***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 42 *****
==============================================================
Continuing debate
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 11 Nov 16 at 10:20
|
Make no mistake - the United Kingdom will exit the European Union, whatever tricks the Wrexiters pull to block it. We will have to wait and see what the Supreme Court makes of yesterdays ruling.
What shape Brexit takes, when it actually occurs, is anybody's guess at the moment, so best to sit tight and keep your powder dry :)
|
|
Cameron promised something that was not in his gift to promise. For Parliament, not the executive.
|
>> Cameron promised something that was not in his gift to promise. For Parliament, not the
>> executive.
>>
The leaflet was issued by the Government, not by Cameron.
tinyurl.com/jyouurq
or in PDF format
tinyurl.com/jeo2tv6
|
|
BBP. Utterly irrelevant and disrespectful to those who suffer real grief. Diversionary tactics, instead of getting to grips with the matter at hand.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Fri 4 Nov 16 at 11:43
|
In the words, last month, of a leaver MP Stephen Phillips, who has just resigned:
"The campaign to give parliament the right to determine our future relationship with the EU is not about reversing the referendum result. Nor is it about subverting the will of the British people, or having a second bite of the cherry. It’s about the sovereignty that I and others cherish, a sovereignty that resides principally in the House of Commons and in its ability, when given the opportunity, to inform and direct the government of the day.
Not giving parliament the chance, before article 50 is invoked, to say where it thinks these negotiations should end up is, at its core, undemocratic, unconstitutional and likely to exacerbate the divisions in our society to which the referendum gave rise. It also ignores the views of nearly half the people who voted in the referendum, who were perfectly content with our place in the EU.
Ignoring them, even though they were (just) in the minority, is not merely divisive but plain wrong."
tinyurl.com/hw7eotx
|
>> BBP. Utterly irrelevant and disrespectful to those who suffer real grief. Diversionary tactics, instead of
>> getting to grips with the matter at hand.
>>
Get a grip, Nortones. It is about an opinion poll by yougov. See here for details
yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/03/five-stages-grief-most-remain-voters-are-stuck-den/
You sound like a person suffering from Brexit grief.
|
Why the law is so complicated so that only few judges and lawyers can interpret it?
Or that's the intention?
There is no problem if parliament debates about exit terms - but in reality pro-EU MPs/peers likely to stall the process or prolong it for too long. Justice delayed = justice deinied.
|
Why the law is so complicated so that only few judges and lawyers can interpret it?
The UK does not have a written constitution, so instead of there being one point of reference, there are lots. And in a nutshell, that is the issue.
|
>>Why the law is so complicated so that only few judges and lawyers can interpret it?
You miss the point. The law is set out as general principles, not a prescriptive set of instructions for every possible event. So when you have a new set of circumstances you need the courts to tell you how the law should be applied. Once the courts have ruled, then you know.
At the moment we are waiting for the Supreme Court to rule so are none the wiser.
|
This is all jibberish or do they think the people are schumcks?
Envoke article 50 now.If they haven't got the balls or something else call a general election.
I didn't have a vote but the people who voted Brexit must be livid.
|
>>the people who voted Brexit must be livid
I hadn't noticed, but now you come to mention it ...
8-}
|
>>I hadn't noticed, but now you come to mention it ...
8-}>>
I presume you are referring to those who don't know the dictionary definition of democratic?
A Question Time audience member poses the question:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Habdt_IW-M
|
>>I presume you are referring to those who don't know the dictionary definition of democratic?
>>A Question Time audience member poses the question:
>>www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Habdt_IW-M
Nice one! .. I didn't see that at the time.
|
>> A Question Time audience member poses the question:
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Habdt_IW-M
>>
Pity that the video clip wasn't longer, it would have been better and made more sense if we'd seen what the panel member had said to start with.
|
>> Pity that the video clip wasn't longer, it would have been better and made more
>> sense if we'd seen what the panel member had said to start with.
>>
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9JgFA_8Rtc
Try starting about 29 minutes in.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 5 Nov 16 at 16:44
|
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9JgFA_8Rtc
>>
>> Try starting about 29 minutes in.
