BREXIT

[Scully]

10 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Yes, I agree with you there. When it comes to leaving the EU on the back of a General, the only two courses of action should be to either a) get on and do it (if the Tories win, that's straightforward) or b) do another referendum, but I think that option only applies if the Lib Dems win a majority. That would give reasonable grounds to call for another referendum, given their fanatical Anti-Brexit agenda would have been voted in. But they must give the people that vote, to confirm that the majority are not longer in favour of leaving, rather than the Lib Dems winning by a combination of factors not directly connected with Brexit but still using that as an excuse to push through cancelling Article 50. 

 

Goodness knows what happens if Labour win!

But another referendum can’t include a remain choice as we’ve already voted on that. What is it about this that people find so hard to understand ? 

[chrisjpainter]

22 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

Whilst you can praise them for at least being consistent, I will continue to criticise them for being consistently terrible. 

Ignoring the referendum would honestly be disgraceful, it doesn’t matter how they spin it. 

 

 

Ignoring it would be, but they do have a right to stand up for what they believe - and a duty to speak out for those who elected them. Even if they're in the minority, they have the right to speak about it until the cows come home, but the drive should be to change opinions, not just cancel it. 

1 minute ago, Scully said:

But another referendum can’t include a remain choice as we’ve already voted on that. What is it about this that people find so hard to understand ? 

Yes it can. You might say it shouldn't, but there's no legally binding, unrepealable law,   that says that vote is binding. That'd be particularly poignant if a hitherto anonymous, weak, small, but stoically Remain government was suddenly swept to power. Whether you think that's morally or ethically acceptable is a different matter. We're almost certainly talking hypotheticals here, because it's not going to happen, but if Lib Dems suddenly gained 350 seats, plus a shed load from the SNP and Remain parties in Wales and Ireland, hat would be a mandate to ask the people wanted. Although the way they've done it has actually annoyed me quite a lot!

 

 

[Mice!]

54 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Goodness knows what happens if Labour win!

Everything burns, the gates open, disaster.

[grrclark]

The LibDem position is wholly disingenuous re revoking Article 50 on the basis of obtaining a majority in a GE.

Their argument being if they win a majority on the basis of that campaign pledge then they would be wholly entitled to revoke A50 as they would have a mandate to do so, but any majority would be on the basis of a completely different share of the vote.

The tory majority in 2017 was 42.4% which was the highest percentile share of a GE vote since 1983, but was still only 13.6m votes and still needed an agreement with the DUP for a working majority.

Go back to 2015 and the tories had 11.3m votes and 36% vote share for an outright majority.

So in theory if the LibDems won a majority on the same basis as the Tories in 2017 the referendum result could be overturned by 4m, or 23%, less people than voted leave, or worse as in 2015 it would be 6m, or 34%, less than voted leave.

That is based on absolute numbers only, our FPTP system skews things further.  Going back again to the 2015 election the SNP had 1.4m votes to get 56 seats and UKIP had 3.8m votes for 1 seat.  The LibDems had 2.4m for 8 seats.  Let that sink in, for the same total voter share as SNP and LibDems combined UKIP had 1 MP verses 64.

It is entirely possible, mathematically, that with only around c.10m votes between SNP and LibDem that a revocation of Article 50 could happen.  Democracy indeed...

 

 

 

[Retsdon]

7 hours ago, Scully said:

But another referendum can’t include a remain choice as we’ve already voted on that. What is it about this that people find so hard to understand ? 

Just suppose that the majority view has now swung the other way (I'm not saying that's the case btw, I'm saying supposing). Do you believe that in those circumstances the UK should exit the EU against the wishes of the majority? 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

9 hours ago, Scully said:

But another referendum can’t include a remain choice as we’ve already voted on that. What is it about this that people find so hard to understand ? 

Incredible that those that failed to get their way still cling on hoping to reverse the democratic will of the people 3 years ago!

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

Just suppose that the majority view has now swung the other way (I'm not saying that's the case btw, I'm saying supposing). Do you believe that in those circumstances the UK should exit the EU against the wishes of the majority? 

How many referendums shall we hold? Keep going until the "correct" unthinking, answer is reached.

 

Good grief man make logical arguments

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

Just suppose that the majority view has now swung the other way (I'm not saying that's the case btw, I'm saying supposing). Do you believe that in those circumstances the UK should exit the EU against the wishes of the majority? 

We shouldn't be having this discussion because we should already be out. Question got asked and answered over 3 years ago. 

