Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

road_high · 27-02-2019 05:20PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Major drop in the number of UK students studying European languages in schools, which suggests universities there have dropped them as a course requirement:

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47334374

That’s happened here too- not a snowballs chance in hell I’d have studied French given the option not to- I did the Leaving in 2001 and a third language was a basic entry requirement for University still. Think it went soon after that

FrancieBrady · 27-02-2019 05:40PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Those EU leaders are idiots if they said that.

This just plays right into the hands of hardline brexiteers who claim the EU never give anything back to the UK. It also means the extension vote may fail in the HoC.

What change are they looking for?

And they say the EU have played all this perfectly!

Why should we in the EU be responsible for people who believe what is essentially a spin on events? The EU has conceded to the UK in an attempt to get a deal.
The UK can think what it wants, believe what lies it wants.

The writing is on the wall...the EU have had enough and want to move on.

Zubeneschamali · 27-02-2019 05:50PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think they would need a referendum before proceeding with a withdrawal of A50. Otherwise it would be just ignoring the wishes of over 17 million people.

Leaving ignores the wishes of 16 million voters, so much of a muchness.

ToBeFrank123 · 27-02-2019 06:41PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Leaving ignores the wishes of 16 million voters, so much of a muchness.

The losers in a referendum are usually ignored, you only have to look at recent referenda in Ireland where the losers were told to get over it and accept it. Thats democracy I guess.

I will put it another way so. If article 50 is withdrawn the referendum result which was a mandate for the UK government and HoC to negotiate withdrawal would be ignored. Not very democratic!

Professor Moriarty · 27-02-2019 06:41PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its a bit more complicated in the UK.

They held a referendum. It was divisive. Over 17 million voted to leave, based on a variety of reasons, ranging from those on the far left to those on the far right. All views have to be reflected.

That's how a healthy democracy works.

They held a simplistic referendum that was ill defined and the voters were misinformed. In Ireland, the Referendum Commission would have ensured that the wording reflected the substance of the referendum and that the voters were impartially informed of both arguments.

How an unhealthy democracy/dictatorship works is everyone thinks the same and votes the same.

The HoC might not be perfect, but if I was british I would take it over the rubber stamping parliaments so common in other parts of the world, where the president or leader decides course and everyone immediately falls into line.

The HoC is very imperfect and unhealthy because of its archaic electoral system, i.e. FPTP, which almost always ensures that only one of two parties can ever hold power. In Ireland, we have PR which ensures that different shades of political opinion are represented in government.

Mr.Wemmick · 27-02-2019 06:47PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Major drop in the number of UK students studying European languages in schools, which suggests universities there have dropped them as a course requirement:

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47334374

Major drop in languages because of the UK exam subject choices for secondary school are more limited than years ago. Poorer schools, less funding, years of tory government austerity policies feeding into local councils mean less education on offer so school timetables are tougher in relation to what kids can do.

My nephew in the UK is brilliant at german, fluent as a little kid, but couldn't take it as a GCSE exam subject because it clashed with geography and, as it's a fav subject of his, he had to choose.

Makes Brexit even more of a farce: the country is weak and poor education and training maintains that weakness and makes for an insular future.

judeboy101 · 27-02-2019 06:52PM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Major drop in languages because of the UK exam subject choices for secondary school are more limited than years ago. Poorer schools, less funding, years of tory government austerity policies feeding into local councils mean less education on offer so school timetables are tougher in relation to what kids can do.

My nephew in the UK is brilliant at german, fluent as a little kid, but couldn't take it as a GCSE exam subject because it clashed with geography and, as it's a fav subject of his, he had to choose.

Makes Brexit even more of a farce: the country is weak and poor education and training maintains that weakness and makes for an insular future.

Ironically that's what they are doing with our system. Removing core subjects, offering "choice" and then complaining when literacy and numeracy levels drop
When the 3 it's are replaced with 400 hrs of well-being.

