This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It was a stitch up I say!
Reply Notice
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
Post edited at 11:52
3
2
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
I think there's the potential for a second referendum once the terms of a Brexit have been negotiated?
Edit: I think this would probably be important to have, so that people aren't voting for a leap into the unknown but for some kind of plan instead.
I think there's the potential for a second referendum once the terms of a Brexit have been negotiated?
Edit: I think this would probably be important to have, so that people aren't voting for a leap into the unknown but for some kind of plan instead.
Post edited at 12:15
5
1
5
8
In reply to Chris Craggs:
NO, sad really.
So many older people I know feel like they have been conned.
NO, sad really.
So many older people I know feel like they have been conned.
2
1
4
3
3
2
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
What the Germans think. from the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36719060
Addressing reporters this week, the parliamentary leader of the Social Democrats (SPD), Thomas Oppermann, could barely contain his fury.
"David Cameron turned an internal conflict in his party into a conflict of society. In the end, he turned a divided party into a divided country. Demagogues like Johnson and Farage, in total irresponsibility, created chaos, lied to people, made promises they couldn't keep and now ran away into the undergrowth.
"We insist that the British clarify their position as soon as possible and start exit negotiations. We cannot give them any concessions because others will then demand the same."
Politicians here have watched in horror as Westminster fragments, and the cracks run, quicksilver fast, towards Germany.
What the Germans think. from the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36719060
Addressing reporters this week, the parliamentary leader of the Social Democrats (SPD), Thomas Oppermann, could barely contain his fury.
"David Cameron turned an internal conflict in his party into a conflict of society. In the end, he turned a divided party into a divided country. Demagogues like Johnson and Farage, in total irresponsibility, created chaos, lied to people, made promises they couldn't keep and now ran away into the undergrowth.
"We insist that the British clarify their position as soon as possible and start exit negotiations. We cannot give them any concessions because others will then demand the same."
Politicians here have watched in horror as Westminster fragments, and the cracks run, quicksilver fast, towards Germany.
29
2
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
Maybe.
There is a long way between here and actually leaving the EU and almost all the factors are moving against the exiters. The Tories and government are acting like its a done deal but they only have a majority of 16 and as soon as they specify what kind of Brexit they are negotiating for they immediately split the leave vote. Things which are already in motion like higher prices for imported goods, more austerity to pay for corporation tax cuts and business postponing investment decisions are going to start hurting the Brexit voting demographics over the next few months.
The only thing they really have in their favour is that Labour is a complete shambles and unable to act as an effective opposition.
> The outcome is still the result.
Maybe.
There is a long way between here and actually leaving the EU and almost all the factors are moving against the exiters. The Tories and government are acting like its a done deal but they only have a majority of 16 and as soon as they specify what kind of Brexit they are negotiating for they immediately split the leave vote. Things which are already in motion like higher prices for imported goods, more austerity to pay for corporation tax cuts and business postponing investment decisions are going to start hurting the Brexit voting demographics over the next few months.
The only thing they really have in their favour is that Labour is a complete shambles and unable to act as an effective opposition.
17
2
3
5
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
And many younger people feel they have been betrayed by their elders.
Martin
> NO, sad really.
> So many older people I know feel like they have been conned.
And many younger people feel they have been betrayed by their elders.
Martin
7
4
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Not a different government response, no. But the petition should trigger a parliamentary debate when some of the other issues raised in this thread should be aired.
Because of what they were told many Leave voters thought they were voting for a reduction in the number of immigrants - now no-one is suggesting that those here should be required to leave, for full access to the single market without the acceptance of free movement and other EU regulations - highly unlikely, for a bonanza to spend on the NHS and for the sunlit uplands of a booming economy when the UK "takes control".
What we actually end up with will be far from this I fear. It will not be what people voted for, and on that basis it should not be imposed upon us without public consent, either through a second referendum or through a general election.
Martin
> Did you (and the four+ million) really expect anything different?
> Chris
Not a different government response, no. But the petition should trigger a parliamentary debate when some of the other issues raised in this thread should be aired.
Because of what they were told many Leave voters thought they were voting for a reduction in the number of immigrants - now no-one is suggesting that those here should be required to leave, for full access to the single market without the acceptance of free movement and other EU regulations - highly unlikely, for a bonanza to spend on the NHS and for the sunlit uplands of a booming economy when the UK "takes control".
What we actually end up with will be far from this I fear. It will not be what people voted for, and on that basis it should not be imposed upon us without public consent, either through a second referendum or through a general election.
Martin
10
1
In reply to Timmd:
But how will we negotiate the terms without triggering Article 50? And once that's been triggered, there's no turning back so what is the point in a second referendum?
> I think there's the potential for a second referendum once the terms of a Brexit have been negotiated?
But how will we negotiate the terms without triggering Article 50? And once that's been triggered, there's no turning back so what is the point in a second referendum?
5
In reply to Timmd:
It's not going to happen. Should our government and Europe waste a huge amount of time and money on complex negotiations over something that might not happen?
We voted, many of us are deeply uneasy about the result but I don't see how we can possibly go back now.
> I think there's the potential for a second referendum once the terms of a Brexit have been negotiated?
> Edit: I think this would probably be important to have, so that people aren't voting for a leap into the unknown but for some kind of plan instead.
It's not going to happen. Should our government and Europe waste a huge amount of time and money on complex negotiations over something that might not happen?
We voted, many of us are deeply uneasy about the result but I don't see how we can possibly go back now.
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Well the petition was always going to get thrown out, and rightly so. A second referendum immediately to overturn the result of the first was always an awful idea.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Article 50 is inevitable. If we hold off triggering it to see what talks can be done - say in 2 years time, things aren't looking favourable for our negotiating position, but Article 50 hasn't been formally triggered - how can the result of a referendum held 2 years previously be regarded as valid? When you consider that a large number of non-voters at the time would now be voters, a large number of voters at the time would now be non-voters (i.e. dead, moved, whatever), the political landscape nationally and internationally would be vastly different and we would have a better idea of what the choices were, I can't see that Article 50 would be triggered at all.
Well the petition was always going to get thrown out, and rightly so. A second referendum immediately to overturn the result of the first was always an awful idea.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Article 50 is inevitable. If we hold off triggering it to see what talks can be done - say in 2 years time, things aren't looking favourable for our negotiating position, but Article 50 hasn't been formally triggered - how can the result of a referendum held 2 years previously be regarded as valid? When you consider that a large number of non-voters at the time would now be voters, a large number of voters at the time would now be non-voters (i.e. dead, moved, whatever), the political landscape nationally and internationally would be vastly different and we would have a better idea of what the choices were, I can't see that Article 50 would be triggered at all.
8
2
In reply to Trevers:
The exit won't be negotiated by lawyers according to a set of rules. It will come down to politicians and diplomats who play by a different set of rules. The Article 50 stalemate is simply part of a negotiating position on both sides.
> But how will we negotiate the terms without triggering Article 50? And once that's been triggered, there's no turning back so what is the point in a second referendum?
The exit won't be negotiated by lawyers according to a set of rules. It will come down to politicians and diplomats who play by a different set of rules. The Article 50 stalemate is simply part of a negotiating position on both sides.
Post edited at 16:14
3
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
So? So?
My vote to remain was not an acceptance of anything, certainly not willing participation. It was an act out of necessity forced on me by right wing politicians and demagogues. Why should anyone accept the result?
And as my wife is one of the people whose status is affected I am angry about people mucking up her life for some vague political aspirations that might or might not come to fruition but that will have consequences for a lot of others. So why should we go quietly? Why?
