Another new Brexit thread

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

Interesting Scottish Select Committee on fisheries on iplayer now going bananas over Johnsons plan as it means Trawlers on the West Coast of Scotland selling fish into the Eu would be subject to Tariffs whilst the Trawlers on the East coast of (Northern) Ireland will not... whilst both fishing in the same waters

680 permits applied for .... 48 issued.

Not allowed to fish in Eu waters (Southern North Sea) will means many will go out of business.

Not enough people to certify the health of the catch

We're negotiating access to fisheries so we can catch fish but not access to markets ... so the fish that are caught have nowhere to be sold


what a mess.........

 

[Chris in London]

It has by a parliament that suddenly forgot its promise to the electorate which was to abide by and enact the result.

They asked us if we wanted to leave and leave we said by majority.

Too many then decided they didn't want to leave which is why we have had a shit show.

Still not been ignored, has it? If the government (tories plus DUP) had voted for Mays deal we’d be out. If the referendum result hasn’t been implemented it’s because Theresa May’s government couldn’t deliver what it promised. That’s a long way from the result being ignored.

 

[Vic]

_
Yes, of course I would advocate the right to re examine, or vote again, or reverse, in fact any scenario you like. As long as the original was instigated as per the wishes of the majority who voted.
Agitate after it, sing, dance, demonstrate, shove a brush up your arse and whistle Dixie, anything at all.
But don't ignore it and expect people to humbly accept it, thereby lies a very dark future.

I do appreciate that view. But it's the "misrepresentation" and "not fit for purpose" aspect that's the problem.

If I buy a car and it doesn't perform as promised - the brakes are dangerous (approaching a cliff), the steering veers to the right, and keeping the car is going to be a drain on my resources for decades - why would I want to keep it just because I'd signed a contract... especially when the seller (or rather its arbitration service) has said I can just repudiate the contract?

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

Still not been ignored, has it? If the government (tories plus DUP) had voted for Mays deal we’d be out. If the referendum result hasn’t been implemented it’s because Theresa May’s government couldn’t deliver what it promised. That’s a long way from the result being ignored.

well the mps pretty much unanimously voted to trigger article 50 which said the U.K. would leave the Eu deal or no deal.

funnily they forget that last bit and claim they didn’t know it said that , that’s the mps .

 

[blueinsa]

Still not been ignored, has it? If the government (tories plus DUP) had voted for Mays deal we’d be out. If the referendum result hasn’t been implemented it’s because Theresa May’s government couldn’t deliver what it promised. That’s a long way from the result being ignored.

If enough opposition MP's, elected off the back of manifesto promises to enact the result had voted for it we would have been out as well.

Still back at Parliament not doing its job are we not?

 

[west didsblue]

Clearly its doesn't! please take off your party political specs just for a second. Im no fan of this or the previous administration but they are not the only ones that have agreed one thing and done another. Massive party politics going on in Westminster and also on this forum!

Clearly it does. They’ve set the agenda without seeking consensus even within their own ranks. How can you blame anyone else?

 

[Chippy_boy]

No, I’m getting into territory where I’m picking you up on your use of the word ‘ignored’ when the referendum result has been anything but ignored.

If your complaint is that it hasn’t been implemented then that’s fair enough, but why use the word ‘ignored’? I’d suggest because it’s more emotive, but it’s also completely inaccurate.

To be fair (and speaking as a Remainer) i think it's fair to say the referendum result has been ignored.

The referendum provided parliament with a clear instruction that we should leave the EU. An argument can be made that since the Leave side so clearly stated that getting a deal would be like falling off a log, and that no-one was selling the idea of leaving without a deal, then fair enough, we should leave with a deal. To be honest, even that is throwing us Remainers a bone, since the requirement to have a deal was not on the ballot paper.

But Theresa May's deal, was us leaving with a deal. After 3 years of negotiations, we'd got to the point of OK we now must respect the referendum result, we went further and said we must leave with a deal, and here's the deal. And MP's ignored the mandate and voted it down.

At the time, I was supportive of this, since in my heart I do not want us to leave. But acting as we did WAS ignoring the mandate given in the 2016 referendum. There's no hiding from that fact.

