No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

Sailtheworld

We're never still on 'ever closer union' are we?

We'll be back on how the Turkish population are all going to up sticks and come to the UK when they join the EU. David Cameron is going to support it don't you know?

DannyGold

Lots of things are not workable, or unfair. It doesn’t stop government from doing them

Forcing somebody to sell an asset at under market value is very unfair, that doesn’t stop governments doing it either

JoeyG

westernpromise wrote: »

Sorry but you're both either ignorant or mendacious.

The Heads of State or Government, on the basis of an awareness of a common destiny and the wish to affirm the European identity, confirm their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community.
- Solemn Declaration on European Union, Sunday 19 June 1983

OK, in an effort to be less 'ignorant' I explored this further, and found this interesting: https://fullfact.org/europe/why-worry-about-ever-closer-union/

I think the last paragraph is particularly important:

The European Council said in June 2014 that:

"the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further".

DannyGold

So is it either Boris no deal, or JC socialist government?

Is there any other option?

westernpromise

Sailtheworld wrote: »

We're never still on 'ever closer union' are we?

I'm afraid the arguments against Remaining that Remain failed to engage with are still valid arguments, yes.

Sailtheworld

westernpromise wrote: »

I'm afraid the arguments against Remaining that Remain failed to engage with are still valid arguments, yes.

We're leaving the EU and if they want to form a United States of Europe* which includes Turkey* and a big army* then we'll have to accept that as non-members we'll have less influence to do anything about it.

* not going to happen anyway

If 'impartial' guys like you are fighting yesterday's battles no wonder the brexiteers are still going on about Dunkirk and the Blitz.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

So in essence you believe there's a way for a thing to be given to someone that doesn't involve its previous owner having to give it up and thereby lose, is that correct?

The thing's are bought as sold by the previous owners and gifted to the employees. The previous owner gets market value for them as they are willing to sell them. There's no forcing or stealing - the previous owner is fairly compensated.


You could argue that the companies would lose out due to having to buy back 1% of their stock over a few years, but they should regain it via the employee retention and motivation benefits.
I'd assume most companies would see far more than 1% of their stock changing hands annually.


So you're bizarre Maserati comparison would just be a case of waiting for one to come up on sale and buying it. But it's more likely we're talking about a Ford Fiesta, since I dare say they change hands more often.

JoeyG

westernpromise wrote: »

I'm afraid the arguments against Remaining that Remain failed to engage with are still valid arguments, yes.

This is exactly the reason my argument would be to revoke, then ensure there is a commitment to ongoing dialog and compromise between the 2 sides, but in my opinion it needs to be from the safety of our current position in the EU where the government can get on with running the country.

It's purely down the brinkmanship of the (remain) government that put us in this position in the first place. If dialog can lead to the GFA it can sort this mess.

MaxiRobriguez

Any Government who revoked without prior consent by the people in a second referendum or general election campaign would be causing utter chaos. People would rightly take to the streets and a lot of very angry people would likely riot. I'd find it hard to hold it against them in such circumstances.

Outright revoke isn't an option.

phillw

JoeyG wrote: »

It's purely down the brinkmanship of the (remain) government that put us in this position in the first place. If dialog can lead to the GFA it can sort this mess.

I think it retrospect we can see that the government wasn't remain. TM red lines weren't remain, the ERGs demands weren't remain. They were trying to hold the party together, but instead they should have let it fall apart.

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

Any Government who revoked without prior consent by the people in a second referendum or general election campaign would be causing utter chaos.

So extend like the bill says and have a referendum? Seems simple, as long as you aren't playing winner takes all. Boris with his do or die mentality is really dangerous.

westernpromise wrote: »

I'm afraid the arguments against Remaining that Remain failed to engage with are still valid arguments, yes.

It's kinda hard to engage with other peoples delusions.

westernpromise wrote: »

But then again you don't realise that Labour's a terrorist-supporting anti-Semitic Marxist rabble so are one of those folk to whom plain as a pikestaff isn't plain enough.

It depends on how you frame it.

The Conservatives sold the terrorists the weapons.
Labour tries to talk the terrorists out of using them.

It's obvious that Labour are the bad guys, right?