>>
Thanks, I think what the chap didn't get is we voted to leave the eu and we will, however no one voted on what's next. That's up to the politicians.
|
|
When the Supreme court adjudicates, the next step would be to the European Court of Justice, if the decision is not accepted by either side. If Art. 50 is involved now it would be ultra vires, so no chance.
|
>> When the Supreme court adjudicates, the next step would be to the European Court of
>> Justice, if the decision is not accepted by either side.
I doubt the the government would although not sure about the group that brought the case. I think the judges would have to grant the right of appeal i don't think it's automatic.
|
>> Envoke article 50 now
After a debate and vote in both houses of parliament. That's how it stands legally. How else would they invoke article 50?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 4 Nov 16 at 20:18
|
>> the people who voted Brexit must be livid.
>>
No, I don't think so.
If the government is looking for an excuse under the fixed term parliament act to call a snap election, then losing a Brexit vote in the Commons and treating it as a vote of confidence might provide the reasonable justification necessary.
|
>> The law is set out as general principles, not a prescriptive set of instructions for every possible event.
Parliament already mandated having a referendum and thus delegating the decision to common public.
Even when random public is selected for jury system, it is checked that they don't have connection/prejudice to anyone/associated with the case so that their judgement is not biased.
All these judges had their personal opinion (one in fact clearly pro-EU as per news). They all had cast their votes in EU referendum. This is why their opinion is bound to be biased.
This case is not like any other case - referendum was biggest mandate ever in British history. Since we don't have written constitution this means judges have the room for having their own subjective opinion to interpret the law.
Last edited by: movilogo on Sun 6 Nov 16 at 09:51
|
I think you're getting mixed up. The referendum in itself isn't the mechanism to leave the EU. It isn't, its non binding. This is about how we leave not if.
Of course the judges use their judgement what else could they do? Even with a written constitution there is still room for subjective opinion. Plenty of countries change and adapt them depending on various changing legal arguments. Look at the US.
|
Again I am posting a reader's comment from Guardian. Which I believe explains the situation better than I could write myself.
----------------
The recent coverage of the miners strike shows how communities PERCEIVE that they were on the end of an injustice.
Whether they were or were not, is not that important. It's the perception that is.
Similarly, The Hillsborough enquiry showed that the original judgement by the authorities was wrong.
In the south Yorkshire mining communities the perception that they were wronged, has lasted for generations.
The mistrust of politicians, police and the judiciary has lasted for decades on Merseyside too. If the recent Hillsborough enquiry had gone against the "96" the perception of people in Merseyside would remain the same. In fact could have hardened.
Millions of people, both left and right leaning, do not trust politicians. "They're all the b***** same". Trust of them is paper thin. Again, on all sides of the political spectrum.
Yesterday's ruling, whether you agree or disagree with it, makes what could be perceived by many, as watering brexit down, more likely. And stopping Brexit actually possible.
It doesn't matter if you think it has or it hasn't been watered down. Or whether actually stopping Brexit would be a good or a bad thing. It's the perception by millions that the "elites are stitching us up". Their minds, like the miners will not be changed because of what they perceive.
Many many people voted in the referendum who hadn't previously voted in general elections. They were left and right voters. They felt that, for once, given the binary nature of a referendum, everybody's vote counted.
If the PERCEPTION is that it counted for nothing. And in the future, a significant number of people choose to no longer vote "cos look what happened at the referendum!" Then democracy is damaged. Not just in the short term but for, potentially decades. It could, like in mining communities, become generational.
Millions who previously felt there was no point in voting could perceive that their suspiciouns were well founded. They'd become voluntarily disenfranchised.
A large vacuum could be created.
And vacuums can be filled.
It can filled by extremists. Extremists from all sides.
Nobody should want that. Whether you're Left or right.
If, like me, you believe that democracy isn't perfect, but they haven't come up with a better alternative so far. Then you perhaps pause and consider, how yesterday's ruling, and the ramifications of it, are going to be perceived.
Those who had their day in court yesterday may see it has the ultimate expression of sovereignty.
But if millions of people PERCEIVE it has the death of democracy. Then yesterday's success could be a disaster for tomorrow.
Those on both sides of the argument would be wise to remember the old adage-
Be careful what you wish for.
The British proletariat have proven that they take a very very long time to forget.....
|
Whether they were or were not, is not that important. It's the perception that is.
