Another new Brexit thread

[Ban-jani]

Remain won't vote Corbyn unless he actually declares he's for remaining. Otherwise a large part of them will piss away their votes on Green and Lib Dem candidates.

That’s the risk but I will be. I think they’ll claw some back and it maybe enough but I really don’t know.

 

[Ban-jani]

Cheap shot between you and your BFF?

The exchange was with me and:

a) I am not a Tory and

b) I have not read the Telegraph for over 30years - when I was a regular Labour voter - and I only bought it in those days because I particularly enjoyed doing their Crossword

It wasn’t aimed at you princess calm down.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Difficult to see beyond extension leading to revocation or 2nd referendum now.

 

[George Hannah]

Jo Johnson standing down as an MP - Staunch remainer - family loyalty v national interest insoluble apparently.

 

[Ban-jani]

You are replying to my post which in turn was a reply to someone else's post which was either incorrect or hypocritical

Although I can agree with what you say - hindsight is 20/20 and all that

I wouldn’t have even been against not having remain on the 2nd ballot if done properly.

Unfortunately the shit we’ve got now it has to be.

 

[west didsblue]

Jo Johnson standing down as an MP - Staunch remainer - family loyalty v national interest insoluble apparently.

No, I think he solved it,

 

[mcfc1632]

Actually i was speaking about political procedures and rules.

As to that anti-EU sentiment being "soo strong", well i have to say it would have made Brexit more expedient if say "grabs number from air" 80% of poppulation had supported it including the scots and every other region. I reckon a "no deal" would be a fact already "as long as enough wanted it already". The problematic trajectory of Brexit actually squarly speaks against youre argument as "actually not enough people are supporting any resolution that would thus make that quick to get into effect".

80% ????

The political procedures and rules you say?

In the 2016 referendum 1 vote greater than 50% was the procedure and rules of the EU - the mandate was to leave the EU.

Different shapes of deals are the consequence/outcomes of the negotiations

The math that matters though was that there is a large majority within the HoC that are EU sycophants and have not had the integrity to execute the outcome of the referendum and the vote to trigger A50

Therein is the explanation for the last 3 years

 

[west didsblue]

If you made the effort to read the content of posts then you would have the answer you seek

It would also have the benefit of reducing by a great number the amount of snide posts that you feel the need to make

I never make the effort to read your long posts because they are generally factually incorrect, boring and repetitive, however my point stands about rigged elections irrespective of what you put in one of your long winded, sneering, waffle filled posts.

 

[mcfc1632]

That’s the response I referred to. We had this discussion earlier in August.

Apologies - did we ever finish that exchange ?

I was deep into a family holiday and my memory is vague - and there was a bit of beer involved as well;-)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Actually i was speaking about political procedures and rules.

As to that anti-EU sentiment being "soo strong", well i have to say it would have made Brexit more expedient if say "grabs number from air" 80% of poppulation had supported it including the scots and every other region. I reckon a "no deal" would be a fact already "as long as enough wanted it already". The problematic trajectory of Brexit actually squarly speaks against youre argument as "actually not enough people are supporting any resolution that would thus make that quick to get into effect".

It also wasn't really a reasonable conclusion.

Parties may have promised a referendum; that probably garnered some votes but I think it's a big stretch to claim they won majorities by promising one. They won because they were the most attractive at the time, helped by the media and the broad range of policies - not just one.

 

[FlemishDuck]

In the 2016 referendum 1 vote greater than 50% was the procedure and rules of the EU - the mandate was to leave the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a pre-legislative referendum to be held in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, on whether it should remain a member state of the European Union or leave it

"This act required a referendum to be held on the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union before the end of 2017. The bill did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Thats the (Uk defined) legal basis of it, which makes it even very questionable as a tool for a consultative indication imho if you get a 52% result on a 72% turnout.

Basicly, what i'm saying is that obviously the British people are not all that much in favour of Brexit as the Brexiteers for obvious reasons would argue, that atleast shows from the lack of expedience by which Brexit is being resolved, because the logic atleast is that "Brexit should be easy to resolve providing enough support for a given sollution", and it figures when reviewing what (within UK's political context) the referendum was really about and how it should be reviewed given that specific outcome vs turnout. Furthermore any talk of a goverment uwilling to implement the result under these circumstances is "putting things on it's head", in principle the authority of the HoC is far above the referendum which they allowed by that act.

 

[mcfc1632]

I never make the effort to read your long posts because they are generally factually incorrect, boring and repetitive, however my point stands about rigged elections irrespective of what you put in one of your long winded, sneering, waffle filled posts.

Ha bless

If I was the sort of poster on here that accuses people of lying (spoiler - like you), I might suggest..…..

But instead - let's just test your 'logic'

1. You say that you do not read my posts, because...….., yet a simple search of the thread clearly evidences that:

2. You have replied directly to me scores (possibly 100s) of times - often with cheap/snide comments

so, either...….

1. You are - let's say not being wholly truthful or

2. You are being truthful but you feel it to be appropriate to just gratuitously make scores of snide posts just because you want to and even though it detracts from the thread and is against the CoC.

Cannot see any other options.

I have asked you several times to stop. I have asked you to take it to PM - you just continue - quite weird.​

Personally I am concerned that you have just got a hard-on for me and can't do without me in your daily life - It is a bit creepy TBH.

 

[west didsblue]

Ha bless

If I was the sort of poster on here that accuses people of lying (spoiler - like you), I might suggest

But let's just test your 'logic'

1. You do not read my posts, because...….., yet a simple search of the thread clearly evidences that:

2. You have replied directly to me scores (possibly 100s) of times - often with cheap/snide comments

so, either...….

1. You are - let's say not being wholly truthful or

2. You are being truthful but you feel it to be appropriate to just gratuitously make scores of snide posts just because you want to and even so it detracts from the thread and is against the CoC

Cannot see any other options.

Personally I am concerned that you have just got a hard-on for me and can't do without me in your daily life - It is a bit creepy

Did you say something?

 

[mcfc1632]

It also wasn't really a reasonable conclusion.

Parties may have promised a referendum; that probably garnered some votes but I think it's a big stretch to claim they won majorities by promising one. They won because they were the most attractive at the time, helped by the media and the broad range of policies - not just one.

Sorry - that logic does not work and is against the evidence

Cameron was clearly not expected to win a majority - but did after making that promise

Major - exactly the same - totally unexpected and the promise was made deliberately to secure the votes of those that wanted a referendum

Blair - the only possible question mark - but he was not certain and decided to opt for the fall back of the proven vote-winner of promising a referendum. Why else would Blair - an utter EU devotee - make such a promise?

 

[mcfc1632]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Referendum_Act_2015

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a pre-legislative referendum to be held in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, on whether it should remain a member state of the European Union or leave it

"This act required a referendum to be held on the question of the UK's continued membership of the European Union before the end of 2017. The bill did not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Thats the (Uk defined) legal basis of it, which makes it even very questionable as a tool for a consultative indication imho if you get a 52% result on a 72% turnout.

Basicly, what i'm saying is that obviously the British people are not all that much in favour of Brexit as the Brexiteers for obvious reasons would argue, that atleast shows from the lack of expedience by which Brexit is being resolved, because the logic atleast is that "Brexit should be easy to resolve providing enough support for a given sollution", and it figures when reviewing what (within UK's political context) the referendum was really about and how it should be reviewed given that specific outcome vs turnout. Furthermore any talk of a goverment uwilling to implement the result under these circumstances is "putting things on it's head", in principle the authority of the HoC is far above the referendum which they allowed by that act.

But you mentioned being focussed on procedures and rules - so I advised those pertaining to the referendum conducted in 2016

Now you seem to be saying that perhaps there should have been different rules and procedures in place for the referendum held in 2016 than those set out by the appropriate authorities and approved by the UK parliament?

You would not be the first person on here - after the result - to suggest that the rules should have been different - sour grapes?.

What is your view as to what level they should have been different? - perhaps a Leave vote would need an 80% majority? perhaps a Leave win could not be seen as valid without a 95% turnout - would that have been sufficient? or can you advise other ways to load the dice to make sure

We Leavers are used to Remainers wanting to re-engineer and rerun the campaign - it has been going on for 3 years. We consider it to just be easier for them than to recognise:

a) that Remain ran a totally shit campaign and that is on them and

b) that Leave won

 

[FlemishDuck]

But you mentioned being focussed on procedures and rules - so I advised those pertaining to the referendum conducted in 2016

Now you seem to be saying that perhaps there should have been different rules and procedures in place for the referendum held in 2016 than those set out by the appropriate authorities and approved by the UK parliament?

You would not be the first person on here - after the result - to suggest that the rules should have been different - sour grapes?.

What is your view as to what level they should have been different? - perhaps a Leave vote would need an 80% majority? perhaps a Leave win could not be seen as valid without a 95% turnout - would that have been sufficient? or can you advise other ways to load the dice to make sure

We Leavers are used to Remainers wanting to re-engineer and rerun the campaign - it has been going on for 3 years. We consider it to just be easier for them than to recognise:

a) that Remain ran a totally shit campaign and that is on them and

b) that Leave won

Uh no, not sure why you keep tottaly winding down a different matter than i was discussing.

No, i'm simply speaking on how the referendum relates to the power of the HoC to decide over it if not to even overturn it. Basicly from a legal perspective the Hoc can actually ignore it. Beyond purely legal matters the question can be asked how much any choice at this point would reflect the view of the public versus the views currently held by the HoC members (which is relevant also when the thought of a GE is being discussed) but on the other hand when the referendum really was only indicative and not binding it does not help that relative outcome was "only 72%". Brexiteers often refer to the legitimacy of the referendum, well thats where it's at in practicle terms: it's arguably a pile of trash that technicly in no way stands above the choice made by MP's. As a person who is very much in favour of direct democracy i feel saddened that the UK's political traditions and procedures prove so weak as to a) create such a botched outcome to a also poor designed and fundamented referendum and b) ultimatly create the social political devide that currently now exist between a large section of the public and parliament, something for which parliament largely is responsable. Aka i lament how much cavaleers within UK parlement are making a mockery of the thing, and how much they are dragging down the name of parlementary democracy, direct democracy and referendums with it. On both sides kinda, but certaintly not absolving the "hard brexiteers", Just a shitshow.

 

[abu13]

Be honest now, did anyone really think the politicians could fuck this up as badly as they have done?

 

[mat]

It's a no idea Brexit not a no deal Brexit.


Think of it that way and we can unite in realise what a monumental fuck up it would be. Then we can go back to getting a deal done to leave on good terms which doesn't start civil war in Ireland and Independence for Scotland.

 

[Ban-jani]

The idea that no deal is there to scare the EU into a new deal but the British public have nothing to worry about with no deal has to be the stupidest attempt at trying to pull the wool over our eyes ever.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

The idea that no deal is there to scare the EU into a new deal but the British public have nothing to worry about with no deal has to be the stupidest attempt at trying to pull the wool over our eyes ever.

I agree, but also think that in any negotiation as soon as you remove any option (even one nobody really wants) you are weakening your position some extent. There is a need to at least theoreticaly retain the 'nuclear option' of just walking away. I'm suggesting this in general terms btw, not specifically for Brexit. It's a similar issue with endless extensions - as soon as you remove the deadline, you remove the imperative (from both sides).