[dead eye alan]

Clowns to the left jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle, ring any bells?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

8 minutes ago, dead eye alan said:

Clowns to the left jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle, ring any bells?

Sounds just like the British Parliament!

Edited September 16, 2019 by TIGHTCHOKE
Capitalisation!

[Scully]

10 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

Ignoring it would be, but they do have a right to stand up for what they believe - and a duty to speak out for those who elected them. Even if they're in the minority, they have the right to speak about it until the cows come home, but the drive should be to change opinions, not just cancel it. 

Yes it can. You might say it shouldn't, but there's no legally binding, unrepealable law,   that says that vote is binding. That'd be particularly poignant if a hitherto anonymous, weak, small, but stoically Remain government was suddenly swept to power. Whether you think that's morally or ethically acceptable is a different matter. We're almost certainly talking hypotheticals here, because it's not going to happen, but if Lib Dems suddenly gained 350 seats, plus a shed load from the SNP and Remain parties in Wales and Ireland, hat would be a mandate to ask the people wanted. Although the way they've done it has actually annoyed me quite a lot!

 

 

But doesn’t that just make a mockery of the democratic process? To conduct a second referendum before the result of the first has been implemented may not be unlawful, but does that make it acceptable? What is the point of voting? What happens if the result is to leave? 

[Scully]

3 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Just suppose that the majority view has now swung the other way (I'm not saying that's the case btw, I'm saying supposing). Do you believe that in those circumstances the UK should exit the EU against the wishes of the majority? 

I’m pretty sure that if people deliberately stall the process long enough ( three years and counting ) in an attempt to thwart the implementation then anything could happen, but it’s not how democracy is supposed to work. If we’re going to set a precedent, then why should the result of a GE be honoured?  

What if there were another referendum and the result again was to leave? Another three years of stalling ? Do we just keep on going until those who think they know best get the result they want? Is that how it works? It certainly seems to be heading that way. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

What if there were another referendum and the result again was to leave?

There are a significant number of politicians (and some have publicly stated this) who will prevent leaving (regardless of any vote outcome).  This includes the (soon to be ex) speaker, virtually the whole of the LibDem party, a few Labour 'big names' including McDonnell, Starmer, Thornberry, and a few Tories (some now ex) such as Grieve.

It would not matter what the outcome of any vote was - they will (do their best to) prevent us leaving.  They firmly believe they know better than us what is good for us, and have no intention of letting us follow our selected path, but we MUST do as they think fit (obviously since they know best). 

With a mentality like that, they are entirely unfit to hold any public office, and have no connection to any real 'democracy'.

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

There are a significant number of politicians (and some have publicly stated this) who will prevent leaving (regardless of any vote outcome).  This includes the (soon to be ex) speaker, virtually the whole of the LibDem party, a few Labour 'big names' including McDonnell, Starmer, Thornberry, and a few Tories (some now ex) such as Grieve.

It would not matter what the outcome of any vote was - they will (do their best to) prevent us leaving.  They firmly believe they know better than us what is good for us, and have no intention of letting us follow our selected path, but we MUST do as they think fit (obviously since they know best). 

With a mentality like that, they are entirely unfit to hold any public office, and have no connection to any real 'democracy'.

Which leaves the only option as civil unrest then. Ah well, we get what we deserve. 

[Mice!]

2 hours ago, dead eye alan said:

Clowns to the left jokers to the right here I am stuck in the middle, ring any bells?

Like it 👍 

[henry d]

38 minutes ago, Scully said:

But doesn’t that just make a mockery of the democratic process? To conduct a second referendum before the result of the first has been implemented may not be unlawful, but does that make it acceptable? What is the point of voting? What happens if the result is to leave? 

Unfortunately the result of a referendum is not the end of the matter as an MP has a duty to act in the "interests of the nation as a whole". Things have changed during the whole debacle and as MP`s are only human they will have differing views on what constitutes the interests of the nation and will act on these.

They also have a duty to their constituents, and I would imagine this is where there are a lot of problems as they will get both leave and remain people coming to them, some wanting out at any cost, others wanting a deal of some sort and others to remain.

Civil unrest will (though I think highly unlikely) come because people do not understand the above are at odds with those that hold the polar opposite views to them. More likely there will be another Thomas Mair incident.

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, henry d said:

"interests of the nation as a whole"

That was somewhat 'delegated' to the electorate by holding a referendum in which the electorate was very clearly told "make no mistake .......... a majority for leave means leaving the EU".

IF our MP's really know so much better than us ignorant peasants - they why ask us such an important question ...... and promise to follow through on the outcome?