ToBeFrank123 · 27-02-2019 06:54PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

They held a simplistic referendum that was ill defined and the voters were misinformed. In Ireland, the Referendum Commission would have ensured that the wording reflected the substance of the referendum and that the voters were impartially informed of both arguments.

The HoC is very imperfect and unhealthy because of its archaic electoral system, i.e. FPTP, which almost always ensures that only one of two parties can ever hold power. In Ireland, we have PR which ensures that different shades of political opinion are represented in government.

The voting system was designed to favour large parties like Labour and Conservatives and a single party government. I guess the idea was more stability but it hasn't worked out so well recently.
I haven't heard if Labour want to reform first past the post but if they did they'd lose seats in a new system.
As for a simplistic referendum, I doubt the majority of UK voters can process more than one or two big ideas such as curbing migration.
That and the Remain side was the establishment side. The people used the referendum to give them a good kicking. Much like Lisbon 1 in Ireland if I remember.

The lesson for the UK establishment is don't hold a referendum if you can't deal with losing it.
Then again it was right to give the people a say.

Overall UK voters need to take responsibility for their own actions.

Seth Brundle · 27-02-2019 06:56PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Otherwise it would be just ignoring the wishes of over 17 million people.

What about the wishes of the approx 50 million that did not vote to ruin the UK through the Brexit folly?

spacecoyote · 27-02-2019 06:56PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The losers in a referendum are usually ignored, you only have to look at recent referenda in Ireland where the losers were told to get over it and accept it. Thats democracy I guess.

I will put it another way so. If article 50 is withdrawn the referendum result which was a mandate for the UK government and HoC to negotiate withdrawal would be ignored. Not very democratic!

If the winning side of a campaign has been shown to have acted illegally, and to have now been shown to have spread provable lies, would putting a second question to the population be a more democratic solution though?

If you agree to that, then withdrawal of article 50 would be a requirement

ToBeFrank123 · 27-02-2019 07:08PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What about the wishes of the approx 50 million that did not vote to ruin the UK through the Brexit folly?

You clearly don't understand how referenda work and whose eligible to vote.
Again if the UK electorate made a mistake they need to man up and live with it. They wanted a vote, got it and voted a particular way.

Anyways this is a tangent. Like I said if article 50 is withdrawen its unlikely to happen without a second referendum which adds another year to this absolute nightmare. Does anyone want to see the Brexit debates rehashed again for another year. And the Remainers are/were p*ss poor debaters. Its possible Farage and co would wipe the floor with them again. If he doesn't go on holiday!

ToBeFrank123 · 27-02-2019 07:10PM

spacecoyote wrote: »

If the winning side of a campaign has been shown to have acted illegally, and to have now been shown to have spread provable lies, would putting a second question to the population be a more democratic solution though?

If you agree to that, then withdrawal of article 50 would be a requirement

If memory serves one of the lies peddled by the winning side in an EU rederendum here was that if we voted yes we'd be signed up to an EU army. Remember that?

Where is that EU army by the way?

Capt'n Midnight · 27-02-2019 07:10PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its a bit more complicated in the UK.

They held a referendum. It was divisive. Over 17 million voted to leave, based on a variety of reasons, ranging from those on the far left to those on the far right. All views have to be reflected.

That's how a healthy democracy works.

Can you please explain how all those views will be reflected when the only choices on offer are Hard Brexit or May's deal ?

With 30 day's to go there isn't time for a third option unless the UK revokes Article 50 for a generation.

Christy42 · 27-02-2019 07:15PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Otherwise it would be just ignoring the wishes of over 17 million people.

What about the wishes of the approx 50 million that did not vote to ruin the UK through the Brexit folly?

Honestly at a certain point you have to realise that people voting to jump off a cliff is just a bad idea.

It is also not helped by the vagueness of the vote. Our SSM and abortion referendum clearly showed what was going to be in effect before the referendum.

With this what was the wishes of those voting leave? Did they soft or hard or no deal? Did they want a Norway style arrangement (as promised during the referendum) or did they want a referendum on the final choices (again promised by the leave side).

People keep saying to go with the wishes of 17m people but they only have a vague idea of what those people voted for.

