Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[AndrewJB]

It was me who said that, and I was reflecting the relative policies of each party today. Whether you think that was as a result of a mandate from the people is not important in that sense. You just agreed with me.

I happen to totally disagree however, that this approach was mandated by the referendum. Their policy of "leave at all costs" was just about as far away from the rhetoric of the leave campaign as possible in 2016. It was all about how damn easy a deal would be to make.

For sure - and I remember the campaign highlighting the savings we'd make by leaving. It wasn't going to cost us anything, because we'd be saving £350 Million a week. That was a nonsense, and already we've spent billions on preparing for a no deal situation that the government has said it doesn't want. It's amazing how all their promises and predictions have turned to dust, and now they're claiming we gave the government a "blank cheque" to leave "at any cost" when the ballot was only stay or leave.

[martin_p]

People do tend to forget that all imports /exports from giant economies like China /India/USA/ multiple South America’s and Africa are already done on WTO .( it’s generally 6% import duty) And the EU main players Germany /France //Italy /Spain know damn well that by reverting to WTO when dealing with U.K. is a 2 way street and some kind of trade deal would inevitably be thrashed out in the sectors which attract higher duties .

Yes but the EU have to deal with one more country on WTO rules than they do. We‘ll have to deal with the EU plus all those other countries we deal with via an EU trade deal and we don’t manage to ‘roll over’ in time.

[AndrewJB]

I don't get it. You want to end relative poverty in the UK - and you claim it's "pragmatism" to start there, rather than tackle real poverty through the rest of the world? How many are you prepared to leave to die in these other countries?

You know, I think it's you that's got a "greedy" approach. You have the greed of wanting someone else's money to solve your problems. You don't appear to want them to retain a reasonable share of their own earnings, and allow them to contribute to tackling poverty in countries that don't appear to count in your socialist world.

Enough. We know how socialism ends - and it's never good.

It's not "greedy" to see a collective approach as a solution to problems. Addressing the problem of deep inequality here is the same as addressing the problem in other countries, in creating a working example to follow. Charity is wonderful, but it's not the answer. Changing the system so we don't need charity is better.

As for your comments on socialism - talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Your rise in the world is as a result of socialism. Unless your family was well off, your education, healthcare, and the postwar egalitarianism all helped make you what you are. This isn't to take away the hard work you put in, but had you been born fifty or a hundred years earlier, all that hard work would see you still labouring away for little more than the food on your table, and the weekly rent for the roof over your head.

[AndrewJB]

Yes but the EU have to deal with one more country on WTO rules than they do. We‘ll have to deal with the EU plus all those other countries we deal with via an EU trade deal and we don’t manage to ‘roll over’ in time.

All the trade deals we have with other countries are through the EU, so those end as well. Far be it from being in a position of being able to exploit new trade opportunities, we are consciously walking away from them first, and then hoping to strike new ones (but as the UK alone, rather than dangling the offer of a market of half a billion prosperous people).

[Lancasterclaret]

All the trade deals we have with other countries are through the EU, so those end as well. Far be it from being in a position of being able to exploit new trade opportunities, we are consciously walking away from them first, and then hoping to strike new ones (but as the UK alone, rather than dangling the offer of a market of half a billion prosperous people).

Switzerland and South Korea have agreed to roll them over (of the big ones)

But the rest are going to take us to the cleaners, especially if you go down the "No Deal" route.

[martin_p]

Interesting comment from the President of the Penrith Conservative Association on the resignation of Rory Stewart from the party.

‘In itself it is really sad because quite a lot of us are really quite fed up with where this situation has got now. The direction of the party... I really struggle now to align myself with the leadership and where we are heading, the extremity of where we are at. It’s not broad it’s not moderate, it’s extreme.’

[AndrewJB]

Switzerland and South Korea have agreed to roll them over (of the big ones)

But the rest are going to take us to the cleaners, especially if you go down the "No Deal" route.

You missed out the Faroe Islands, you scaremongering, false news peddling remaniac!

[Lancasterclaret]

Interesting comment from the President of the Penrith Conservative Association on the resignation of Rory Stewart from the party.

