Brexit - merged threads

[Raja Clavata]

12 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

But not completely out of the question now is it ?
If Id said the same thing 6 months ago, you would have LOLed your self silly !
Things are changing , make no mistake.

Preaching to the choir!

Of course they would, dont doubt that for a moment.
But those worse terms are coming anyway if we remain, the euro , the army , closer political and financial  integration are all coming as per the Lisbon treaty demands.

All the EU has to do is relax those demands, let nations be nations, have the single market, have free trade, but let Europe keep its laws and identity with its individual nations.
Remove all those parts that cause so much il feeling towards it , and there would nt be any coherent Eurosceptic movement.

But it cant do it, because it essentially doesnt have those plebs as its first concern.

Its self preservation is its first aim, and its prepared to sacrifice a great deal to do it .

Seemingly as would others in order to retain, in their words "my democracy".

Rather than sneaking remain over the line by deliberately splitting the leave vote for this perceived ambiguity ?

You're getting predictable. I added sneak as a hook 🙂 You skipped over the main point. There's at least two versions of Brexit - with a deal or no deal - how is that splitting the vote or are you somehow suggesting both a no deal and deal can be delivered? Again, you have reinforced my point about objections to a confirmatory vote!

 

[Yellow Bear]

If, and it is a big IF, there is a second referendum it cannot be a first past the post if remain is on the paper.  There would need to be 3 questions

Leave on wto (no deal)

Leave with deal (Which has to be better than current offering)

Remain

Remain should not win if the SUM of the other 2 options is higher than the remain vote, it is then the higher of the 2 out options that wins.

However I cannot see the rampant remoaners agreeing to this as I think they would probably lose.

 

[Newbie to this]

52 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

So you're fundamentally opposed to a second referendum or only opposed if the outcome goes against your desire?

Absolutely I'm fundamentally opposed to a second referendum, we have had one the result needs to be enacted.

22 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

in their words "my democracy".

The words 'my democracy' were used to point out the undemocratic stance of a second vote. You say it would be democratic, I say if the vote is remain where would my democracy be!

So please explain, if the vote is overturned where would my democracy be?

Edited May 28, 2019 by Newbie to this

[JohnfromUK]

17 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

There would need to be 3 questions

NO - NO - NO! .......... as Mrs Thatcher said.

We have had a referendum.  The question was very simple; leave or remain.  The result was a win for leave.  (I voted remain, but fully accept we now are to leave).

We then had a General Election; both Labour and Tory had leave in their manifesto.  The Tories won the election (just) based on that manifesto - Labour gained seats - also based on that manifesto.  Between them they can EASILY get a majority for any necessary leave legislation.  They MUST do so.

THERE IS NO POINT in having another referendum if Parliament won't carry out the result of the first one - WHICH BOTH MAIN PARTIES PROMISED IN THEIR MANIFESTOS.  Why should they carry out the result of the next one?

The idiot Abbott is now saying there should be another referendum. 

The whole wretched lot in parliament should be locked in on bread and water until they get on and do what the first referendum decided and BOTH main parties promised.

Edited May 28, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

You're getting predictable. I added sneak as a hook 🙂 You skipped over the main point. There's at least two versions of Brexit - with a deal or no deal - how is that splitting the vote or are you somehow suggesting both a no deal and deal can be delivered? Again, you have reinforced my point about objections to a confirmatory vote!

I dont believe I am missing the point.
The 'point ' was created to frustrate the delivery of Brexit, if you asked people what they were voting for when they put that x in the leave box, they would most likely have referred you to what it actually said in the leave box= leave.
When May took the reins , and before they had even put forward any deal, she promised the EU a whole raft of concessions, £billions, respect rights , transition periods ect.
Not the best start for a negotiation ?
It was rewarded by a drawn up set of demands from Brussels that got passed off as Mays deal.

Any alternatives , fall back plan, OUR demands, no mention of Canada or Norway style deals , at least in the interim ? No 18 months ago, the best plan we could come up with, was stopping in an extra 2 years !
Present day, Mays deal dead in the water, and no other plan put forward whatsoever , EU says it wont consider any other plan anyway.

Oh, so we have to vote on it again dont we ?
But not like last time , because people were really confused about what they were voting for (Show me the poll where people were asked if they knew what they thought would happen..3 years later) this time a 3 way vote , No deal, Mays deal (that no one wants) or remain, does that seem right to you ?