So? So?
My vote to remain was not an acceptance of anything, certainly not willing participation. It was an act out of necessity forced on me by right wing politicians and demagogues. Why should anyone accept the result?
And as my wife is one of the people whose status is affected I am angry about people mucking up her life for some vague political aspirations that might or might not come to fruition but that will have consequences for a lot of others. So why should we go quietly? Why?
Post edited at 17:55
17
2
In reply to Martin Hore:
It was a secret ballot. How the f@ck do you know who voted for what?
> And many younger people feel they have been betrayed by their elders.
> Martin
It was a secret ballot. How the f@ck do you know who voted for what?
11
7
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
There are 8 DUP MPs who support leaving, about 10 labour MPs and 1 UKIP which actually gives the government a majority of nearly 50 on this issue.
That's certainly true!
> The Tories and government are acting like its a done deal but they only have a majority of 16 . . . . . >
There are 8 DUP MPs who support leaving, about 10 labour MPs and 1 UKIP which actually gives the government a majority of nearly 50 on this issue.
> The only thing they really have in their favour is that Labour is a complete shambles and unable to act as an effective opposition. >
That's certainly true!
1
In reply to pec:
Assuming they have 100% support from their own MPs which they don't.
A vote in parliament isn't going to be the same question as the referendum, it will be about something more specific so there will be an opportunity to vote against the government without rejecting the referendum result.
Also 29 of the Tories are under investigation for electoral expenses fraud so its not certain that majority will survive another year.
> There are 8 DUP MPs who support leaving, about 10 labour MPs and 1 UKIP which actually gives the government a majority of nearly 50 on this issue.
Assuming they have 100% support from their own MPs which they don't.
A vote in parliament isn't going to be the same question as the referendum, it will be about something more specific so there will be an opportunity to vote against the government without rejecting the referendum result.
Also 29 of the Tories are under investigation for electoral expenses fraud so its not certain that majority will survive another year.
Post edited at 19:00
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Rightly so, many were. I mean they were pretty gullible if they bought that £350 million guff, or the thing about how we were going to "control our borders" in some way we don't already whilst remaining in the EEA, or mistook Boris Johnson for some kind of reasonable human being with anything but his own shallow ambition at heart, but you can't really blame them for that.
> So many older people I know feel like they have been conned.
Rightly so, many were. I mean they were pretty gullible if they bought that £350 million guff, or the thing about how we were going to "control our borders" in some way we don't already whilst remaining in the EEA, or mistook Boris Johnson for some kind of reasonable human being with anything but his own shallow ambition at heart, but you can't really blame them for that.
7
3
In reply to deepsoup:
I am not blaming, just they feel guilty I am sure, I am not young and could see through the lies, but sometimes you see what you see, how you want it to be.
A sad time when the do this sort of thing, I would never trust any of them again.
I am not blaming, just they feel guilty I am sure, I am not young and could see through the lies, but sometimes you see what you see, how you want it to be.
A sad time when the do this sort of thing, I would never trust any of them again.
1
1
In reply to Timmd:
"Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public gave their verdict.
There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door and no second referendum."
> I think there's the potential for a second referendum once the terms of a Brexit have been negotiated?
> Edit: I think this would probably be important to have, so that people aren't voting for a leap into the unknown but for some kind of plan instead.
"Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public gave their verdict.
There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door and no second referendum."
5
5
In reply to Jim C:
Bollocks. If Brexit was going to mean Brexit they'd have triggered Article 50 by now. Even the people leading the Brexit campaign never actually wanted it to happen, they've quit and are lying low rather than complaining about the obvious stalling tactics.
> "Brexit means Brexit. The campaign was fought, the vote was held, turnout was high and the public gave their verdict.
> There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door and no second referendum."
> There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door and no second referendum."
Bollocks. If Brexit was going to mean Brexit they'd have triggered Article 50 by now. Even the people leading the Brexit campaign never actually wanted it to happen, they've quit and are lying low rather than complaining about the obvious stalling tactics.
Post edited at 23:32
19
5
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You must believe what you want to believe.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/30/may-brexit-means-brexit/
> Bollocks. If Brexit was going to mean Brexit they'd have triggered Article 50 by now. Even the people leading the Brexit campaign never actually wanted it to happen, they've quit and are lying low rather than complaining about the obvious stalling tactics.
You must believe what you want to believe.
http://order-order.com/2016/06/30/may-brexit-means-brexit/
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
If Leadsom wins it happens (and we are stuffed). May may be more cautious.
If Leadsom wins it happens (and we are stuffed). May may be more cautious.
1
In reply to MG:
I'm all for more cautious and as the EU are keen for us to rush in, all the more reason not to.
However, on my link to May's Brexit means Brexit, she has painted herself into a corner. Now if that was Leadsom making a bold statement , on any particular subject , I would have said she was unwise, or inexperienced, but May is neither , so she has deliberately put herself in the leave , no ifs no buts camp, I just cannot think why she would do that if, as Tom hopes, she will win the vote on that and then change her mind?
( which would trigger a general election )
> If Leadsom wins it happens (and we are stuffed). May may be more cautious.
I'm all for more cautious and as the EU are keen for us to rush in, all the more reason not to.
However, on my link to May's Brexit means Brexit, she has painted herself into a corner. Now if that was Leadsom making a bold statement , on any particular subject , I would have said she was unwise, or inexperienced, but May is neither , so she has deliberately put herself in the leave , no ifs no buts camp, I just cannot think why she would do that if, as Tom hopes, she will win the vote on that and then change her mind?
( which would trigger a general election )
Post edited at 06:52
In reply to MG:
Still hopeful after watching May's video ? She did not leave herself any wriggle room, apart from it will not be invoked in 2016, but that will be tested in the leadership contest, and she will be forced into even more categoric promises as she knows that the party voters are more Eurosceptic than the MPs that have given her the shot at the top job. And of course she is a Eurosceptic herself.
> Myriad reasons. Well see.
Still hopeful after watching May's video ? She did not leave herself any wriggle room, apart from it will not be invoked in 2016, but that will be tested in the leadership contest, and she will be forced into even more categoric promises as she knows that the party voters are more Eurosceptic than the MPs that have given her the shot at the top job. And of course she is a Eurosceptic herself.
In reply to Lion Bakes:
Until you said that, I have actually never questioned it. But I think you've got a point. How the hell did they get the age related vote breakdown?!
> It was a secret ballot. How the f@ck do you know who voted for what?
Until you said that, I have actually never questioned it. But I think you've got a point. How the hell did they get the age related vote breakdown?!
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I'll pin my colours to the mast here and say you're very wrong with those statements. Brexit will definitely happen and there will be no second referendum. Of course the Brexit leaders wanted it to happen, they just didn't expect the public to vote for it! I for one would love to remain in the EU, but there's no way that will now happen. The triggering of A.50 is still some way off IMO, but time will tell if your assertion is correct or if mine is.
Edit: typos.
> Bollocks. If Brexit was going to mean Brexit they'd have triggered Article 50 by now. Even the people leading the Brexit campaign never actually wanted it to happen, they've quit and are lying low rather than complaining about the obvious stalling tactics.
I'll pin my colours to the mast here and say you're very wrong with those statements. Brexit will definitely happen and there will be no second referendum. Of course the Brexit leaders wanted it to happen, they just didn't expect the public to vote for it! I for one would love to remain in the EU, but there's no way that will now happen. The triggering of A.50 is still some way off IMO, but time will tell if your assertion is correct or if mine is.
Edit: typos.