‘In itself it is really sad because quite a lot of us are really quite fed up with where this situation has got now. The direction of the party... I really struggle now to align myself with the leadership and where we are heading, the extremity of where we are at. It’s not broad it’s not moderate, it’s extreme.’

Suspect he won't be the President for much longer....

[willsclarets]

The problem with either competing ideology is that people tend to be dogmatic about it rather than pragmatic. We're so tribal when it comes to politics, to ideology and to the 'best' way societies should function that we'll never actually achieve a system that works for everyone. The problem with both socialism and capitalism is they are by their nature extremes, and we tend to think one is 'the best chance we have' over the other.

It it impossible to have the view (not necessarily my own) that public healthcare is a good thing while acknowledging that capitalism has generated the wealth to lift people out of poverty. That limitless economic growth is a disaster for sustainability, but socialism necessitates enforced equality of outcomes instead of opportunity, and is bad for self actualisation and individuality. Why does everything have to be so black and white.

[Lancasterclaret]

The problem with either competing ideology is that people tend to be dogmatic about it rather than pragmatic. We're so tribal when it comes to politics, to ideology and to the 'best' way societies should function that we'll never actually achieve a system that works for everyone. The problem with both socialism and capitalism is they are by their nature extremes, and we tend to think one is 'the best chance we have' over the other.

It it impossible to have the view (not necessarily my own) that public healthcare is a good thing while acknowledging that capitalism has generated the wealth to lift people out of poverty. That limitless economic growth is a disaster for sustainability, but socialism necessitates enforced equality of outcomes instead of opportunity, and is bad for self actualisation and individuality. Why does everything have to be so black and white.

Under the current two main parties, its the way it is sadly.

Only will change when those parties no longer have the power they currently have.

[Mala591]

It's not "greedy" to see a collective approach as a solution to problems. Addressing the problem of deep inequality here is the same as addressing the problem in other countries, in creating a working example to follow. Charity is wonderful, but it's not the answer. Changing the system so we don't need charity is better.

As for your comments on socialism - talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Your rise in the world is as a result of socialism. Unless your family was well off, your education, healthcare, and the postwar egalitarianism all helped make you what you are. This isn't to take away the hard work you put in, but had you been born fifty or a hundred years earlier, all that hard work would see you still labouring away for little more than the food on your table, and the weekly rent for the roof over your head.

Good post. In theory the Lib Dems should offer a balanced alternative to the pure capitalist/pure socialist extremes but daft policies like an open-door immigration policy and abandoning major promises have alienated many potential supporters. They should develop strong middle centre policies and stick with them.

[martin_p]

Not Brexit related, but Rory Stewart’s next move is to stand as an independent candidate for Mayor of London. I reckon he’s got a good chance.

[AndrewJB]

The problem with either competing ideology is that people tend to be dogmatic about it rather than pragmatic. We're so tribal when it comes to politics, to ideology and to the 'best' way societies should function that we'll never actually achieve a system that works for everyone. The problem with both socialism and capitalism is they are by their nature extremes, and we tend to think one is 'the best chance we have' over the other.

It it impossible to have the view (not necessarily my own) that public healthcare is a good thing while acknowledging that capitalism has generated the wealth to lift people out of poverty. That limitless economic growth is a disaster for sustainability, but socialism necessitates enforced equality of outcomes instead of opportunity, and is bad for self actualisation and individuality. Why does everything have to be so black and white.

I agree that people are too dogmatic, and that bringing a debate about real issues to a two dimensional scale doesn't help. We've had a mixed economy for over seventy years, and it has brought us a general prosperity we were never able to achieve before (underpinned by democracy and the rule of law). I think most people will agree that neither extreme of capitalism or socialism alone is a desired outcome, so the real debate is about tinkering with things to make what works better. That some people claim the other is pushing for an extreme is likely a sign their argument on the matter has run out of road.

[AndrewJB]

Good post. In theory the Lib Dems should offer a balanced alternative to the pure capitalist/pure socialist extremes but daft policies like an open-door immigration policy and abandoning major promises have alienated many potential supporters. They should develop strong middle centre policies and stick with them.

I think Britain is alone in the world in having tried pure capitalism (early 19th Cent), and pure socialism (during WW2), so you would think that we'd be uniquely placed to understand the positive and negatives of both - however that doesn't seem to be the case. I wonder whether it's the way history is taught here (I only attended primary school here, so I wouldn't know)?

I think the reason the LibDems aren't able to offer a balanced alternative - as you say - is because the centre ground isn't working. Politics has become like it was in the '30s, where mainstream politics has not delivered. Neo Liberal economics, or whatever you want to call it, has failed for the majority of people, so they look outside of the accepted right way of doing things to alternatives. In the '30s both communism and fascism offered steady employment, food, education, healthcare, and leisure to people who were for the most part living without some or all of those things. It's easy to see how people overlooked the extra baggage that came along with those ideologies. Now - and I'm painting with a broad brush here - we have brexit, and taking back control as something many people chose for the change it would bring, and we have redistribution and taking back control of the economy as the things on offer.

If we look back at how the post war world resolved itself, all of the western democracies took on the ideas of full employment, education, healthcare, and leisure for the majority of people - and that became the centre ground, keeping the extremes at bay. To me, that is the only way forward now.

[Lancasterclaret]

Hello, what's this?

https://twitter.com/bbclornag/status/11 ... 3869608960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government lawyers say that the Govt have submitted to the court state that the PM will send a letter to the EU requesting an extension on Oct 19th.

Massive climb down there

But two equally viable reasons why

- need the time for a deal (which is reality anyway, so good to see govt acknowledging that they need time)

- have decided that threatening to break the law is not a good election look, and they are already happy that they have done enough to convince people that they are doing this under duress.

Either way, cancel those "Get ready for Brexit on Oct 31st" campaigns and save some cash

[aggi]

People do tend to forget that all imports /exports from giant economies like China /India/USA/ multiple South America’s and Africa are already done on WTO .( it’s generally 6% import duty) And the EU main players Germany /France //Italy /Spain know damn well that by reverting to WTO when dealing with U.K. is a 2 way street and some kind of trade deal would inevitably be thrashed out in the sectors which attract higher duties .

Although we deal with a lot of countries broadly on WTO terms there's very few that we deal with exclusively on WTO terms. Taking the USA as an example there are various agreements about the equivalence of regulations and qualifications, a very lengthy agreement about the treatment of data, etc. It's the same with most territories, there may not be a full agreement but there are a whole host of side deals to grease the cogs.

[Colburn_Claret]

People can take the ‘necessary steps’ to protect against a hurricane, doesn’t mean they avoid damage.

It doesn't mean they are going to get hurt anyway either.

[Lowbankclaret]

I think Britain is alone in the world in having tried pure capitalism (early 19th Cent), and pure socialism (during WW2), so you would think that we'd be uniquely placed to understand the positive and negatives of both - however that doesn't seem to be the case. I wonder whether it's the way history is taught here (I only attended primary school here, so I wouldn't know)?

I think the reason the LibDems aren't able to offer a balanced alternative - as you say - is because the centre ground isn't working. Politics has become like it was in the '30s, where mainstream politics has not delivered. Neo Liberal economics, or whatever you want to call it, has failed for the majority of people, so they look outside of the accepted right way of doing things to alternatives. In the '30s both communism and fascism offered steady employment, food, education, healthcare, and leisure to people who were for the most part living without some or all of those things. It's easy to see how people overlooked the extra baggage that came along with those ideologies. Now - and I'm painting with a broad brush here - we have brexit, and taking back control as something many people chose for the change it would bring, and we have redistribution and taking back control of the economy as the things on offer.

If we look back at how the post war world resolved itself, all of the western democracies took on the ideas of full employment, education, healthcare, and leisure for the majority of people - and that became the centre ground, keeping the extremes at bay. To me, that is the only way forward now.

Please could I humbly request you research the Breton Woods agreement.
That will guide you to how the world order was rebuilt after the Second World War.

[Lowbankclaret]

Hello, what's this?

https://twitter.com/bbclornag/status/11 ... 3869608960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government lawyers say that the Govt have submitted to the court state that the PM will send a letter to the EU requesting an extension on Oct 19th.

Massive climb down there

But two equally viable reasons why

- need the time for a deal (which is reality anyway, so good to see govt acknowledging that they need time)

- have decided that threatening to break the law is not a good election look, and they are already happy that they have done enough to convince people that they are doing this under duress.

Either way, cancel those "Get ready for Brexit on Oct 31st" campaigns and save some cash

The Brexit Party ME-P’s did mention on Friday that the Con ME-P’s had advertised for PA’s on a six month contract and they were convinced we would not be leaving on the 31st.

[Damo]

IMG_20191004_124108.jpg (159.76 KiB) Viewed 4890 times

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Hello, what's this?

https://twitter.com/bbclornag/status/11 ... 3869608960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Government lawyers say that the Govt have submitted to the court state that the PM will send a letter to the EU requesting an extension on Oct 19th.

Massive climb down there

But two equally viable reasons why

- need the time for a deal (which is reality anyway, so good to see govt acknowledging that they need time)

- have decided that threatening to break the law is not a good election look, and they are already happy that they have done enough to convince people that they are doing this under duress.

Either way, cancel those "Get ready for Brexit on Oct 31st" campaigns and save some cash

But do or die? Come what may?

Has Johnson been lying the whole time? I for one can't believe it!

[Billy Balfour]

I've got a ditch going spare if he wants it.

[summitclaret]

Why is there a case before a court now? Surely a court should only get involved if and when a law is broken. Is this remain trying to undermine the government's tactics to get the best possible deal?

I'd have been saying that I would comply with law in force at the time it came into force, not least to keep people guessing on our tactics.

[Lancasterclaret]

Why is there a case before a court now? Surely a court should only get involved if and when a law is broken. Is this remain trying to undermine the government's tactics to get the best possible deal?

I'd have been saying that I would comply with law in force at the time it came into force, not least to keep people guessing on our tactics.

Its a Scottish court.

I have to admit to not knowing what it is about till I noticed it on my twitter feed.

Its to make sure the Benn Act is enforced.

Looks like the government are accepting the Benn act (which they would have to do, or the consequences would go much further than Brexit)

[AndyClaret]

Stand down everyone.

[Lancasterclaret]

Well

He's not a government spokesperson, he's the head of the ERG

Very, very weird to insist on leaving on Oct 31st though, as the only way that doesn't happen is if we agree a deal, and we need more time than what is left to agree a deal by Oct 31st.

[KateR]

Back to the deal

The analysis of the actual deal is cracking on and of course, the more it is scrutinised, the more problems arise.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/11 ... 8062353408" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think that anyone said what has been offered would be accepted as is by the EU so no point to even try discussing that in my opinion.

There will be problems but do you think now the EU should sit down and say this that and this are fine but this this and this are not acceptable? At which point should the EU say because they are unacceptable we are going so come back when you have had a think, or should they say however if we can change this modify that I believe we can get to an agreement?

Is it in a negotiation one side says this is it, take it or leave which is where the EU are, or do they move to the worst case scenario everyone agrees with because that is a very real risk now, when I say now I don't mean today or tomorrow but definitely in the near future.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows it was never going to be easy and this end game will also not be easier.

However I disagree with many of your points and thoughts.

I worked for a company for over 18 years, we spent over 40 Billion on goods every year and distributed it around the world to some of the remotest places you could think of. The supply chain was amazing and the advances in how it was achieved and the leaps in technology were sometimes staggering. When I read your comments I immediately think, yea and you never believed we could send a man in to space or successfully land a man on the moon and bring him home.

You appear to have a very negative outlook on life and what people can achieve in general, unfortunately for you many others think exactly the opposite and they are the ones who make things happen.

Will it be wonderful, will there be no issues of course not, however please remember while in the EU for a very long time people have continued to moan about there lot and it will ever be the same with human nature.

[summitclaret]

I have not renewed my car insurance yet as it's not due until the end of the month. I am worried that I will be taken to court next week.

[Lancasterclaret]

I don't think that anyone said what has been offered would be accepted as is by the EU so no point to even try discussing that in my opinion.

There will be problems but do you think now the EU should sit down and say this that and this are fine but this this and this are not acceptable? At which point should the EU say because they are unacceptable we are going so come back when you have had a think, or should they say however if we can change this modify that I believe we can get to an agreement?

Is it in a negotiation one side says this is it, take it or leave which is where the EU are, or do they move to the worst case scenario everyone agrees with because that is a very real risk now, when I say now I don't mean today or tomorrow but definitely in the near future.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows it was never going to be easy and this end game will also not be easier.

However I disagree with many of your points and thoughts.

I worked for a company for over 18 years, we spent over 40 Billion on goods every year and distributed it around the world to some of the remotest places you could think of. The supply chain was amazing and the advances in how it was achieved and the leaps in technology were sometimes staggering. When I read your comments I immediately think, yea and you never believed we could send a man in to space or successfully land a man on the moon and bring him home.

You appear to have a very negative outlook on life and what people can achieve in general, unfortunately for you many others think exactly the opposite and they are the ones who make things happen.

Will it be wonderful, will there be no issues of course not, however please remember while in the EU for a very long time people have continued to moan about there lot and it will ever be the same with human nature.

Not my thoughts Kate, the thought of the European editor of the Daily Telegraph

A major part of the problems we are having is that real issues are being swept aside as "minor points" or a "technicality". The Irish border is neither, especially to the Irish and the EU and UK plans appear to ignore what was promised before and seem (again) to be written with an election in mind, rather than as a genuine attempt to find a solution.

[Lancasterclaret]

I have not renewed my car insurance yet as it's not due until the end of the month. I am worried that I will be taken to court next week.

Bet that sounded a lot better in your head than it does look written down!

Governments only exist on the rule of law. Once you start breaking that to get your own way, then you've lost all legitimacy.

[summitclaret]

Bet that sounded a lot better in your head than it does look written down!

Governments only exist on the rule of law. Once you start breaking that to get your own way, then you've lost all legitimacy.

Agree. The court has no business in this at this stage. It's interfering in political matters

[AndyClaret]

Well

He's not a government spokesperson, he's the head of the ERG

Very, very weird to insist on leaving on Oct 31st though, as the only way that doesn't happen is if we agree a deal, and we need more time than what is left to agree a deal by Oct 31st.

And as if by magic....

[Lancasterclaret]

Agree. The court has no business in this at this stage. It's interfering in political matters

At one stage does the court have to intervene to guarantee that the law is obeyed?

Surely its better now to make sure that law is obeyed, rather than at a stage where the government breaking the law means it gets what it wants?

Surely you are not advocating letting law breakers get away with what they want, even if they break the law?

[Lancasterclaret]

And as if by magic....

And that is 100% designed for consumption by people like you (no offence implied or meant btw, its just what it is)

Nothing in that will stop the government having to obey the law.

[KateR]

Not my thoughts Kate, the thought of the European editor of the Daily Telegraph

A major part of the problems we are having is that real issues are being swept aside as "minor points" or a "technicality". The Irish border is neither, especially to the Irish and the EU and UK plans appear to ignore what was promised before and seem (again) to be written with an election in mind, rather than as a genuine attempt to find a solution.

but they are your thoughts, all your posts are negative to the fact of leaving the EU, and that is ok but don't try to hide behind someone else's putting there thoughts in print, they make there living out of selling headlines. We can all go back to the numerous experts since 2016 and prove where they are wrong, I used to have to work with numerous SME's when I was employed, the one trait every SME seems to have is that they are very cautious for obvious reasons, I can begin to tell you the number of times SME's were wrong, and we paid them a lot of money for there time and advise.

In the end you and your brain should be able to work out what you think is the best course of action given ideas/thoughts from various sides and make a decision, will you always be right, no you wont. You have clearly made your mind up even though your experts have continually been proven wrong for 3 years, although I do admit to seeing signs of you coming out of the dark side

You also never answered the question about what do the EU do in your opinion?

[summitclaret]

At one stage does the court have to intervene to guarantee that the law is obeyed?

Surely its better now to make sure that law is obeyed, rather than at a stage where the government breaking the law means it gets what it wants?

Surely you are not advocating letting law breakers get away with what they want, even if they break the law?

No I am not. But the government might be preparing to challenge the law before 19 oct. After all it received little scrutiny.

[Lancasterclaret]

No I am not. But the government might be preparing to challenge the law before 19 oct. After all it received little scrutiny.

I'd be amazed if it isn't.

And in the context of hoping that the law can be overturned in court, then I've no problem with No 10 tweeting/briefing/interviewing that it will leave on Oct 31st as long as it obeys the law to request an extension.

If we don't get an extension because of the EU, then fine, that is what it is.

But there are two incompatible ideas here.

The government has to obey the law.

The government will make sure we leave the EU on Oct 31st.

Unless the EU take it out of our hands (which would mean they are intervening in our internal politics, a huge no-no one would think)

I'm not the only one who is finding the irony of the Brexiteers hoping for an EU block on this very delicious!

[summitclaret]

The SNP are adding votes for leave by the minute eith stuff like this.

[martin_p]

Agree. The court has no business in this at this stage. It's interfering in political matters

And there in lies the problem. Our current PM sees obeying the law of the land as a political matter. It’s not. The court is getting involved because of a desire to make sure the PM does not break the law. Absolutely bizarre and not a little sad that anyone has to do that.

[Paul Waine]

It's not "greedy" to see a collective approach as a solution to problems. Addressing the problem of deep inequality here is the same as addressing the problem in other countries, in creating a working example to follow. Charity is wonderful, but it's not the answer. Changing the system so we don't need charity is better.

As for your comments on socialism - talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth. Your rise in the world is as a result of socialism. Unless your family was well off, your education, healthcare, and the postwar egalitarianism all helped make you what you are. This isn't to take away the hard work you put in, but had you been born fifty or a hundred years earlier, all that hard work would see you still labouring away for little more than the food on your table, and the weekly rent for the roof over your head.

Hi Andrew, where to start? OK, let's keep the same order as your post.

Fantastic "it's not greedy to see a collective approach...." especially, when you are doing the collecting. Wouldn't a truly collective action be one where everyone was taxed at the same rate, rather than "you've got more, so we are taking a lot more from you?" And, so we will "address... deep inequality here" rather than do something for the people living in real poverty in the largest part of the world? You really should ask the people who lived through socialism in USSR and Eastern Europe, or in China how their socialism worked out for them. Or, why not take a look at Corbyn's favourite socialist country, Venezuela? It's wonderful (that first came out as "woeful") that you think that the 5th (or are we down to 6th, now) largest economy in the world can address problems in other, much poorer, countries by "setting an example."

I'm puzzling over what you mean by suggesting socialism provided my education and my healthcare. My paternal grandfather was a mill worker, spent a large part of the 30s out of work. He lived in a 2 bed terrace, no elec, a gas mantle for lighting - this was how it was 70 years ago/1950s. He'd passed away - cotton worker's disease - before the streets where he lived were demolished in "slum clearance." My father was at grammar school before 1939 - and went on to uni and, after military service, became a teacher. I followed the same path, grammar school and uni. I'm not sure why you think socialism contributed to my education - the provision of state education isn't exclusively a feature of socialism. And, I've seen rather a lot of the NHS over the last few years - and, I've always "kept in touch" through one event or another in my life. And, not everything about the NHS is "great!" I've posted a few times on here that we'd have a better national health care system if it was set up like they do in Netherlands (which I've also experienced) or Germany - and several other European nations that have not gone down the "socialism" model of health care we have in the UK. (It's a pity that the EU didn't mandate all member states adopted the same health care models - the NHS would not have been anyone's choice - and maybe everyone would have voted to remain).

Speaking of the NHS and referring back to your idea of taxing earnings above £1 million at 90%. You are aware, I assume, of what's happening in the NHS with the doctors who are facing excessively high tax rates as a result of, let's say, "short-sighted" tax treatment of pension contributions. Many are deciding to retire, others are refusing to do overtime - i.e they are declining to use their skills and "contribute to the collective..."* which is the understandable human response to taxes they perceive to be unfair. Now, who'd have thought we'd see that human nature demonstrated in the NHS, the "icon of the socialist state!" And, these GPs are on earnings around £100,000.

* I guess others are choosing to take their skills elsewhere, to work in other countries where the tax rates are so excessive.

[martin_p]

I'd be amazed if it isn't.

And in the context of hoping that the law can be overturned in court, then I've no problem with No 10 tweeting/briefing/interviewing that it will leave on Oct 31st as long as it obeys the law to request an extension.

If we don't get an extension because of the EU, then fine, that is what it is.

But there are two incompatible ideas here.

The government has to obey the law.

The government will make sure we leave the EU on Oct 31st.

Unless the EU take it out of our hands (which would mean they are intervening in our internal politics, a huge no-no one would think)

I'm not the only one who is finding the irony of the Brexiteers hoping for an EU block on this very delicious!

And again, we’ve been told time and time again that the EU is so scared of no deal that it’s our best negotiating tool. Now we’re being told that in response to a letter requesting that we avoid no deal at the end of the month the EU will say ‘no thanks, we want no deal’.

How do you Brexiteers square that circle exactly?

[Lancasterclaret]

but they are your thoughts, all your posts are negative to the fact of leaving the EU, and that is ok but don't try to hide behind someone else's putting there thoughts in print, they make there living out of selling headlines. We can all go back to the numerous experts since 2016 and prove where they are wrong, I used to have to work with numerous SME's when I was employed, the one trait every SME seems to have is that they are very cautious for obvious reasons, I can begin to tell you the number of times SME's were wrong, and we paid them a lot of money for there time and advise.

In the end you and your brain should be able to work out what you think is the best course of action given ideas/thoughts from various sides and make a decision, will you always be right, no you wont. You have clearly made your mind up even though your experts have continually been proven wrong for 3 years, although I do admit to seeing signs of you coming out of the dark side

You also never answered the question about what do the EU do in your opinion?

They are not my thoughts kate.

I've not got even remotely the level of knowledge about this that PM Foster has. I recognise that.

Part of the problem again is that plenty of contributors to this thread don't have the ability to understand where their competence level on this is. And with all the respect in the world, as I've actually worked on the border, worked for Irish haulage and shipping companies and seen the day to day running of such businesses over the border, there are not many more on here who have that experience!

Overall though, I know where my experience and knowledge is on this, and its way below that of PM Foster!

I don't see any new evidence since 2016 that suggests we are going to be better off out than in. But I do think we have to respect the result, so

I'm deal, if not deal, remain.

[Paul Waine]

I think Britain is alone in the world in having tried pure capitalism (early 19th Cent), and pure socialism (during WW2), so you would think that we'd be uniquely placed to understand the positive and negatives of both - however that doesn't seem to be the case. I wonder whether it's the way history is taught here (I only attended primary school here, so I wouldn't know)?

I think the reason the LibDems aren't able to offer a balanced alternative - as you say - is because the centre ground isn't working. Politics has become like it was in the '30s, where mainstream politics has not delivered. Neo Liberal economics, or whatever you want to call it, has failed for the majority of people, so they look outside of the accepted right way of doing things to alternatives. In the '30s both communism and fascism offered steady employment, food, education, healthcare, and leisure to people who were for the most part living without some or all of those things. It's easy to see how people overlooked the extra baggage that came along with those ideologies. Now - and I'm painting with a broad brush here - we have brexit, and taking back control as something many people chose for the change it would bring, and we have redistribution and taking back control of the economy as the things on offer.

If we look back at how the post war world resolved itself, all of the western democracies took on the ideas of full employment, education, healthcare, and leisure for the majority of people - and that became the centre ground, keeping the extremes at bay. To me, that is the only way forward now.

Andrew, I'm intrigued, where did you get your secondary and, I assume, tertiary education - if only your primary education was in the UK?

And, I'm asking that question - before I read your 2nd para.