The 'confused' vote for leave you envisage , is a construct of the remain faction of government and media.
If people really did see Brexit as coming with a deal, but the EU simply will not give any kind of deal that doesnt amount to a BRINO , or cost a huge amount of cash, does that mean they dont want Brexit anymore, or they want WTO ?
If we really do have to run another ref, there should be 2 options, leave WTO or remain, besides the fact its political suicide for most MPs, and would further destroy trust in government and democracy in general, picture the possible results.

WTO leave win - Parliament again, refuses in all 'conscience'  to implement it, stalls ect, or upon implementation makes such a hash of it, its a disaster.

Remain win - Leavers outraged, political parties split asunder, far right gains huge amounts of support, EU makes further inroads for forced unity in fiscal and political matters.

Plenty more scenarios, but one thing is very clear, a second ref is going to be bad, whatever happens, or whatever choices.
Compare that to just simply leaving and getting on with our lives.

[oowee]

WTO terms would not be a short term option? It takes years to agree trade terms. 

I for one would be content that democracy had been served if our voted Government agreed a deal and confirmed it with the electorate. The people can decide if the deal on the table is better or worse than the one we have. 

[Yellow Bear]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

NO - NO - NO! .......... as Mrs Thatcher said.

We have had a referendum.  The question was very simple; leave or remain.  The result was a win for leave.  (I voted remain, but fully accept we now are to leave).

We then had a General Election; both Labour and Tory had leave in their manifesto.  The Tories won the election (just) based on that manifesto - Labour gained seats - also based on that manifesto.

THERE IS NO POINT in having another referendum if Parliament won't carry out the result of the first one - WHICH BOTH MAIN PARTIES PROMISED IN THEIR MANIFESTOS.

The idiot Abbott is now saying there should be another referendum. 

The whole wretched lot in parliament should be locked in on bread and water until they get on and do what the first referendum decided and BOTH main parties promised.

And I totally agree with you on this.  I only stated the ONLY way a second ref would be even minimally acceptable.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

WTO terms would not be a short term option? It takes years to agree trade terms.

Weve had years .
Why was the prep not done ?

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Why was the prep not done ?

Because the EU has flatly refused to negotiate trade terms until the 'transition deal (and the £39 billion) was agreed and signed off.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Because the EU has flatly refused to negotiate trade terms until the 'transition deal (and the £39 billion) was agreed and signed off.

Exactly.
So what does that mean if they do indeed take 'years' ?

You take our bad deal, because THAT is very literally, your only option.

You would get a better offer from the mafia.

[pinfireman]

15 hours ago, Gordon R said:

If it comes down to a choice between Corbyn and whoever leads the Tories, I agree that it should be settled by a fist fight - only one winner, even if the Tory is female.

[oowee]

42 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Weve had years .
Why was the prep not done ?

How can the prep be done when no one knows the terms of our engagement. Add in the new greens and the complexity increases. Put Raab in power and workers rights go down the pan the EU negotiators will have a field day. 

[pinfireman]

56 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

NO - NO - NO! .......... as Mrs Thatcher said.

We have had a referendum.  The question was very simple; leave or remain.  The result was a win for leave.  (I voted remain, but fully accept we now are to leave).

We then had a General Election; both Labour and Tory had leave in their manifesto.  The Tories won the election (just) based on that manifesto - Labour gained seats - also based on that manifesto.  Between them they can EASILY get a majority for any necessary leave legislation.  They MUST do so.

THERE IS NO POINT in having another referendum if Parliament won't carry out the result of the first one - WHICH BOTH MAIN PARTIES PROMISED IN THEIR MANIFESTOS.  Why should they carry out the result of the next one?

The idiot Abbott is now saying there should be another referendum. 

The whole wretched lot in parliament should be locked in on bread and water until they get on and do what the first referendum decided and BOTH main parties promised.

Good post!

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, pinfireman said:

Good post!

It really is VERY simple; the plain underlying fact is that enough MP's stood at the last General Election for Labour and Tory on a platform of carrying out the Referendum result and leaving the EU.  There are enough MP's who stood on those manifestos promising leave to get a majority under ANY circumstances.  313 Tories, 246 Labour.  There should therefore be  559 votes for leave.

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It really is VERY simple; the plain underlying fact is that enough MP's stood at the last General Election for Labour and Tory on a platform of carrying out the Referendum result and leaving the EU.  There are enough MP's who stood on those manifestos promising leave to get a majority under ANY circumstances.  313 Tories, 246 Labour.  There should therefore be  559 votes for leave.

Easy said but the question is under what terms. We certainly did not vote for a hard border. 

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, oowee said:

How can the prep be done when no one knows the terms of our engagement.

Im talking about back when the (non) negotiations started, May never used no deal as a credible threat, We should have been seriously preparing for WTO as soon as A50 was activated.
THAT would have sent a message, instead we surrendered before a shot was fired.

