Brexit discussion thread II

Enzokk · 15-11-2017 06:34AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If remain won the referendum would you say the same thing?

I wouldn't be, and if you wouldn't then this is just hypocrisy surely?

Brexit is happening, and of course MPs will represent constituents along the way. Hardly tyranny in any case.

But Nigel himself said if the result is close there should be a second referendum.

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

So I would suggest telling people to just get on with it is pure hypocrisy when you know a close result should not be a hard red line.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you fly into Dublin you need to go through passport control. However as we are in the CTA you can use your driving licence.

If you fly Ryanair you MUST have a passport or (or foreign ID card). Aer Lingus will let fly on a driving licence.

Been a while since I went by boat but you've to go through security there too.

And anecdotally the more foreign you look the more likely you are to be stopped for a check, works the other way too, if you look like a stereotypical bogger you are more likely to get stopped in the UK.

Back in the day crossing the border or even entering Belfast city centre meant having to go through proper security.

Which is all a very soft way to ensure "control" that people seem to think is all important, leaving your immigration control to a check in agent in Dublin. But I suspect most reasonable people know this struggle to square that circle.

solodeogloria · 15-11-2017 09:15AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you fly into Dublin you need to go through passport control. However as we are in the CTA you can use your driving licence.

If you fly Ryanair you MUST have a passport or (or foreign ID card). Aer Lingus will let fly on a driving licence.

Been a while since I went by boat but you've to go through security there too.

And anecdotally the more foreign you look the more likely you are to be stopped for a check, works the other way too, if you look like a stereotypical bogger you are more likely to get stopped in the UK.

Back in the day crossing the border or even entering Belfast city centre meant having to go through proper security.

Good morning!

In Dublin they accept drivers licences at the border in any case for flights that have originated in the UK. Really it would be much better if they followed the British approach which is to have a dedicated exit for CTA flights. If the CTA is a genuine free travel area checks should only happen on its frontier. I.E when someone arrives in the CTA from outside.

On the ferry I didn't have my passport checked once in either direction. The car boot was checked once from Holyhead to Dublin but not on the return journey. Comparing this to crossing the Channel after having driven back from Amsterdam on the other hand which involved questioning and being stopped in a unit by the Border Force, passport check and a search of my car in Calais is a different kettle of fish.

Enzokk: I'm really not bothered about what Farage said. Politically the issue would have been put to bed and that's what needs to happen now also.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Zubeneschamali · 15-11-2017 09:21AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If remain won the referendum would you say the same thing?

The Leave side openly said that if it was close they would keep campaigning to Leave.

Peregrinus · 15-11-2017 09:35AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Enzokk: I'm really not bothered about what Farage said. Politically the issue would have been put to bed and that's what needs to happen now also.

If they wanted to put the issue to bed, solo, I think they needed to frame their referendum differently. As they did in fact frame it, it leaves far too many open and unanswered questions (as has been amply illustrated by this thread).

It is possible to settle an issue through a referendum; look at the Scottish Indyref, for example, or the Irish marriage equality referendum.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that voters were given an opportunity to say what they didn't want (EU membership), but not what they did want (an alternative relationship with the EU). Since the referendum, May has spent much time sacrificing goats and examining their entrails, and she has divined that what the British people wanted was no-single-market, no-customs-union, no-free-movement, no-ECJ, but that they weren't expressing an objection to financial-settlements, transition-periods or certain-grandfathered-rights-for-EU-nationals-(but-only-certain-rights). You've argued passionately that her divinations are correct but, as you've no doubt noted with sadness, you haven't succeeded in persuading anyone who didn't already agree with you about this.

And, you'll have to concede, you wouldn't have this problem if the UK government had, in advance of the referendum, published a white paper saying "here are the terms of the Brexit and the details of the relationship that we will seek to negotiate if the vote is 'Leave'". Of course, they couldn't guarantee that they could deliver that - they still can't guarantee it, obviously - but at least 'Leave' voters would have known what they were voting for, and the government would have a clear mandate to pursue the kind of Brexit that was put to the electorate.

