Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

hill16bhoy · 10-12-2018 10:29PM

Douglas Thoughtless Headache wrote: »

Zzzz, yes, both democratic, so then respect the decision maybe?

The actual question was regarding the time periods for difference election classifications and ultimately scales of mass significance.

By your logic, every country in the EU should have a membership ref vote roughly every 2yrs. Messy times I forsee, sure you'd wreck the place.

Not being funny, but maybe have a nice cup of coco and a rest, else get to work on the (now overdue) 2014 Scotish Inde Ref, thanks kindly.

No. I didn't say the bolded bit at all, and the only reason you'd claim such is because you can't debate honestly.

What you very much are saying is that the result of a referendum should never be revisited, even if it's obvious that the consequences of that result will be disastrous and polls show a change in opinion (which they do).

That's fundamentally undemocratic.

Anyway, none other than Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage were saying before the 2016 referendum that there could and should be a second referendum.

The second referendum started out as a concept of the Leave campaign.

Why the change of heart?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3rX4nJ0snc

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

joe40 · 10-12-2018 10:30PM

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Getting so bored of this now. The people have voted for Brexit. Just get on with it.

What an absolute disaster May has been.

That is what May has delivered, she has secured a WA and is now ready to enter the next stage of the negotiations.
They have ways said that technology will make border infrastructure unnecessary so the backstop will not need to come into affect.
I'm just presuming the knew what they were talking about and not making fantasy claims.

tipp_tipp_tipp · 10-12-2018 10:31PM

Was watching the debate on channel 4 there, JRM mentioned the head of the WTO stated there would not necessarily need to be hard border with NI in the event of a no deal. Tried googling this but couldn't find a link to it. Can anyone clarify what he was referring to? Apologies if this has been covered already.

hill16bhoy · 10-12-2018 10:35PM

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Getting so bored of this now. The people have voted for Brexit. Just get on with it.

So bored that you've taken the trouble to post on a politics forum about it?

"The problem wiv you lot is you DON'T BELIEVE in unicorns! Admit it, you don't! Heretics!"

trellheim · 10-12-2018 10:37PM

Paddy power offering a decent 9:1 odds on Euro/Sterling being 1:1 before the end of the year and I am grinning while I write this a 5:6 odds of rejoining the EU by 2027

https://www.paddypower.com/politics

that 1:1 eq looks nice tho

DOCARCH · 10-12-2018 10:40PM

tipp_tipp_tipp wrote: »

JRM mentioned the head of the WTO stated there would not necessarily need to be hard border with NI in the event of a no deal. Tried googling this but couldn't find a link to it.

That keeps getting trotted out by Brexiteers, yet, in 2.5 years, not one of them has been able to put forward a credible alternative plan. Just soundbites and fantasy!

tuxy · 10-12-2018 10:41PM

tipp_tipp_tipp wrote: »

Was watching the debate on channel 4 there, JRM mentioned the head of the WTO stated there would not necessarily need to be hard border with NI in the event of a no deal. Tried googling this but couldn't find a link to it. Can anyone clarify what he was referring to? Apologies if this has been covered already.

I believe this is both correct and also misleading as it does not explain the full situation.
The UK could decide to have no border with Ireland under WTO.
But WTO also has non-discrimination rules, so every country they trade with could insist that there is also no check for goods coming from their country.

Professor Moriarty · 10-12-2018 10:42PM

tipp_tipp_tipp wrote: »

Was watching the debate on channel 4 there, JRM mentioned the head of the WTO stated there would not necessarily need to be hard border with NI in the event of a no deal. Tried googling this but couldn't find a link to it. Can anyone clarify what he was referring to? Apologies if this has been covered already.

Unsurprisingly, Jacob is being disingenuous. What a representative of the WTO said was that the WTO would not force Britain or the EU to erect a border i.e. it is outside their remit. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be necessary. Pascal Lamy the former head said that a border would have to be erected after Brexit.

Mezcita · 10-12-2018 10:44PM

trellheim wrote: »

Paddy power offering a decent 9:1 odds on Euro/Sterling being 1:1 before the end of the year and I am grinning while I write this a 5:6 odds of rejoining the EU by 2027

https://www.paddypower.com/politics

that 1:1 eq looks nice tho

You would need the UK to opt for no deal to make that happen though. That looks unlikely. May has been the master of kicking the can down the road for the last two years.

4068ac1elhodqr · 10-12-2018 10:47PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

What you very much are saying is that the result of a referendum should never be revisited

More lies, never said such a thing.

There may well be another one (to rejoin) after a significant, or reasonable period of time has passed. If the UK can't survive and thrive on it's own, they can always seek to return.

How long would their test period be, it's hard to say, likely would need to be at least 4-6yrs, I.e. a reasonable span of time to see of they can trade with the rest of the world. All they have to do is ask to come back, after the dust settles.

