Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.  
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

Meaning?

Pr4wn wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Those wanting a second referendum are told it would be anti-democratic. I get that claim but lets be real here.

How many people voted for Brexit knowing fully what it entailed and what would be achieved by it? Not a great deal. The massive selling point was that it would stop illegal immigrants getting in. Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change. Another was on getting back full rights on fishing etc in British waters and from what has emerged that is not going to be happening either in this May deal. So you see that what Brexit was promising was a con as it has turned out. It promised much that isn't going to happen such as severing ties with the EU which isn't happening. Ask people who voted for Brexit if they think this deal is anything like they expected or wanted and the majority will answer no. That being the case it makes a second referendum far more palatible. However, before that second referendum I firmly believe all cards have to be laid on the table. Negotiate a new deal with the EU once May's has been rejected and she resigns. The new PM then negotiates his/her own deal and the UK gets full details of it and the second referendum can then be held on whether to exit on that new deal or remain.

People should have thought about what they were voting for, and what the risks might entail. Was a simple question. How many people in a typical GE know, exactly, what their MP would plan to champion over the next 5 years? Non-starter that one.

Apples and oranges.

It's a principle. They're important.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Those wanting a second referendum are told it would be anti-democratic. I get that claim but lets be real here.

How many people voted for Brexit knowing fully what it entailed and what would be achieved by it? Not a great deal. The massive selling point was that it would stop illegal immigrants getting in. Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change. Another was on getting back full rights on fishing etc in British waters and from what has emerged that is not going to be happening either in this May deal. So you see that what Brexit was promising was a con as it has turned out. It promised much that isn't going to happen such as severing ties with the EU which isn't happening. Ask people who voted for Brexit if they think this deal is anything like they expected or wanted and the majority will answer no. That being the case it makes a second referendum far more palatible. However, before that second referendum I firmly believe all cards have to be laid on the table. Negotiate a new deal with the EU once May's has been rejected and she resigns. The new PM then negotiates his/her own deal and the UK gets full details of it and the second referendum can then be held on whether to exit on that new deal or remain.

People should have thought about what they were voting for, and what the risks might entail. Was a simple question. How many people in a typical GE know, exactly, what their MP would plan to champion over the next 5 years? Non-starter that one.

Many did think about it but the promises made are not being met in this final deal. If such a thing happened with a government following a GE that did such u-turns on key policies do you think they'd be voted in at the next election? I sincerely doubt it.

Here are the promises made:-

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

And May's deal does not mean the returning of control of laws to the UK as its already been revealed that won't totally be the case. As for being able to trade with the rest of the world - not so with May's deal which still ties them to deals with the EU. As for the claim about controlling borders that is a fallacy and how can they be in charge of their own borders with the set-up in Ireland where there will be no hard border - ostencibly an open back door.

You make some valid points, but one has to put up with whatever after a GE for 5 years. You don't get to change a GE result before the result of that GE is enacted. Personally, I think manifestos should be legally binding, and if they aren't adhered to, it automatically precipitates a GE.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Those wanting a second referendum are told it would be anti-democratic. I get that claim but lets be real here.

How many people voted for Brexit knowing fully what it entailed and what would be achieved by it? Not a great deal. The massive selling point was that it would stop illegal immigrants getting in. Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change. Another was on getting back full rights on fishing etc in British waters and from what has emerged that is not going to be happening either in this May deal. So you see that what Brexit was promising was a con as it has turned out. It promised much that isn't going to happen such as severing ties with the EU which isn't happening. Ask people who voted for Brexit if they think this deal is anything like they expected or wanted and the majority will answer no. That being the case it makes a second referendum far more palatible. However, before that second referendum I firmly believe all cards have to be laid on the table. Negotiate a new deal with the EU once May's has been rejected and she resigns. The new PM then negotiates his/her own deal and the UK gets full details of it and the second referendum can then be held on whether to exit on that new deal or remain.

People should have thought about what they were voting for, and what the risks might entail. Was a simple question. How many people in a typical GE know, exactly, what their MP would plan to champion over the next 5 years? Non-starter that one.

Many did think about it but the promises made are not being met in this final deal. If such a thing happened with a government following a GE that did such u-turns on key policies do you think they'd be voted in at the next election? I sincerely doubt it.

Here are the promises made:-

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

And May's deal does not mean the returning of control of laws to the UK as its already been revealed that won't totally be the case. As for being able to trade with the rest of the world - not so with May's deal which still ties them to deals with the EU. As for the claim about controlling borders that is a fallacy and how can they be in charge of their own borders with the set-up in Ireland where there will be no hard border - ostencibly an open back door.