I think that referendum would have settled the question. The referendum you actually had, however, was designed in such a way that, while
a "Remain" vote would have largely settled the question (Farage's bleating notwithstanding) a "Leave" vote just raises a whole new bunch of questions. I think the folly of that can now be seen.

Sam Russell · 15-11-2017 10:42AM

Really Interested wrote: »

What do you mean by Brexit, is that Brexit with no trade deal with EU, is that Brexit where the UK remains part of FTA, or remains in Customs union? Is that Brexit where all EU citizens in UK retain the rights they had pre the Vote, is it Brexit where UK citizens in EU retain all rights they had or lose them. Genuinely curious.

I think he might mean the Brexit that gives GB£350 million to the NHS. Or perhaps the Brexit that brings back control of the UK borders so they can deny entry to all those EU citizens that come to work in the NHS and other vital ares of the economy but the Brexit that does not deny entry to all those many more that come from the rest of the world. Or the Brexit that will ground all aircraft in the UK in April 2019, and will close the car industry. Or the Brexit that will bring chlorinated chicken to the UK diet.

Oh, nobody actually campaigned for any of that, but I am sure every voter for Brexit understood that was what they voted for, especially those in Sunderland, Grimsby, Cornwall and Swindon.

Enzokk · 15-11-2017 11:00AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Enzokk: I'm really not bothered about what Farage said. Politically the issue would have been put to bed and that's what needs to happen now also.

You like ignoring or waving away points that goes against your arguments. Look at the trade the UK has with the EU, you have been vocal to point out that there is more trade from outside the EU, but when it is shown to you that gold skews the figures (say it with me, the UK doesn't produce gold and you shouldn't count that towards their figures) you still insist it counts because the argument for leaving is weakened when you deal with reality.

The same situation here. You are naive to think if remain won by 52-48 that the issue would have been put to bed. It would only have reinforced the beliefs of those that want to leave the EU that they could win the argument. But because you are full hard-on for leave you wish the discussion would go away.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they wanted to put the issue to bed, solo, I think they needed to frame their referendum differently. As they did in fact frame it, it leaves far too many open and unanswered questions (as has been amply illustrated by this thread).

It is possible to settle an issue through a referendum; look at the Scottish Indyref, for example, or the Irish marriage equality referendum.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that voters were given an opportunity to say what they didn't want (EU membership), but not what they did want (an alternative relationship with the EU). Since the referendum, May has spent much time sacrificing goats and examining their entrails, and she has divined that what the British people wanted was no-single-market, no-customs-union, no-free-movement, no-ECJ, but that they weren't expressing an objection to financial-settlements, transition-periods or certain-grandfathered-rights-for-EU-nationals-(but-only-certain-rights). You've argued passionately that her divinations are correct but, as you've no doubt noted with sadness, you haven't succeeded in persuading anyone who didn't already agree with you about this.

And, you'll have to concede, you wouldn't have this problem if the UK government had, in advance of the referendum, published a white paper saying "here are the terms of the Brexit and the details of the relationship that we will seek to negotiate if the vote is 'Leave'". Of course, they couldn't guarantee that they could deliver that - they still can't guarantee it, obviously - but at least 'Leave' voters would have known what they were voting for, and the government would have a clear mandate to pursue the kind of Brexit that was put to the electorate.

I think that referendum would have settled the question. The referendum you actually had, however, was designed in such a way that, while
a "Remain" vote would have largely settled the question (Farage's bleating notwithstanding) a "Leave" vote just raises a whole new bunch of questions. I think the folly of that can now be seen.

How many different proposals were there on how the UK would trade with the EU after Brexit? You could have 3 different scenarios from 3 different people campaigning for Leave. The most obvious example is the £350m per week for the NHS. As soon as the results were confirmed and Nigel Farage were cornered with it he was able to disown it as he didn't say it. The fact that it helped his cause is neither here nor there for him and not his problem.

solodeogloria · 15-11-2017 11:00AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they wanted to put the issue to bed, solo, I think they needed to frame their referendum differently. As they did in fact frame it, it leaves far too many open and unanswered questions (as has been amply illustrated by this thread).