Any update on the Scottish Inde Ref you're working on?
It's been over 4yrs now, 4 long years.

Strazdas · 10-12-2018 10:52PM

MEP on Ch.4 News tonight pointed out that if Britain went for No Deal, it would mean it was tearing up the GFA and effectively becoming a rogue state.

I'm not sure that the Brexiteers realise (or care maybe) just how much they are trashing their country's reputation.

hill16bhoy · 10-12-2018 10:57PM

Douglas Thoughtless Headache wrote: »

More lies, never said such a thing.

There may well be another one (to rejoin) after a significant, or reasonable period of time has passed. If the UK can't survive and thrive on it's own, they can always seek to return.

How long would their test period be, it's hard to say, likely would need to be at least 4-6yrs, I.e. a reasonable span of time to see of they can trade with the rest of the world. All they have to do is ask to come back, after the dust settles.

Any update on the Scottish Inde Ref you're working on?
It's been over 4yrs now, 4 long years.

You've lost me with the last part. I'm not sure why you think I'm "working" for the Scottish Independence movement, but sure if you want to argue against a straw man, argue away.

The rest of the post bears out my assessment of your stance re democracy and referendums.

Your earlier lies about me weren't appreciated, by the way.

prawnsambo · 10-12-2018 11:02PM

Douglas Thoughtless Headache wrote: »

There may well be another one (to rejoin) after a significant, or reasonable period of time has passed. If the UK can't survive and thrive on it's own, they can always seek to return.

How long would their test period be, it's hard to say, likely would need to be at least 4-6yrs, I.e. a reasonable span of time to see of they can trade with the rest of the world. All they have to do is ask to come back, after the dust settles.

Yeah, you could do that. Only have to convince 27 countries that you pissed off a few years back, that you'd be good partners.

judeboy101 · 10-12-2018 11:13PM

TM is looking to get the EU to agree to a legally binding clause to never use the backstop. Isn't that like saying "I have car insurance, but I'm never allowed to claim off it?"

Dyr · 10-12-2018 11:16PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

No. I didn't say the bolded bit at all, and the only reason you'd claim such is because you can't debate honestly.

What you very much are saying is that the result of a referendum should never be revisited, even if it's obvious that the consequences of that result will be disastrous and polls show a change in opinion (which they do).

That's fundamentally undemocratic.

Anyway, none other than Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage were saying before the 2016 referendum that there could and should be a second referendum.

The second referendum started out as a concept of the Leave campaign.

Why the change of heart?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3rX4nJ0snc

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

Right so, if and when there's a successful border poll, you're going to be supporting the inevitable calls that will emanate from the DUP to rerun it? Just on democratic principles alone.

Professor Moriarty · 10-12-2018 11:19PM

judeboy101 wrote: »

TM is looking to get the EU to agree to a legally binding clause to never use the backstop. Isn't that like saying "I have car insurance, but I'm never allowed to claim off it?"

That's the same as not having a backstop.

john9876 · 10-12-2018 11:36PM

Is May gambling that the sooner we get to the end of March the more likely MPs are to support her deal when faced with the alternative of a no-deal brexit?

tuxy · 10-12-2018 11:36PM

Well Tusk has made his position clear on how this will no play out (as if he hadn't many times already)

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/st...863669248?s=12

john9876 · 10-12-2018 11:42PM

Tuxy, your link isn't working.

hill16bhoy · 10-12-2018 11:44PM

Bambi wrote: »

Right so, if and when there's a successful border poll, you're going to be supporting the inevitable calls that will emanate from the DUP to rerun it? Just on democratic principles alone.

I wouldn't support holding a border poll in the first place unless opinion polls consistently showed 55% or more in favour of it, because the consequences of a 51-49 unification vote would likely be appalling and lead to a return to bloodshed.

Peace is much more important to me than a united Ireland.

However a successful unification vote of 55% or more would likely be much easier to implement than Brexit. A united Ireland is a more workable outcome on a legal level. It's not difficult to understand. The process of countries unifying (and splitting up) has already happened successfully in modern Europe.

Brexit has proved to be an unworkable project.

Leavers can't agree on what they want because they voted for an abstract fantasy in a referendum which was all about abstract fantasy.

One version of Brexit has effectively been delivered and rejected. There are only two other versions of it that are feasibly available - Norway, which looks likely to be a no go, and no deal, which is a catastrophe which nobody voted for.

An abstract fantasy is not a basis for going forward.

The situation has now changed to one where a second referendum with defined, properly explained choices is by far the most sensible and logical proposition.

briany · 10-12-2018 11:50PM

john9876 wrote: »

Tuxy, your link isn't working.

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1072190546863669248

tuxy · 10-12-2018 11:58PM

Thanks!

