporter of the troops, taking care of those who were injured in combat through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and has been supportive of the mission there all along.

It can even go beyond the denomination - my former MP was Matthew Offord (until I moved). He was opposed to the gay marriage bill, he supports Israel beyond question, and ironically enough, opposed to the EU like the two others above, too. I am in favor of EU membership for Britain but ultimately it is not important for me as an issue (insofar as priorities go).

You are right, I do not agree with JRM on the EU and some other stuff. But I do agree with him (and the two above) on God the father (though Offord being Jewish only sees the son as a prophet) and the protection of every unborn child, first and foremost. JRM is my denomination and I would love a Roman Catholic PM but beyond the faith, all 3 have supported restricting abortion or banning it altogether, they all supported the Iraq war and have been phenomenal supporters of Israel, too. Field does a great deal for the poor and the needy (as Christ taught us), Offord does a great job defending the constituency with the largest Jewish population in the country and even though I may not agree with all 3 on Europe I don't particularly care - God before country any day. Because if you have the faith, the acts that the Father told us to carry out, will follow naturally.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Did you get those from "Leading Questions R Us"?

You missed out "have you stopped beating your wife?" and "why is everything so bad?"...

I was trying to recreate those long lost days of the bloke carrying the sandwich board that read "we're doomed, the end is nigh"

but whatever, it really makes no difference to the state of the UK whether we're in or out.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Carth

but whatever, it really makes no difference to the state of the UK whether we're in or out.

think you'll find it will.

Boris think's we're heading for Brexit 'meltdown', so that's all good !

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-06-05/p...exit-is-wrong/

Disagreement with Britain’s decision to quit the European Union has reached its highest point since the 2016 Brexit referendum, according to a new poll.

The YouGov survey found 47% of voters thought the decision to leave was wrong, against just 40% who said it was the right thing to do – the widest margin since the weekly survey began two years ago.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

Pretty much spot on, but it goes a bit farther than that. So yes, you got it, but there is a deeper reason. So for example across Christianity there is a conundrum that always has one answer: the question is that of works VS faith.

So the basic question is this, do you have faith alone which will get you into heaven or must you earn your way into it, through deeds?

In Galations 2: 16 Paul says this:



Then, James says this: (James 2: 14 through 17)



Now, this argument is both futile and unanswerable in the first place - Paul gets close to answering it, himself in Romans 7 15 through 24:



See the answer is one and the same, every single time. You are covered by God's grace through belief and if that belief is sincere and you have Christ in your heart, the acts will follow naturally because of your faith - the deeds will come naturally because you truly are a Christian.

Now for what I personally care about as a Christian I would expect to come naturally to my every day life. It doesn't always, but as I have Christ in my heart my desire is to do His work. Because the faith is there, the rest comes as second nature.

Now in regards to JRM, the shared faith leads me to believe that his deeds will follow suit - he has Christ in his heart (which I truly believe that he does) and I believe that his acts will follow accordingly. Given every chance he got, he refused to abandon his Catholic principles and stood firm in his opposition to gay marriage and abortion. He had every single chance to say something like "it is a settled matter" etc etc, but he did not. This is what I was saying to Mick...public opinion is one thing but so long as your own principles do not get compromised along the way, you are good.

You mentioned the future of our children in your post so firstly yes, I am a mother, and I have a 10 year old thank you for asking. I believe that he (specifically) is the member with the most value for the sanctity of life. For me, that is the single biggest issue and most important (along with faith in general) and yes, that over-rides the other issue(s) that you have mentioned. If we leave the EU...oh well. So long as he defines that a child must never be killed in the womb, I will support him.

This is also something I can share with politicians of other denominations, within the same faith - like Frank Fields who is a politician from the other side of the aisle. He is an outstanding advocate for the poor and needy (again as Christ taught us) and he has campaigned tirelessly for the more vulnerable in our society (the disabled, elderly, poor etc). He also was a phenomenal supporter of the troops, taking care of those who were injured in combat through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and has been supportive of the mission there all along.

It can even go beyond the denomination - my former MP was Matthew Offord (until I moved). He was opposed to the gay marriage bill, he supports Israel beyond question, and ironically enough, opposed to the EU like the two others above, too. I am in favor of EU membership for Britain but ultimately it is not important for me as an issue (insofar as priorities go).

You are right, I do not agree with JRM on the EU and some other stuff. But I do agree with him (and the two above) on God the father (though Offord being Jewish only sees the son as a prophet) and the protection of every unborn child, first and foremost. JRM is my denomination and I would love a Roman Catholic PM but beyond the faith, all 3 have supported restricting abortion or banning it altogether, they all supported the Iraq war and have been phenomenal supporters of Israel, too. Field does a great deal for the poor and the needy (as Christ taught us), Offord does a great job defending the constituency with the largest Jewish population in the country and even though I may not agree with all 3 on Europe I don't particularly care - God before country any day. Because if you have the faith, the acts that the Father told us to carry out, will follow naturally.

H'mm - we went a bit off topic there, Chloé, but what I think you were trying to say in answer to ianch's post was that you love Jacob Rees Mogg very much but he's entitled to his opinions!

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Carth

A few off the cuff questions . .

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will cause a massive uplift in the amount of housing available, and therefore cure the homeless problem we have?

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will lead to a huge reduction in the criminal activities we are now seeing so much of?

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will create many thousands of new jobs (that don't depend on benefit top-ups)?

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will turn the NHS into an institution that manages its role and finances efficiently?

Does anyone believe that either staying or leaving will massively increase the standard of education in this country?

in my opinion, for the little it's worth, it makes no difference if we stay or leave, we'd actually lost years ago.

If migration is controlled when we come out of the EU, there will be much less pressure on homes, services, schools, hospitals, surgeries, etc, of course - how could anyone doubt this? Can you not see that the more people coming in, the more pressure all round? Why does anyone not get this?

If you keep adding water to a bath, it will overflow. Same principle, really.