 

23 minutes ago, oowee said:

Add in the new greens and the complexity increases.

Whoa ! The greens have won a few MEP seats, they might get a few free lunches, they are no where near in any sort of power..yet.
Same goes for the lib dems, a few MEPs does not a UK government make.

 

25 minutes ago, oowee said:

Put Raab in power and workers rights go down the pan the EU negotiators will have a field day. 

Lets not get over excited here, Im assuming you think Raab has form for poor workers rights issue ?
So IF he gets to be PM , he MIGHT try to push through some dodgy stuff, which hes got to get past his cabinet then  parliament, and then the EU negotiators that dont want to negotiate anymore anyway ?
Thats a long set of ifs and buts, amounting to nothing much.

10 minutes ago, oowee said:

Easy said but the question is under what terms. We certainly did not vote for a hard border. 

Notice how that 'hard' border doesnt get mentioned much these days ?

[JohnfromUK]

19 minutes ago, oowee said:

Easy said but the question is under what terms. We certainly did not vote for a hard border. 

The MP's approved the referendum question selection (formulated by the Cameron government).  It was a clear question.  Did MP's not understand it when they approved it (by a large majority if I remember right)?  If they didn't why did they vote for it?

The result was not a massive majority - but it was a clear majority - for leave.

In the subsequent (ill advised) General Election - both main parties promised to carry out the referendum result and leave.  The MP's - in standing on a party ticket, using the party machine, party funds for their campaign etc, accepted party policy as defined in the manifesto.  They were elected on that manifesto - 559 of them for Labour and Conservative.

Are they now saying they didn't know what they were standing for?  The manifesto leaflets that came through my door were as I recall clear.  We were to follow the referendum result and leave the EU.  Were they standing for the party with no intention of carrying out it's manifesto commitments?

There are 559 MPs in Parliament who stood on a promise to leave - did they not know what that meant when they stood?  If so - they should resign.

THEY MUST sort this out ......... and LEAVE.  Why the hell are they now saying they need another referendum?  We don't pay them a large salary and generous expenses, pensions and holiday package for them to keep coming back and asking us to tell them how to do their jobs.

In fact they have been (all 559 of them) utterly hopeless.  559 people stood on a leave ticket out of 650 and they say they can't get a simple majority.  If that isn't useless and unfit for purpose I don't know what is!

Edited May 28, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

I dont believe I am missing the point.
The 'point ' was created to frustrate the delivery of Brexit, if you asked people what they were voting for when they put that x in the leave box, they would most likely have referred you to what it actually said in the leave box= leave.
When May took the reins , and before they had even put forward any deal, she promised the EU a whole raft of concessions, £billions, respect rights , transition periods ect.
Not the best start for a negotiation ?
It was rewarded by a drawn up set of demands from Brussels that got passed off as Mays deal.

Any alternatives , fall back plan, OUR demands, no mention of Canada or Norway style deals , at least in the interim ? No 18 months ago, the best plan we could come up with, was stopping in an extra 2 years !
Present day, Mays deal dead in the water, and no other plan put forward whatsoever , EU says it wont consider any other plan anyway.

Oh, so we have to vote on it again dont we ?
But not like last time , because people were really confused about what they were voting for (Show me the poll where people were asked if they knew what they thought would happen..3 years later) this time a 3 way vote , No deal, Mays deal (that no one wants) or remain, does that seem right to you ?

The 'confused' vote for leave you envisage , is a construct of the remain faction of government and media.
If people really did see Brexit as coming with a deal, but the EU simply will not give any kind of deal that doesnt amount to a BRINO , or cost a huge amount of cash, does that mean they dont want Brexit anymore, or they want WTO ?
If we really do have to run another ref, there should be 2 options, leave WTO or remain, besides the fact its political suicide for most MPs, and would further destroy trust in government and democracy in general, picture the possible results.

WTO leave win - Parliament again, refuses in all 'conscience'  to implement it, stalls ect, or upon implementation makes such a hash of it, its a disaster.

Remain win - Leavers outraged, political parties split asunder, far right gains huge amounts of support, EU makes further inroads for forced unity in fiscal and political matters.

Plenty more scenarios, but one thing is very clear, a second ref is going to be bad, whatever happens, or whatever choices.
Compare that to just simply leaving and getting on with our lives.

Nobody is contesting that the process by which we got here is farce, nor I suspect that the whole situation is a mess, the question is how do we go forward.

How do you propose answering the question on whether people don't want Brexit or they want WTO, or whatever?

"Just simply leaving and getting on with our lives" - if only it were that simple.

[oowee]

Just now, Rewulf said:

Im talking about back when the (non) negotiations started, May never used no deal as a credible threat, We should have been seriously preparing for WTO as soon as A50 was activated.
THAT would have sent a message, instead we surrendered before a shot was fired.

That hardly reduces the negotiation time does it?

Whoa ! The greens have won a few MEP seats, they might get a few free lunches, they are no where near in any sort of power..yet.
Same goes for the lib dems, a few MEPs does not a UK government make.

New EU alliance post this weekends election. 

 

Lets not get over excited here, Im assuming you think Raab has form for poor workers rights issue ?

Yes. Authored a paper to opt out of EU workers rights and reduce minimum wage. 

So IF he gets to be PM , he MIGHT try to push through some dodgy stuff, which hes got to get past his cabinet then  parliament, and then the EU negotiators that dont want to negotiate anymore anyway ?
Thats a long set of ifs and buts, amounting to nothing much.

 

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

The MP's approved the referendum question selection (formulated by the Cameron government).  It was a clear question.  Did MP's not understand it when they approved it (by a large majority if I remember right)?  If they didn't why did they vote for it?

The result was not a massive majority - but it was a clear majority - for leave.

In the subsequent (ill advised) General Election - both main parties promised to carry out the referendum result and leave.  The MP's - in standing on a party ticket, using the party machine, party funds for their campaign etc, accepted party policy as defined in the manifesto.  They were elected on that manifesto - 559 of them for Labour and Conservative.

Are they now saying they didn't know what they were standing for?  The manifesto leaflets that came through my door were as I recall clear.  We were to follow the referendum result and leave the EU.  Were they standing for the party with no intention of carrying out it's manifesto commitments?

There are 559 MPs in Parliament who stood on a promise to leave - did they not know what that meant when they stood?  If so - they should resign.

THEY MUST sort this out ......... and LEAVE.  Why the hell are they now saying they need another referendum?  We don't pay them a large salary and generous expenses, pensions and holiday package for them to keep coming back and asking us to tell them how to do their jobs.

In fact they have been (all 556 of them) utterly hopeless.  556 people stood on a leave ticket out of 650 and they say they can't get a majority.  If that isn't useless and unfit for purpose I don't know what is!

To confirm the deal on the table when / if they get one. Leave was a broad term. If leavers want to leave put a firm proposition on the table setting out the implications. If people want to vote for that fair enough. 

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

Absolutely I'm fundamentally opposed to a second referendum, we have had one the result needs to be enacted.

The words 'my democracy' were used to point out the undemocratic stance of a second vote. You say it would be democratic, I say if the vote is remain where would my democracy be!

So please explain, if the vote is overturned where would my democracy be?

Since you're personalising it, I think that's a question for you to answer.

[mick miller]

45 minutes ago, oowee said:

How can the prep be done when no one knows the terms of our engagement. Add in the new greens and the complexity increases. Put Raab in power and workers rights go down the pan the EU negotiators will have a field day. 

Our rights for workers are already better than the EU's. What makes you think any government would abandon them? It would be political suicide for any party that suggested it.

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

the question is how do we go forward.

Lets have another vote, and start the process all over again shall we ?

 

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

"Just simply leaving and getting on with our lives" - if only it were that simple.

A lot more simple than ignoring the first vote, outraging half the country, then doing it again with a 3 way vote , designed to ensure remain ?

Can you not visualise the dangers ?

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

 

To confirm the deal on the table when / if they get one. Leave was a broad term. If leavers want to leave put a firm proposition on the table setting out the implications. If people want to vote for that fair enough. 

Are you suggesting they didn't know what leave meant?  If so - Cameron, Osborne etc seemed to understand well enough such that all of the dire consequences that they predicted in Project Fear could be identified and defined in positively frightening detail.

If it wasn't clear to ordinary MPs, - why did they stand on that ticket at the subsequent General Election?  It comes back to claiming ignorance of the rules after you have been caught.  Ignorance is no defence in the law.

OK, so some didn't fully understand.  But with 559 - surely at least enough to get the 326 needed for a majority cannot have been so ignorant?  They have teams of researchers.

[Newbie to this]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Since you're personalising it, I think that's a question for you to answer.

OK, I'll rephrase.

Where will the democracy of those who voted leave and haven't changed their minds be???

Edit - and you are calling for my democracy to be taken away not me.

Edited May 28, 2019 by Newbie to this

[Rewulf]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

Yes. Authored a paper to opt out of EU workers rights and reduce minimum wage. 

8 years ago !

He has the right to change his mind 🤣