You make some valid points, but one has to put up with whatever after a GE for 5 years. You don't get to change a GE result before the result of that GE is enacted. Personally, I think manifestos should be legally binding, and if they aren't adhered to, it automatically precipitates a GE.

Not always they don't. It has been known for votes of no confidence in a government leading to a GE well inside the five year period. Brexit will be enacted though if May's deal is passed and everyone knows every detail of it NOW which generally is not the case of a government waiting to begin it's five years in power.

This isn't a general election, though. It's far more important and it's pointless to compare the two as if they're equivalents.

Pr4wn wrote:This isn't a general election, though. It's far more important and it's pointless to compare the two as if they're equivalents.

And that is my point. This is far more important than any GE so when a deal (Brexit) has been voted for but in the interim it is shown that it is not as originally advertised then surely it merits revisiting.

May's deal is a pale imitation of Brexit. Call it EU or Brexit-lite if you wish as the UK is still connected with too many ties. That much is evident hence why it won't get through parliament as the Brexiteers can see it for what it is.

There's already been 3 occasions in Europe of a 2nd referendum taking place and the result reversing.

Pr4wn wrote:This isn't a general election, though. It's far more important and it's pointless to compare the two as if they're equivalents.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:This isn't a general election, though. It's far more important and it's pointless to compare the two as if they're equivalents.

And that is my point. This is far more important than any GE so when a deal (Brexit) has been voted for but in the interim it is shown that it is not as originally advertised then surely it merits revisiting.

May's deal is a pale imitation of Brexit. Call it EU or Brexit-lite if you wish as the UK is still connected with too many ties. That much is evident hence why it won't get through parliament as the Brexiteers can see it for what it is.

I tend to agree it's probably more important that our typical, dull GEs, although I don't think our GEs are by definition less important. You're clearly not alone, given the noise in the media etc, in thinking there's no problem in simply having another referendum/people's vote. It's one position, but I value principle and precedent and think you get chaos if you simply repeat an election if you don't like the outcome you got first time; certainly, before actually implementing the democratic outcome of the first one.

Be honest - if you were pro-Brexit, would your position be the same?

Hero wrote:There's already been 3 occasions in Europe of a 2nd referendum taking place and the result reversing.

Yep, sure. How did they play with our electorate/media/politicians when that happened? Personally, I thought all of those occasions stunk.

I'm easy one way or t'other re. repeating the referendum really, but then I think Brexit is an unbelievably daft decision. I would completely understand, however, if ~17 million people are very, very angry if this were to happen. I'd also completely understand if what remaining trust we have in our political system is shot and future elections are more or less pointless for some time. Wouldn't be surprised if Grayling's recent comments on far right issues hold some truth if this happens as well.

In other words, what a mess.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:This isn't a general election, though. It's far more important and it's pointless to compare the two as if they're equivalents.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:This isn't a general election, though. It's far more important and it's pointless to compare the two as if they're equivalents.

And that is my point. This is far more important than any GE so when a deal (Brexit) has been voted for but in the interim it is shown that it is not as originally advertised then surely it merits revisiting.

May's deal is a pale imitation of Brexit. Call it EU or Brexit-lite if you wish as the UK is still connected with too many ties. That much is evident hence why it won't get through parliament as the Brexiteers can see it for what it is.

I tend to agree it's probably more important that our typical, dull GEs, although I don't think our GEs are by definition less important. You're clearly not alone, given the noise in the media etc, in thinking there's no problem in simply having another referendum/people's vote. It's one position, but I value principle and precedent and think you get chaos if you simply repeat an election if you don't like the outcome you got first time; certainly, before actually implementing the democratic outcome of the first one.

Be honest - if you were pro-Brexit, would your position be the same?

I am ambivalent on the EU issue. But if I were pro-Brexit I'd be fuming at what is clearly EU-Lite that is on the table. This deal does nothing for anyone. It does not appease Brexiteers as it does not cut all ties and it does not appease remainers. That is the reason it will not get voted through. And this BS that May is perpetrating that it is her deal or no deal is getting people's backs up further not frightening people to vote for it as she thinks.

The problem with the upcoming MV is that...

Ideally it either passes and we move on or it gets hammered and we have to re-evaluate extending A50..

