Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The UK doesn't have obligatory referendums, but advisory is a stupid word. If a government doesn't care what people want them to do, then why have a referendum.

You have just seen a quote from one of the top Barristers in the UK saying that the Executive was obliged to act on the electoral reform referendum but not a to act on the EU referendum as it is advisory.

This is the legal position. Whether you personally think the description 'advisory' (that this expert in British Law also uses) stupid is pretty irrelevant.

Politically the Government had/has options after such a vote. Your implying that all options except triggering article 50 amounts to 'not caring' is baseless.

VinLieger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why, so they can "take back control"?

LOL trying to equate Scotlands situation in the UK with the UK's situation in the EU is hilarious.

Keep reaching one day you might manage to luck into grasping a reasonable argument for brexit

Fratton Fred

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL trying to equate Scotlands situation in the UK with the UK's situation in the EU is hilarious.

Keep reaching one day you might manage to luck into grasping a reasonable argument for brexit

why isn't it?

There is no reasonable argument for Brexit, but you have to respect the wishes of the majority, no matter how unpalatable.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Mind you, most ships these days seem to be registered in Panama or the Bahamas

Had to jump in here, I used to work for Lloyd's Register which is what you mean regarding ship classification. Lloyd's of London (insurance) is a separate company

demfad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no reasonable argument for Brexit, but you have to respect the wishes of the majority, no matter how unpalatable.

You have been told repeatedly that this is incorrect. You have to obey the majority of the parliament as far as article 50 is concerned. No one else with or without a referendum.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

You have just seen a quote from one of the top Barristers in the UK saying that the Executive was obliged to act on the electoral reform referendum but not a to act on the EU referendum as it is advisory.

This is the legal position. Whether you personally think the description 'advisory' (that this expert in British Law also uses) stupid is pretty irrelevant.

Politically the Government had/has options after such a vote. Your implying that all options except triggering article 50 amounts to 'not caring' is baseless.

So let me get this straight.

72% of the UK voted in a referendum and despite commitments to the contrary, you are sating the government should ignore what 52% wanted?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Fratton Fred

demfad wrote: »

You have been told repeatedly that this is incorrect. You have to obey the majority of the parliament as far as article 50 is concerned. No one else with or without a referendum.

you don't believe in democracy?

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Scotland had voted to leave the UK, would you be suggesting parliament should ignore the result because some of the politicians lied and some of the voters were a bit stupid?

The difference there was an act of Parliament that allowed the Scottish Referendum also decreed that its status was binding

The EU Referendum was not

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Had to jump in here, I used to work for Lloyd's Register which is what you mean regarding ship classification. Lloyd's of London (insurance) is a separate company

my bad, I thought it was one in the same.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fratton Fred wrote: »

my bad, I thought it was one in the same.

Same origins in London - different destinations

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The difference there was an act of Parliament that allowed the Scottish Referendum also decreed that its status was binding

The EU Referendum was not

was it? I thought they only devolved power to the Scottish parliament to hold the referendum.

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Same origins in London - different destinations

The same coffee shop?

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes

oppenheimer1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

72% of the UK voted in a referendum and despite commitments to the contrary, you are sating the government should ignore what 52% wanted?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

But is it what the 52% wanted? According to recent polling people that voted for this will not accept them being any worse off following the UK's departure. Given that this scenario is not likely to be possible since the key demand is an end to free movement which is unlikely to be compromised on by the EU poses a real dilemma for the UK. How can it deliver a Brexit that is at worst cost neutral from the outset?

Given the disparate views of what brexit should look like among the 52% (Hard, soft, medium) its hard to say that the 52% will be satisfied with whatever the UK government will come up with. Whatever plan the UK government comes up with a majority of UK citizens will be opposed to it.

The 48% on the other hand were a cohesive group arguing for the status quo.

VinLieger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why isn't it?

There is no reasonable argument for Brexit, but you have to respect the wishes of the majority, no matter how unpalatable.

Okay so you would give your child ice cream for every meal if you gave them the choice and that is what the chose?

Fratton Fred

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay so you would give your child ice cream for every meal if you gave them the choice and that is what the chose?

If you try and bring democracy in to parenthood, you'd be a crap parent.

A Little Pony

Wish Theresa May would hurry up and trigger Article 50. Don't know why waiting to March is worth it, should have done it a few weeks after the vote.

A Little Pony

A Little Pony wrote: »

Wish Theresa May would hurry up and trigger Article 50. Don't know why waiting to March is worth it, should have done it a few weeks after the vote.

Before you abandon ship, it's usually a good idea to make sure the lifeboats are in place.

VinLieger

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you try and bring democracy in to parenthood, you'd be a crap parent.

Why is that exactly?

Fratton Fred

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

But is it what the 52% wanted? According to recent polling people that voted for this will not accept them being any worse off following the UK's departure. Given that this scenario is not likely to be possible since the key demand is an end to free movement which is unlikely to be compromised on by the EU poses a real dilemma for the UK. How can it deliver a Brexit that is at worst cost neutral from the outset?

Given the disparate views of what brexit should look like among the 52% (Hard, soft, medium) its hard to say that the 52% will be satisfied with whatever the UK government will come up with. Whatever plan the UK government comes up with a majority of UK citizens will be opposed to it.

The 48% on the other hand were a cohesive group arguing for the status quo.

So if the government ploughed ahead with full blown immigration free Brexit, coupled with a no holds barred approach from the eu, people will start to realise what it actually means?

