The EU has already suggested a border where checks would mostly not be done at the border. The DUP doesn’t want it.
I think that article actually reinforces my impression that it is a fantasy. The description of how milk moves between the EU and Switzerland relies on an agricultural agreement and common regulatory environment between the two parties that does not exist between the EU and the UK. The description about how the free flow of goods can work is predicated on a zero tariff arrangement that similarly does not exist.
- The referendum was originally suggested by Nick Clegg back in 2007 or so I think? So let’s not pin the blame entirely on Cameron!
- I don’t think Cameron’s motivation was much to do with party unity - he was adept at handling the grumbling brexiteer wing of the party and his personal popularity gave him a relatively strong position. It was much more a matter of electoral strategy. UKIP had been successful in scapegoating the EU, and by promising a referendum Cameron could gain those votes.
- One of the reasons UKIPs dishonest scapegoating was so successful, and had resonance outside their core supporters, was the perception of the EU as “not what we signed up for”. The fact that Blair and Brown and Clegg signed us up to Lisbon without a referendum accentuated that feeling. The hope was that a referendum win would help counteract that.
Obviously the result was a disaster, but I honestly think Cameron saw the lack of perceived legitimacy of the EU as a problem that had to be addressed. I think what came out in the referendum was that there was simply no affection for the EU at all across much of the British electorate. I guarantee that plenty of the 48% voted remain because leaving was risky and its champions were deeply unpleasant, rather than out of any affection for the EU as an institution. In this scenario I don’t see how continued membership was tenable long-term in a democracy (My preferred solution would have been a mix of EU reform and more effective advocacy for it in the UK, but that is water under the bridge).
May is a pathetically weak leader; the 2017 campaign really opened my eyes to how little politicians actual ability at national politics is tested until they are in a leadership role.
That’s a reference to the EU’s proposed border in the Irish sea, not a “soft” border on the island of Ireland.
This was rather different - something like “accept no new powers in Brussels without a referendum”, or something to that effect. I think the policy was dropped once the danger of how it might end up being twisted became apparent.
“I guarantee that plenty of the 48% voted remain because leaving was risky and its champions were deeply unpleasant, rather than out of any affection for the EU as an institution”
Me!
A shocked Cabinet was today told of Department of Transport contingency plans to own or lease roll-on roll-off lorry ferries to make sure vital supplies of goods, food and medicines continue to reach these shores if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
…
The proposed scheme is called GOOL, or Government Owned or Operated Logistics.
I would appreciate an apology for insinuating that I was spreading misinformation. Cheers.
Whither Brexit leadership?
Crikey, what a frosty tone! I’m happy to admit that I was wrong, you were right. I’ve always tried to engage with you in good faith, and I’m a bit sad you feel the need for me to apologise for a perceived slight here.
The article goes on to say:
In fairness to Clegg, this pledge was specifically tied to the Lisbon Treaty and, while the Lib Dems’ 2010 manifesto repeated the promise of a referendum, it suggested that one should be only held “the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU.”
So yup, that was a stupid decision by Clegg - I’d actually never seen that particular material at all. The 2010 manifesto is what I thought you were referring to above.
I’m sorry that my tone was harsh, I don’t think you need to look too far in this thread for the reasons I might have little patience for being wrongly contradicted. I genuinely appreciate your efforts to engage in good faith.
Understanding the behaviour of Clegg and Brown regarding the Lisbon treaty is vital to understanding the demands for an in/out referendum. Cameron’s “iron-clad promise” of a referendum on the constitution was leveraged into the UKIP campaign for in/out - even though Cameron kept his promise, while both Clegg and Brown broke theirs(*). (Both faced substantial parliamentary rebellions over this matter). The net result was that most of the country was left with the feeling that we had been cheated of having their say, which was ably exploited by the anti-EU fringe.
(*: Depending on whether you view the Lisbon treaty as equivalent to the constitution. I’m inclined to believe Valery Giscard d’Estaing on this point…)
As to why Clegg did it, I think it was pure oppurtunism - it gave him an excuse to swing 48 votes away from the Tories on the Lisbon referendum vote (which didn’t matter in the end), and also gave his party the chance to dishonestly capture some of the eurosceptic vote. In hindsight I believe he would never have supported any referendum that was worth having (i.e. where the outcome was anything other than an utterly foregone conclusion).
That’s okay, and I do understand. Glad we can maintain our civil discussion!
Looks that way to me. It would be nice, one day, to have a crop of politicians that weren’t so easily swayed by opportunity like this. These things have consequences.
Meanwhile:
I really don’t know what we’re walking into here.
An ‘omnishambolic clown-car catastrofuck’, to quote David Schneider.
I read that last word as Castrofuck and I so wanted it to be the name of a Cuban punk rock band. Damnit.
Haha, that sounds perfect.
This is the exact same thing with Republican leaders here. They have money and alternate exits for when the American economy tanks.
Criminal investigation now underway.
He’s so deeply and thoroughly entangled with Putin and the SVR (and Trump/Bannon/Farage/etc) it can only be official confirmation of what is widely known.