But my guess is enough Labour mps support it and Brexiteers fold... that the Vote will be closer than expected but be voted down and May will feel she has leg room to pursue her deal..

So we end up with more of this garbage for the next month or two..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The problem with the upcoming MV is that...

Ideally it either passes and we move on or it gets hammered and we have to re-evaluate extending A50..

But my guess is enough Labour mps support it and Brexiteers fold...  that the Vote will be closer than expected but be voted down and May will feel she has leg room to pursue her deal..

So we end up with more of this garbage for the next month or two..

If the deal is recjected she should do the only thing open to her.....resign.

If you’re a brexit supporter, then surely if brexit is truly the ‘Will of the People’ then you should have no problem with a second vote to hammer that home and shut those pesky remainers up.

Unless of course you’re scared its no longer the ‘Will of the People’, and Remain would win. If thats the case however, then surely it would be undemocratic to pursue with something the people dont want?

Its not undemocratic to ask the people “Are you sure?”

What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

Well I can't see that it would be.

Apparently, another referendum would have three options:

May's Deal

No Deal Brexit

Remain

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

Then it gets settled with Big Nige and Alastair Campbell in the ring. Winner takes it all.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

Well I can't see that it would be.

Apparently, another referendum would have three options:

May's Deal

No Deal Brexit

Remain

Just supposing a further referendum produced these results:

May's Deal 30%

No Deal Brexit 30%

Remain 40%.

In this scenario, Remain gets the biggest vote but the majority of voters favour Brexit in some form. What the heck happens then?

I was never a fan of the 2016 Referendum and believed it was more to do with Cameron ducking responsibility and trying to get himself out of a hole than anything else. It seems a bit rich that the People are increasingly being looked at to sort out further political dithering and incompetence and, through no fault of theirs, could generate increased uncertainty and ill feeling.

guildfordbat wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

Well I can't see that it would be.

Apparently, another referendum would have three options:

May's Deal

No Deal Brexit

Remain

Just supposing a further referendum produced these results:

May's Deal  30%

No Deal Brexit  30%

Remain  40%.

In this scenario, Remain gets the biggest vote but the majority of voters favour Brexit in some form. What the heck happens then?

I was never a fan of the 2016 Referendum and believed it was more to do with Cameron ducking responsibility and trying to get himself out of a hole than anything else. It seems a bit rich that the People are increasingly being looked at to sort out further political dithering and incompetence and, through no fault of theirs, could generate increased uncertainty and ill feeling.

Well like I said May's deal is not Brexit - more liKe EU-lite so you could almost paint that as 70-30 for remaining part of the EU. But I get what you are saying.

The problem with things as they stand is that parliament is split into several factions. Those that will blindly back May's deal, those that want a clearer break from the EU, those that want to remain and those that want a chance to negotiate a new deal. What a mess.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

Then it gets settled with Big Nige and Alastair Campbell in the ring. Winner takes it all.

I prefer watching fights where I want someone to win..

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

Well I can't see that it would be.

Apparently, another referendum would have three options:

May's Deal

No Deal Brexit

Remain

There isn't time to have a referendum on May's deal unless Article 50 gets revoked....If May revokes A50 she is toast...

But I think it is either May's deal......Or a referendum of some sort..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

Well I can't see that it would be.

Apparently, another referendum would have three options:

May's Deal

No Deal Brexit

Remain

There isn't time to have a referendum on May's deal unless Article 50 gets revoked....If May revokes A50 she is toast...

But I think it is either May's deal......Or a referendum of some sort..

If May's deal does not get passed it makes sense to put a freeze on Article 50.

I do not see why there should be any problem about temporarily revoking Article 50. The ECJ says there are no legal issues with doing that. And if May's Deal is rejected it is going to take longer than two months to come up with an alternative in any case.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:What if it is 52-48 remain next time ??

As far as Im concerned thats the end of the matter, no matter what way the result goes. It could go 50.01% Leave vs 49.99% Remain and I would accept that because unlike the first referendum the people are able to make a properly informed decision now thay they know exactly whats on the table. I wouldnt be happy with it, but I would accept it.

There would still be a load of lies spun and those that want to believe it would such as little maps with Turkey and Iran invading Britain etc.

Hero wrote:There would still be a load of lies spun and those that want to believe it would such as little maps with Turkey and Iran invading Britain etc.

Or an emergency budget, recession, 500,000 jobs lost etc.

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:There would still be a load of lies spun and those that want to believe it would such as little maps with Turkey and Iran invading Britain etc.