It is possible to settle an issue through a referendum; look at the Scottish Indyref, for example, or the Irish marriage equality referendum.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that voters were given an opportunity to say what they didn't want (EU membership), but not what they did want (an alternative relationship with the EU). Since the referendum, May has spent much time sacrificing goats and examining their entrails, and she has divined that what the British people wanted was no-single-market, no-customs-union, no-free-movement, no-ECJ, but that they weren't expressing an objection to financial-settlements, transition-periods or certain-grandfathered-rights-for-EU-nationals-(but-only-certain-rights). You've argued passionately that her divinations are correct but, as you've no doubt noted with sadness, you haven't succeeded in persuading anyone who didn't already agree with you about this.

And, you'll have to concede, you wouldn't have this problem if the UK government had, in advance of the referendum, published a white paper saying "here are the terms of the Brexit and the details of the relationship that we will seek to negotiate if the vote is 'Leave'". Of course, they couldn't guarantee that they could deliver that - they still can't guarantee it, obviously - but at least 'Leave' voters would have known what they were voting for, and the government would have a clear mandate to pursue the kind of Brexit that was put to the electorate.

I think that referendum would have settled the question. The referendum you actually had, however, was designed in such a way that, while
a "Remain" vote would have largely settled the question (Farage's bleating notwithstanding) a "Leave" vote just raises a whole new bunch of questions. I think the folly of that can now be seen.

Good morning!

The Government were campaigning for remain. This is why they didn't outline how they wanted to leave the EU.

The Government opened a process for choosing the campaigns that would take the Leave and Remain side forward. Stronger In and Vote Leave prevailed in that process.

The Government couldn't have pre-empted the exact nature of the negotiations and what they would receive. This is what makes it a very different kind of referendum to the Irish same-sex marriage referendum.

Moreover, the Government didn't choose the question. David Cameron's question was overruled by the referendum commission because it was deemed to be begging an outcome. You can see their findings here.

The reality is that the Leave campaign was won on the basis of taking back control over borders, laws and money. The Lord Ashcroft poll after the referendum broadly agrees with this conclusion.We also had a general election whereby leaving the single market and customs union was the stated policy of both Labour and the Conservative party who got 85% of the vote between them in June in what may have been the weirdest election we've seen in a long time.

I don't buy that the people support an EEA (EU membership by the back door model) which gives them a worse position than today as opposed to a FTA providing a greater deal of control which is in Britain's long term interests. There has to be a tangible change after this referendum otherwise there was no point in having it.

I'm pretty confident that if Theresa May came back saying nothing has changed and the terms are going to be worse from these negotiations she wouldn't have support and there would be growing calls to have her out on her ear.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha · 15-11-2017 11:15AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The Government couldn't have pre-empted the exact nature of the negotiations and what they would receive. This is what makes it a very different kind of referendum to the Irish same-sex marriage referendum.

No, but they could have outlined an agenda for a scenario in which Leave won. It would have been the responsible thing to do.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The reality is that the Leave campaign was won on the basis of taking back control over borders, laws and money. The Lord Ashcroft poll after the referendum broadly agrees with this conclusion.We also had a general election whereby leaving the single market and customs union was the stated policy of both Labour and the Conservative party who got 85% of the vote between them in June in what may have been the weirdest election we've seen in a long time.

Depends on how you slice it. If you look at individual MP's, in 2016 they were overwhelmingly pro-remain. I don't have data for the 2017 election but I can't imaging that there were too many candidate changes. From the BBC:

solodeogloria wrote: »

I don't buy that the people support an EEA (EU membership by the back door model) which gives them a worse position than today as opposed to a FTA providing a greater deal of control which is in Britain's long term interests. There has to be a tangible change after this referendum otherwise there was no point in having it.

But this is just your opinion. This should have been on the ballot. You could have had a variety of options for Leave all of which would have been counted together but would have given a more holistic opinion of what the electorate thought.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm pretty confident that if Theresa May came back saying nothing has changed and the terms are going to be worse from these negotiations she wouldn't have support and there would be growing calls to have her out on her ear.

