The Brexit Party

[White_Unifier]

Why are you against a country fully regaining its sovereignty and independence? I thought such things were to be encouraged and celebrated. Or that used to be the case at least. Do you also disagree with Canada's independence from the British Empire?

You still don't know yet what kind of Brexit it's going to be.

1. If it's a soft May-style Brexit, you'd more or less have the status quo minus a vote in the EU Parliament, but at least no immediate economic hardship but also no real freedom from EU rules even if the UK would have technically left.

2. If it's WTO rules and you leave it at that, that would just be economic masochism in both the short and long terms.

3. If you're looking at unilateral global free trade in tariffs and quotas and aggressive pursuit of trade agreements to supplement it, you'd still feel pain in the short to medium terms but at least you could rebuild in the long term and maybe come out ahead.

4. Someting else.

If you gave me a choice between remaining in the EU and option 1, I'd definitely vote to remain in the EU. At least the UK would get a vote in the EU Parliament.

If it were a choice between remaining in the EU and option 2, I'd choose to remain because at least the UK would still have free access to the EU market, which would be better than nothing.

If it were a choice between remaining and option 4, I'd still choose to remain because better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

If it were a choice between remain and option 3, then I'd consider it. At least it might bring about long-term benefits, but I'd be under no illusion about it being an easy ride.

Right now, you're just offering a choice between remain and option 4 now that May's deal has been rejected. What kind of choice is that?

 

[Blackleaf]

You still don't know yet what kind of Brexit it's going to be.
1. If it's a soft May-style Brexit, you'd more or less have the status quo minus a vote in the EU Parliament, but at least no immediate economic hardship but also no real freedom from EU rules even if the UK would have technically left.
2. If it's WTO rules and you leave it at that, that would just be economic masochism in both the short and long terms.
3. If you're looking at unilateral global free trade in tariffs and quotas and aggressive pursuit of trade agreements to supplement it, you'd still feel pain in the short to medium terms but at least you could rebuild in the long term and maybe come out ahead.
4. Someting else.
If you gave me a choice between remaining in the EU and option 1, I'd definitely vote to remain in the EU. At least the UK would get a vote in the EU Parliament.
If it were a choice between remaining in the EU and option 2, I'd choose to remain because at least the UK would still have free access to the EU market, which would be better than nothing.
If it were a choice between remaining and option 4, I'd still choose to remain because better the devil you know than the devil you don't.
If it were a choice between remain and option 3, then I'd consider it. At least it might bring about long-term benefits, but I'd be under no illusion about it being an easy ride.
Right now, you're just offering a choice between remain and option 4 now that May's deal has been rejected. What kind of choice is that?

You're against a country regaining its sovereignty and independence and support its being run by a foreign power.

That smacks of imperialism.

 

[White_Unifier]

You're against a country regaining its sovereignty and independence and support its being run by a foreign power.
That smacks of imperialism.

No. I'm against a country committing economic suicide for no damn reason. The UK has always maintained at least enough sovereigntly to vote for a Parliament that has the power to leave the EU should it choose to do so. In fact, another election is coming soon, no?

 

[White_Unifier]

You're against a country regaining its sovereignty and independence and support its being run by a foreign power.
That smacks of imperialism.

So you don't think the UK should have any kind of particular Brexit strategy, just blindfoldedly jump into the unknown?

 

[Blackleaf]

So you don't think the UK should have any kind of particular Brexit strategy, just blindfoldedly jump into the unknown?

How can you have a strategy for sovereignty and independence and pick what type you want? You're either sovereign and independent or you aren't and the British people voted for the former. They are getting quite impatient now and things will start to turn ugly and violent if full independence does not occur on 29th March.

 

[White_Unifier]

How can you have a strategy for sovereignty and independence and pick what type you want? You're either sovereign and independent or you aren't and the British people voted for the former. They are getting quite impatient now and things will start to turn ugly and violent if full independence does not occur on 29th March.

Are you serious? The UK has always retained at least enough sovereignty to leave the EU whenever it wanted to. If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea. What many don't understand is that sovereignty lies along a spectrum. It's a question of how much sovereignty a state is willing to trade in exchange for access to foreign markets. Sovereignty to excess can actually cause more harm than good. Imagine if each Canadian municipality was its own city state and they each refused to set up any kind of overarching organization however decentralized it might be because sovereignty.

 

[Blackleaf]

A big defeat for the Remainers tonight...

Tonight’s votes dashed the hopes of those calling for a softer Brexit

Katy Balls

MPs Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper

29 January 2019
The Spectator

It’s been a disappointing night for the Remain and soft Brexit factions of parliament. Ahead of the votes on amendments to Theresa May’s Brexit plan, there had been a hope among some that the votes would serve as an opportunity to soften the government’s Brexit position. After the Prime Minister’s deal was voted down by 230 votes last month, a number of MPs – as well as officials in Brussels – read it as a sign that the only way to get a Brexit deal through parliament was for May to pivot to a softer Brexit.

Tonight those hopes were dashed. Graham Brady’s government supported amendment calling for an alternative arrangement to the backstop won a majority of Commons support (Isabel has details on Coffee House of how realistic that ask is). Meanwhile, Yvette Cooper’s much hyped amendment to stop a no-deal Brexit by forcing the government to extend Article 50 if it looked likely, fell short. Dominic Grieve’s amendment calling for days to debate the other Brexit options also failed. The only other Brexit amendment that did pass was that put forward by Caroline Spelman and Jack Dromey. That amendment simply asserted that the House was against no deal. It carries only political weight so doesn’t force the government to do anything to stop it.

So, why did MPs like Yvette Cooper believe they had a chance of winning? In the end, the downfall of Cooper’s plan was the Labour MPs who represent Leave constituencies. A chunk of these MPs voted against the proposals. Ahead of the vote, I reported how some of these MPs were anxious about the amendment as they could be accused of trying to delay or even stop Brexit. This is not to say that there won’t be more attempts in the coming weeks and months to take no deal off the table. A number of Remain-leaning ministers say they held off rebelling this time in order to give May time but will rebel if no deal starts to look more likely. That said, it’s clear that tonight the Remainers were on the losing side.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/...he-hopes-of-those-calling-for-a-softer-brexit

 

[Blackleaf]

Are you serious? The UK has always retained at least enough sovereignty to leave the EU whenever it wanted to. If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea. What many don't understand is that sovereignty lies along a spectrum. It's a question of how much sovereignty a state is willing to trade in exchange for access to foreign markets. Sovereignty to excess can actually cause more harm than good. Imagine if each Canadian municipality was its own city state and they each refused to set up any kind of overarching organization however decentralized it might be because sovereignty.

Would you have said such guff - let's face it, that's what it is - to all the countries who chose to become independent of the British Empire?

Would you have stood there in front of thousands of Indians and shouted to them: " If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea"?

 

[pgs]

Would you have said such guff - let's face it, that's what it is - to all the countries who chose to become independent of the British Empire?

Would you have stood there in front of thousands of Indians and shouted to them: " If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea"?

Zimbabwe is wowe .

 

[White_Unifier]

Would you have said such guff - let's face it, that's what it is - to all the countries who chose to become independent of the British Empire?
Would you have stood there in front of thousands of Indians and shouted to them: " If you want absolute (or at least near absolute) sovereignty, just look at North Korea"?

Actually, I would have favoured maintaining a common citizenship between Canada and the UK. Sovereignty to excess deprives us of that. Not only would it benefit Canada but the UK too.

And yes, if indigenous Canadians separated, formed their own sovereign states, and sought no cooperation between one another because sovereignty, their economies would be a shambles.

Any other example you could throw at me?