Or an emergency budget, recession, 500,000 jobs lost etc.

Think the Emergency Budget is only needed if you get your no-deal option according to the Chancellor.

And recent independent studies have a soft Brexit costing the UK 400k jobs or 750k on a no deal one.

And it's the Bank of England who've recently said a No deal Brexit could plunge into a recession worse than the crisis.

Hero wrote:And it's the Bank of England who've recently said a No deal Brexit could plunge into a recession worse than the crisis.

You just need to apply a bit of independent thought and all that goes away.

Hero wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:There would still be a load of lies spun and those that want to believe it would such as little maps with Turkey and Iran invading Britain etc.

Or an emergency budget, recession, 500,000 jobs lost etc.

Think the Emergency Budget is only needed if you get your no-deal option according to the Chancellor.

This was the prediction of the short-term impact (two years) of a mere *vote* to Leave. It was wholly incorrect.

Difficult to see how after the Project fear of the last few months...Dishing out knighthoods to some Brexiteers and not others..

How the Tory Party can heal itself with May at the wheel..

Of the opinion that all 3 Parties will have a new leader by the end of the year..

Not sure it will be Thornberry anymore...Apparently she stuck up for Rachel Riley against some Lefty members arguing with her over Anti Semitism.

Surprised she didn't keep quiet...Momentum's endorsement will be a big thing when Corbyn goes..

My guess now is Rebecca Long Bailey which is a shame because she is a bit of a lightweight..Though they might skip a generation and go for the Geordie battering ram known as Laura Pidcock..

Don't even know if all the old parties will survive at all. Tory party membership is crashing (with old members dying off and not being replaced) and Labour seems increasingly divided with its ineffective and dogmatic leadership, whatever the membership numbers look like.

The Prime Minister: "I don't believe we should be extending Article 50 and I don't believe we should be having a referendum."

And some Tory bottlers are bottling it, with a few more saying they will now vote for May's deal. Might mean her defeat is two digit, rather than three digit.

Is there truth in talk of Grieve pushing for parliament taking control of extending Article 50 or is this part of May's spin to try and get hardliners onboard?

And what are your thoughts Duty on the report that banks and other financial companies have already shifted £800bn worth of assets out of the UK(10% of total assets of the UK banking sector) to the EU because of Brexit ?

A Government whip has just quit apparently..

Hero wrote:And what are your thoughts Duty on the report that banks and other financial companies have already shifted £800bn worth of assets out of the UK(10% of total assets of the UK banking sector) to the EU because of Brexit ?

Ah yes, our beautiful, lovely financial sector. Once again, the reality (jobs lost, assets lost) is nowhere near the doom-mongering scenario that has been touted...yet! Still time of course.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:A Government whip has just quit apparently..

Fair play to him.

Ladbrokes make it 1/33 that May's deal will not be passed tomorrow.

About right, I'd say!

I'd say the odds are closer to a snowball's chance in hell.

Anyway, in other news I see that attendance rates at Dentists have increased tenfold across the UK in the last few months. People got to go somewhere to escape the insufferable endlessness of the excruciating Brexit chatshow.

I do think guildford has a point regarding the possible ambiguous outcome of a "three way " referendum . Hence why I think it could only be an either-or choice :

The unloved May Deal - surely only hours away from being terminally crushed - is clearly never going to satisfy either extreme of the divergent views in Parliament ; and all the anecdotal evidence is that it has no better chance of engaging the similar poles of public opinion. All this despite the fact that it is probably the "best" deal (more or less) that the EU will ever be prepared to offer.
So : logically the choice at thus point in time is between crashing out with no deal or electing to remain. And this should be the choice offered if indeed a second public vote is eventually
seen as the way forward. Settle it one way or the other.

(I understand the leavers might feel miffed at being put to a second vote ; but as Samo points out , if the will of the people is still to leave then that will be the result - and the matter will be settled for better or worse.)

As to why the people should be saddled with the task of sorting it : well it may not be ideal or particularly stylish...but since the elected representatives are apparently locked in a Mexican stand off for the foreseeable future , surely it makes sense to break the stalemate in the only certain manner possible ?

Or I suppose you could keep putting a decision off indefinitely - with all the negative effects that must be having on business and political management ...just doesn't seem a smart idea to me...

12000 miles removed it's really none of my business , I suppose. But I do still want the best result for the Old Country. Hope it can be resolved - somehow.