Isn't that it summed up? Sadly the world isn't a simple binary place. It's not one where child like naivety should be pandered to. You can't simply do away with decisions or processes because you don't like them or they are inconvenient right now. It's a complex process running a country. You follow the rules whether you like it or not.
That's not a dig at you or even really about brexit or the way anyone voted.
|
>> could be perceived by many, as watering brexit down, more likely. And stopping Brexit actually possible.
The referendum was about staying in or leaving the EU. That was what the vote was for. It did not ask us if we wanted to retain access to the single market. It did not ask us about immigration or freedom of movement of people in the EU. To suggest it did is plain wrong.
So the outcome should be that the UK is no longer in the EU. But everything else is to be agreed. And Theresa May and the small number of Conversatives MPs involved in the 'BREXIT' project seem to want a hard Brexit. What if that's not best for the country? Should there be a debate.
This is not a debate about leaving/stay (that's a given). It's about what we hope to achieve. We had a vote on departure from the EU. Maybe there needs to be a vote on the destination.
|
>> This is about how we leave not if.
Agree but the reason for public anger is that the MPs/Parliament/Lords can prevent leaving if they want to (and many of them will try their best to prevent leaving EU) if the matter is solely left for parliament to decide.
Based on number of pro-EU vs pro-Brexit (75:25) MPs statistics, there is a good chance of Brexit to be derailed (e.g. postponed indefinitely).
|
if the matter is solely left for parliament to decide.
As it should because that's the law. If someone wants to bring in a law that makes the outcome of a referendum automatically binding then so be it but until then.
Based on number of pro-EU vs pro-Brexit (75:25) MPs statistics, there is a good chance of Brexit to be derailed (e.g. postponed indefinitely).
They'll be some silly b**** games no doubt but it won't change the outcome.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 6 Nov 16 at 10:23
|
>> Parliament already mandated having a referendum and thus delegating the decision to common public.
Wrong. Unlike the voting system referendum this was advisory. If you don't believe me I'll find the parliamentary briefing paper to show you.
>> Even when random public is selected for jury system, it is checked that they don't
>> have connection/prejudice to anyone/associated with the case so that their judgement is not biased.
Sort of true. They're asked to confirm connection etc but they're not formally background checked.
>> All these judges had their personal opinion (one in fact clearly pro-EU as per news).
>> They all had cast their votes in EU referendum. This is why their opinion is
>> bound to be biased.
Of course they have personal opinions. We don't know whether they voted in, out or not at all. Basic legal training, never mind at level required to be the Lord Chief, Master of Rolls etc is impartiality and not allowing personal views to colour your judgements. I assume you get your 'news' from either the Express or Mail both of which have lied and distorted this case to further their sales/agenda. The biggest lie (Express front page Friday) is that this case 'stops' Brexit'. It doesn't.
The full judgement is here:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judgment-r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
Like the politicians and newspaper editors you really should read it before making comments.
Dragging Terence Etherton's sexuality into the reporting is disgraceful. I'm only surprised they didn't remind us he's Jewish. Perhaps that was just dog whistled....
>> This case is not like any other case - referendum was biggest mandate ever in
>> British history. Since we don't have written constitution this means judges have the room
Wrong again How can a difference of less than four percentage points be the biggest >> forhaving their own subjective opinion to interpret the law.
mandate in British history? Were there a re-run a swing of 2% would turn it other way. The mandate to stay in 75's referendum was much bigger as was the 32/68 in the 2011 voting referendum. And that's without looking at mandates via landslide elections - 45, 83, 97 etc.
And if you think a written constitution would change anything you need to look closely at the US Supreme Court's decisions.
|
|
I rather think the scowly to Bromptonaut's post is characteristic of the overall level of debate. If someone doesn't agree with you they are the enemy and should be shouted down.
|
Bromp's reply was itself a bit shouty-downy in tone, although informative in content- and contained the potentially insulting presumption that movilogo gets his news from the Mail or Express. Not worth a scowly in my opinion but I expect that was a factor.
Judges do what judges do. Judge. I'm annoyed with the rich people who brought the case but they were entitled to do it.