Post edited at 09:35
4
In reply to Fraser:
I think that first the 'package' that Brexit will deliver will need to be clearly defined. At that point, either by referendum or by parliamentary decision, the final decision on Brexit will be made.
> I'll pin my colours to the mast here and say you're very wrong with those statements. Brexit will definitely happen and there will be no second referendum.
I think that first the 'package' that Brexit will deliver will need to be clearly defined. At that point, either by referendum or by parliamentary decision, the final decision on Brexit will be made.
1
1
In reply to Ridge:
So you don't appear accept the result of the referendum was a democratic mandate to leave the EU?
If there is a new referendum , and the result is now a % of 51/49 in favour of remaining, will you accept that as a democratic mandate to stay ?
> I think that first the 'package' that Brexit will deliver will need to be clearly defined. At that point, either by referendum or by parliamentary decision, the final decision on Brexit will be made.
So you don't appear accept the result of the referendum was a democratic mandate to leave the EU?
If there is a new referendum , and the result is now a % of 51/49 in favour of remaining, will you accept that as a democratic mandate to stay ?
2
In reply to Jim C:
No. On such a momentous issue a tiny majority is not enough to change the status quo. It has to be a resounding margin.
It was stupid not to build in rules on that.
> So you don't appear accept the result of the referendum was a democratic mandate to leave the EU?
No. On such a momentous issue a tiny majority is not enough to change the status quo. It has to be a resounding margin.
It was stupid not to build in rules on that.
10
2
In reply to Jim C:
I think the vote to leave was a conflation of various issues, not just EU membership. I think the actual impact should be assessed and the terms of what Brexit actually means defined. A lot of the leave vote might be surprised that it will probably make no difference whatsoever to immigration, and they'll end up even more skint than they are now.
That's the problem with referendums, they're a nightmare when you have a pretty much 50:50 split. It's an irreversible decision, and with only half the country on board it's going to be trouble ahead whichever way it goes.
> So you don't appear accept the result of the referendum was a democratic mandate to leave the EU?
I think the vote to leave was a conflation of various issues, not just EU membership. I think the actual impact should be assessed and the terms of what Brexit actually means defined. A lot of the leave vote might be surprised that it will probably make no difference whatsoever to immigration, and they'll end up even more skint than they are now.
> If there is a new referendum , and the result is now a % of 51/49 in favour of remaining, will you accept that as a democratic mandate to stay ?
That's the problem with referendums, they're a nightmare when you have a pretty much 50:50 split. It's an irreversible decision, and with only half the country on board it's going to be trouble ahead whichever way it goes.
3
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Here's what's going to happen...
Angela Eagle becomes head of the labour party. May becomes head of the Tory party and calls a general election. Eagle runs on a 'stay in Europe' platform and wins by a landslide.
Result!
Hahahahaha!
Here's what's going to happen...
Angela Eagle becomes head of the labour party. May becomes head of the Tory party and calls a general election. Eagle runs on a 'stay in Europe' platform and wins by a landslide.
Result!
Hahahahaha!
1
2
In reply to Jim C:
Well this is sort of the question, isn't it.
You're very keen on "democratic mandates", surely now that the leaders of the leave campaign have buggered off after admitting that some of what they'd been saying was complete rubbish and that they'd got no idea how we were going to achieve the rest without crashing the economy, and as "project fear" turns out to have been "project reality", you'd welcome the chance for the British public to demonstrate that they still support leaving the EU?
> So you don't appear accept the result of the referendum was a democratic mandate to leave the EU?
> If there is a new referendum , and the result is now a % of 51/49 in favour of remaining, will you accept that as a democratic mandate to stay ?
Well this is sort of the question, isn't it.
You're very keen on "democratic mandates", surely now that the leaders of the leave campaign have buggered off after admitting that some of what they'd been saying was complete rubbish and that they'd got no idea how we were going to achieve the rest without crashing the economy, and as "project fear" turns out to have been "project reality", you'd welcome the chance for the British public to demonstrate that they still support leaving the EU?
8
2
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I take it from that response that given another referendum you will be happy with a 51/49 win for remain, as a done deal and close the book on it ?
I take it from that response that given another referendum you will be happy with a 51/49 win for remain, as a done deal and close the book on it ?
Post edited at 17:22
2
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Well the PM,has abandoned the country, and does not seem too worried about the economy, he was so worried , he was watching tennis today, crisis, what crisis ?
Well the PM,has abandoned the country, and does not seem too worried about the economy, he was so worried , he was watching tennis today, crisis, what crisis ?
Post edited at 17:31
5
2
In reply to Jim C:
At least he'll be able to go on a proper holiday now rather than a week in a Cornish b&b with Sam.
At least he'll be able to go on a proper holiday now rather than a week in a Cornish b&b with Sam.
4
In reply to cander:
When the cornish realise that they aint going to get that 60 million from the UK gov instead of the EU its probably best he avoids it.
Still he can pop up to Scotland and get on with some stalking on his in laws estate now he doesnt have to pretend not to be country gentry.
> At least he'll be able to go on a proper holiday now rather than a week in a Cornish b&b with Sam.
When the cornish realise that they aint going to get that 60 million from the UK gov instead of the EU its probably best he avoids it.
Still he can pop up to Scotland and get on with some stalking on his in laws estate now he doesnt have to pretend not to be country gentry.
2
2
In reply to Jim C:
In 1962, during the debate on the case for a referendum on whether to join the EEC, lord Beloff argued that a referendum is meaningful only if clear alternatives are set before the electorate. In the absence of such clarity, "the electorate would . . .be doing no more than indicating a very general bias one way or another." The Brexit referendum failed the Beloff test. The central proposition of the leave side did not offer a single coherent alternative vision and was largely dependent on the outcome of uncertain negotiations and unpredictable markets.
I n these circumstances the referendum result could be interpreted as providing a blank cheque fthe government to negotiate the best deal without ratification from the electorate. This is scarcely tenable. The alternative interpretation is that it indicated a bias to leave. Only when the electorate has the facts of the negotiations can the electorate make a definitive decision.
In 1962, during the debate on the case for a referendum on whether to join the EEC, lord Beloff argued that a referendum is meaningful only if clear alternatives are set before the electorate. In the absence of such clarity, "the electorate would . . .be doing no more than indicating a very general bias one way or another." The Brexit referendum failed the Beloff test. The central proposition of the leave side did not offer a single coherent alternative vision and was largely dependent on the outcome of uncertain negotiations and unpredictable markets.
I n these circumstances the referendum result could be interpreted as providing a blank cheque fthe government to negotiate the best deal without ratification from the electorate. This is scarcely tenable. The alternative interpretation is that it indicated a bias to leave. Only when the electorate has the facts of the negotiations can the electorate make a definitive decision.
Post edited at 20:50
2
3
In reply to Jim C:
It's a pretty simple principle that large irreversible change requires a stronger mandate that staying with the status quo (for now). It's the kind of thing written into the constitution of all sorts of organisations.
51/49 would be sufficient mandate to remain, but the book would only remain closed until it was opened again no doubt. If we weren't already in then it would not be a strong enough mandate to join imo.
I was relieved at the Scottish referendum result because an inadequate mandate for 'leave' would have been so divisive and damaging. 50%+1 vote to leave would have been just about the worst result possible imo. When/if 'Brexit' goes ahead, that won't be a problem: the next Scottish independence referendum result will be a *landslide*.
Here's what Farage had to say about this the week before the referendum:
"The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.
Farage told the Mirror: 'In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.'"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7...
> I take it from that response that given another referendum you will be happy with a 51/49 win for remain, as a done deal and close the book on it ?
It's a pretty simple principle that large irreversible change requires a stronger mandate that staying with the status quo (for now). It's the kind of thing written into the constitution of all sorts of organisations.
51/49 would be sufficient mandate to remain, but the book would only remain closed until it was opened again no doubt. If we weren't already in then it would not be a strong enough mandate to join imo.
I was relieved at the Scottish referendum result because an inadequate mandate for 'leave' would have been so divisive and damaging. 50%+1 vote to leave would have been just about the worst result possible imo. When/if 'Brexit' goes ahead, that won't be a problem: the next Scottish independence referendum result will be a *landslide*.
Here's what Farage had to say about this the week before the referendum:
"The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.
Farage told the Mirror: 'In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.'"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7...
2
In reply to deepsoup:
51/49 would be sufficient mandate to remain, but the book would only remain closed until it was opened again no doubt. If we weren't already in then it would not be a strong enough mandate to join imo.
In your opinion, but not in the opinion of the body set up by government :- The electoral commission, that set the referendum question and oversaw the adherence to the rules, that both sides agreed to work to, (before the vote )
Based on the fact that the government were strongly in favour of remain, why then did they not seek ( before the vote was agreed) to make the threshold of any move from the status quo, from a simple majority, to a higher level of endorsement?
Say perhaps 99% must vote leave and 1% remain (with say a 100% turnout? Sounds fair to me , I'm sure The electoral commission would agree. )
The electoral commission
"Our role Our objectives for referendums are that they should be well-run and produce results that are accepted"
51/49 would be sufficient mandate to remain, but the book would only remain closed until it was opened again no doubt. If we weren't already in then it would not be a strong enough mandate to join imo.
In your opinion, but not in the opinion of the body set up by government :- The electoral commission, that set the referendum question and oversaw the adherence to the rules, that both sides agreed to work to, (before the vote )
Based on the fact that the government were strongly in favour of remain, why then did they not seek ( before the vote was agreed) to make the threshold of any move from the status quo, from a simple majority, to a higher level of endorsement?
Say perhaps 99% must vote leave and 1% remain (with say a 100% turnout? Sounds fair to me , I'm sure The electoral commission would agree. )
The electoral commission
"Our role Our objectives for referendums are that they should be well-run and produce results that are accepted"
1
1
In reply to ian caton:
That difficult woman, is making things even more difficult for the remainercomplainers
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/688105/Theresa-May-pledge-Brexit-Bri...
That difficult woman, is making things even more difficult for the remainercomplainers
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/688105/Theresa-May-pledge-Brexit-Bri...
In reply to Jim C:
So assuming six months down the line fuel ends up costing 30% more due to currency depreciation, many large businesses make plans to leave the UK or defer investments, it becomes clear the EU is going to block the City accessing the single market and the French chuck the UK border out of Calais, Osborne announces an extra nasty package of cuts to try and pay for his corporation tax give-away and as a result opinion polls now show there is a very strong majority for not leaving........ then in your view should the government still act on the referendum result and put in the Article 50 notice no matter what.
It's not about what she is saying now or how people feel now it's about what people will feel at the point she needs to decide whether to put in the Article 50 notice. And even then it is far from clear whether that is irrevocable.
So assuming six months down the line fuel ends up costing 30% more due to currency depreciation, many large businesses make plans to leave the UK or defer investments, it becomes clear the EU is going to block the City accessing the single market and the French chuck the UK border out of Calais, Osborne announces an extra nasty package of cuts to try and pay for his corporation tax give-away and as a result opinion polls now show there is a very strong majority for not leaving........ then in your view should the government still act on the referendum result and put in the Article 50 notice no matter what.
It's not about what she is saying now or how people feel now it's about what people will feel at the point she needs to decide whether to put in the Article 50 notice. And even then it is far from clear whether that is irrevocable.
Post edited at 23:18
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Good point. In some sense, Brexit has been the ultimate dead cat on the table for them!
> Also 29 of the Tories are under investigation for electoral expenses fraud so its not certain that majority will survive another year.
Good point. In some sense, Brexit has been the ultimate dead cat on the table for them!
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
So you are saying that May is campaigning on a false manifesto, and she will dupe her fellow MPs into voting for her ( or collude with remainer MPs) ?
The problem I see with this is that the EU has said they will not negotiate before we invoke A50, so she will not be able to say what the likely outcome will be. ( only what she will be aiming for in future negotiations )
However, If she reveals what her negotiating position will be in any upcoming negotiations, that will be a gift to the EU negotiators.
> It's not about what she is saying now or how people feel now it's about what people will feel at the point she needs to decide whether to put in the Article 50 notice. And even then it is far from clear whether that is irrevocable.
So you are saying that May is campaigning on a false manifesto, and she will dupe her fellow MPs into voting for her ( or collude with remainer MPs) ?
The problem I see with this is that the EU has said they will not negotiate before we invoke A50, so she will not be able to say what the likely outcome will be. ( only what she will be aiming for in future negotiations )
However, If she reveals what her negotiating position will be in any upcoming negotiations, that will be a gift to the EU negotiators.
In reply to Jim C:
I don't see that she would be "changing her mind". She wouldn't come out the day after winning the leadership and douse water on Brexit, that would be ruinous for her and much else besides. If (hypothetically) she abstains from Article 50 it would be an unnoticeably slow withdrawal, not a U-turn.
> I just cannot think why she would do that if, as Tom hopes, she will win the vote on that and then change her mind?
I don't see that she would be "changing her mind". She wouldn't come out the day after winning the leadership and douse water on Brexit, that would be ruinous for her and much else besides. If (hypothetically) she abstains from Article 50 it would be an unnoticeably slow withdrawal, not a U-turn.
1
In reply to Trevers:
The unbelievable dishonesty , and arrogance of ( some ) of the remainers on this site is jaw dropping!
I can assure you that whilst you might assume everyone else to be stupid, and easily duped , they won't be, especially when they are already suspicious.
(And of course really clever people would not be revealing their 'cunning plan' online
> I don't see that she would be "changing her mind". She wouldn't come out the day after winning the leadership and douse water on Brexit, that would be ruinous for her and much else besides. If (hypothetically) she abstains from Article 50 it would be an unnoticeably slow withdrawal, not a U-turn.
The unbelievable dishonesty , and arrogance of ( some ) of the remainers on this site is jaw dropping!
I can assure you that whilst you might assume everyone else to be stupid, and easily duped , they won't be, especially when they are already suspicious.
(And of course really clever people would not be revealing their 'cunning plan' online
Post edited at 00:00
2
6
In reply to Jim C:
Erm... what?
> The unbelievable dishonesty , and arrogance of ( some ) of the remainers on this site is jaw dropping!
> I can assure you that whilst you might assume everyone else to be stupid, and easily duped , they won't be, especially when they are already suspicious.
> (And of course really clever people would not be revealing their 'cunning plan' online
Erm... what?
1
In reply to Jim C:
Looks like people are discussing political reality. The government are really in a bind, 2 years is way too short to negotiate an exit from the EU and necessary parallel trade deals (NAFTA took 4 years to negotiate, many deals much longer), yet the EU won't negotiate without article 50 being invoked. It seems like a classic catch 22.
Looks like people are discussing political reality. The government are really in a bind, 2 years is way too short to negotiate an exit from the EU and necessary parallel trade deals (NAFTA took 4 years to negotiate, many deals much longer), yet the EU won't negotiate without article 50 being invoked. It seems like a classic catch 22.
2
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
That IS interesting as the response seems to have been posted by the Government BEFORE any Parliamentary debate? Which they are obliged to have?