An Ciarraioch · 27-02-2019 07:18PM

Corbyn amendment defeated 323-240, so now Labour will swing behind a second referendum.

ToBeFrank123 · 27-02-2019 07:19PM

As for referendum lies turns out the Remain side weren't blameless either.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmllLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALp24Sz79D012i6YV5bUiv0UdQBuD9iPg114zGoF0PtYOM2j-fF4GHJYhg5wLx-jahTGhc9tacNOqh39AO72daU5kbK2_iDvCivIXXY5Nw9ZYap-4NqynYHAIbzufHUMHb2Lvvqz-S2GpG6Kb9RnhHmsfzLGpW5IlxeNEZnemc4F

Seth Brundle · 27-02-2019 07:21PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You clearly don't understand how referenda work and whose eligible to vote.
Again if the UK electorate made a mistake they need to man up and live with it. They wanted a vote, got it and voted a particular way.

I'm well used to referenda.
Firstly, no other country would provide a referendum on something so huge as leaving the EU. It's too big a change to place in one binary choice.
The levels of misinformation from the political parties was unprecedented. We have a good referendum commission who provide facts impartially. The UK have no such body which was a massive issue.
We don't have the fraud involved in the Brexit referendum but I believe that we're it to happen it would have been investigated and actions.
The UK electorate didn't make a mistake IMO. They were sold a lemon by those who they trusted. They were lied to.
I'm used to referenda. I'm not used to the likes of the Brexit ref with its stupid choice and illegal manipulationif the electorate.

Nonetheless, I'm correct in that approx 50 million UK citizens did not choose Brexit so stop with your crap about how the "wishes" of 17million peopke cannot be ignored

Akrasia · 27-02-2019 07:22PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think they would need a referendum before proceeding with a withdrawal of A50. Otherwise it would be just ignoring the wishes of over 17 million people.

I think there is a strong Brexit fatigue in the UK. Everyone wants to get it over with.

Withdrawal of A50 would probably mean another referendum and another year of much the same old debates.

What about if they withdrew A50 (due to lack of time for a referendum) and legally committed to holding another referendum in 12 months based on a concrete proposal that is workable and deliberable with the EU?

The ticking timebomb scenario does not make for good policy decisions.

HugoRune · 27-02-2019 07:23PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The losers in a referendum are usually ignored, you only have to look at recent referenda in Ireland where the losers were told to get over it and accept it. Thats democracy I guess.

As I'm sure you're aware, it was only after the referendum that Parliament in the UK started to argue about what the vote to exit the EU actually meant. Theresa May decided that people voted to leave the single market (no they didn't!) and leave the customs union (no they didn't). If parliament still cannot agree after more than two years what the question meant, then it's impossible to know what those 17m wanted. The only thing you can know is that those 17m agree with each other about as much as the House of Commons does.

Reminds me of the Douglas Adams' question and answer about Life the Universe and Everything. Spoiler in case there's someone in the universe who hasn't yet read it:

They asked a vague question to which they got an answer which forced them to seek a better question

ToBeFrank123 · 27-02-2019 07:24PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Honestly at a certain point you have to realise that people voting to jump off a cliff is just a bad idea.

It is also not helped by the vagueness of the vote. Our SSM and abortion referendum clearly showed what was going to be in effect before the referendum.

With this what was the wishes of those voting leave? Did they soft or hard or no deal? Did they want a Norway style arrangement (as promised during the referendum) or did they want a referendum on the final choices (again promised by the leave side).

People keep saying to go with the wishes of 17m people but they only have a vague idea of what those people voted for.

So politicians and Eurocrats know best?

Sometimes you also have to give the people a choice. They had their say, they now need to own their decision.

If one good thing comes from this its that people will engage with politics more closely in future and inform themselves of all the details.

To revoke A50 means another referendum imo.