I think this could well prevent Brexit. Corbyn is equivocal, but seems to be saying his party will not support Article 50 unless conditions are met. The SNP will not vote for it, i.e. it will reject the referendum result (or through it's distorting telescope, accept what it thinks would have been the Scottish result had it been a Scottish rather than British referendum).
It's a mess, created by a very bad plan by the Conservatives to win the general election. A tactical wheeze with entirely disproportionate and unexpected strategic consequences. Perhaps it was always too much to hope that we could leave the EU, when it was certainly never intended by Big Brother.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 6 Nov 16 at 17:33
|
|
I think the ruling classes (politicians) are horrified by what the have done and are terrified there will be riots and troops on the streets if they don't sort things out. Shame that they don't have a clue or plan how to sort the mess out.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 6 Nov 16 at 18:08
|
|
She also said: "I believe in and value the independence of our judiciary"
|
Correct - the actual statement is " believe in and value the independence of our judiciary. I also value the freedom of our press. I think these both underpin our democracy and they are important."
But the fun part is that Independent took part of the statement and made as their headline.
Perhaps Independent realized that in order to increase their circulation they need to print what public wants to hear.
|
>>Perhaps Independent realized that in order to increase their circulation they need to print what public wants to hear.
The Independent doesn't have a print circulation any more. It was dedded in March IIRC.
|
|
I see I have been rated offensive. Somebody who is offended by a different opinion? Step forward! Then I can be properly offensive:)
|
|
I think on this topic, people are using offensive as equivalent of thumb down or disagree option :)
|
>> I assume you get your 'news' from either the Express or Mail both of which have lied and distorted this case to further their sales/agenda.
Show me a paper which does not have its own agenda!
The Guardian, Independent, Telegraph are not that much better from Daily Mail/Express.
"Lie and distortion" is relative term. Both sides lied before referendum.
>> this was advisory. If you don't believe me I'll find the parliamentary briefing paper
If that were the case, why that was hidden until now? Such an important statement should have been written in bold everywhere like YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP PAYMENTS
Imagine this scenario.
Leave won in referendum (already a fact - whatever be the winning margin).
Then MPs block article 50 or postpones it indefinitely (or similar). This is possible in theory.
So the net result would UK remains in EU (because MPs wanted so) even though majority public wanted to leave EU.
Is that a desirable scenario?
This situation could be "legal" but if MPs don't follow democratic referendum result, is it then not going to be "illegal"?
The public anger (which is reflected in some newspapers) is due to the fact law is interpreted to suit the needs of ruling class only.
Last edited by: movilogo on Sun 6 Nov 16 at 17:11
|
Neither the Guardian nor the Independent habitually publish blatant lies as page one banner headlines. Nor do they headline public officials doing exactly what their job requires of them as enemies of the people.
What you say about blocking of article 50 is of course true. That we are at that impasse is the fault of Cameron for having the arrogance bordering on stupidity to offer a yes/no referendum on a complex and nuanced issue. The biggest national and constitutional crisis since WW2 lies at his door, not that of the judges charged with interpreting the position.
Have you actually read the judgement yet?
I'm currently looking through the Hansard report of the second reading and committee stages of the Referendum legislation. The question of what No actually meant and the constitutional issues for Scotland etc were all raised in Parliament by, amongst many others Alex Salmond and Ken Clarke.
They were ignored.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 6 Nov 16 at 17:39
|
>> Neither the Guardian nor the Independent habitually publish blatant lies
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_circulation
Guardian and Independent have very poor circulation figure. Possibly because their message is too terse (or detached) for common public?
Brexit (and economy as a whole) is a social science and not physical science where mathematical formula can be derived and experimentally proven.
In social science it is usually "my thought process is superior to yours" concept.
Most of news today are not facts but opinions disguised as facts.
Nowadays news are so distorted that it becomes almost mandatory to read multiple news sites to understand what exactly is happening.
I agree that Mail/Express/Sun (in fact I never read Sun) sometimes do publish lot of rubbish but on Brexit all newspapers published biased views.
Guy Fawkes wanted to blow parliament up in 1605. Obviously public never considered parliament/judiciary etc. as "friends" historically.