I think a real reason May's deal stands no chance of being voted through (apart from it being awful) is that it is a Tory-only deal. As the SNP and other parties have said is that from the outset it should have been discussed and organised by a cross-party committee. Input from all parties would have been able to cross far more boxes but no - the Tories were adamant this was their baby and everyone else could go to hell. That old saying you made your own bed so you can lie in it springs to mind.

Not even to the point that it was the Tories baby, more that it was May's and her close allies baby.

Hero wrote:Not even to the point that it was the Tories baby, more that it was May's and her close allies baby.

I'd agree to a point but the Tories (by backing her) pre-Xmas in the confidence vote shows that enough of them back her through all her stupidity.

At no point did Theresa May try to involve Parliament in this process. Remember that the government used to refuse to tell parliament what our negotiation aims were, on the grounds that we didn't want to 'show our hand' (an absurd argument, as well as unnecessarily adversarial). It was a consistent 'government knows best' approach (and incidentally some of David Davis's performances in select committees were disgraceful) so it's rich for Theresa May yesterday to have asked MPs to 'look again' at the deal. If she'd worked on a cross-party basis at any point, they might be more inclined to vote for it.

Another massive failing over the last two years was that she wasn't honest with either the country or parliament. She should have made it much clearer that the Brexit promised during the referendum wasn't deliverable, that her own red lines made even a good deal harder to get, but instead she was happy to string everyone along and promise different things to different factions that she knew were incompatible with each other. She must have known that this approach would only make the eventual disappointment on production of the withdrawal agreement greater, but she carried on regardless. I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

The absolute worst thing this government has done, though, is trash our reputation abroad. It will take decades to repair the damage.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:At no point did Theresa May try to involve Parliament in this process. Remember that the government used to refuse to tell parliament what our negotiation aims were, on the grounds that we didn't want to 'show our hand' (an absurd argument, as well as unnecessarily adversarial). It was a consistent 'government knows best' approach (and incidentally some of David Davis's performances in select committees were disgraceful) so it's rich for Theresa May yesterday to have asked MPs to 'look again' at the deal. If she'd worked on a cross-party basis at any point, they might be more inclined to vote for it.

Another massive failing over the last two years was that she wasn't honest with either the country or parliament. She should have made it much clearer that the Brexit promised during the referendum wasn't deliverable, that her own red lines made even a good deal harder to get, but instead she was happy to string everyone along and promise different things to different factions that she knew were incompatible with each other. She must have known that this approach would only make the eventual disappointment on production of the withdrawal agreement greater, but she carried on regardless. I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

The absolute worst thing this government has done, though, is trash our reputation abroad. It will take decades to repair the damage.

Superb post.

As things will start to hot up following the likely defeat tonight I think there's a responsibility amongst politicians and the media alike to keep things civilized. Already we've had the ugly scenes of Anna Soubry being intimidated and now, another MP is receiving threats - Nick Boles, a Conservative who is campaigning against a no-deal Brexit, has received threats from someone promising to burn his house down.

Given what happened to poor Jo Cox, its quite worrying to see all these types of threats and intimidation against MPs.

MrInvisible wrote:As things will start to hot up following the likely defeat tonight I think there's a responsibility amongst politicians and the media alike to keep things civilized.  Already we've had the ugly scenes of Anna Soubry being intimidated and now, another MP is receiving threats - Nick Boles, a Conservative who is campaigning against a no-deal Brexit, has received threats from someone promising to burn his house down.

Given what happened to poor Jo Cox, its quite worrying to see all these types of threats and intimidation against MPs.

It is even worse when you get Tory MP's in the House of Commons suggesting a SNP MP commits suicide.

MrInvisible wrote:As things will start to hot up following the likely defeat tonight I think there's a responsibility amongst politicians and the media alike to keep things civilized.  Already we've had the ugly scenes of Anna Soubry being intimidated and now, another MP is receiving threats - Nick Boles, a Conservative who is campaigning against a no-deal Brexit, has received threats from someone promising to burn his house down.

Given what happened to poor Jo Cox, its quite worrying to see all these types of threats and intimidation against MPs.

A stable door and an absent horse spring to mind. Threats to politicians from across the spectrum has happened since time immemorial, sadly.

Farage just said on the BBC that is there was to be a second referendum then it would have to be essentially a repeat of the first one.

Ayes 202
Noes 432

Wasnt even close.

Biggest massacre since The Little Bighorn. May's Deal voted down by 230 votes