I referred in my earlier post - our "socialism" debate - to USSR. How do you arrive at the idea that in the 1930s communism "offered steady employment, food, education, healthcare, and leisure to people who were for the most part living without some or all of those things." Don't you know about the 10s of millions that were killed by Stalin through the 1930s (yes, before USSR/Russia ended up fighting Hitler in defence of the Motherland). Don't you know about the millions who starved as a result of the collectivisation of agriculture - i.e. the taking away from the farmers (and this wasn't a wealthy farming class) and distributing their land to the collectives - with their party commissariats. (There are books that record this history, if you are interested).

[KateR]

there is no square circle, it's just people who have never negotiated anything beyond a car or house that seem to be experts who read something once.

I can not tell you how many times my husband researched a car, decided he wanted it, got the price trolled the internet for similar, knew exactly the price and decided to go buy telling me this is what he would pay and no more, I am sure he was convinced by this statement. I think once he managed to get a car at the price he was willing to pay.

If BJ and others just say, yes sir I am going to go cap in hand and ask the nice EU man for an extension, what do you think might happen, what do you think BJ would think that the nice EU people would think. The lack of understanding around negotiations and the complexities coupled with taking stances and red lines on this board is staggering, particularly the ones with the insistence they know, they can see, and live in a black and white world.

What does anyone not understand when he says, we will follow the law and we will leave? It Is simple English.

You may think it is not possible, and maybe it is not possible to reconcile but what he is telling you that you should 1100% believe is that it is what he is going to try to do regardless of the avid remainers sat waiting for him at every turn and despite many people on here who when it fails will shout from the rooftops, see I told you he is a liar, you can never trust him to run the country.

[KateR]

They are not my thoughts kate.

I've not got even remotely the level of knowledge about this that PM Foster has. I recognise that.

Part of the problem again is that plenty of contributors to this thread don't have the ability to understand where their competence level on this is. And with all the respect in the world, as I've actually worked on the border, worked for Irish haulage and shipping companies and seen the day to day running of such businesses over the border, there are not many more on here who have that experience!

Overall though, I know where my experience and knowledge is on this, and its way below that of PM Foster!

I don't see any new evidence since 2016 that suggests we are going to be better off out than in. But I do think we have to respect the result, so

I'm deal, if not deal, remain.

Thank you and appreciate the information, certainly helps me understand better where some of your points are coming from and clarifies a few things, again thank you

[Spijed]

The SNP are adding votes for leave by the minute eith stuff like this.

And making their case for independence far stronger in Scotland.

[KateR]

And making their case for independence far stronger in Scotland.

Stronger Scotland, one of the best oxymoron's I have seen for a long time, thank you for making me laugh today

[Mala591]

The EU could think a bit more creatively:

We will allow a two year backstop expiry on May's WA and if we still haven't agreed a free trade agreement then we will accept Johnson's WA.

That would allow more time for a technological customs border to be developed.

[Paul Waine]

At one stage does the court have to intervene to guarantee that the law is obeyed?

Surely its better now to make sure that law is obeyed, rather than at a stage where the government breaking the law means it gets what it wants?

Surely you are not advocating letting law breakers get away with what they want, even if they break the law?

Interesting questions, Lancs. What is it the Benn Act requires? Write a letter, text requesting extension - does it specify 3 months? When does the Gov't have to write the letter? Is there anything else? Today's 4-October - does BA say anything has to be done by today?

We are all familiar with football laws (well, at least before VAR. ). Does the ref need to wait before the ball is in the net before awarding a goal? Can a team score a goal before the ref has started the game?

[martin_p]

Interesting questions, Lancs. What is it the Benn Act requires? Write a letter, text requesting extension - does it specify 3 months? When does the Gov't have to write the letter? Is there anything else? Today's 4-October - does BA say anything has to be done by today?

We are all familiar with football laws (well, at least before VAR. ). Does the ref need to wait before the ball is in the net before awarding a goal? Can a team score a goal before the ref has started the game?

It’s all a result of us having the least trustworthy PM in living memory, one who reckons he can comply with the law and still leave the EU on 31st come what may. When someone is saying something so contradictory clearly something is afoot.