I am struggling to see how one would prove judiciary is actually friend of public. Judges are often on the news because they tend protect criminals' human rights. Personally I believe judiciary system in UK needs a big overhaul.
|
>> Guy Fawkes wanted to blow parliament up in 1605. Obviously public never considered parliament/judiciary etc. as "friends" historically.
Rather a poor reading of history I'm afraid. Guy Fawkes was part of a minority's Catholic plot with little popular support. The foiling of the plot was the subject of much popular rejoicing and is still being celebrated if dimly remembered every November 5th.
|
|
Re Brexit. I was quite influenced by the articles, pre-referendum, in the Economist. That has a piffling circulation cf the Mail et al. Quality not quantity? Not run by off-shore based bandits sheltering tax from HMRC?
|
>> The question of what No actually meant and the constitutional issues for
>> Scotland etc were all raised in Parliament by, amongst many others Alex Salmond and Ken
>> Clarke.
>>
>> They were ignored.
>>
As Salmond ignored any rights the RUK or parliament might have had in the event of a Scottish vote for independence. He proclaimed Independence day as if it were a done deal.
|
If that were the case, why that was hidden until now? Such an important statement should have been written in bold everywhere like YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP PAYMENTS
I remember it being discussed at length before hand. Although the term used was non binding.
>> Imagine this scenario.
>>
>> Leave won in referendum (already a fact - whatever be the winning margin). Then MPs block article 50 or postpones it indefinitely (or similar). This is possible in theory.
I do agree with you on that, the process needs to be followed. That is entirely correct. Blocking under the guise of political knock about is not or because it's too difficult .
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 6 Nov 16 at 17:59
|
|
German concern makes sense. Assume you are a landlord and you have a problem tenant. Don't you want them to leave ASAP? Will you be happy if tenant husband and wife are fighting over "terms of ending tenancy" (while they have stopped taking care of your property)?
|
|
The use of the pejorative " remoaner" in that URL tells us all we need to know.
|
Why TM is appealing in Supreme Court? It is highly unlikely the SC will overturn HC judgement.
|
>> Why TM is appealing in Supreme Court? It is highly unlikely the SC will overturn
>> HC judgement.
>>
Probably because the stick she will take if she does not try?
|
If indeed riot takes place, it could turn extremely nasty.
50% of police would morally support one group over another.
50% army would morally support one side over another (Don't know if there is any stats but I think army is pro-Brexit assuming lot of people joined the army because their parents were also in the army - so legacy of world wars might be still high in their mind)
|
|
I think you are allowing your imagination to run riot. Apathy is the British way.
|
>> If indeed riot takes place, it could turn extremely nasty.
So if there was a riot then it's likely to be leave supporters? Which I doubt they will take a kicking from the police or in the extreme the army.
The 'remoaners' haven't rioted yet, why would those that voted leave? And if they did that says something about some that voted leave.
|
I think May has the upper hand in the end. Either Parliament supports her or call for a GE and increase her majority.
I understand why Brexiteers are frustrated, but the long game is looking very sound and if come 2020 the referendum result has not been respected, it could be a very interesting time indeed...
|
Voters may have a different view of the EU in the time before Art50 is invoked as the implications for exit become stark. It would undemocratic to impose exit in those circumstances, given the lack of candour. More reason to make the arbiter Parliament, less likely to have mood swings!
|
>>Voters may have a different view of the EU in the time before Art50 is invoked as the implications for exit become stark. It would undemocratic to impose exit in those circumstances, given the lack of candour. More reason to make the arbiter Parliament, less likely to have mood swings!<<
I am not sure that is true, polling on post-referendum sentiments has been largely static and the promised meltdown hasn't happened, but certainly we have moved to a post-hysteria period. The true effect of Brexit, if it happens, wont really be clear until 2025 or so at the earliest.
|
I have only seen one survey of the polls thus far: no2brexit.com from a source which those committed to Brexit may not like:) Another tour here: tinyurl.com/hybar8h
As the PM releases information about the options available, and the likely results on UK economy and governance, positions may change. Pretty close at the moment though.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Mon 7 Nov 16 at 12:15
|
>>As the PM releases information about the options available, and the likely results on UK economy and governance, positions may change. Pretty close at the moment though. <<
All this talk of what the 'likely results' of doing anything is pure guesswork - economists who make a living from predictions tend to struggle to even get the next 3 months right, so anyone who changes their opinion on that basis may as well consult their tea leaves for an equally accurate prediction.
Of course once we have left, any future government can seek to change the terms ( or take us back into the EU as the Lib Dems want ) so what the PM does now is only good until 2020 anyway. This idea of an arrangement being written in stone is an ultra conservative, not to mention unrealistic notion.
|
|
Re "All this talk of what the 'likely results' of doing anything is pure guesswork - economists who make a living from predictions tend to struggle to even get the next 3 months right" On governance, it will be presumably a matter for the government of the day and Parliament to decide which laws are ditched, and which remain, which is knowable. It's the inevitable lag in collecting ONS data that is the problem on the economy side. It takes time to see trends, and accuracy improves with time. The trend is going to be known in, say 12 months, with revisions later. I think it possible to have a good-enough estimate of effects on trade in various scenarios which the Government examine. Then debate.
|
Why do you say that? Legal opinion seems divided. Could go either way. Even if there is a small chance of winning bearing in mind the consequences for the government of being forced to change their strategy an appeal is a course worth pursuing.
My own view is that the decision will be upheld but what do I know.
|
Today's hypothesis.
We all know what the problem is with a common currency, and why it can't work without political union. At least I hope we do.
It seems to me that the single market as a customs-free zone poses a similar problem on its own, even without the common currency.
Free movement of capital and/or labour goes some way towards making it work, which requires a degree of political union. Take those away and there are good economic reasons why countries need the right to set and negotiate import tariffs.
It would be a mistake to prioritise tariff-free access to the single market in the Brexit negotiations. It will simply cost too much in terms of sovereignty and/or direct payments to the EU. I don't think it would be workable for the EU to allow the UK or any member to unpick the parcel of partial political union, freedom of movement, and customs-free trading without significant strings being attached.
The phrase "Brexit means Brexit" is not therefore as meaningless as it at first appears. There isn't really very much in the way of options between being in, and being out. Such options as there are really amount to being in, without a vote.
That is not to say that good deals can't be done on trade. And UK would be free to make its own deals with non-EU countries, and to exclude itself from TTIP and CETA (and any other treaties with ISDS in them).
Exiting will be complex and expensive, but it will be a one-off. The problems of the EU holding itself together and tackling its fundamental stresses are even more complex, and more or less permanent. There is a kind of comfort in the feeling of being "in it together" but when that means it is everybody's and therefore nobody's responsibility to manage things, then it does not equate to greater economic security. The 27 are as likely to be fighting like rats in a sack as cooperating to solve their common problems.
The whole referendum thing has been very badly organised, I think we can agree. What we need now is some clarity and honesty about what the in and out options really meant. The Remain option was treated as a given, the status quo, the safe option, low risk, no need to worry about anything much. It never was. Brexit, particularly since the vote, has been characterised as a range of options (including at times by me). I am increasingly of the mind that there is really only one kind of out.
In an ideal world, an honest government would have been able to work up these scenarios properly, with all their knowns and known unknowns, and put a real decision either to Parliament or a plebiscite. Sadly that will not be possible - we would just have a repeat of all the lying and vested interests setting the agenda.
Brexit means Brexit. Time to get on with it.
|
The government can't get on with it until article 50 is invoked.
There is nothing to discuss before then it is like going round in circles.
|
|
They can do some of the preparation that Cameron forbade before the referendum. Much catching up to do!
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Mon 7 Nov 16 at 13:05
|
I think there is a lot to discuss and to think about. If people don't engage on that level, then we might have riots at some point.
Unfortunately, thinking is the hardest work there is. Much easier just to take ready made opinions from the media, dismiss those who don't agree, or throw street furniture through shop windows.
|
The nation needs to come together - to make a success of Brexit:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=91m59TTGVnI&feature=em-subs_digest
|
Thankfully after Brexit when Europeans aren't coming over in similar numbers, Theresa will make sure they are replaced by Indians.
|
>>Thankfully after Brexit when Europeans aren't coming over in similar numbers, Theresa will make sure they are replaced by Indians.<<
Excellent.
|
>> Theresa will make sure they are replaced by Indians.
How?
|
>> The nation needs to come together - to make a success of Brexit:
>>
When we went into Europe the prevailing mood was thank goodness, we are a small country, now we don't need to bother trying so much, we've joined the support club.
Now we are leaving again the mood is, thank goodness, we are a large country, we need to try very hard, we've re-joined the rest of the world again.
Slightly more realistic I think.
|
>> When we went into Europe the prevailing mood was thank goodness, we are a small
>> country, now we don't need to bother trying so much, we've joined the support club.
>>
>> Now we are leaving again the mood is, thank goodness, we are a large country,
>> we need to try very hard, we've re-joined the rest of the world again.
>> Slightly more realistic I think.
>>
When we joined we looked at Germany, France and Italy and saw their economies outpacing ours and thought that joining them would help our economy grow. It did.
Prior to the referendum our economy had weathered the 2007/8 crash and was pretty much stable, whilst many smaller economies in the Eurozone were weak and some took that to mean that the whole European project was doomed to failure. Germany still has a strong economy. France could be doing better and the Scandinavian countries are fine.
I wonder what will happen in 20 years time if we find ourselves left behind again?
|
>>
>> I wonder what will happen in 20 years time if we find ourselves left behind
>> again?
>>
We were left behind because of our own mismanagement and obsolete practices.
No one is going to help us, it's up to us alone and always has been. That's one lesson we now perhaps have learned.
|
|
When we finally leave the EU it occurs to me that we will need a new national scapegoat to blame when things go wrong. Any nomimations?
|
Of course you mean IF CG not when.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 8 Nov 16 at 09:07
|
No I mean when. It seem to me politically impossible for a government to follow any other course. I'm surprised you think otherwise
The devil as always is in the details and whatever side you are on what is needed is parliamentary and public scrutiny, something the government are reluctant to allow preferring to present us with a fait accompli
And no, international negotiations are not like a game of poker
I
|
>>preferring to present us with a fait accompli<<
Surely when you vote for any party you are giving them a vote of confidence in handling things to your best advantage for the term of their office.
The fait accompli was cast along with the vote, I'm afraid.
Pat
|
|
Normally a party would announce their policy in their manifesto. UKIP did on Europe, but not the Tories. UKIP got nowhere. So, the Tories should repudiate Brexit? Or step down until all manifesto's can be voted on, including options for dealing with the EU.
|
>> UKIP got nowhere
I am not sure if that is entirely true. Without UKIP, there would have been no EU referendum. Conservative knows if they don't act on Brexit, UKIP might become even more popular (and win few seats as well).
|
|
I'll give you that. They put the fear of sky-fairies into the Tories.
|
>> Surely when you vote for any party you are giving them a vote of confidence
>> in handling things to your best advantage for the term of their office.
>>
By that reckoning Parliament is effectively redundant. Once a government has been appointed you would give them carte blanche to do as they wish with no scrutiny or debate whatsoever. Parliament might as well be dismissed until the next election. You would have effectively an elected dictatorship.
Perhaps you should also consider the following scenario. The government negotiates a deal without any debate in Parliament whereby we leave the EU but remain in the European Market, a move they feel necessary to prevent a severe economic set back. In order to obtain this deal they very much water down their demands for abolition of free movement of people between the EU and the UK such that immigration would only be slightly reduced. Do you think those who voted leave would be happy that the Prime Minister has agreed such a deal without any parliamentary debate? Would they meekly accept such a decision and say "we gave Theresa May the power to agree to whatever she feels. fit"?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 8 Nov 16 at 18:03
|
Of course not....I would be calling for a general election if that was the case....and so would a lot of others.
That is your option now but if you don't want that (and I agree it isn't a good option at the moment) then you have to accept her better judgement.
Incidentally, my initial comment was meant TIC, but you really don't do humour do you:)
Pat
|
>> Of course not....I would be calling for a general election if that was the case....and so would a lot of others.
But nobody who voted to leave the EU not those backing this side had a common definition of what leave meant. So for some the option has to be a hard exit from the EU. Others might want to compromise.
It is for that reason some debate on the high level approach is needed. If the consensus is we must retain access to the single market then that's what we should be trying to achieve.
The danger here is if Theresa May won't compromise, and the MPs/Lords won't accept what she is dictating, then we get stale mate and leaving the EU will never happen.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 8 Nov 16 at 18:18
|
And why would you be calling for a General Election? Because you presumably believe she had no mandate to agree to a deal on that basis.
Now wouldn't it be a good idea if before the Prime Minister entered into negotiations we had a debate in broad terms as to what the limits of those negotiations should be?
|
The key is BROAD TERMS. Set some limits. The referendum never defined what leaving the EU would look like. It certainly didn't give the PM the right to decide. But Cameron didn't think we'd vote to leave did he.
The referendum don't forget was advisory. As a result of the referendum I think we have leave. But I personally think access to the single market is something we keep.
|
>> The referendum don't forget was advisory. As a result of the referendum I think we
>> have leave.
Agreed
>>But I personally think access to the single market is something we keep.
Oh you'll have that, as does the rest of the world.
But I suspect you mean remaining in the customs-free, tariff-free zone. That is not leaving, because you will still have the rest of the freedom of movement and capital strings attached, and in all probability no right to negotiate UK trade agreements with non-EU counties, and quite possibly TTIP and CETA. And we would probably still have to pay into the EU budget. If that happens, the Leavers will have been cheated, and we will just be members with no vote.
That's my current hypothesis anyway, and the reason that Brexit almost certainly means Brexit.
|
>> But I suspect you mean remaining in the customs-free, tariff-free zone
I do. And that is leaving the EU. If we're not in the EU that doesn't rule out access to the customs-free, tariff-free EU zone. I have no issue with some freedom of movement. In fact I intend leaving the UK at some point.
>> If that happens, the Leavers will have been cheated,
But the vote was leave the EU. Nothing else.
Brexit = Brexit because they are the same series of characters. The referendum should have been more specific.
|
We must agree to differ. You want a form of staying in that you can call leaving.
That would be a device, to coin a phrase.
|
>> We must agree to differ.
We do. And nearly 17 million agree with me. The referendum never defined what leave meant - your definition will be different to others.
If we don't get a compromise, we might not leave at all.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 8 Nov 16 at 20:11
|
Scottish government to intervene in Brexit case
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-37909299
|
|
Let's hope that Brexit causes another referendum on Scottish independence. Only this time the outcome is different.
|
|
Assuming Trump becomes POTUS, Farage can now request him to whip EU until they play nice with UK :-)
|
Watch out now for a middle ground party to be formed with Nige as the leader:)
Pat
|
After Brexit and then Brexit++, is there any stats to show if
1. All LEAVE supporters also (morally) supported Trump
2. All REMAIN supports also (morally) supported Clinton
I am just curious.
|
Not *ALL* of course, but many Brexiteers would have gorn for Trump, as would I.
The memsahib is a Brexiteer but would have voted for Clinton.
|
I wouldn't have voted for either.
Pat
|
Neither would I Pat. But if I had to vote for one, then it would probably be Clinton.
Practically anyone else against Trump would surely have won. It was the hatred of Clinton that helped him win because many Americans truly hate Clinton. And I don't mean dislike I do mean hate.
|
Hillary had a trustworthiness problem. Google "Hillary Clinton lies" and you'll understand why Americans don't trust her. She has been doing it for years:
Here is one big lie about her name
www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hillary.asp
"On a first-lady goodwill tour of Asia in April 1995—the kind of banal trip that she now claims as part of her foreign-policy "experience"—Mrs. Clinton had been in Nepal and been briefly introduced to the late Sir Edmund Hillary, conqueror of Mount Everest. Ever ready to milk the moment, she announced that her mother had actually named her for this famous and intrepid explorer. The claim "worked" well enough to be repeated at other stops and even showed up in Bill Clinton's memoirs almost a decade later, as one more instance of the gutsy tradition that undergirds the junior senator from New York.
Sen. Clinton was born in 1947, and Sir Edmund Hillary and his partner Tenzing Norgay did not ascend Mount Everest until 1953, so the story was self-evidently untrue and eventually yielded to fact-checking."
A nuetral fact checking website had this
www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
Then of course there are countless right wing articles listing her numerous baltant public lies.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Wed 9 Nov 16 at 10:51
|
>> I wouldn't have voted for either.
Although some say you can't beat a good trump.
|
Five stages of grief DABDA - BrianByPass