I sincerely hope that there are no 'Thomas Mair' type incidents - which will solve nothing.  There should however (in my opinion) be a number of MP's loosing their jobs because they have wrought immense damage on the country.

Edited September 16, 2019 by JohnfromUK

[Yellow Bear]

4 minutes ago, henry d said:

Unfortunately the result of a referendum is not the end of the matter as an MP has a duty to act in the "interests of the nation as a whole".

This sadly is typical socialist dogma --  I know what is best for you so you will have to accept it because you are just uninformed uneducated plebs.

In the constituencies of many of these MPs the vote was 2 to 1 leave and yet they pay it no heed to them because "they know best"

Whilst replying John has put this succinctly,

[henry d]

1 minute ago, Yellow Bear said:

This sadly is typical socialist dogma

No it is the code of conduct that ALL MP`s are to adhere to

[Rewulf]

44 minutes ago, henry d said:

No it is the code of conduct that ALL MP`s are to adhere to

Even if the 'nation as a whole' voted for something completely different ?

No doubt , you will now say, 'well not EVERYONE voted to leave ' ?
Well Im sorry , thats not how 'voting ' works, if these 'honourable' MPs are going to give the people a vote, then do what THEY want to do anyway, then theres no point voting on anything.

In which case, its not a democracy anymore, but a dictatorship.

All that scary rhetoric coming from the the left (and EU ) about the threat of the far right, and  how nationalism is the true enemy ?
They need to take a good long look in the mirror.

[Scully]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Unfortunately the result of a referendum is not the end of the matter as an MP has a duty to act in the "interests of the nation as a whole". Things have changed during the whole debacle and as MP`s are only human they will have differing views on what constitutes the interests of the nation and will act on these.

They also have a duty to their constituents, and I would imagine this is where there are a lot of problems as they will get both leave and remain people coming to them, some wanting out at any cost, others wanting a deal of some sort and others to remain.

Civil unrest will (though I think highly unlikely) come because people do not understand the above are at odds with those that hold the polar opposite views to them. More likely there will be another Thomas Mair incident.

Oh come on, please! We were given a referendum; a ‘once in a lifetime’ referendum. All parties stated they would honour the result! What is the point in voting if the result is only honoured if it’s the result the establishment want? 

The consequences of not honouring that result could rumble on for years and years. 

I find it incredible that there is civil unrest in Hong Kong over the lack of democracy, yet there will be those remainers in this country who, while willing to totally ignore the result of the biggest democratic vote in UK living history, are in full support of those demonstrations in Hong Kong. You really really couldn’t make this up! 

Do you believe Henry, that the democratically arrived at result of the referendum should be ignored? Forget about the deal aspect; they are blatantly talking about stopping it outright. Do you believe it should be stopped? 

[henry d]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

Do you believe Henry, that the democratically arrived at result of the referendum should be ignored? No and it has not been ignored, however to drive a no deal come what may is not something we should do, that is why MP`s are to act in the interests of the nation as a whole so that there is some kind of a deal that does not flush us down the toilet.

Forget about the deal aspect; .....No, you are just tying my hands

 

[Gordon R]

Quote

Even if you don't agree with them, at least they're consistent and they're consistent to the people who voted for them. I'm not sure you could say that about many of the other parties, particularly the big two (three including the SNP).

Consistent???? Are you having a laugh. Swinson wanted a Referendum on whether to stay in the EU, but won't live with the result. Total hypocrite.

[Yellow Bear]

12 minutes ago, henry d said:

Forget about the deal aspect; .....No, you are just tying my hands

You mean just like the MPs are doing by taking "no deal" off the table

[henry d]

1 minute ago, Yellow Bear said:

You mean just like the MPs are doing by taking "no deal" off the table

...as is BoJo`s 31st and out come what may...

He is duty bound to uphold the law no matter what he has said recently.

[ShootingEgg]

47 minutes ago, henry d said:

...as is BoJo`s 31st and out come what may...

He is duty bound to uphold the law no matter what he has said recently.

But by saying this forces the EU into a actually negotiating, so far they have told us what they will give us. Not negotiated. They need out cash and input into the club. Without that it fails. Yet most people apposed to the result seem to think we should just roll over and let the EU ram their flag pole right up our.....  People need to understand there are more than 27 other countries in the world and actually if we used brittish produce for food it's quite a few cuts above the rest. We produce amazing lamb but we buy from NZ and sell ours to France. We could cut a huge carbon foot print by eating British. Just to throw in climate change too.