Northern Ireland backstop apart, I think there possibly would have been a deal 1. had the Tories enacted in law to maintain climate change control and investment at the same level as the EU. 2. Had the Tories enacted in law to maintain and protect employees working rights, in line with that of the EU. As far as I am aware these were the two biggest sticking points for Labour, other than the backstop.
Of course those are just two thngs the Tories say nice things about and do precious little. In fact, they'd gladly roll any commitments back.
Worth adding that without the NI leave vote (or any other segment worth more than 4% of the leave total vote) leave wouldn't have a majority over remain so NI opinions need to be taken into account. If more than 4% of the people who voted leave irreparably disagree with every solution for leaving then remain is the most supported outcome based on the previous referendum.
The Northern Ireland Backstop would be unnecessary if we remained in the Customs Union and had access to the Single Market. This, plus the workers rights issue, and climate change alignment you state, is Labour’s position, and which presumably would be the basis of a new deal if they came to power.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this pretty much amounts to a UK version of the Norway solution. Which is paying in to get all the access but none of the policy making. Whether or not I'm wrong on the detail above, every which way you look at it, revoking Article 50, and working from within the EU to make change for the better, is the best solution.
Because the deal they want is impossible. Essentially they promised everyone would have better healthcare and government services, there would be jobs galore, all the foreigners would leave the UK but go to some happy place, every country would give the UK incredibly favorable trade deals, there would be no issues with Ireland and Scotland, etc. They overpromised. And when economists and other experts said "Um.... no way is this going to work out like you think it will" everyone ignored them. The people who voted leave are split between those who foolishly believed the government and are no blaming one side or the other for failing to deliver, those who understood there would be issues but voted leave "in spirit" to further discussions but did not expect a Brexit vote to be taken as gospel and a Brexit-at-any-cost to be jammed down their throats, and those who believe that Brexit is necessary for the preservation of "UK culture" regardless of cost. If you recast the vote so people could choose on the options that are actually practically possible, there would be no consensus. There's still a decent chunk of your country-- let's say 20% that's gone all-in and believes that if you could just leave the EU all their dreams would still come true. Then another maybe 10% of hardcore racists. So that's 30% of the UK that's completely useless to any discussions at this point. Then you have maybe 30% that still wants to leave under terms that are at least possible, but even that group does not agree on exactly which terms they want. And then 40% that want to remain. And even in that 40%, there's a decent chunk of dreamers that still wants to stay because they believe that by doing so the EU will capitulate and give them the terms they want. Corbyn might be in that group. No one is making a decision based on a rational consideration of the practical options. There's no analysis of risk and reward or costs and benefits. That's what the experts are trained and paid to do. But everyone is ignoring the experts, so of course you end up with a ****ing mess.
Absolutely, if we are still subject to EU law as far as trade and free movement is concerned, why not retain a stake in making that law?
Agree in principle but put the remain group at 50%+. Old fart leavers dying others changing their minds. A new batch of young voters and a motivated overseas group also swing the numbers. Only another referendum can prove either of us right.
On 19th September 1946 Winston Churchill made a speech calling for the formation of a “United States of Europe” to avoid any prospect of a further war on the continent. This film, made in 1962, marks the formation of the European Community and shows that the EC which Britain joined 10 years later was, from the start, far more than simply a trading partnership. This gives the lie to those, including some on here, who say it has become a political institution only in recent times: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-000113
My small team received an email from the office of Theresa May today regarding one of her constituents in maidenhead being refused a move to one of our properties. Had a massive urge to ask if Theresa wanted to be put on one of our housing lists following her eviction from no. 10
Watched the video. So good was it I downloaded to keep in my personal archive. Yes, the delivery was antiquated and perhaps even slightly jingoistic, but that was reminiscent of the time. Nevertheless, the message was clear, just as it has always been - countries coming together in cooperation have a stronger voice, are more capable of doing the big things and making the big decisions. And it is the sheer variance in the populations which is a strength, not a weakness. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned this here before, but the equality of wealth [median] in the USA is down to 15% of the population, despite the USA being one of the richest countries in the world per capita [mean]. In contrast, the UK [37%], France [**] Italy [57%], Spain [51%, and Germany for example [26%] populations are generally better off. Remarkably, the median average Italian is around twice as well off as the same American.despite having only half the wealth per capita. Most Spanish people are better off than Americans with only a third of the wealth per capita. A not inconsiderable reason for this is due to the EU checks and balances, and the stable political pathway that the group of countries pursue. Italy may be forever re-electing new administrations, but it doesn't seem to bother them unduly, because they are part of the stable EU. Of course, there are other countries outside of the EU, but with strong ties that also have better standards of living, and it would be incomplete and misleading not to include examples. This include Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Japan. **unable to find a refererence figure, but the median population are slightly less well off than Spain and better than the UK.
It would appear that Yellowhammer is an anagram of Orwell Mayhem. Me thinks someone is taking the urine.
Oh soooooo much this! June 2016, No.10 David Cameron: “Fecking hell old chaps, that result is a turn-up maybe we need to speak to the Euro chaps” Next Day, Brussels David Cameron: “Listen you lovely euro folk, you’ve seen the result. This means we need to shake this EU malarkey up a bit. Pull your fingers out and let’s sit down and sort it out. I’ll tell the people back home. I’ll cop some Flack, but luckily the referendum was just advisory.” It wasn’t difficult.