 

[blueinsa]

To be fair (and speaking as a Remainer) i think it's fair to say the referendum result has been ignored.

The referendum provided parliament with a clear instruction that we should leave the EU. An argument can be made that since the Leave side so clearly stated that getting a deal would be like falling off a log, and that no-one was selling the idea of leaving without a deal, then fair enough, we should leave with a deal. To be honest, even that is throwing us Remainers a bone, since the requirement to have a deal was not on the ballot paper.

But Theresa May's deal, was us leaving with a deal. After 3 years of negotiations, we'd got to the point of OK we now must respect the referendum result, we went further and said we must leave with a deal, and here's the deal. And MP's ignored the mandate and voted it down.

At the time, I was supportive of this, since in my heart I do not want us to leave. But acting as we did WAS ignoring the mandate given in the 2016 referendum. There's no hiding from that fact.

This.

Thank you.

 

[carlosthejackal]

Leave the EU.

To explain that further and in its simplest terms it means not remaining in any way shape or form which is what the losing side wanted.

Preferably with a deal.

If that isn't possible then without one.

Can you point me in the direction of any reference to leaving without a deal before the referendum? From what I can recall it was sunlit uplands , have our cake and eat it , easiest deal in history, Norway plus , German car makers bending over backwards. I do remember Farage and his lying racist poster .

 

[blueinsa]

Can you point me in the direction of any reference to leaving without a deal before the referendum? From what I can recall it was sunlit uplands , have our cake and eat it , easiest deal in history, Norway plus , German car makers bending over backwards. I do remember Farage and his lying racist poster .

Can you point me to the bit on the ballot paper that said we had to have a deal to leave?

A50 didn't say we had to have a deal in fact quite the opposite.

The rest of your post is remain soundbites and best ignored tbh.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

No, I’m getting into territory where I’m picking you up on your use of the word ‘ignored’ when the referendum result has been anything but ignored.

If your complaint is that it hasn’t been implemented then that’s fair enough, but why use the word ‘ignored’? I’d suggest because it’s more emotive, but it’s also completely inaccurate.

Parliament, which is made up of three-quarters of remainers has been doing it's damndest to prevent it.
We can all see this, to not implement a vote after such a lengthy time frame is a disgrace. Ignore/implement, whichever, that's what has happened.

 

[Chris in London]

well the mps pretty much unanimously voted to trigger article 50 which said the U.K. would leave the Eu deal or no deal.

funnily they forget that last bit and claim they didn’t know it said that , that’s the mps .

Sorry I’m not quite following the point you’re making. Are you saying that when they did that they were ignoring the referendum result?

 

[Chris in London]

Parliament, which is made up of three-quarters of remainers has been doing it's damndest to prevent it.
We can all see this, to not implement a vote after such a lengthy time frame is a disgrace. Ignore/implement, whichever, that's what has happened.

Well they certainly aren’t ignoring it then. Can we agree you were wrong to complain that the result has been ignored, but you are justified in saying it hasn’t been implemented?

 

[BobKowalski]

ERG Tories giving the new EU offer a kicking.

Well that was an exciting 90 minutes or so. Unlike last Saturday.

 

[blueinsa]

ERG Tories giving the new EU offer a kicking.

Well that was an exciting 90 minutes or so. Unlike last Saturday.

"Freekick to the EU.... Barnier steps up but he hits it high, wide and handsome"

Game still finely balanced.....

 

[Coatigan]

Ah, now your getting into ignore/ delay territory.
We should have left on 29 March, deal or not, because of a remain fixated PM, it didn't happen. We can't let that happen again, I know you're probably OK with such a scenario, but no, not my stance at all.

I dont remember the referendum including a date for Brexit or anyone voting for one (unlike say the indyref, which had a specific date by which scotland would leave the UK, along with a 1000 page document outlining how).

So saying because we havent left by march or october equates to ignoring the result doesn't wash. Delaying/deferring, to avoid a fallout result for which there is no mandate or desire by majority of parliament and public is in no way undemocratic or contrary to the referendum.

I'm not trying being wide here btw, or playing technicalities.

I fully get your and blueinsa's frustrations or even worries on direction. but the reality isn't sone sinister ploy but just that, the reality, of something extremely complex, and incredibly risky, that takes a long tine and multiple parties to resolve.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

To be fair (and speaking as a Remainer) i think it's fair to say the referendum result has been ignored.

The referendum provided parliament with a clear instruction that we should leave the EU. An argument can be made that since the Leave side so clearly stated that getting a deal would be like falling off a log, and that no-one was selling the idea of leaving without a deal, then fair enough, we should leave with a deal. To be honest, even that is throwing us Remainers a bone, since the requirement to have a deal was not on the ballot paper.

But Theresa May's deal, was us leaving with a deal. After 3 years of negotiations, we'd got to the point of OK we now must respect the referendum result, we went further and said we must leave with a deal, and here's the deal. And MP's ignored the mandate and voted it down.

At the time, I was supportive of this, since in my heart I do not want us to leave. But acting as we did WAS ignoring the mandate given in the 2016 referendum. There's no hiding from that fact.

A rational and pragmatic remainer, wish there were a few more.

 

[carlosthejackal]

I voted to leave the EU.
Briefly, just explain why you voted to remain in the EU.
Tell us why you agree with supporting your own parliament, and 2 others in Europe. Briefly, why you support the juristiction of the ECJ, your reasons for supporting federalism, your
support for a convicted negligent as EU President, and the manner of her election.
After an in depth response has been received, and given my approval, I'll put some more questions up.

Do you see what you, and all the others who refuse to accept a democratic vote have been, and still are, doing here?

I voted to remain because from the outset it was blatantly obvious to me that the promises made could never be kept , I voted to remain because I couldn’t align myself with a blatant racist like Farage , I voted to remain because I want to keep the gains made in Ireland , I voted remain because I despise what the likes of Gove, Duncan Smith , Rees Mogg stand for .
I am more than happy to leave with a sensible deal that won’t cost jobs and people’s health and well-being. As for the utter **** who is now prime minister don’t get me started. What I don’t believe for one minute that 17.4 million people decided to self harm. Nor do I think 17.4 million are bigoted racists, but the rise in hate and nationalism is both a disgrace and embarrassment.

 

[BobKowalski]

"Freekick to the EU.... Barnier steps up but he hits it high, wide and handsome"

Game still finely balanced.....

“They think it’s all over...it is now!”

 

[George Hannah]

It's about critical thought and measured Languaghe George. I don't nessecarily disrespect you but i typicly scrutinise assertions which i'd think i could prove as wrong from a position that i need to foremost maintain critical thought and even scrutninise myself to come to some actual truth. It's simple to analyse how youre provably wrong in 2 paragraphs for you by all norms of wisdom and critical thinking. You make this assertion and further note regarding this assertion that it's: And this is easily and very obviously proven as wrong. You aregue that youre assertion is beyond rational dispute but it is emmediatly subjected to scrutiny trough rational dispute by serveral posters, so clearly it isn't "beyond rational dispute"... provable FACT And again,no indication is given why the EU's obective's would orient itself towards a totalitarian state whereas counterintuitivly the EU shows the typical democratic features that could not even be allowed to exist in a theoretic totalitarian state. Afcourse as you present it it's not nessecarily aboutwhat the EU is now but what it would become and yet neither is there any indication for that. So the problem George is that everyone with a critical mind irrespective of ideological preference must come to the conclusion that what you present as fact are actualy distortions of truth. Furthermore not only are their that, but to give some respect for the message George Orwell wanted to give us, the way you appeared to reframe the message that George wanted to give us ppears as one that is quite contrary to what Orwell wanted to warn us about, and therefore imho a great disservice to Orwell imho. And believe me, i could have said the latter paragraph in a much harder tone even, i think there is argument to give that i'm being "overly patient" with you here in fact.

Thank you for your patience, a commendable quality in these hard times. I do indeed try to present my views in a falsifiable form but in order to sustain intelligent debate that does require refutations to be rational. This is precisely my point in the example you chose but I'm afraid the ejaculations of denial cited as countering my argument don't qualify as rational i.e. giving good reasons for what is believed. They simply illustrate the shortcomings I described. As for misrepresenting or misunderstanding Orwell, in the absence of any identification of the 'message' that you have in mind I can only refer you back to his own words - yet again - and request the evidence for your claims.