BREXIT

[Scully]

9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Picking up on your reply Scully but replying to all but one of the others here...

Isn’t that exactly the point, such was the nature of the vote it’s all been left to personal interpretation of what you were voting for. So by that reasoning it’s not even possible to please all people that voted out with one specific outcome. Who knows based on the outcome what percentage of pro Brexit voters are happy. We already established a GE outcome is not a robust indicator. So by definition you can only readily claim to please a minority. Only really satisfactory if the actual outcome happens to fit your interpretation.

If you're suggesting we have another vote based on 'leave with a deal' or 'leave without a deal', then we have to ask ourselves is it Brexiteers calling for a so called 'peoples vote', or remainers? Don't we already know the answer to that one? 

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

No but I usually plan when considering a project, journey or expedition I’ve not taken before. Such planning mitigates the risk of, say on an expedition, coming across a swollen river where I am not prepared to pay the fees to cross with assistance and end up aborting the trip. 

The analogy of Brexit is like not being prepared to pay the fees but instead of aborting decide to take my chances by jumping in the river because I can’t bear the prospect of conceding failure.

On complex undertakings a failure to plan is a plan for failure...

Brexit is about the realisation that the EU is a busted flush. Its broken beyond repair and can never turn itself around.

What else can we do but start to disengage?

A magnificent concept, so much potential that has never come to fruition. Brought down by complacency and self interest. The member countries never embraced the concept of a community. All they ever saw was a cash cow to be milked and too much of the money they were milking was what we were paying in.

You can only stand that sort of mistreatment for so long before you have to admit to yourself this is never going to get better 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Vince Green

[Raja Clavata]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

If you're suggesting we have another vote based on 'leave with a deal' or 'leave without a deal', then we have to ask ourselves is it Brexiteers calling for a so called 'peoples vote', or remainers? Don't we already know the answer to that one? 

I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m simply asking do you follow the logic?

Since you raise the point though, if a second vote only had leave options then by definition surely the architects of that vote would be leavers or don’t cares. 

A remain architected vote would surely have remain as one of the options.

What I suspect the government are trying to do here is leave in whatever manner they see fit, win a GE (because Labour are not a credible opposition) and claim that is public endorsement of the Brexit outcome.  I’m convinced that’s what Dominic Cummings is trying to orchestrate and personally feel that is at least as big an affront to our democracy as any of the other scenarios / outcomes. Effectively sweeping the whole thing under the carpet and if it all goes to the dogs it’ll be a case of “don’t blame us, we delivered on your mandate” - the sad thing is in this post truth era they would probably get away with it.

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

Interesting to see I’ve been quoted several times in the past few hours but no pro Brexit posters have chosen to tackle this point...

The referendum choice was, leave or remain, the country chose leave, so any Brexit is democratic and thus better than an undemocratic no Brexit! 👍......and as the then prime minister said "no deal is better than a bad deal" does that tackle your point?

[Vince Green]

19 minutes ago, Scully said:

If you're suggesting we have another vote based on 'leave with a deal' or 'leave without a deal', then we have to ask ourselves is it Brexiteers calling for a so called 'peoples vote', or remainers? Don't we already know the answer to that one? 

There is no deal, there never was. The deal they are proposing is "drop your trousers, bend over and hand me the jar of Vaseline when I ask for it"

[KB1]

19 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

such was the nature of the vote it’s all been left to personal interpretation of what you were voting for.

Whilst I can accept that that may be the case with a proportion of the Brexit votes, it still doesn't change the fact that democracy was in play, and like it or not, the people who voted to leave the EU won the toss🙄

When Labour came into power I was miffed, but had to accept that they were elected democratically.  I could have come up with a myriad of reasons why I thought the Labour voters didn't understand what they were actually voting for, but what good would that have done…….

Democracy is a pain sometimes (When it doesn't go your way), but to try and reverse it (Using every tactic possible) will do more harm than leaving the EU ever would!

Commerce will always find a way forward in developed countries, regardless of, if it's the Euro, franc, peseta, pound, dollar etc.  It's in everyones interest to make things work when we leave…  We are a stronger economy than many of the EU members, so I don't understand the panic from a lot of the doomsayers🙄

[Dave-G]

Good for Katie! 

 

[Vince Green]

13 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

A remain architected vote would surely have remain as one of the options.

 

What a lot of rather stupid remainers believe is that a second vote (with a loaded question of their choice?) would negate the first vote and just press delete on what had gone before so we would wake up the next morning thinking it had all been a dream is just not going to happen. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Vince Green

[ShootingEgg]

7 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Good for Katie! 