Professor Moriarty · 27-02-2019 07:25PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As for referendum lies turns out the Remain side weren't blameless either.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmllLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALp24Sz79D012i6YV5bUiv0UdQBuD9iPg114zGoF0PtYOM2j-fF4GHJYhg5wLx-jahTGhc9tacNOqh39AO72daU5kbK2_iDvCivIXXY5Nw9ZYap-4NqynYHAIbzufHUMHb2Lvvqz-S2GpG6Kb9RnhHmsfzLGpW5IlxeNEZnemc4F

It really is frustrating to be offered a link as proof of something only to follow it and realise that the poster probably hasn't read the linked article. I'm guessing you didn't realise that it was written 18 months ago either? Let me give you an example as to why it is so ludicrously wrong. From the article:

We were told companies would leave the UK in their droves, especially in the car industry. There is no sign of this, and UK car manufacturing achieving its 12th successive month of growth in July.

An Ciarraioch · 27-02-2019 07:25PM

And Labour support SNP amendment "ruling out leaving the EU without a deal, regardless of exit date."

Seth Brundle · 27-02-2019 07:26PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As for referendum lies turns out the Remain side weren't blameless either.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmllLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALp24Sz79D012i6YV5bUiv0UdQBuD9iPg114zGoF0PtYOM2j-fF4GHJYhg5wLx-jahTGhc9tacNOqh39AO72daU5kbK2_iDvCivIXXY5Nw9ZYap-4NqynYHAIbzufHUMHb2Lvvqz-S2GpG6Kb9RnhHmsfzLGpW5IlxeNEZnemc4F

Ah yes. They claimed that there would be a recession and there wasn't. :rolleyes:
FFS you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel if you think an article by Matthew Ellery is something to cite

Akrasia · 27-02-2019 07:26PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I'm well used to referenda.
Firstly, no other country would provide a referendum on something so huge as leaving the EU. It's too big a change to place in one binary choice.
The levels of misinformation from the political parties was unprecedented. We have a good referendum commission who provide facts impartially. The UK have no such body which was a massive issue.
We don't have the fraud involved in the Brexit referendum but I believe that we're it to happen it would have been investigated and actions.
The UK electorate didn't make a mistake IMO. They were sold a lemon by those who they trusted. They were lied to.
I'm used to referenda. I'm not used to the likes of the Brexit ref with its stupid choice and illegal manipulationif the electorate.

Nonetheless, I'm correct in that approx 50 million UK citizens did not choose Brexit so stop with your crap about how the "wishes" of 17million peopke cannot be ignored

Ireland would have to hold a referendum if we were to ever leave the EU (unless it kicked us out or something) but the sensible process is to agree terms with the EU first and then put that to a vote to the people afterwards. Vote first, ask questions after is a recipe for anarchy.

Actually, not even anarchists would agree with that. In Anarchy, (synicalism) each democratic unit sends delegates to negotiate a decision with a wider collection who then carry back their results to be ratified by the collective.

It is arse backwards for the ratification to happen first and then have the delegates make all the important decisions about what the deal involves.

Akrasia · 27-02-2019 07:28PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As for referendum lies turns out the Remain side weren't blameless either.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmllLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALp24Sz79D012i6YV5bUiv0UdQBuD9iPg114zGoF0PtYOM2j-fF4GHJYhg5wLx-jahTGhc9tacNOqh39AO72daU5kbK2_iDvCivIXXY5Nw9ZYap-4NqynYHAIbzufHUMHb2Lvvqz-S2GpG6Kb9RnhHmsfzLGpW5IlxeNEZnemc4F

To take your point on it's face, That would make it worse, not better.

A referendum where both sides are lying is even less democratic than one where only one side is lying.

How are the people supposed to make an informed choice when all the information is fundamentally tainted?

Akrasia · 27-02-2019 07:30PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If memory serves one of the lies peddled by the winning side in an EU rederendum here was that if we voted yes we'd be signed up to an EU army. Remember that?

Where is that EU army by the way?

Never happened, and the 2nd referendum where people voted differently was fought on the basis that those lies were corrected with additional assurances from the EU that Ireland's neutrality would be protected.