There won't be a second referendum.....yet.

Fratton Fred

VinLieger wrote: »

Why is that exactly?

For pretty much the same reason children can't vote.

oppenheimer1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So if the government ploughed ahead with full blown immigration free Brexit, coupled with a no holds barred approach from the eu, people will start to realise what it actually means?

There won't be a second referendum.....yet.

I do believe there will be second referendum, in late 2018 when the damage of the 2016 decision is crystallising.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So let me get this straight.

72% of the UK voted in a referendum and despite commitments to the contrary, you are sating the government should ignore what 52% wanted?

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The people also voted for the MP's in parliament, so in effect you have 2 votes working against each other. They voted for their MP's to represent them in Parliament and do the best for them. If they personally believe that it is wrong to exit the EU they have the choice to vote against it.

The MP's will face their own reckoning at the next election and if the public is that upset that MP's didn't vote for Brexit they can have them removed. Democracy at work, maybe not the way people would like, but it is democracy.

Also, if the Prime Minister was that confident in Brexit both of them would have triggered article 50 already. Seeing as David Cameron lied about that it seems appropriate that others can lie about following the will of the people with the Brexit vote.

First Up

oppenheimer1 wrote:

I do believe there will be second referendum, in late 2018 when the damage of the 2016 decision is crystallising.

Much longer than that. The damage will start to appear soon enough but there needs to be a lot of political upheaval in the UK before the chips fall into place. There will be lots of global noise getting in the way too - Trump's trade wars and of course the unexpected.

In the short term it will be profit taking - Europe coalesces and everyone picks over the UK's bones.

No mercy.

Spanish Eyes

Deciding on March 2017 for triggering A50, IMV was premature in the extreme.

Theresa May might rue the day she said that. It is just too big an issue. Could have taken their time on it whilst reassuring the people that a delay to negotiate and unravel laws, regulations, committments and so on was necessary.

I see a snap election coming up. I know there is a fixed term parliament now, but I am sure there is a get out clause somewhere. Has to be.

First Up

Spanish Eyes wrote:

I see a snap election coming up. I know there is a fixed term parliament now, but I am sure there is a get out clause somewhere. Has to be.

Possible but it would tear the UK apart. I think May fully realises that Brexit is a disaster but she has decided her priority is to hold the UK togther politically and socially.

In her wilder dreams she might hope that somehow they can cancel this madness but in the cold light of day she has to brazen it out.

Enzokk

First Up wrote: »

Possible but it would tear the UK apart. I think May fully realises that Brexit is a disaster but she has decided her priority is to hold the UK togther politically and socially.

In her wilder dreams she might hope that somehow they can cancel this madness but in the cold light of day she has to brazen it out.

I think you give Theresa May too much credit. She should have been aware of the problems the Brexit vote would cause. She only had to look at how quickly her predecessor ran when the result was known. I think that should have been an indication for any smart person to not touch the leadership challenge. Seeing as she put her name forward says a lot about what to expect really, a lot of decisions to look after herself and not too many to look after the country.

Spanish Eyes

First Up wrote: »

Possible but it would tear the UK apart. I think May fully realises that Brexit is a disaster but she has decided her priority is to hold the UK togther politically and socially.

In her wilder dreams she might hope that somehow they can cancel this madness but in the cold light of day she has to brazen it out.

The woman has been handed a poisoned chalice for sure. But she accepted the PM position, so that's her problem now.

Anyway, I still say she has crap advisers. Should have said something like "the anticipated date for A50 is March, however the outcome of that decision will depend on our negotiations in the meantime" Or some Bullsh"it like that. A get out clause if you will.

She is now stuck with March next year. Oh dear. That will not be pretty.

First Up

Enzokk wrote:

I think you give Theresa May too much credit. She should have been aware of the problems the Brexit vote would cause. She only had to look at how quickly her predecessor ran when the result was known. I think that should have been an indication for any smart person to not touch the leadership challenge. Seeing as she put her name forward says a lot about what to expect really, a lot of decisions to look after herself and not too many to look after the country.

Some truth in that but the opportunity to become PM must be almost irresistable. She probably (genuinely) believed that she was the person best equipped to steer the UK through the storm.

In that sense, I'm sure she has convinced herself she is doing the patriotic thing. When you look at the assorted loons who offer themselves as alternatives, she might be right.

But she is captain of a sinking ship and her premiership will be known for only one thing. At this stage, the height of her ambition is probably to hold the UK together

Enzokk

First Up wrote: »

Some truth in that but the opportunity to become PM must be almost irresistable. She probably (genuinely) believed that she was the person best equipped to steer the UK through the storm.

In that sense, I'm sure she has convinced herself she is doing the patriotic thing. When you look at the assorted loons who offer themselves as alternatives, she might be right.

But she is captain of a sinking ship and her premiership will be known for only one thing. At this stage, the height of her ambition is probably to hold the UK together

She was probably the best of a very bad bunch. I would personally have left the job for one of those that wanted the UK to leave the EU. At least in that way the person in charge would, rightly or wrongly, have the conviction and direction for the UK. Now it seems to be a mess of mixed message borne out of the fact that the person leading the charge was doing her best impression of a submarine during the referendum so no-one knows what her views actually are.

I am sure she thinks she is the right person for the job, even GW Bush was happy that the 2008 GFC started with him still in office as he was under the impression he was the right person to deal with the crisis.