The reply does include the information that they are still awaiting a debate date.
That IS interesting as the response seems to have been posted by the Government BEFORE any Parliamentary debate? Which they are obliged to have?
The reply does include the information that they are still awaiting a debate date.
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
No. The result is the result. We still await the outcome
> The outcome is still the result.
No. The result is the result. We still await the outcome
1
In reply to Jim C:
And yet..... you seem to think that stabbing Corbyn in the back and disregarding democracy there is the RIGHT thing to do. You really should make your mind up.
> The unbelievable dishonesty , and arrogance of ( some ) of the remainers on this site is jaw dropping!
> I can assure you that whilst you might assume everyone else to be stupid, and easily duped , they won't be, especially when they are already suspicious.
> (And of course really clever people would not be revealing their 'cunning plan' online
And yet..... you seem to think that stabbing Corbyn in the back and disregarding democracy there is the RIGHT thing to do. You really should make your mind up.
In reply to Jim C:
Does that mean that, as the EU are a set of duplicitous shits, if they want us to leave we shouldn't?
> I'm all for more cautious and as the EU are keen for us to rush in, all the more reason not to.
Does that mean that, as the EU are a set of duplicitous shits, if they want us to leave we shouldn't?
In reply to Jim C:
I know that there is a tendency to say that if you don't vote you don't count but let's be honest here. c. 37.5% of the eligible voters said they wanted to leave. c. 35.3% of the eligible voters said they wanted to remain. It is NOT a resounding mandate by any means; it's just that we have become accustomed to the largest minority of the population 'defeating' all other other minorities.
Personally I'd have a thought that a genuine 50% of the eligible population voting for such a momentous change should have been required.
> If there is a new referendum , and the result is now a % of 51/49 in favour of remaining, will you accept that as a democratic mandate to stay ?
I know that there is a tendency to say that if you don't vote you don't count but let's be honest here. c. 37.5% of the eligible voters said they wanted to leave. c. 35.3% of the eligible voters said they wanted to remain. It is NOT a resounding mandate by any means; it's just that we have become accustomed to the largest minority of the population 'defeating' all other other minorities.
Personally I'd have a thought that a genuine 50% of the eligible population voting for such a momentous change should have been required.
3
3
In reply to Andy Say:
And for the hard of understanding the country voted to leave the EU.
> No. The result is the result. We still await the outcome
And for the hard of understanding the country voted to leave the EU.
2
2
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
I think that there should be an opportunity to not leave the EU which should be based on hard facts about the actual outcome. There was so much rubbish on both sides that and if it becomes more apparent that the brexit will tank the economy there should be a chance to stop that.
I think that there should be an opportunity to not leave the EU which should be based on hard facts about the actual outcome. There was so much rubbish on both sides that and if it becomes more apparent that the brexit will tank the economy there should be a chance to stop that.
4
3
In reply to Andy Say:
I was under the impression that there was no obligation for a parliamentary debate, merely that the subject would be considered for debate. And also that a debate does not entail a vote on policy. You could get any number of populist but utterly ridiculous motions to 100,000 signatures that would be a complete waste of time (and therefore taxpayer money) to debate in parliament.
> That IS interesting as the response seems to have been posted by the Government BEFORE any Parliamentary debate? Which they are obliged to have?
> The reply does include the information that they are still awaiting a debate date.
I was under the impression that there was no obligation for a parliamentary debate, merely that the subject would be considered for debate. And also that a debate does not entail a vote on policy. You could get any number of populist but utterly ridiculous motions to 100,000 signatures that would be a complete waste of time (and therefore taxpayer money) to debate in parliament.
1
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
Nooooo. For the innumerate: 37.5% 'of the country' (excluding the young) voted to leave the EU.
> And for the hard of understanding the country voted to leave the EU.
Nooooo. For the innumerate: 37.5% 'of the country' (excluding the young) voted to leave the EU.
4
2
In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:
I don't know know how many people this would really be, but it seems like quite a lot of people who ticked the leave box were voting to make a protest, and didn't actually want to leave the EU. As I've said elsewhere, I voted remain, so am probably biased, but I would genuinely be surprised if more than 50% of the population wants to leave.
> And for the hard of understanding the country voted to leave the EU.
I don't know know how many people this would really be, but it seems like quite a lot of people who ticked the leave box were voting to make a protest, and didn't actually want to leave the EU. As I've said elsewhere, I voted remain, so am probably biased, but I would genuinely be surprised if more than 50% of the population wants to leave.
1
1
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Loving this - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=644730&v=1
The bastards might stop speaking English. How jolly dare they!
Loving this - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=644730&v=1
The bastards might stop speaking English. How jolly dare they!
1
1
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
> I am not blaming, just they feel guilty I am sure, I am not young and could see through the lies, but sometimes you see what you see, how you want it to be.
> A sad time when the do this sort of thing, I would never trust any of them again.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
2
In reply to Andy Say:
For God's sake stop trotting out this tired old whining Guardian lie, it just makes you look like a petulant idiot, also a sore looser.
You know perfectly well it was 52% to 48%, roughly the same margin (but on a MUCH higher turnout, 72% as against about 54%, in fact the highest turnout in a UK vote for 30 years), as the last US presidential election. And I am quite certain that you would not raise the slightest objection to Obama being elected, any more than you would accept any questioning at all if remain had won by even a single postal vote.
There was none of the usual distortions due to FPTP, every vote counted and every vote counted the same, irrespective of colour, race, social status or physical location. It was uniquely democratic, as for the "I think some of what the campaigns said wasn't true", get a life - that is the same in every election. The decisions to vote for leave in any case took years, in fact decades to be born, no-one was suddenly and uncritically influenced by a bit of writing on the side of a bus - this disquiet and resentment over the way the country has been changed dramatically without consent has been brewing slowly and inexorably, this was simply the first real opportunity to voice it.
As for "the electorate are stupid and read papers I don't approve of", learn to deal with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, they are basic to democracy. You are never going to get an election where only Guardian readers are allowed to vote, nor a referendum on EU membership where the questions are "Do you think the UK should stay in the EU or do you think the UK should remain in the EU".
The "some of the leavers now want to remain" is purely a Guardian-BBC fantasy, almost as much as the "dramatic rise in racist incidents" hysteria. In any case :
"The moving finger writes - and having writ moves on
Nor all your piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it"
There is no reason to believe that non-voters split any differently to voters, in fact the reverse. In any case, they don't care enough to vote, so if anything their votes should be added to the final winners, as they don't care enough to object to what the majority plump for. But in reality no-one can claim the votes of the non-voters, you can only possibly go on the results of those who do vote. Which was actually a uniquely high proportion in this referendum, with a small but quite clear majority.
So stop this childish "37%" rubbish and tantrum already.
> . c. 37.5% of the eligible voters said they wanted to leave.
For God's sake stop trotting out this tired old whining Guardian lie, it just makes you look like a petulant idiot, also a sore looser.
You know perfectly well it was 52% to 48%, roughly the same margin (but on a MUCH higher turnout, 72% as against about 54%, in fact the highest turnout in a UK vote for 30 years), as the last US presidential election. And I am quite certain that you would not raise the slightest objection to Obama being elected, any more than you would accept any questioning at all if remain had won by even a single postal vote.
There was none of the usual distortions due to FPTP, every vote counted and every vote counted the same, irrespective of colour, race, social status or physical location. It was uniquely democratic, as for the "I think some of what the campaigns said wasn't true", get a life - that is the same in every election. The decisions to vote for leave in any case took years, in fact decades to be born, no-one was suddenly and uncritically influenced by a bit of writing on the side of a bus - this disquiet and resentment over the way the country has been changed dramatically without consent has been brewing slowly and inexorably, this was simply the first real opportunity to voice it.
As for "the electorate are stupid and read papers I don't approve of", learn to deal with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, they are basic to democracy. You are never going to get an election where only Guardian readers are allowed to vote, nor a referendum on EU membership where the questions are "Do you think the UK should stay in the EU or do you think the UK should remain in the EU".
The "some of the leavers now want to remain" is purely a Guardian-BBC fantasy, almost as much as the "dramatic rise in racist incidents" hysteria. In any case :
"The moving finger writes - and having writ moves on
Nor all your piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it"
There is no reason to believe that non-voters split any differently to voters, in fact the reverse. In any case, they don't care enough to vote, so if anything their votes should be added to the final winners, as they don't care enough to object to what the majority plump for. But in reality no-one can claim the votes of the non-voters, you can only possibly go on the results of those who do vote. Which was actually a uniquely high proportion in this referendum, with a small but quite clear majority.
So stop this childish "37%" rubbish and tantrum already.
Post edited at 21:28
4
11
In reply to Simon4:
But a referendum is an entirely different proposition from a General Election. It's about the status quo vs (in this case) huge and irreversible societal and political change, and therefore suggestions that the threshold for change should be higher than a simple majority of the voters who turn out shouldn't be scoffed at.
I also feel that if you weren't concerned by the atmosphere under which the vote was held, you've got your head buried in the sand.
Also the suggestion of the sort of freedom of the press we have in this country being basic to democracy, I find quite frankly bizarre.
But a referendum is an entirely different proposition from a General Election. It's about the status quo vs (in this case) huge and irreversible societal and political change, and therefore suggestions that the threshold for change should be higher than a simple majority of the voters who turn out shouldn't be scoffed at.
I also feel that if you weren't concerned by the atmosphere under which the vote was held, you've got your head buried in the sand.
Also the suggestion of the sort of freedom of the press we have in this country being basic to democracy, I find quite frankly bizarre.
5
In reply to Simon4:
That read a bit like a tantrum to me....
If people disagree with the result of the referendum, why should they be quiet and act like they think it in the interests of the country to shut up and not say so? It remains a fact that 37 ish % of the electorate voted to leave the EU and 35% ish voted to remain. What you do with that information is up to you. The facts also remain that many key 'leave' pledges have been shown to be lies since the referendum. This should be pointed out. It clearly did influence the way many people voted (maybe not you, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the £350 million pledge was influential and also false and known to be false by the people making the claim) and so this is a key point to address post referendum.
That read a bit like a tantrum to me....
If people disagree with the result of the referendum, why should they be quiet and act like they think it in the interests of the country to shut up and not say so? It remains a fact that 37 ish % of the electorate voted to leave the EU and 35% ish voted to remain. What you do with that information is up to you. The facts also remain that many key 'leave' pledges have been shown to be lies since the referendum. This should be pointed out. It clearly did influence the way many people voted (maybe not you, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the £350 million pledge was influential and also false and known to be false by the people making the claim) and so this is a key point to address post referendum.
12
1
In reply to krikoman:
I don't know where I said that, but , although I'm not a big fan of Corbyn, I am in favour if him being automatically on the ballot for any leadership challenge .
I say this from my own ideas of fairness, but also because I listened to the Labour Party rules being read out today , and it seemed to me that (in the case of a challenge) , the intention was that anyone that wanted to instigate a leadership bid, would have to get the requisite amount of support, but that did not apply to the incumbent, as you need someone to compete with when you challenge someone.
If I challenged someone to a fight, then demanded that they were hog tied and gagged, and then I declared myself the winner, there might be some that might not see that as entirely fair.
> And yet..... you seem to think that stabbing Corbyn in the back and disregarding democracy there is the RIGHT thing to do. You really should make your mind up.
I don't know where I said that, but , although I'm not a big fan of Corbyn, I am in favour if him being automatically on the ballot for any leadership challenge .
I say this from my own ideas of fairness, but also because I listened to the Labour Party rules being read out today , and it seemed to me that (in the case of a challenge) , the intention was that anyone that wanted to instigate a leadership bid, would have to get the requisite amount of support, but that did not apply to the incumbent, as you need someone to compete with when you challenge someone.
If I challenged someone to a fight, then demanded that they were hog tied and gagged, and then I declared myself the winner, there might be some that might not see that as entirely fair.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Apparently, according to some party Brexiteers May had promised ( in return for their support) them that she would invoke A 50 , AND put a leaver in charge of the negotiations.
( You may have hopes that she is just being insincere, but, it is looking like that the new PM , will not be as fixed on her remainer credentials as you might hope, and her own ambitions, may well have been traded for party support and unity)
> Bollocks. If Brexit was going to mean Brexit they'd have triggered Article 50 by now. Even the people leading the Brexit campaign never actually wanted it to happen, they've quit and are lying low rather than complaining about the obvious stalling tactics.
Apparently, according to some party Brexiteers May had promised ( in return for their support) them that she would invoke A 50 , AND put a leaver in charge of the negotiations.
( You may have hopes that she is just being insincere, but, it is looking like that the new PM , will not be as fixed on her remainer credentials as you might hope, and her own ambitions, may well have been traded for party support and unity)
Post edited at 00:34
In reply to Jim C:
As someone married to a German who has lived in the UK for more than 20 years and is now getting told by Theresa May she isn't guaranteed to be able to stay in the country as some kind of stupid negotiating position I'm just disgusted and angered by the whole thing.
Yes, I hope Theresa May is only a cynical liar who has no real stomach to go through with this idiocy. Failing that I hope Scotland gets the chance to make her the last Prime Minister of the UK.
> ( You may have hopes that she is just being insincere, but, it is looking like that the new PM , will not be as fixed on her remainer credentials as you might hope, and her own ambitions, may well have been traded for party support and unity)
As someone married to a German who has lived in the UK for more than 20 years and is now getting told by Theresa May she isn't guaranteed to be able to stay in the country as some kind of stupid negotiating position I'm just disgusted and angered by the whole thing.
Yes, I hope Theresa May is only a cynical liar who has no real stomach to go through with this idiocy. Failing that I hope Scotland gets the chance to make her the last Prime Minister of the UK.
Post edited at 01:05
7
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Has she applied for citizenship?
> As someone married to a German who has lived in the UK for more than 20 years
Has she applied for citizenship?
2
In reply to Big Ger:
why should she have to spend a lot of time & money for something which was previously unnecessary? (that said I'm looking at how to get French nationality, not because I really want to be French but because I do, at least for the next few years, want to stay living & working in France). But do I later need to regain my old British nationality if I decide to retire to Scotland (which I consider 'home')?
why should she have to spend a lot of time & money for something which was previously unnecessary? (that said I'm looking at how to get French nationality, not because I really want to be French but because I do, at least for the next few years, want to stay living & working in France). But do I later need to regain my old British nationality if I decide to retire to Scotland (which I consider 'home')?
Post edited at 06:22
2
In reply to Doug:
One of the German ministers has suggested offering dual nationality to British citizens. I'm in Spain and thinking that wait and see is probably the best approach.
One of the German ministers has suggested offering dual nationality to British citizens. I'm in Spain and thinking that wait and see is probably the best approach.
In reply to Doug:
Do you see the word "previously" there? That's a clue.
> why should she have to spend a lot of time & money for something which was previously unnecessary?
Do you see the word "previously" there? That's a clue.
5
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Maybe it's because I'm on the other side of the bargain (uk national resident in Spain) but I thought her statement made sense as a nego position. To secure the rights of uk citizens abroad (I.e. Me) she needs to suggest that she's willing to play with European citizens in the uk, even if it never comes to that. One thing you probably ought to do is make sure that all papers, passports etc are up to date as there have been stories of the home office using technicalities to kick people out under her watch. The main thing that worries me about Theresa May is that she seems hell bent on reducing migration.
> As someone married to a German who has lived in the UK for more than 20 years and is now getting told by Theresa May she isn't guaranteed to be able to stay in the country as some kind of stupid negotiating position I'm just disgusted and angered by the whole thing.
Maybe it's because I'm on the other side of the bargain (uk national resident in Spain) but I thought her statement made sense as a nego position. To secure the rights of uk citizens abroad (I.e. Me) she needs to suggest that she's willing to play with European citizens in the uk, even if it never comes to that. One thing you probably ought to do is make sure that all papers, passports etc are up to date as there have been stories of the home office using technicalities to kick people out under her watch. The main thing that worries me about Theresa May is that she seems hell bent on reducing migration.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Thats a horrible position to be in. However May is taking exactly the same position as the rest of the EU. By guaranteeing EU citizens the right to reside in the UK without a reciprocal guarantee from other EU countries she'd not be acting in the interests of UK citizens.
> As someone married to a German who has lived in the UK for more than 20 years and is now getting told by Theresa May she isn't guaranteed to be able to stay in the country as some kind of stupid negotiating position I'm just disgusted and angered by the whole thing.
Thats a horrible position to be in. However May is taking exactly the same position as the rest of the EU. By guaranteeing EU citizens the right to reside in the UK without a reciprocal guarantee from other EU countries she'd not be acting in the interests of UK citizens.
Post edited at 07:39
1
In reply to Simon4:
I'm deeply hurt.
I don't read the Guardian.
And c. 37.5% of the eligible voters said they wanted to leave. So there. Nah nah nah naaaa
> For God's sake stop trotting out this tired old whining Guardian lie, it just makes you look like a petulant idiot, also a sore looser.
> So stop this childish "37%" rubbish and tantrum already.
I'm deeply hurt.
I don't read the Guardian.
And c. 37.5% of the eligible voters said they wanted to leave. So there. Nah nah nah naaaa
1
In reply to Simon4:
Touched a nerve eh simon4? Your post is basically a massive tantrum. The 37.5% point is not a lie! it's a fact.
Also just because Brexit won with a narrow margin does not mean that the remain voters have to lie down and accept that now. When Labour won in 97 did you just stop being a right wing ideologue? I really doubt it. This is how politics works.
Touched a nerve eh simon4? Your post is basically a massive tantrum. The 37.5% point is not a lie! it's a fact.
Also just because Brexit won with a narrow margin does not mean that the remain voters have to lie down and accept that now. When Labour won in 97 did you just stop being a right wing ideologue? I really doubt it. This is how politics works.
6
In reply to Bob Hughes:
I don't agree. It is absolutely crazy to get into a confrontational negotiating style when the links between the EU and UK have been built up since 1973, there are millions of families who thought they were all EU citizens and hundreds of thousands of companies whose business structure depends on locations in multiple countries. Every time some politician says something confrontational to generate a 'negotiating position' and get some press attention people and businesses get scared and start protecting their position by not investing, or moving business head office out the country or considering leaving the country or taking out another citizenship themselves.
I think the Brexiters are massively underestimating the strength of feeling and anger that is going to be directed against them over the next few months if they actually do this by people whose lives and livelihoods are about to get torn apart.
> Maybe it's because I'm on the other side of the bargain (uk national resident in Spain) but I thought her statement made sense as a nego position.
I don't agree. It is absolutely crazy to get into a confrontational negotiating style when the links between the EU and UK have been built up since 1973, there are millions of families who thought they were all EU citizens and hundreds of thousands of companies whose business structure depends on locations in multiple countries. Every time some politician says something confrontational to generate a 'negotiating position' and get some press attention people and businesses get scared and start protecting their position by not investing, or moving business head office out the country or considering leaving the country or taking out another citizenship themselves.
I think the Brexiters are massively underestimating the strength of feeling and anger that is going to be directed against them over the next few months if they actually do this by people whose lives and livelihoods are about to get torn apart.
Post edited at 11:42
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And the remainers are underestimating the strength of feeling and anger that is going to be directed against them if May does NOT go through with the Brextit promise .
Nigel Evans ( a leaver) said last night that May got (read bought) his support in return for her promise to go through with Brexit AND put a leaver in charge of negotiations.
So it is not just the 17 million + leavers she will get the backlash from if she does not honour the result, it is also her own party. So she has put herself between a rock and a hard place to get the job.
( and the UKIP will have a field day at the next election )
> I think the Brexiters are massively underestimating the strength of feeling and anger that is going to be directed against them over the next few months if they actually do this by people whose lives and livelihoods are about to get torn apart.
And the remainers are underestimating the strength of feeling and anger that is going to be directed against them if May does NOT go through with the Brextit promise .
Nigel Evans ( a leaver) said last night that May got (read bought) his support in return for her promise to go through with Brexit AND put a leaver in charge of negotiations.
So it is not just the 17 million + leavers she will get the backlash from if she does not honour the result, it is also her own party. So she has put herself between a rock and a hard place to get the job.
( and the UKIP will have a field day at the next election )
Post edited at 12:11
1
In reply to Jim C:
Agree, so can we expect some form of compromise that upsets everyone ? maybe the Norway option where we still pay, still have free movement of people but technically are out of the EU & have no say in the rules ?
> So it is not just the 17 million + leavers she will get the backlash from if she does not honour the result, it is also her own party. So she has put herself between a rock and a hard place to get the job.
Agree, so can we expect some form of compromise that upsets everyone ? maybe the Norway option where we still pay, still have free movement of people but technically are out of the EU & have no say in the rules ?
In reply to Doug:
Norway is one option, to Switzerland, Canada (yet to be ratified) even Hong Kong apparently all the way to the WTO rules. If you look at the current deals they appear to be bespoke affairs to suit the two parties. So who's to say what well end up with. One thing for sure is less influence!
Norway is one option, to Switzerland, Canada (yet to be ratified) even Hong Kong apparently all the way to the WTO rules. If you look at the current deals they appear to be bespoke affairs to suit the two parties. So who's to say what well end up with. One thing for sure is less influence!
In reply to Doug:
You have decided (caved in) on the reult of the negotiations already !
> Agree, so can we expect some form of compromise that upsets everyone ? maybe the Norway option where we still pay, still have free movement of people but technically are out of the EU & have no say in the rules .
You have decided (caved in) on the reult of the negotiations already !
1
In reply to Jim C:
What better result do you realistically expect?
> You have decided (caved in) on the reult of the negotiations already !
What better result do you realistically expect?
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
well, she was asked the question by Robert Peston so had to give an answer one way or the other. He response was pretty good, i thought.
"We are still a member of the EU – there is no change in their position currently. But of course as part of the negotiation we will need to look at this question of people who are here in the UK from the EU,” she told ITV’s Peston on Sunday show. “I want to ensure that we are able to not just guarantee the positions of those people but guarantee the positions of British citizens in other member states.”
well, she was asked the question by Robert Peston so had to give an answer one way or the other. He response was pretty good, i thought.
"We are still a member of the EU – there is no change in their position currently. But of course as part of the negotiation we will need to look at this question of people who are here in the UK from the EU,” she told ITV’s Peston on Sunday show. “I want to ensure that we are able to not just guarantee the positions of those people but guarantee the positions of British citizens in other member states.”
In reply to Jim C:
I know! i've already installed a zimmer frame proof step around my house just in case it kicks off.
> And the remainers are underestimating the strength of feeling and anger that is going to be directed against them if May does NOT go through with the Brextit promise .
I know! i've already installed a zimmer frame proof step around my house just in case it kicks off.
8
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Jim can't say in case the Faceless of Brussels are checking UKC for signs of weakness.
> What better result do you realistically expect?
Jim can't say in case the Faceless of Brussels are checking UKC for signs of weakness.
1
In reply to Jim C:
I haven't decided anything - just speculating about the possible outcomes. I'd rather stay in the EU if that was possible, but as I'm not an MP I don't have much say in the matter (wasn't even allowed to vote in the referendum as I've lived outside the UK too long)
I haven't decided anything - just speculating about the possible outcomes. I'd rather stay in the EU if that was possible, but as I'm not an MP I don't have much say in the matter (wasn't even allowed to vote in the referendum as I've lived outside the UK too long)
In reply to Jim C:
He's being realistic. You should try it sometime (2 weeks ago would have been good).
jk
> You have decided (caved in) on the reult of the negotiations already !
He's being realistic. You should try it sometime (2 weeks ago would have been good).
jk
3
1
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
At least they know how we feel, well some of us....
I think the MODS should stop this thread now as we could talk until the cows come home.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP.
The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.
A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won£t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition £ which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum £ calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.
At least they know how we feel, well some of us....
I think the MODS should stop this thread now as we could talk until the cows come home.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP.
The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.
A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won£t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition £ which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum £ calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.
Post edited at 19:54
1
In reply to jkarran:
I would be out of a job tomorrow, if I was 'realistic' as you put it.
(You get what you negotiate , not what you deserve. )
> He's being realistic. You should try it sometime (2 weeks ago would have been good).
> jk
I would be out of a job tomorrow, if I was 'realistic' as you put it.
(You get what you negotiate , not what you deserve. )
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I think I'm more concerned about the reaction of millions of the poorer 'leave' voters if they actually do this to be honest - a year or two down the line when 'austerity' is kicking the shit out of them even more, not only was the £350 million quid a week for the NHS a barefaced lie but the enquiry into a 'pay' NHS that has just quietly got underway reports back that yes it's a spiffing idea, and Murdoch and the Mail are telling them that this is all the fault of the immigrants who contrary to their expectations are still here. Throw in a few more recycled Nazi propaganda posters like Farage's disgusting "Breaking Point" effort and things could get *really* ugly.
> I think the Brexiters are massively underestimating the strength of feeling and anger that is going to be directed against them over the next few months if they actually do this by people whose lives and livelihoods are about to get torn apart.
I think I'm more concerned about the reaction of millions of the poorer 'leave' voters if they actually do this to be honest - a year or two down the line when 'austerity' is kicking the shit out of them even more, not only was the £350 million quid a week for the NHS a barefaced lie but the enquiry into a 'pay' NHS that has just quietly got underway reports back that yes it's a spiffing idea, and Murdoch and the Mail are telling them that this is all the fault of the immigrants who contrary to their expectations are still here. Throw in a few more recycled Nazi propaganda posters like Farage's disgusting "Breaking Point" effort and things could get *really* ugly.
8
In reply to deepsoup:
Indeed, we're in a very dangerous place at the moment. This has to stop before we crack the thin veneer of our society.
jk
Indeed, we're in a very dangerous place at the moment. This has to stop before we crack the thin veneer of our society.
jk
2
In reply to deepsoup:
The 350 million a week was actually a gift for the remain camp to exploit, and may well have won remain more votes for remain than the tiny amount of people who had not heard the hullabaloo about it, and the even fewer who might have made a decision to vote leave because of it.
The way this is being portrayed is that 17 million ( stupid gullible ) people voted leave based on hearing ( and believing) only this figure, and were so out of touch not to know that it was being challenged, and on what basis.
Can you not stop winging about things that are in the past, and constantly predicting gloom and doom , hoping for the worst to happen, just so you can say I told you so , remain have won the argument, and then bask in the glory of twisted pyrrhic victory .
> I think I'm more concerned about the reaction of millions of the poorer 'leave' voters if they actually do this to be honest - a year or two down the line when 'austerity' is kicking the shit out of them even more, not only was the £350 million quid a week for the NHS a barefaced lie.
The 350 million a week was actually a gift for the remain camp to exploit, and may well have won remain more votes for remain than the tiny amount of people who had not heard the hullabaloo about it, and the even fewer who might have made a decision to vote leave because of it.
The way this is being portrayed is that 17 million ( stupid gullible ) people voted leave based on hearing ( and believing) only this figure, and were so out of touch not to know that it was being challenged, and on what basis.
Can you not stop winging about things that are in the past, and constantly predicting gloom and doom , hoping for the worst to happen, just so you can say I told you so , remain have won the argument, and then bask in the glory of twisted pyrrhic victory .
3
2
In reply to Jim C:
Yet the problem remains, that although 52% of voters opted for Leave, it's not remotely clear at this stage what that mandate actually signifies, as illustrated by this blog post:
https://sotonpolitics.org/2016/07/13/after-brexit-what-next-not-much-mandat...
17 million people are not 17 million people unified by a shared vision for how they want the UK to move forward.
Yet the problem remains, that although 52% of voters opted for Leave, it's not remotely clear at this stage what that mandate actually signifies, as illustrated by this blog post:
https://sotonpolitics.org/2016/07/13/after-brexit-what-next-not-much-mandat...
17 million people are not 17 million people unified by a shared vision for how they want the UK to move forward.
2
3
In reply to Jim C:
I still find it fairly shocking you're trying to spin the fact the Leave campaign lied about the £350m as something we should be grateful for, though.
I still find it fairly shocking you're trying to spin the fact the Leave campaign lied about the £350m as something we should be grateful for, though.
2
In reply to Jim C:
What a load of nonsense. The lies didn't have to win over 17M gullible people, there has long existed a solid core of 'OUT' voters, why this is the case I really don't understand but there is. The Leave campaigns lies, persuasively delivered by trusted talking heads who'll never be held to account for their actions only had to sway a few. My experience of talking to people out on the street while campaigning was that contrary to your protestations those flagrant porkies were very persuasive indeed. People weren't deeply engaged, they caught the headlines from people they liked/trusted and that was that, they weren't willing to reassess.
It's not in the past. Those lies have reshaped my future.
jk
> The 350 million a week was actually a gift for the remain camp to exploit...
> The way this is being portrayed is that 17 million ( stupid gullible ) people voted leave based on hearing ( and believing) only this figure, and were so out of touch not to know that it was being challenged, and on what basis.
> The way this is being portrayed is that 17 million ( stupid gullible ) people voted leave based on hearing ( and believing) only this figure, and were so out of touch not to know that it was being challenged, and on what basis.
What a load of nonsense. The lies didn't have to win over 17M gullible people, there has long existed a solid core of 'OUT' voters, why this is the case I really don't understand but there is. The Leave campaigns lies, persuasively delivered by trusted talking heads who'll never be held to account for their actions only had to sway a few. My experience of talking to people out on the street while campaigning was that contrary to your protestations those flagrant porkies were very persuasive indeed. People weren't deeply engaged, they caught the headlines from people they liked/trusted and that was that, they weren't willing to reassess.
> Can you not stop winging about things that are in the past
It's not in the past. Those lies have reshaped my future.
jk
6
1
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...