Theresa May now has to come up with a deal that satisfies her Paleosceptics and her market liberals. This is impossible given that she needs every MP to approve the deal along with the DUP.

solodeogloria · 15-11-2017 11:34AM

Good morning!

It doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening. That is the question that is certainly settled even if you don't believe that the public voted to leave to take back control.

In any case MPs are whipped according to their party. Labour have decided to do a u-turn since on the terms of customs union membership and single market membership, but one can't deny that that was put to the people in both their manifesto and in the Conservative manifesto which between them garnered 85% of the vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint · 15-11-2017 11:37AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening. That is the question that is certainly settled even if you don't believe that the public voted to leave to take back control.

In any case MPs are whipped according to their party. Labour have decided to do a u-turn since on the terms of customs union membership and single market membership, but one can't deny that that was put to the people in both their manifesto and in the Conservative manifesto which between them garnered 85% of the vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But you changed your mind. Or. So you've said.

Why are you allowed to do so, and others are not.

In detail please.

Ellian · 15-11-2017 11:49AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening.

I don't believe that is true. For one thing the second line of the referendum itself clearly stated. "It (this bill) does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum, not set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented" Also as An Introduction To The Study Of The Law Of The Constitution points out "The sole legal right of the electors under the English constitution is to elect members of Parliament.....no court will consider for a moment, the argument that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate (p.57). And again "the law will know nothing of any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed in an act of parliament" (p.71)

demfad · 15-11-2017 11:58AM

A Little Pony wrote: »

As if I actually care about this?

All issues that I have been in agreement about for years. So Russia used bots to try and influence me on things I already agreed with. What a waste of time that is. Although I do find it rather funny Westerners complaining about apparent Russian interference in elections/referendum when the US (no doubt helped by British intelligence) is constantly trying to overthrow regimes and influence elections around the world and has been doing so for decades.

So now you are OK with Russia subverting your democracy because The UK was involved in subverting other democracies?

The problem with that is that Brexit is not cast in stone, it was advisory and the parliament can take it back. Your old arguments about this being 'undemocratic' are defunct because you've just more or less said you don't mind that the EU Referendum was subverted.

Manipulating and subverting elections is wrong. The UK may be hypocritical to self righteously attack Russia over it. But it has every right to undo the subversion.

It was a 52/48 result of an advisory referendum that was subverted by illegal actions by US billionaires and (increasingly likely) by Russian operations.

I think this is leading to a rerun of the referendum on the departure terms, with no subversion.
As a democrat you cant complain if this comes to pass?

ambro25 · 15-11-2017 12:01PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening. That is the question that is certainly settled even if you don't believe that the public voted to leave to take back control.

In any case MPs are whipped according to their party. Labour have decided to do a u-turn since on the terms of customs union membership and single market membership, but one can't deny that that was put to the people in both their manifesto and in the Conservative manifesto which between them garnered 85% of the vote.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It very much does matter, and you are oh-so-wrong. For long-standing constitutional reasons, no less.

And that is because MPs are representatives of their electors, not delegates of their electors:

Members of the House of Commons hold, in effect, a triple mandate. They represent all the people of their constituency, their party and the interests of the country. It is a tenet of representative democracy that MPs are not delegates for their constituents. This means that, while the views of constituents are frequently considered, the actions of MPs are governed by their determination of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole.

This is not a matter open to opinion or debate, it is fact.

I can't be sure, nor arsed to look through the thread, but I have a feeling that this fairly fundamental difference has already been explained -to you or to another Leave supporter- before.

solodeogloria · 15-11-2017 12:24PM

ambro25 wrote: »

It very much does matter, and you are oh-so-wrong. For long-standing constitutional reasons, no less.

And that is because MPs are representatives of their electors, not delegates of their electors:
This is not a matter open to opinion or debate, it is fact.