 

Said yesterday thought she had gone a bit quiet.... Hahaha, I was wrong 

[sportsbob]

12 hours ago, oowee said:

 You can google and then ignore them as fake news and project fear.

 

So as neither yourself or one of you fellow vote loosers can't offer any evidence of such a claim it it fair to assume the answer is NO. 

 

[Scully]

9 hours ago, Dave-G said:

Good for Katie! 

 

I sincerely hope she’s right. 

[Scully]

9 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m simply asking do you follow the logic?

Since you raise the point though, if a second vote only had leave options then by definition surely the architects of that vote would be leavers or don’t cares. 

A remain architected vote would surely have remain as one of the options.

What I suspect the government are trying to do here is leave in whatever manner they see fit, win a GE (because Labour are not a credible opposition) and claim that is public endorsement of the Brexit outcome.  I’m convinced that’s what Dominic Cummings is trying to orchestrate and personally feel that is at least as big an affront to our democracy as any of the other scenarios / outcomes. Effectively sweeping the whole thing under the carpet and if it all goes to the dogs it’ll be a case of “don’t blame us, we delivered on your mandate” - the sad thing is in this post truth era they would probably get away with it.

I can understand the logic, but not what you expect us to do about it. The result was leave. We have tried to vote with a deal, but those tasked with that have had three years to come up with one, and they have failed. Now it’s time to get on and honour the result; just leave and then we can all get on with our lives. 

Post leaving we can negotiate with the rest of the EU, if that’s what we and them want, but otherwise what are the alternatives.....ignore the referendum result and have another vote, or just ignore it and stay? Why? We can just leave, let’s get on with it. 

[Retsdon]

10 hours ago, Scully said:

I simply wanted us to sever all ties and leave.

If only it were so simple! The problem is that the sound bite merchants and sloganeers  debased the issue of Brexit to the point of absurdity, and now there's very little sense to be had at all from either side of the fence.

 I highly recommend this article, written today by someone who knows what they're talking about, who has been actively campaigning to leave the EU since the 1990s. It was never, ever going to be an easy or straightforward  process to undertake.

 

[Raja Clavata]

5 minutes ago, Scully said:

I can understand the logic, but not what you expect us to do about it. The result was leave. We have tried to vote with a deal, but those tasked with that have had three years to come up with one, and they have failed. Now it’s time to get on and honour the result; just leave and then we can all get on with our lives. 

Post leaving we can negotiate with the rest of the EU, if that’s what we and them want, but otherwise what are the alternatives.....ignore the referendum result and have another vote, or just ignore it and stay? Why? We can just leave, let’s get on with it. 

If Boris gets his way there is nothing we can do it about it and it'll all be up to him and his cohorts such as Dominic Cummings.

7 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

If only it were so simple! The problem is that the sound bite merchants and sloganeers  debased the issue of Brexit to the point of absurdity, and now there's very little sense to be had at all from either side of the fence.

 I highly recommend this article, written today by someone who knows what they're talking about, who has been actively campaigning to leave the EU since the 1990s. It was never, ever going to be an easy or straightforward  process to undertake.

 

Exactly, hitting the factory reset button is long over due.

[Scully]

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

If Boris gets his way there is nothing we can do it about it and it'll all be up to him and his cohorts such as Dominic Cummings.

Exactly, hitting the factory reset button is long over due.

So that is what you’re suggesting; ignore the result of the biggest democratic vote in our lifetime? Again, I ask, why? 

[oowee]

That is a good article, a reset of our position with the EU was a far better description of what we want to achieve by leaving. It is difficult to see how our short term political system which is increasingly driven by tabloid sound bite politics, could ever embark upon such a mature and thought through approach to the country's future. Coalition and proportional representation with a long political horizon is surely the only way we will achieve such change. 

[Raja Clavata]

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

So that is what you’re suggesting; ignore the result of the biggest democratic vote in our lifetime? Again, I ask, why? 

Not suggesting ignore it. The answer to why may very well be evident soon after either a no deal exit or exit under a modified version of the WA.

[Nuke]

11 hours ago, pinfireman said:

You clearly did not read this in his post!  On top of that, the UK follows these laws to the nth degree, and is severely punished when deviated from, whilst the rest of Europe puts a middle finger up to them and carry on regardless!!!

I also have seen the way other EU countries flout the directives to suit themselves!

This is not correct, just wishful thinking, UK companies are no better in that regard than companies from other countries.

In my experience (from standards/companies from/in UK, Sweden, Germany, US, South Afrika) this is usually an issue if you don't bother to try and understand the regulations and only wish to fullfill the absolute minimum requirement to minimize cost.

/M

[Scully]

12 minutes ago, oowee said:

That is a good article, a reset of our position with the EU was a far better description of what we want to achieve by leaving. It is difficult to see how our short term political system which is increasingly driven by tabloid sound bite politics, could ever embark upon such a mature and thought through approach to the country's future. Coalition and proportional representation with a long political horizon is surely the only way we will achieve such change. 

Yes, it is a good article, but much of it is based on the assumption the EU hierarchy would play along. They showed Cameron what they thought of that, and every proposal since. 

8 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Not suggesting ignore it. The answer to why may very well be evident soon after either a no deal exit or exit under a modified version of the WA.

Hopefully we’re about to find out. Strap yourself in, it might be a bumpy ride.🙂

Then again........?

[ShootingEgg]

So the EU are now back to the table, one thing  TM could not get them to do, it was a take it or leave it.. 

So maybe Boris is actually getting results with the way he is working. Not that the outraged remain group will see it

[henry d]

12 hours ago, pinfireman said:

.... the Remoaner media to act when a Remoaner  is heckled or jostled, but  when it happens to a Leaver, the media fall silent!

 

10 hours ago, Vince Green said:

What a lot of rather stupid remainers believe is that a second vote (with a loaded question of their choice?) would negate the first vote and just press delete on what had gone before so we would wake up the next morning thinking it had all been a dream is just not going to happen. 

 

9 hours ago, sportsbob said:

So as neither yourself or one of you fellow vote loosers can't offer any evidence of such a claim it it fair to assume the answer is NO. 

 

 

One brexit debate gets pulled for name calling and getting personal with insults; what don`t you understand about that?

 

On 28/08/2019 at 13:22, panoma1 said:

It disturbs me that any member wishing to stifle any debate, can potentially get any topic closed, by just insulting another member! Rather than face the consequences of their own actions!

Be disturbed...

[WestonSalop]

It is indeed interesting that the EU has agreed to the twice a week meetings, having previously stated that the "deal" was their last word on the matter. OK, the UK has to bring ideas to the table but that's fine. Talk away boys, get us over the line.

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yes, it is a good article, but much of it is based on the assumption the EU hierarchy would play along. They showed Cameron what they thought of that, and every proposal since.

That was very much my view as well.  Bottom line is that we are to leave.  Whether we are 'better off' or 'worse off' out - or staying in is speculation - with arguments on both sides.

There is I think no doubt that the EU will be worse off with us out - simply because we have always been one of the biggest financial contributors (apart form any other areas).

Therefore 'playing along' and giving us a favourable exit is not in their interests.  Encouraging our 'remainers' to make as much difficulty about leaving - especially with no deal (equals less money) is very much in their interests - as the unwelcome and childish interventions by the likes of Verhofstadt has shown.

14 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

Not that the outraged remain group will see it

The remain group are doing their best to undermine Johnsons negotiating hand by trying to remove the no deal fallback.

[Retsdon]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yes, it is a good article, but much of it is based on the assumption the EU hierarchy would play along. They showed Cameron what they thought of that, and every proposal since. 

 

 

There's no logical reason why they shouldn't go along with the EEU thing. The precedents, and rules and regulations surrounding EEA membership are well established.

The EU didn't agree to absolutely everything Cameron wanted because a couple of his demands undermined 'the four freedoms'. But he got a lot more than he is given credit for . https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105. As far as May is concerned, her Lancaster House proposals were dead in the water from the start. What she was asking for was selective access to the Single Market but without being bound by the regulatory framework that underpins it. It was a concession that the EU negotiators could never, ever concede to. 

Anyway, the present situation is a complete dog's breakfast. Something needs to be done.

[Scully]

1 minute ago, Retsdon said:

There's no logical reason why they shouldn't go along with the EEU thing. The precedents, and rules and regulations surrounding EEA membership are well established.

The EU didn't agree to absolutely everything Cameron wanted because a couple of his demands undermined 'the four freedoms'. But he got a lot more than he is given credit for . https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105. As far as May is concerned, her Lancaster House proposals were dead in the water from the start. What she was asking for was selective access to the Single Market but without being bound by the regulatory framework that underpins it. It was a concession that the EU negotiators could never, ever concede to. 

Anyway, the present situation is a complete dog's breakfast. Something needs to be done.

I agree, something needs to be done, so let’s just do it and leave.