LeinsterDub · 11-12-2018 12:00AM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/day-of-brexit-drama-ends-with-mp-grabbing-the-ceremonial-mace

The pantomime continues. I mean there are some who are more outraged about this than the actual brexit farce.

Infini · 11-12-2018 12:03AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I wouldn't support holding a border poll in the first place unless opinion polls consistently showed 55% or more in favour of it, because the consequences of a 51-49 unification vote would likely be appalling and lead to a return to bloodshed.

Peace is much more important to me than a united Ireland.

However a successful unification vote of 55% or more would likely be much easier to implement than Brexit. A united Ireland is a more workable outcome on a legal level. It's not difficult to understand. The process of countries unifying (and splitting up) has already happened successfully in modern Europe.

Brexit has proved to be an unworkable project.

Leavers can't agree on what they want because they voted for an abstract fantasy in a referendum which was all about abstract fantasy.

One version of Brexit has effectively been delivered and rejected. There are only two other versions of it that are feasibly available - Norway, which looks likely to be a no go, and no deal, which is a catastrophe which nobody voted for.

An abstract fantasy is not a basis for going forward.

The situation has now changed to one where a second referendum with defined, properly explained choices is by far the most sensible and logical proposition.

The thing is the best chance of a Border Poll resulting in a significant support for a UI would be both a crashout of the UK and severe economic damage on NI for a period of a year or so making the more stubborn voters reevaluate their interests and is a Union to a country with failed leadership and economic misery better than a UI.

Likewise the utter discredited politics of the DUP and how they made a mess of everything might make the penny drop as well expecially when a UI entails better rights and economic oppertunities also.

Strazdas wrote: »

MEP on Ch.4 News tonight pointed out that if Britain went for No Deal, it would mean it was tearing up the GFA and effectively becoming a rogue state.

I'm not sure that the Brexiteers realise (or care maybe) just how much they are trashing their country's reputation.

Lol at this stage their reputation is beyond trashed its a total dumpster fire at this point. Ignorance, idiocy and braindead stupidy.

On a side note when one thinks about it, about a century ago the British press had cartoons of how a Irish Parliment would be some dyscunctional, chaotic drunken mess...... guess whos laughing now lads.

lawred2 · 11-12-2018 12:03AM

Who is this lad on Claire Byrne? An absolute loon..

Fann Linn · 11-12-2018 12:04AM

lawred2 wrote: »

Who is this lad on Claire Byrne? An absolute loon..

O'Toole.

road_high · 11-12-2018 12:05AM

briany wrote: »

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1072190546863669248

In other words we’ll politely listen and give you moral support but other than that that’s it.
Like the stepping up the No deal prep at the end, just to reinforce the point

lawred2 · 11-12-2018 12:07AM

Liam Halligan it was... I'll have to dig out some of his other work

briany · 11-12-2018 12:07AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I wouldn't support holding a border poll in the first place unless opinion polls consistently showed 55% or more in favour of it, because the consequences of a 51-49 unification vote would likely be appalling and lead to a return to bloodshed.

Peace is much more important to me than a united Ireland.

However a successful unification vote of 55% or more would likely be much easier to implement than Brexit. A united Ireland is a more workable outcome on a legal level. It's not difficult to understand. The process of countries unifying (and splitting up) has already happened successfully in modern Europe.

Brexit has proved to be an unworkable project.

Leavers can't agree on what they want because they voted for an abstract fantasy in a referendum which was all about abstract fantasy.

One version of Brexit has effectively been delivered and rejected. There are only two other versions of it that are feasibly available - Norway, which looks likely to be a no go, and no deal, which is a catastrophe which nobody voted for.

An abstract fantasy is not a basis for going forward.

The situation has now changed to one where a second referendum with defined, properly explained choices is by far the most sensible and logical proposition.

The roots of the current debacle lies in Cameron promising a simple in-out choice.

If he had to have a simple in-out choice, the least he could have done was offer the same choice but have a double majority on it. That is to say a simple majority among the UK electorate + a majority of constituent countries.

Having the referendum on a simple majority was absolutely crazy. This isn't 'hindsight is 20/20' stuff. This is politics 101. You hold a vote on a highly charged, and possibly irreversible move, and the result is a narrow one, you're inviting disaster, and that's exactly what happened.

road_high · 11-12-2018 12:17AM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/day-of-brexit-drama-ends-with-mp-grabbing-the-ceremonial-mace

The pantomime continues. I mean there are some who are more outraged about this than the actual brexit farce.

The English really are a breed apart- how we were ever in a Union with this lot defies belief (of course as we all know it wasn’t democratic). Reminds me of the Simpsons episode with Bart in Australia kicking their parliaments sacred boot out the window lol;

https://youtu.be/mSckdiTOvUo

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Comments