Looks as if Theresa May has planned on nothing but a "Hard Brexit" after the immigration white paper was leaked.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ays-brexit

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

Yeah, he comes across as totally reasonable. A man of the people. Not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172426

To a large degree that is all they can really plan for, all the noise in the market place from the UK side about a so called Soft Brexit cannot be planed for since it does not exist, was not offered in the referendum, is being made up as they go and is not the domain of the UK to decide but the EU. So those who are pushing it are saying this is what we will do and implement and the EU must now tell us what we must do to achieve this outcome The EU response has been very clear, the 4 freedoms that are the core of the EU will not be violated to accommodate the UK, so what the UK has to do as one of the oldest parliamentary democracies is to find a way to ensure that a referendum result to leave the EU does not see the UK leaving the EU.

scbriml wrote:

Dano1977 wrote:

Here is the Rt Hon Jacob Rees-Mogg MP view of the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKjTPPcOdQ

Just a shame he is a back bench MP, but he is my tip for a future PM

Yeah, he comes across as totally reasonable. A man of the people. Not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172426

"Marriage is a sacrament and the decision of what is a sacrament lies with the Church not with Parliament"

Errr ... what does that mean for Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Protestant/ (insert religious belief) marriages? Has the Catholic Church advised Mr Rees-Mogg whether or not they comply with whatever it is he believes sacrament is, or does he oppose their right to marry as well?

I wouldn't want him as a PM, but I can see why his views would appeal to our resident nostalgics.

ElPistolero wrote:

I wouldn't want him as a PM, but I can see why his views would appeal to our resident nostalgics.

"Asked whether his opposition applied in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, he replied: "I'm afraid so."

Define resident nostalgics.... :sick:

Jayafe wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

I wouldn't want him as a PM, but I can see why his views would appeal to our resident nostalgics.

"Asked whether his opposition applied in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, he replied: "I'm afraid so."

Define resident nostalgics.... :sick:

Listening to Radio 4 in the car a while back, I listened to what he actually said, and how he reconciled his views with those of the Party and, to be fair, the mainstream of opinion. He's a devout Catholic, but like Tim Farron he does not try to force those views on others, and as regards abortion he recognises that while he thinks life is sacred from the moment of conception, he also recognises that the law of the land says differently.

In all honesty, his principled position on this (which I don't agree with) Are at odds with the stated position of their Parties, but they have strong views on this particular subject. And are honest about it.

Jayafe wrote:

"Asked whether his opposition applied in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, he replied: "I'm afraid so."

Define resident nostalgics.... :sick:

As long as his personal religious views are not regarded as government policy......
Politicians are actually people who were raised in communities like everyone else, they have views and personal convictions, the caveat for them is that when they do become politicians their personal convictions become secondary to the views of the people they were elected to serve.

par13del wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

"Asked whether his opposition applied in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, he replied: "I'm afraid so."

Define resident nostalgics.... :sick:

As long as his personal religious views are not regarded as government policy......
Politicians are actually people who were raised in communities like everyone else, they have views and personal convictions, the caveat for them is that when they do become politicians their personal convictions become secondary to the views of the people they were elected to serve.

At least you have the choice whether to vote for him or not based on his honest views, how many hide the truth about their views including senior politicians who say anything for a vote,i totally disagree with him but unlike most he didn't avoid the questions either

par13del wrote:

As long as his personal religious views are not regarded as government policy......

Which usually never happens...

Jayafe wrote:

Which usually never happens...

Well, in a large enough democracy it does not matter, getting all the others who do not share his personal or religious convictions to agree on laws will not happen.
Que this thread, despite the referendum, many elected officials disagree with the results and are doing all and sundry to ......
You get the meaning, sometimes, fear is stoked for many reasons....

par13del wrote:

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

EU directives are already domestic law. That's how they have force. Member states make laws implementing them. They don't need to convert anything since most of those things are already on the statute books. Or have I completely misunderstood the article?

My understanding, there will be no EU to refer the domestic rules / laws / regulations to within the UK legal system, so a new baseline has to be set. By converting all the EU statutes into UK law, they are providing some level of "comfort" to the EU citizens in the UK and those who support remaining in the EU that the UK will not suddenly become a dictatorship or some such nefarious society but that for the immediate future, the protections afforded to EU citizens within the EU will also apply to the UK, including whatever issues they currently have with EU red tape.

What he's saying (that I also already said here) is that there are no EU laws in the UK. There are UK laws, written by the UK parliament, to comply with EU directives. So the only work to do for each law is at most to remove the sentence about "in application of EU directive 59741A".

Aesma wrote:

What he's saying (that I also already said here) is that there are no EU laws in the UK. There are UK laws, written by the UK parliament, to comply with EU directives. So the only work to do for each law is at most to remove the sentence about "in application of EU directive 59741A".

...which is what I meant when I said there would be no EU to refer to on the books, admit it was a simple explanation but as you know, we on A.Net are not nor do we tolerate lawyers....
Cheers

Dano1977 wrote:

At least you have the choice whether to vote for him or not based on his honest views, how many hide the truth about their views including senior politicians who say anything for a vote,i totally disagree with him but unlike most he didn't avoid the questions either

The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of us simply don't have that choice.

Some people can't accept the Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... test-march

...another link from the vaunted Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nster.html

Be interesting to see if they can get the UK to go Ireland and others who had to do a re-vote...would be shocked but stranger things have happened.

par13del wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

"Asked whether his opposition applied in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, he replied: "I'm afraid so."

Define resident nostalgics.... :sick:

As long as his personal religious views are not regarded as government policy......
Politicians are actually people who were raised in communities like everyone else, they have views and personal convictions, the caveat for them is that when they do become politicians their personal convictions become secondary to the views of the people they were elected to serve.

Unfortunately the Conservatives have a setup where policy is essentially set by the leadership. So if Old Moggy was adamant on the issue, it would potentially go into their manifesto.

He's a weird arse who seems to want to be 30 years older than he is, and lives in the 19th Century. Should he also make a move on the idiotic May and her coterie of loonies then he would also find life rather hard, as assassins are not well regarded after the event. The best he could hope for is to wait for her to quit and slither in as a compromise candidate.

Well, TM should know, interesting stuff on how she became PM, there was some major back stabbing to accomplish that deed.

To be fair, it wasn't backstabbing on her part but on Gove's part, cutting off Boris.

I read an article today where Yanis Varoufakis has said May should end negotiations and take the UK back to the EEA (even though she's ruled it out) for a five year transition, arguing that the EU will never agree to any kind of deal anyway and debating with Barnier and co is therefore a waste of time.

UltimoTiger777 wrote:

To be fair, it wasn't backstabbing on her part but on Gove's part, cutting off Boris.

I read an article today where Yanis Varoufakis has said May should end negotiations and take the UK back to the EEA (even though she's ruled it out) for a five year transition, arguing that the EU will never agree to any kind of deal anyway and debating with Barnier and co is therefore a waste of time.

Agree it was not her doing, just that the function was involved in her ultimately being PM, so backstabbing has already been used so what's another run?

The PM at heart wants to be in the EU, they have created the cliff edge as very little work is being done to expand non-EU infrastructure, a lot of infrastructure was transferred and implemented by the EU over the last 40 years, business houses need to know how to function after Mar-2019, nothing says it has to be EU regs. If the EEA plan is viable it should follow the EU timeline, 2 years, now they need to throw it out there and see what the public thinks.
Personally, I think it is too late, she took a year after the vote to trigger Article 50 and had too many options, no deal should have been codified as WTO and had split teams working on that while they negotiate, as it has to be done anyway for expanded trade outside of the EU.