I can't be sure, nor arsed to look through the thread, but I have a feeling that this fairly fundamental difference has already been explained -to you or to another Leave supporter- before.

Good morning!

Last post for today.

My point is - it doesn't matter. Before and during the referendum there were clear promises to respect and implement the result in the case of leave.

MPs voted to trigger Article 50. Most MPs feel that Brexit has to happen in some shape or form.

The likelihood of a u-turn on implementing Brexit is zilch. MPs voted to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972 last night.

The questions are now firmly around the process of how, not if.

Any other suggestion comes from cloud cuckoo land considering where the country actually is on these issues.

The posters who are advocating for a u-turn, wouldn't be advocating for a u-turn in the event of a remain vote. That's why it is really just plain old hypocrisy and essentially being a sore loser to advocate rubbishing the democratic will of the people.

From what I can see - most remainers understand this too apart from the hardened few clinging on to the hope of EU membership.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

View · 15-11-2017 12:29PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

If they wanted to put the issue to bed, solo, I think they needed to frame their referendum differently. As they did in fact frame it, it leaves far too many open and unanswered questions (as has been amply illustrated by this thread).

It is possible to settle an issue through a referendum; look at the Scottish Indyref, for example, or the Irish marriage equality referendum.

The problem with the Brexit referendum was that voters were given an opportunity to say what they didn't want (EU membership), but not what they did want (an alternative relationship with the EU). Since the referendum, May has spent much time sacrificing goats and examining their entrails, and she has divined that what the British people wanted was no-single-market, no-customs-union, no-free-movement, no-ECJ, but that they weren't expressing an objection to financial-settlements, transition-periods or certain-grandfathered-rights-for-EU-nationals-(but-only-certain-rights). You've argued passionately that her divinations are correct but, as you've no doubt noted with sadness, you haven't succeeded in persuading anyone who didn't already agree with you about this.

And, you'll have to concede, you wouldn't have this problem if the UK government had, in advance of the referendum, published a white paper saying "here are the terms of the Brexit and the details of the relationship that we will seek to negotiate if the vote is 'Leave'". Of course, they couldn't guarantee that they could deliver that - they still can't guarantee it, obviously - but at least 'Leave' voters would have known what they were voting for, and the government would have a clear mandate to pursue the kind of Brexit that was put to the electorate.

I think that referendum would have settled the question. The referendum you actually had, however, was designed in such a way that, while
a "Remain" vote would have largely settled the question (Farage's bleating notwithstanding) a "Leave" vote just raises a whole new bunch of questions. I think the folly of that can now be seen.

Good morning!

The Government were campaigning for remain.

The government clearly weren’t campaigning for Remain when half the cabinet was out campaigning for Leave.

This they were allowed to do with a “free pass” - so that Ministers could act as though they were opposition back-benchers while presenting themselves with the “gravitas” of full cabinet authority behind them.

The decision to include Commonwealth citizens but to exclude EU ones was clearly made to aid the Leave campaign. Logically either both sets of non-UK citizens should have both excluded or both included. It is clearly partisan to exclude one set and include another. The Leave campaign would have been howling at the moon has the decision been made the other way.

So too was the decision on the referendum wording - which contrary to your claim was not a ruling but rather advice as can be seen in the link you provide (and it is advice that was issued without there being any credible evidence that people are more biased toward voting yes rather than no).

Lastly, the options themselves were loaded as the options were Remain on a more semi-detached basis as per the protocol that the Conservatives liked or Leave. There was no “status quo” option on the ballot.

This would be akin to the Oireachtas organising a referendum where the two options were for us to either become a devolved region of the UK (like Wales) or a region of the UK under direct Westminster rule (like North West England).

solodeogloria · 15-11-2017 12:41PM

View wrote: »

The government clearly weren’t campaigning for Remain when half the cabinet was out campaigning for Leave.

This they were allowed to do with a “free pass” - so that Ministers could act as though they were opposition back-benchers while presenting themselves with the “gravitas” of full cabinet authority behind them.