If the EU had come back and said that we should vote yes pretending that there wouldn't be an EU army, and immediately afterwards started building tank bases in Ireland, then this would have been a fundamentally undemocratic vote.

In the Scottish independence referendum, the Remain campaign said that the only way to guarantee Scotland remained in the EU was to stay in the UK.. This is a perfect example of a perversion of democracy and the Scottish indepence party have justification in calling for another vote.

fash · 27-02-2019 07:31PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

My outside bet is the HoC will cop out of making a decision and hand that decision back to the people in the form of a second referendum. It gets everyone off the hook, but its a huge cop out. The EU have done what they are very good at, making it impossible for anyone to walk away. They really are similar to the mafia in that regard.

So what you want is for the EU to collude with the UK to breach the GFA and install a hard border in Ireland - against the wishes of the people on both sides of the border?
And you call the EU a “mafia” for not colluding with the UK?

It sounds like your definition of “mafia” is quite different to mine.

The only entity in this fiasco which has acted with reckless and willful disregard as regards its legal obligations is the UK. Hence only it should be compared to an organisation engaging in illegal activity.

ambro25 · 27-02-2019 07:31PM

Akrasia wrote: »

What about if they withdrew A50 (due to lack of time for a referendum) and legally committed to holding another referendum in 12 months based on a concrete proposal that is workable and deliberable with the EU?

That course of action would not meet the legal test of good faith required to get the withdrawal of Article 50 approved by the EU27, so it's a non-starter.

Sam Russell · 27-02-2019 07:31PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

As for referendum lies turns out the Remain side weren't blameless either.

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmllLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALp24Sz79D012i6YV5bUiv0UdQBuD9iPg114zGoF0PtYOM2j-fF4GHJYhg5wLx-jahTGhc9tacNOqh39AO72daU5kbK2_iDvCivIXXY5Nw9ZYap-4NqynYHAIbzufHUMHb2Lvvqz-S2GpG6Kb9RnhHmsfzLGpW5IlxeNEZnemc4F

Just one quote from the above artice, which is nearly 18 months old, before Brexit has happened.

We were told companies would leave the UK in their droves, especially in the car industry. There is no sign of this, and UK car manufacturing achieving its 12th successive month of growth in July, with production passing one million units in seven months for the first time in 12 years. Lie number 7.

Now you might check out Honda, Nissan, JLR, Ford, BMW, etc. and see how much any of them are investing on future models and how many expect to be in the UK in five years. Honda will be gone in two years. BMW have shut their Mini production line for April 2019 in anticipation of Brexit crash out.

Lots of other lies in the article - lots.

[Edit: beaten by the Prof!]

Christy42 · 27-02-2019 07:35PM

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Honestly at a certain point you have to realise that people voting to jump off a cliff is just a bad idea.

It is also not helped by the vagueness of the vote. Our SSM and abortion referendum clearly showed what was going to be in effect before the referendum.

With this what was the wishes of those voting leave? Did they soft or hard or no deal? Did they want a Norway style arrangement (as promised during the referendum) or did they want a referendum on the final choices (again promised by the leave side).

People keep saying to go with the wishes of 17m people but they only have a vague idea of what those people voted for.

So politicians and Eurocrats know best?

Sometimes you also have to give the people a choice. They had their say, they now need to own their decision.

If one good thing comes from this its that people will engage with politics more closely in future and inform themselves of all the details.

To revoke A50 means another referendum imo.

Well I didn't say the first line. I was more referring to every serious body showing no deal as a doomsday scenario for the economy.

I am all in favour of giving people a choice. Reread my post and you will see that. A referendum between a choice and a mystery box is stupid as it does not give them a real choice. Let people vote on the outcomes.

Again I ask. How do you know people did not vote for a Norway style arrangement? Or have something like the WA in mind? I am saying since we don't know what they want bloody well ask them instead of claiming you know more than a vague "leave" for 17 million voters.

Give them a real choice and if they go for a no deal then I will wave them off the cliff happily or accept whatever decision they make.

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments