Brexit - merged threads

[12gauge82]

5 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Hmmmn. Is that the best excuse he can come up with? No, the fact is that flawed or not, May's deal is the only game in town, and whether people like it or not has zero bearing on that reality. May won because the majority of Tory MPs (and opposition ones too come to that) are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee. 

The only bright spot in all this is that perhaps, finally, posturers like BoJo and JRM will go back into the wings and stay there.

The reason it's the only deal in town is due to Mays terrible handling of the negotiations, the other option is a WTO exit which I believe would be an excellent option, it would just require our government and large business to roll up their sleeves and give it a bit of elbow grease untill any kinks were ironed out, the EU would panic and despite we could really shaft them at that point, I beleive we should still give them a free trade deal, I wouldn't want to watch the EU go down the plug hole out of spite, even if they'd do the same to us.

[panoma1]

45 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

unless the electorate's given an in/out/deal referendum and remain wins, then the people will have spoken. Again. If the majority wanted to stay - even when a softer Bexit option is on the table - It wouldn't be Parliament robbing anyone of their decision. It'd just be doing what the majority of people wanted at the time. 

The people have spoken, the referendum was leave or remain, the electorate voted to leave! The remainers in Westminster aided by the Media, business and those with a personal vested interest have poisoned the water and carried out a relentless, negative, project fear campaign to soften the electorate up, now they want to give us another referendum, confident their spoiling tactics have scared the public into overturning Brexit.......any second referendum authorised by Westminster is, in my opinion, plainly an attempt by remainer politicians to rob the country's electorate of their democratic decision! That is To leave the EU.

[12gauge82]

7 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

The people have spoken, the referendum was leave or remain, the electorate voted to leave! The remainers in Westminster aided by the Media, business and those with a personal vested interest have poisoned the water and carried out a relentless, negative, project fear campaign to soften the electorate up, now they want to give us another referendum, confident their spoiling tactics have scared the public into overturning Brexit.......any second referendum authorised by Westminster is, in my opinion, plainly an attempt by remainer politicians to rob the country's electorate of their democratic decision! That is To leave the EU.

+1

[chrisjpainter]

4 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

The people have spoken, the referendum was leave or remain, the electorate voted to leave! The remainers in Westminster aided by the Media, business and those with a personal vested interest have poisoned the water and carried out a relentless, negative, project fear campaign to soften the electorate up, now they want to give us another referendum, confident their spoiling tactics have scared the public into overturning Brexit.......any second referendum authorised by Westminster is, in my opinion, plainly an attempt by remainer politicians to rob the country's electorate of their democratic decision! That is To leave the EU.

Yes, but that's the problem, isn't it? What does 'Leave the EU' mean? And the reality is that it means different things to different people. It was a black and white vote on a subject that was never black and white. The deal May's put together delivers on some elements of brexit that will appeal to some leave voters: It ends free movement of people, it brings control of our laws back to the UK and it should deliver more protection for fishing. 

It's not the clean break that the No-dealers want, of course, but then not all voters were no dealers anyway! 

If there was a poll done on No-Deal brexit vs any other opinion, No Deal would almost certainly lose - and I think it would have lost on the first vote as well. But the millions who voted on the basis of the things this deal delivers are enough to make a majority for leaving vs staying. 

Whilst we're on mythical polls, the other one I'd like to see is 'IF the EU returned to its original set up that was almost entirely about trade, would the you vote in or out?' Free movement, the ECJ, the relentless low level corruption and the dopey notion that Poland's farming should be run in the same way as Ireland's despite their being 1000 miles between them, completely different weather conditions, wildlife, culture and infrastructure  have rather muddied the economic principles!

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, chrisjpainter said:

unless the electorate's given an in/out/deal referendum and remain wins, then the people will have spoken. Again. If the majority wanted to stay - even when a softer Bexit option is on the table - It wouldn't be Parliament robbing anyone of their decision. It'd just be doing what the majority of people wanted at the time. 

What an excellent idea !
Seems very fair to me , have an in / out EU referendum vote once a year, with an instant implementation of the vote.
Whilst we are at it, a general election on the same ballot paper, and local council elections too, saving paper in the process, we could even use our red buttons on the TV remote too.
Keeps everyone happy 'at the time'
Or do you think every 6 months would be better 🙂

13 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

And the reality is that it means different things to different people.

Agreed too , the people that voted leave wanted to leave , and the people that voted stay, wanted to stay ! Simple really .

[martyn2233]

13 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Yes, but that's the problem, isn't it? What does 'Leave the EU' mean? And the reality is that it means different things to different people. It was a black and white vote on a subject that was never black and white. The deal May's put together delivers on some elements of brexit that will appeal to some leave voters: It ends free movement of people, it brings control of our laws back to the UK and it should deliver more protection for fishing. 

It's not the clean break that the No-dealers want, of course, but then not all voters were no dealers anyway! 

If there was a poll done on No-Deal brexit vs any other opinion, No Deal would almost certainly lose - and I think it would have lost on the first vote as well. But the millions who voted on the basis of the things this deal delivers are enough to make a majority for leaving vs staying. 

Whilst we're on mythical polls, the other one I'd like to see is 'IF the EU returned to its original set up that was almost entirely about trade, would the you vote in or out?' Free movement, the ECJ, the relentless low level corruption and the dopey notion that Poland's farming should be run in the same way as Ireland's despite their being 1000 miles between them, completely different weather conditions, wildlife, culture and infrastructure  have rather muddied the economic principles!

You seem to think no one want just out no deal like many others. 

[JRDS]

8 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Yes, but that's the problem, isn't it? What does 'Leave the EU' mean? And the reality is that it means different things to different people. It was a black and white vote on a subject that was never black and white. The deal May's put together delivers on some elements of brexit that will appeal to some leave voters: It ends free movement of people, it brings control of our laws back to the UK and it should deliver more protection for fishing. 

It's not the clean break that the No-dealers want, of course, but then not all voters were no dealers anyway! 

If there was a poll done on No-Deal brexit vs any other opinion, No Deal would almost certainly lose - and I think it would have lost on the first vote as well. But the millions who voted on the basis of the things this deal delivers are enough to make a majority for leaving vs staying. 

Whilst we're on mythical polls, the other one I'd like to see is 'IF the EU returned to its original set up that was almost entirely about trade, would the you vote in or out?' Free movement, the ECJ, the relentless low level corruption and the dopey notion that Poland's farming should be run in the same way as Ireland's despite their being 1000 miles between them, completely different weather conditions, wildlife, culture and infrastructure  have rather muddied the economic principles! 

Leave means as per the leaflet every household in the country got and it was very clear what it meant. The elements in her traitorous deal designed to appeal to Leave Voters are total red herrings designed for seduction only (fools gold).  No benefits are available until the EU let us leave which they never will, May's deal is a total sell out of the country to a foreign power forever.  She should be in the Tower or worse.

[12gauge82]

21 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Yes, but that's the problem, isn't it? What does 'Leave the EU' mean? And the reality is that it means different things to different people. It was a black and white vote on a subject that was never black and white. The deal May's put together delivers on some elements of brexit that will appeal to some leave voters: It ends free movement of people, it brings control of our laws back to the UK and it should deliver more protection for fishing. 

It's not the clean break that the No-dealers want, of course, but then not all voters were no dealers anyway! 

If there was a poll done on No-Deal brexit vs any other opinion, No Deal would almost certainly lose - and I think it would have lost on the first vote as well. But the millions who voted on the basis of the things this deal delivers are enough to make a majority for leaving vs staying. 

Whilst we're on mythical polls, the other one I'd like to see is 'IF the EU returned to its original set up that was almost entirely about trade, would the you vote in or out?' Free movement, the ECJ, the relentless low level corruption and the dopey notion that Poland's farming should be run in the same way as Ireland's despite their being 1000 miles between them, completely different weather conditions, wildlife, culture and infrastructure  have rather muddied the economic principles!

Leave the EU has been made complex by remoaners since the country voted the "wrong" way, it's very simple, the EU is a club (I'd call it a dictatorship but that's besides the point), made up of basic rules, i.e the four freedoms, free movement of people, the common market, ect ect, so to leave the EU means leaving the rules that apply to being an EU member, it really is that simple, Mays treacherous deal does virtually none of that.

[JohnfromUK]

22 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

despite their being 1000 miles between them, completely different weather conditions, wildlife, culture and infrastructure  have rather muddied the economic principles!

You have touched on one reason why I believe the whole EU concept of 'single market', common rules etc. can never work.  If you take the whole EU;

• There are vastly different climates and geographies.
• (As a result) there are vastly different agricultural opportunities, wildlife, flora and forestry.
• Different areas have different natural resources (oil, coal, gas, fish, minerals etc.)
• There are therefore different job opportunities and skill requirements
• There are completely different economic, cultural and social aspirations.  (the Greek idea of an economy isn't the same as a German's)

It was for these reasons that I thought it right that we never joined the single currency.  (I bet the Greeks, Portuguese and others wished they hadn't either).

People say it works OK in the USA, but of course it doesn't.  The USA has a lot of local laws/taxes by state - and huge economic inequality.  It also has vast debts a huge immigration problem, poor social integration and a dreadful fossil energy dependency, not to mention huge urban dereliction/deprivation in some parts and a massive health funding and drug problem.

[Penelope]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

The people have spoken, the referendum was leave or remain, the electorate voted to leave! The remainers in Westminster aided by the Media, business and those with a personal vested interest have poisoned the water and carried out a relentless, negative, project fear campaign to soften the electorate up, now they want to give us another referendum, confident their spoiling tactics have scared the public into overturning Brexit.......any second referendum authorised by Westminster is, in my opinion, plainly an attempt by remainer politicians to rob the country's electorate of their democratic decision! That is To leave the EU.

👍

[Retsdon]

27 minutes ago, JRDS said:

Leave means as per the leaflet every household in the country got and it was very clear what it meant.

As I understand May's deal, Britain is going to leave the EU. However, in the meantime the country requires access to the EU's single market and so will inevitably be bound to adhere to the rules that govern that single market. It's not rocket science. The outcome of any negotiation depends on the balance of power between the two parties, and Britain never, ever had sufficient negotiating muscle that it could force the EU into tearing up its own rule book. 

[panoma1]

But leave is unambiguous! It is the opposite of remain!.....the people voted to leave the EU.........to say they didn't know what they were voting for is misleading at best! They knew what they were voting for, but did not know or vote for the unnecessary leaving terms subsequently concocted and put in place by our treacherous government and an even more treacherous EU, in order to undermine and dismantle the leave vote.

In political elections the general public rarely if ever, know what or who they are voting for because they can only vote on the basis of what they are told, not what they know! And those democratically elected are perfectly happy to accept their election to office, as the result of a decision from an electorate who can only decide on the basis of what they are told!.....why do they now refuse to accept the unambiguous, democratic decision of the electorate in regard to leaving the EU?....because it doesn't suit their personal agendas!

This is the illusion of democracy we in the U.K. live under........democracy but only when it suits the agenda of those who have the power to grant (or deny) it!

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by panoma1

[12gauge82]

6 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

But leave is inambiguous! It is the opposite of remain!.....the people voted to leave the EU.........to say they didn't know what they were voting for is misleading at best! They knew what they were voting for, but did not know or vote for the unnecessary leaving terms subsequently concocted and put in place by our treacherous government and an even more treacherous EU, in order to undermine and dismantle the leave vote.

In political elections the general public rarely if ever, know what or who they are voting for because they can only vote on the basis of what they are told, not what they know! And those democratically elected are perfectly happy to accept their election to office, as the result of a decision from an electorate who can only decide on the basis of what they are told!.....why do they now refuse to accept the unambiguous, democratic decision of the electorate in regard to leaving the EU?....because it doesn't suit their personal agendas!

This is the illusion of democracy we in the U.K. live under........democracy but only when it suits the agenda of those who have the power to grant (or deny) it!

 

Bang on

[yod dropper]

53 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

What does 'Leave the EU' mean?

That thing that Cameron made clear in his role of referendum architect and lead remainer.

[Rewulf]

26 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

EU is a club (I'd call it a dictatorship but that's besides the point), made up of basic rules, i.e the four freedoms,

Basic rule No 1 , Keep the trough full at all times.
                   No 2 Do as we say , or else !
                   No 3 All other rules we will make up as we go along, you will not get a say in this.

Four freedoms.
You will have to let everyone into your country whether you want them or not, we will assign you 3 rd world 'refugees' that we have invited over to dilute your gene pool, this is non negotiable.
Free movement of goods, depends on whether you are competitive in a given market, if you are , and are not called Germany or France , you will be coerced into shutting down that market 'for the greater good'
Free movement of capital allows all our dirty money from within and without the EU to be untraceable and un accountable.
Freedom of services is a work in progress and the British have far too much clout in this area, we will move to extinguish this unfair advantage using Brexit as a means.

Here endeth the lesson.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Freedom to end ALL YOUR FREEDOMS!

[Rewulf]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Freedom to end ALL YOUR FREEDOMS!

1st rule of EU club.
Do not question EU club !

[ratchers]

2 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

Would a hard Brexiteer really vote with Remain, even if they hate the deal? I'm (still) a Remainer, but is this deal with the EU so hated that it'd be preferable to be in the EU? genuine question!

I'm also not sure the majority of Leavers want a hard brexit. From a Leaver's point of view, wouldn't a two-way split be better than a three way split? The maths would surely work out more favourably for Leavers.

If there was a referendum, it seems we'd have three possible questions:

In vs Hard Brexit vs Deal Brexit

In vs Deal Brexit

In vs Hard Brexit.

For Leavers, surely the best possible options is In vs Deal, as that'd be the easiest to win? 

Yeah but it's the prerogative of the next PM to break the promises of the previous one! And since when has a firm promise been worth anything in Parliament until it's law! I do agree with you, at the moment, however. My argument has always been that there should be a second referendum only if there's overwhelming public demand for it and it's clear the will of the people has changed. I don't think we've got there though; the electorate's basically as divided as Parliament, so the only thing to fall back on is the original vote.

Ah, so we do like the Irish Republic did and keep voting on it until the gov gets the answer it wants.

That was in relation to the Irish voting on the Lisbon Treaty which their gov lost 53.4% to 46.6%.

Keep voting until you get the right result, very democratic!.

We've had our vote and Brexit won.

Hard brexit is fine by me.

[ShootingEgg]

Im still failing to see why people call it hard and soft. Its not an egg that we want to boil. 

The ballot paper clearly stated leave or stay. 

Not stay or two years or carp negotiations. Even big Dave C said its stay or leave. Weve not left yet thats what was voted for. And yes i know i will get backlash for saying the above. 

 

[Rewulf]

David Cameron early June 2016.

He said the Brexit campaign had made it clear to voters that voting to leave also meant pulling out of the single market. The prime minister said he would accept the result as an “instruction” despite warning that leaving would be like planting a “bomb” under the British economy.

Yet still we voted to leave.

 

"There have been reports that the House of Commons, whose MPs are overwhelmingly pro-Remain, could vote against pulling out of the single market in the event of a Brexit. MPs could claim they were accepting voters’ wishes to withdraw from the EU while protecting them from the economic consequences of leaving the trading area.

However, the Leave campaign has made it clear that in order to restrict immigration and strike trade deals with countries outside the EU, Britain would have to leave the single market.

The prime minister said: “What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.”

He said a vote for Brexit was a “DIY recession” that could leave the government with a £20-40 billion black hole in its finances.
 

Unlike the absolute certainty of a £39 bn 'black hole ' Mays deal leaves us with ?

 

Ukip leader Nigel Farage, interviewed before the prime minister on the show claimed there had been “a shift” in public opinion in the last fortnight.

“Collectively people are beginning to put two fingers up to the political class,” he said.

Farage also dismissed claims there could be another referendum if the vote was tight. “If the leave side were to narrowly lose, the chances of Parliament giving us another referendum is pretty slim.”

Shame that doesnt work both ways eh ?

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

[TIGHTCHOKE]

22 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

Im still failing to see why people call it hard and soft. Its not an egg that we want to boil. 

The ballot paper clearly stated leave or stay. 

Not stay or two years or carp negotiations. Even big Dave C said its stay or leave. Weve not left yet thats what was voted for. And yes i know i will get backlash for saying the above. 

 

Only from the REMOANERS!

[matone]

4 hours ago, panoma1 said:

But leave is unambiguous! It is the opposite of remain!.....the people voted to leave the EU.........to say they didn't know what they were voting for is misleading at best! They knew what they were voting for, but did not know or vote for the unnecessary leaving terms subsequently concocted and put in place by our treacherous government and an even more treacherous EU, in order to undermine and dismantle the leave vote.

In political elections the general public rarely if ever, know what or who they are voting for because they can only vote on the basis of what they are told, not what they know! And those democratically elected are perfectly happy to accept their election to office, as the result of a decision from an electorate who can only decide on the basis of what they are told!.....why do they now refuse to accept the unambiguous, democratic decision of the electorate in regard to leaving the EU?....because it doesn't suit their personal agendas!

This is the illusion of democracy we in the U.K. live under........democracy but only when it suits the agenda of those who have the power to grant (or deny) it!

 

Spot on!

[pinfireman]

23 hours ago, Yellow Bear said:

More "of the people" than the vast majority of the shadow cabinet's champagne socialists in my view.

True!

[pinfireman]

11 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Hmmmn. Is that the best excuse he can come up with? No, the fact is that flawed or not, May's deal is the only game in town, and whether people like it or not has zero bearing on that reality. May won because the majority of Tory MPs (and opposition ones too come to that) are beginning to wake up and smell the coffee. 

The only bright spot in all this is that perhaps, finally, posturers like BoJo and JRM will go back into the wings and stay there.

Apparently, not an excuse!  Remove all those she has promoted in the last 2 years, and she would have lost narrowly! And, reading a sensible political blog, that is what has happened! And remember, it,s not over until the fat lady sings!

[pinfireman]

6 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

Would a hard Brexiteer really vote with Remain, even if they hate the deal? I'm (still) a Remainer, but is this deal with the EU so hated that it'd be preferable to be in the EU? genuine question!

I'm also not sure the majority of Leavers want a hard brexit. From a Leaver's point of view, wouldn't a two-way split be better than a three way split? The maths would surely work out more favourably for Leavers.

If there was a referendum, it seems we'd have three possible questions:

In vs Hard Brexit vs Deal Brexit

In vs Deal Brexit

In vs Hard Brexit.

For Leavers, surely the best possible options is In vs Deal, as that'd be the easiest to win? 

Yeah but it's the prerogative of the next PM to break the promises of the previous one! And since when has a firm promise been worth anything in Parliament until it's law! I do agree with you, at the moment, however. My argument has always been that there should be a second referendum only if there's overwhelming public demand for it and it's clear the will of the people has changed. I don't think we've got there though; the electorate's basically as divided as Parliament, so the only thing to fall back on is the original vote.

We have had a Referendum, there was a majority of 1.4 MILLION people wanting to Leave....it,s as simple as that! The people haven,t changed their minds, it,s treacherous politicians not liking the fact that they were defeated!  We do not NEED another referendum, we need the result of the last one to be honoured....in FULL !

6 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

That is true, though the DUP might not risk a Labour (with their IRA past sympathies) government.  

Who wins a general election?  Really 4 possibles;

• Tory majority, May remains, situation as now (though she might be a bit stronger)  - Unlikely to get enough seats
• Labour majority, Corbyn government.  Likely a very soft Brexit or Brexit In Name Only (BRINO) - Unlikely to get enough seats
• Tory minority, - much as now - Brexit situation much as now - One of two most likely outcomes
• Labour minority.  Propped up by SNP and possibly LibDems.  Any Brexit at all unlikely given SNP and LibDem positions - or at most BRINO - The other of two most likely outcomes

So of the two likely options - we have 'situation as now' or No Brexit/BRINO - and of the two less likely outcomes - 'situation as now' or very soft Brexit under Labour.  The real problem is that there will NOT BE any Parliamentary majority for a hard Brexit.

Labour,s IRA sympathies are NOT PAST! Check out their front bench..............