No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

Kohoutek

MisterMotivated wrote: »

All the countries referenced in your list above are either 'in' or 'not in' the EU, there are no 'half-in-half-out' countries. Having a trading relationship/agreement is not the same thing as being a member. More than half your list involves being 'not in' the EU and, under points 6 and 7, you could say that almost the entire world 'participates' in the EU. That does not mean that they are all EU member states.

It all depends how you define half in half out.

The UK before the referendum certainly fits one definition of half in half out - not participating in the Euro, Schengen, social chapter, etc.

MisterMotivated wrote: »

The referendum was on whether we should be a member of the EU, not whether we should ever trade with them again.

Yes but that completely misses the substantive point - the type of trading relationship we have is crucial.

Takedap

westernpromise wrote: »

Agreed, but remaining on the same terms was not an available option, either. The options were Remain in whatever the EU becomes, or Leave.

You must have been given a different ballot paper. Mine just said Leave or Remain (As you Leavers are fond of saying when the subject of No Deal comes up.

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

Lots of things have changed in the 36 years since 1983. For instance, all the people involved in that declaration are probably dead.

Masomnia

JoeyG wrote: »

Sorry but he is right, all the 'ever closer union' stuff is covered here: https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/

And yes, by definition we wouldn't be leaving, so remaining on exactly the same terms.

Can't see it mentioned in the link.

You can read Article 1 of the Treaty of Lisbon for yourself here and it states:

By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union, hereinafter called ‘the Union’ on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible[1] and as closely as possible to the citizen.

The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as "the Treaties"). Those two Treaties shall have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.

It's unambiguous.

Kohoutek

It's rhetorical language, and in any event, the February 2016 Cameron-EU Commission deal contained an express provision that the UK was not committed to any further integration.

phillw

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's rhetorical language, and in any event, the February 2016 Cameron-EU Commission deal contained an express provision that the UK was not committed to any further integration.

Like the idea that Turkey could join the EU, which was used by Mr Project Fear himself Nigel Farage.
Turkey wasn't going to join the EU, there weren't going to be hoards of Turks coming to the UK.

Authoritarians want you to leave the EU because of immigrants, sounds very 1920's.

BikingBud

Takedap wrote: »

Lots of things have changed in the 36 years since 1983.

In no particular order:

Collapse of the Warsaw Pact and fall of the Iron Curtain.

Solidarity in Poland

Reunification of Germany

Introduction of the €

European Sovereign Debt Crisis

UK Miners strike

Invasion of Kuwait

Y2K

Gulf War

Gulf War 2 (Legal?)

War in Afghanistan

Selling of national assets, gas, power, industry etc.

Global recession

All of these and many more are the result of complex changes but they also affect the way the Union reacted and therefore its current form.

Brexit will also affect the shape and make up of the future Union, there will undoubtedly be deviation from the pre A50 route whether we stay or go. But nobody can say what it will be or whether it will be "better" or "worse", everybody's expectation, perception, understanding, and hope is different.

All I can say is that at the moment we have grief, strife, infighting and political suicide that does everybody harm. The potential for harm from Corbyn is far greater than an efficient and rapid Brexit.

Masomnia

phillw wrote: »

Like the idea that Turkey could join the EU, which was used by Mr Project Fear himself Nigel Farage.
Turkey wasn't going to join the EU, there weren't going to be hoards of Turks coming to the UK.

Authoritarians want you to leave the EU because of immigrants, sounds very 1920's.

Turkey is in the process of joining, although of course not going to happen under Erdogan.

Masomnia

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's rhetorical language, and in any event, the February 2016 Cameron-EU Commission deal contained an express provision that the UK was not committed to any further integration.

What does that even mean?

That we can opt out of future legislation? Otherwise we're still committed.

Kohoutek

Masomnia wrote: »

What does that even mean?

That we can opt out of future legislation? Otherwise we're still committed.

We can already opt-out by veto; it just confirms the UK's intentions.

Green_Bear

I think Corbyn himself is much less likely to become a significant figure in changing this country.
BUT - his policies have re-energised the Left Wing (in the USA also).

My prediction is a younger Labour MP (eg Clive Lewis) takes over and pushes the country to the Left.

I know a lot of people who would never vote for labour with Corbyn (or McDonell or Abbott) as leader.
But someone like Clive Lewis or Richard Burgan or Andy Burnham? Yes, they probably would - even with all the same left wing policies in place.