The decision to include Commonwealth citizens but to exclude EU ones was clearly made to aid the Leave campaign. Logically either both sets of non-UK citizens should have both excluded or both included. It is clearly partisan to exclude one set and include another. The Leave campaign would have been howling at the moon has the decision been made the other way.

So too was the decision on the referendum wording - which contrary to your claim was not a ruling but rather advice as can be seen in the link you provide (and it is advice that was issued without there being any credible evidence that people are more biased toward voting yes rather than no).

Lastly, the options themselves were loaded as the options were Remain on a more semi-detached basis as per the protocol that the Conservatives liked or Leave. There was no “status quo” option on the ballot.

This would be akin to the Oireachtas organising a referendum where the two options were for us to either become a devolved region of the UK (like Wales) or a region of the UK under direct Westminster rule (like North West England).

Good morning!

I couldn't leave this hanging.

Can you please point out any referendum in England or Wales where an EU citizen could vote (apart from Irish or Cypriot or Maltese)?

This is electoral law in England and Wales. It wasn't put in place just because of this referendum. The same is true for general elections.

I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

demfad · 15-11-2017 01:42PM

UK cyber-defence chief accuses Russia of hack attacks

Ciaran Martin, chief executive of National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), has said that Russia was "seeking to undermine the international system".
At the same event the Times released a study showing over 156,000 (!!!) Russian based accounts were active on the topic of Brexit on SM in the days leading up to the election.

One of the UK's cyber-defence chiefs has accused Russia of having attacked Britain's media, telecommunications and energy sectors over the past year.
His comments were made at an event organised by the Times newspaper.
Ahead of the speech, the paper reported that one of the attacks had targeted the UK's power supply on election day.
......
Mr Martin's accusations follow Prime Minister Theresa May's own claim that Russia had "mounted a sustained campaign of cyber-espionage and disruption".
....
"The prime minister made the point on Monday night - international order as we know it is in danger of being eroded," he said.
....
To coincide with its event, the Times also published details of a new study into how Russia used Twitter to influence 2016's Brexit referendum.
The research indicates that more than 156,000 Russia-based accounts - many of them automated bots - mentioned #Brexit in original posts or retweets in the days surrounding the vote.
......The academics involved believed the posts were seen hundreds of millions of times.
......
"Ukraine experienced [a similar] information war in 2014 - and if it worked in Ukraine it can also work in Western democracies," said Prof Sasha Talavera from Swansea University.
"One can use it to split society and marginalise groups. Social media nowadays is a powerful tool."
He added that some form of regulation of the large social media firms might now be required.
The Guardian reports details of a separate University of Edinburgh study that also presents evidence of Russia using Twitter to sway opinion in the lead-up to the Brexit vote.
The Kremlin has previously denied trying to meddle in the referendum.
But the chairman of the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, Damian Collins, said he now wanted Twitter to share examples of tweets linked to a Russian "troll factory", known as the Internet Research Agency, about British politics.

Here is the front page of todays times:

And here is a threatening sounding tweet by the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs against the Prime Minister of the UK Theresa May in reaction to her condemning Russian Cyber warfare 2 days ago:

https://twitter.com/mfa_russia/status/930424654858244096

Any ideas what this could mean?

Calina · 15-11-2017 02:02PM

You are specifying England and Wales and excluding Scotland why?

Vronsky · 15-11-2017 02:19PM

Calina wrote: »

You are specifying England and Wales and excluding Scotland why?

Because it doesn't suit his argument.

Calina · 15-11-2017 02:30PM

Vronsky wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

You are specifying England and Wales and excluding Scotland why?

Because it doesn't suit his argument.

He excluded NI as well.

ambro25 · 15-11-2017 02:53PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is - it doesn't matter. Before and during the referendum there were clear promises to respect and implement the result in the case of leave.

MPs voted to trigger Article 50. Most MPs feel that Brexit has to happen in some shape or form.

The likelihood of a u-turn on implementing Brexit is zilch. MPs voted to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972 last night.

The questions are now firmly around the process of how, not if.

I don't recall you presenting this alternative aspect of the Commons-based side of the Brexit debate, when you claimed in the post I was responding to, that "it doesn't really matter if MPs are pro-remain. The electorate voted to leave. Therefore that is what's happening. That is the question that is certainly settled even if you don't believe that the public voted to leave to take back control.".

Because the above <new> post warrants a whole <new> series of fresh points to be made, only partially concerned with the non-representative role of MPs (balancing the respective interests of the nation, their constituents and their party, whence 'Rebels'), but much more concerned with Ms May's current balance of power in the Commons (15 of those Rebels) and Ms May's current staying power in No.10 (the Commons remainers after a meaningful vote promise got their pound of flesh; the Commons brexiters after enshrining the leaving date in the Bill -as the pound of flesh balancing the meaningful vote- didn't).

Perhaps you'll give me the courtesy of a heads-up, next time you shift the goalposts? Just so I can factor the displacement in my reply as well.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Any other suggestion comes from cloud cuckoo land considering where the country actually is on these issues.

The posters who are advocating for a u-turn, wouldn't be advocating for a u-turn in the event of a remain vote. That's why it is really just plain old hypocrisy and essentially being a sore loser to advocate rubbishing the democratic will of the people.

From what I can see - most remainers understand this too apart from the hardened few clinging on to the hope of EU membership.

For the avoidance of doubt, solo (because your post, quoting mine as it does, strongly suggestd that I may harbour some hopes for a U-turn): I'm not advocating for a U-turn, nor do I believe there is any U-turn coming before 2019.

If a U-turn happens, bonus for the 48% (and the balance, even if they never realise it); if it doesn't, so what: not a blind bit of difference to our personal circumstances, we're quids in either way now, because -unlike you, by the evidence of your posts- I favour rationality and one in the hand over two in the bush.

I'm simply countering the more misleading aspects of your posts with facts and, accessorily, demonstrating your apparent imperviousness to said facts in your faith-based discourse.

For the avoidance of doubt still: I (not so secretly, now) hope the UK crashes out with no deal, and I also hope (in equal measure) that we EU27 will show solidarity and provide some support (propping Ireland all along and as needed in the meantime) when (if) the crashing turns to burning.

<self-censoring edit, probably too strong>

An Ciarraioch · 15-11-2017 04:54PM

Good news for the UK - the number of EU workers in the country has risen by 112k since the referendum.

Bad news for the UK - the majority of the new arrivals appear to be from Bulgaria and Romania, which would facilitate a reduction in the average wage.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/15/number-european-union-workers-britain-rises

solodeogloria · 15-11-2017 05:00PM

Calina wrote: »

You are specifying England and Wales and excluding Scotland why?

Vronsky wrote: »

Because it doesn't suit his argument.

Good afternoon!

We need to be more charitable towards one another. I shouldn't have to deal with snide aspersions about my intentions for posting here any more than you should.

Yes - I disagree with you on Brexit. We must do better to make this a reasonable platform for discussing and we should disagree better than we are currently doing. I'm taking the minority position on this thread. That isn't always easy.

The reason I mention England and Wales is because they have different electoral law to the rest of the United Kingdom. UK wide referenda and elections tend to follow this.

In Scotland EU citizens and 16 year olds voted in the 2014 referendum but it isn't the norm. Commonwealth citizens (inc Maltese and Cypriot) and Irish citizens can vote in national referenda. Other countries in Europe have similar rules.

It wasn't an intentional choice for this referendum but simply the law. Again, I find moaning about the referendum boring at this stage. The task at hand is to deliver Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152 · 15-11-2017 05:25PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

We need to be more charitable towards one another. I shouldn't have to deal with snide aspersions about my intentions for posting here any more than you should.

Yes - I disagree with you on Brexit. We must do better to make this a reasonable platform for discussing and we should disagree better than we are currently doing. I'm taking the minority position on this thread. That isn't always easy.

The reason I mention England and Wales is because they have different electoral law to the rest of the United Kingdom. UK wide referenda and elections tend to follow this.

In Scotland EU citizens and 16 year olds voted in the 2014 referendum but it isn't the norm. Commonwealth citizens (inc Maltese and Cypriot) and Irish citizens can vote in national referenda. Other countries in Europe have similar rules.

It wasn't an intentional choice for this referendum but simply the law. Again, I find moaning about the referendum boring at this stage. The task at hand is to deliver Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

As far as I can tell you are wrong on this issue. The legislation that governs referenda in the UK is the following Act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/contents

Nowhere in this Act does it specify who shall be entitled to vote in a referendum. In the Wikipedia page on the issue....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom#Legislation

states that "Separate legislation (i.e. an Act of Parliament) by the Parliament of the United Kingdom is required for the holding of each UK-wide referendum which is held to set out the referendum question, its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted...."

So it appears to me that unless you can produce some evidence to the contrary, the UK parliament could easily have included EU citizens in the electorate for the referendum.

View · 15-11-2017 05:43PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

View wrote: »

The government clearly weren’t campaigning for Remain when half the cabinet was out campaigning for Leave.

This they were allowed to do with a “free pass” - so that Ministers could act as though they were opposition back-benchers while presenting themselves with the “gravitas” of full cabinet authority behind them.

The decision to include Commonwealth citizens but to exclude EU ones was clearly made to aid the Leave campaign. Logically either both sets of non-UK citizens should have both excluded or both included. It is clearly partisan to exclude one set and include another. The Leave campaign would have been howling at the moon has the decision been made the other way.

So too was the decision on the referendum wording - which contrary to your claim was not a ruling but rather advice as can be seen in the link you provide (and it is advice that was issued without there being any credible evidence that people are more biased toward voting yes rather than no).

Lastly, the options themselves were loaded as the options were Remain on a more semi-detached basis as per the protocol that the Conservatives liked or Leave. There was no “status quo” option on the ballot.

This would be akin to the Oireachtas organising a referendum where the two options were for us to either become a devolved region of the UK (like Wales) or a region of the UK under direct Westminster rule (like North West England).

Good morning!

I couldn't leave this hanging.

Can you please point out any referendum in England or Wales where an EU citizen could vote (apart from Irish or Cypriot or Maltese)?

This is electoral law in England and Wales. It wasn't put in place just because of this referendum. The same is true for general elections.

I'll eat my hat if I'm wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

There is no electoral law for referenda in the UK (or any subset of it), never mind who can or cannot vote in them.

The decision to include AND to exclude specific groups of people was made by the government when deciding upon their EU referendum act.

15-11-2017 06:11PM

View wrote: »

There is no electoral law for referenda in the UK (or any subset of it), never mind who can or cannot vote in them.

The decision to include AND to exclude specific groups of people was made by the government when deciding upon their EU referendum act.

the decision was made by Parliament, not the government.

steddyeddy · 15-11-2017 06:12PM

I too will throw my hat into the "crash out without a deal" ring. It's the closest thing to a U-turn we can get. Despite all of the evidence there's a continued insistence that Brexit, at worst will be a mild inconvenience and at best be an free trade extravaganza with the rest of the world.

The only thing that can shake this view is consequence.

Junkyard Tom · 15-11-2017 06:30PM

So have the 15 Tory Brexit rebels put the kibosh on a Brexit leave date enshrined in law? Am I reading t right?

View · 15-11-2017 07:46PM

Aegir wrote: »

View wrote: »

There is no electoral law for referenda in the UK (or any subset of it), never mind who can or cannot vote in them.

The decision to include AND to exclude specific groups of people was made by the government when deciding upon their EU referendum act.

the decision was made by Parliament, not the government.

No, the decision on what was presented to Parliament for approval in the referendum act was made by the government.

Had the government opted to be either more inclusive or more exclusive in who could vote, it is highly unlikely that had the government party would have vote down their own government proposal.

An Ciarraioch · 15-11-2017 07:48PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So have the 15 Tory Brexit rebels put the kibosh on a Brexit leave date enshrined in law? Am I reading t right?

Well, as things stand, the default leave date remains March 29th, unless an extension is agreed between the UK and the EU.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments