nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Professor Moriarty

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On both sides?

Remain is very straight forward, Easy to understand. Do you wish things to stay as they are?

Leave , on the other hand, not so straight forward is it? So hard to understand that not even the government understands all of the implications.

It's like asking people if they want to stay home or go out.
Stay home - yup, we know exactly what that means.

Go out? Sounds simple but has anyone agree where to actually go once exit has occurred?
One person wants to go greyhound racing and insists that is what the vote meant.
Others are saying hang on, I think greyhound racing is barbaric and I absolutely do not want to go there. I want to go for a nice meal.
Yet another person says I can't afford to go to an expensive restaurant, and I'm not going greyhound racing - I want to go to the park.
So there they all are - standing at the door with no idea of where they are actually going or how they are going to get there.

Better they get to decide between 'Stay Home' or 'Going Out (See attached itinerary for details)

People know that Remain voters knew what they were voting for and Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for. Some people choose to ignore this fact for whatever reasons and will not listen to rational argument.

Water John

The best way to create a middle ground that will help a healing process of deep divisions is probably a soft Brexit a la Lb option. The soft Brexit option is what TM should have followed instead of her 3 red lines. However she was blinded by her obsession with immigration control. She would have got it across the line with a lot of Lb MPs, despite the ERG.

Bannasidhe

Forty Seven wrote: »

People are informed. What they choose is their business. There will be those that didn't understand on both sides. Should we mandate a questionnaire and disqualify those who don't understand? Not very democratic.

On both sides?

Remain is very straight forward, Easy to understand. Do you wish things to stay as they are?

Leave , on the other hand, not so straight forward is it? So hard to understand that not even the government understands all of the implications.

It's like asking people if they want to stay home or go out.
Stay home - yup, we know exactly what that means.

Go out? Sounds simple but has anyone agree where to actually go once exit has occurred?
One person wants to go greyhound racing and insists that is what the vote meant.
Others are saying hang on, I think greyhound racing is barbaric and I absolutely do not want to go there. I want to go for a nice meal.
Yet another person says I can't afford to go to an expensive restaurant, and I'm not going greyhound racing - I want to go to the park.
So there they all are - standing at the door with no idea of where they are actually going or how they are going to get there.

Better they get to decide between 'Stay Home' or 'Going Out (See attached itinerary for details)

PeadarCo

Forty Seven wrote:

Snap elections are parliamentary jockeying or scandal related. Referendums decide a single issue. Not representation. It's very different.

No they are exact same thing. Multiple elections generally happened when there is not a clear mandate for a particular government. Brexit isn't a single issue its multiple issues.

The UK could leave the EU but stay signed up the Single market and customs Union. They have left the EU it would be completely in line with the vote.

On the other hand the UK can leave without a deal. Again the UK has left the EU in line with the vote.

Now one thing you will notice while both options(and there are many in between options) are in line with the vote they would lead to very different outcomes. And there is no clear majority for any option as UK Parliament votes have shown. It is completely undemocratic not to have another referendum on the deal or no deal outcome. Because what you are saying is you alone know what outcome people voted for. If people are entitled to vote to leave the EU they are also entitled to vote on the outcome of negotiations and if they choose change their mind, that's democracy.

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

Not the norm for referendums. How many of those have been rerun in the UK within 5 years?

LOL moving the goal posts now are we?

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes we do. What we don't have are sore losers demanding another vote after one has just been completed. Democracy would not last for long if this happened often.

Forty Seven wrote: »

It happens. It does not mean it should. These are outliers. Not the norm.

Pretty pathetic if you ask me

Genghis

Anyone listen to Eamon Dunphys latest podcast on The Stand. Regular contributor Brendan O'Neill appears.
I've listened to him contribute a few times, always infuriating.

I decided to quote done of his bull.

Brendan: "There is now a layer of people, 11 people in this case, who are unelected and unaccountable and they sit above every single person and institution in this country, including the Government itself."

The Supreme Court would only act on point of law, and only if challenged. Their job is to protect the institutions from unlawful actions. Total nonsense to suggest that a watchdog in performing their duty somehow exceeds the institutions they protect. All they do is ensure compliance with law. The Government can change laws, so ultimately it can design the legal framework within which it itself operates (as long as its constitutional, etc).

Brendan: "I think it sets a worrying precedent for all future governments because every single thing that future Governments do, whether it's how they relate to parliament, or what treaties they draw up ... Or how they enact the will of the people .... All those things that future Governments do will now lack political authority, will now lack final authority; because we now have a layer of people who can shoot that down."

Brendan is speaking of the events of yesterday as though the Supreme Court has gained some power to decide politically if all actions of a Government pleases them or not, and veto them. Failing to see that the Supreme Court is apolitical, and considers very narrow legal points only, and when brought to them. The Government has a responsibility to act within the law, and providing it does this the Supreme Court has absolutely no authority, and certainly not any political authority over the Government.

In point of fact, the Supreme Court reiterated the position of parliament being the ultimate political authority, the unanimous decision yesterday against the Government was because they had been found to be negating that political authority.

Brendan: "This is a remainder parliament, and we live in a Brexit country... What's happened with the Supreme Court is that they have taken the side of the remainder parliament, by extension they have taken the side against the Government and against the Brexit people."

Brendan lives in a split country, governed by a split parliament. No vote in HoC to leave, or remain has passed, for 3.5 years now there has been a failure of consensus. But that aside, the Supreme Court decision has no direct impact on Brexit, other than creating the space for parliament to continue the effort to reach a consensus. Brendan may be a little frustrated as he must know that since the referendum was non binding, then using the Supreme Court to overturn, for example, a future PMs decision to revoke A50 may not be found unlawful in the same way Boris proruging was. Obviously a highly risky move politically, but that's nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

Brendan:"I think right now to many people in this country it feels like Lady Hale is running this country ... she has just taken the most important political decision of a generation. That worries me."

Unreal analysis, requires no comment.

Brendan goes on to claim after Dunphy rebutted his point on this being legal, not political, to say it's political because the people who brought the case were "remainder fanatics". His logic being that the SC judges should have factored in the politics of the people behind the case to avoid being accused of being political.

Nonsense to say that the politics of the group bringing the case would have any bearing on a legal case, or that the Supreme Court should fear nonsense accusations about political bias after it decides. Also, I bet Brendan would not be saying it was politically charged if the legal decision was to his liking.

Forty Seven

VinLieger wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

It happens. It does not mean it should. These are outliers. Not the norm.

I edited my post with far more examples proving it happens a lot more often for it to be considered an outlier. Ill add even more below for you to have a look at

2 in 1910

1922, 1923 and 1924

1929, 1931 (2 years)

1950, 1951 (1 year)

1964, 1966 (2 years)

2 in 1974

2015, 2017 (2 years)

Not the norm for referendums. How many of those have been rerun in the UK within 5 years?

Forty Seven

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

In the Brexit vote, people were asked should Britain leave the EU? They voted to leave, the government set it in motion and they were on the way.

Now that a deal (or none in this case) has been agreed on, it's been revealed that Brexit will harm an awful lot of the population. A good Govt would revert back to the population and ask them a simple," Should Britain leave under these terms?" ballot.

Which is exactly what Labour want to do are are being pilloried for it...

Mostly because Corbyn won't pick a side but not picking a side makes perfect sense. It is saying to the electorate YOU choose.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

No. We voted to join something and a couple of generations later we voted to leave something that is now a very different entity.

This is the crux of the problem.
You chose to leave something. That something was left vague and has now resulted in vastly different views on what it is that you should leave.
Did everyone who voted leave want to leave the SM?
Did everyone who voted leave want to leave the CU?
Did everyone who voted leave do so to stop immigration despite the UK govt not effectively using the laws already in existence?
Did everyone who voted leave expect to be able to travel to the EU as before?
Did they expect to continue to have no mobile phone roaming charges?
Did they expect the imminent break up of the UK with either NI or Scotland jumping first followed quickly by the other?
A binary vote should never have been put to the people!

People are informed. What they choose is their business. There will be those that didn't understand on both sides. Should we mandate a questionnaire and disqualify those who don't understand? Not very democratic.

SeaBreezes

Forty Seven wrote: »

It happens. It does not mean it should. These are outliers. Not the norm.

And this is a totally normal situation is it? Happens everyday? Nothing to see here folks move along...

:-) I swear this is gripping entertainment if it wasn't so serious..

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

It happens. It does not mean it should. These are outliers. Not the norm.

I edited my post with far more examples proving it happens a lot more often for it to be considered an outlier. Ill add even more below for you to have a look at

2 in 1910

1922, 1923 and 1924

1929, 1931 (2 years)

1950, 1951 (1 year)

1964, 1966 (2 years)

2 in 1974

2015, 2017 (2 years)

Forty Seven

PeadarCo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote:

So. 2 more years before another referendum then? Roughly. To keep in line with the norm. We have even brought in the fixed term bill. Funnily enough. 5 years too. I'm cool with another go in 2021 if you are.

Well 5 years is the maximum you can go without an election. No reason an election can't take place a few weeks after the previous one. Its happened that multiple elections have taken place in the same year. Why not the same for referendums?

Snap elections are parliamentary jockeying or scandal related. Referendums decide a single issue. Not representation. It's very different.

Seth Brundle

Forty Seven wrote: »

No. We voted to join something and a couple of generations later we voted to leave something that is now a very different entity.

This is the crux of the problem.
You chose to leave something. That something was left vague and has now resulted in vastly different views on what it is that you should leave.
Did everyone who voted leave want to leave the SM?
Did everyone who voted leave want to leave the CU?
Did everyone who voted leave do so to stop immigration despite the UK govt not effectively using the laws already in existence?
Did everyone who voted leave expect to be able to travel to the EU as before?
Did they expect to continue to have no mobile phone roaming charges?
Did they expect the imminent break up of the UK with either NI or Scotland jumping first followed quickly by the other?
A binary vote should never have been put to the people!

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

In the Brexit vote, people were asked should Britain leave the EU? They voted to leave, the government set it in motion and they were on the way.

Now that a deal (or none in this case) has been agreed on, it's been revealed that Brexit will harm an awful lot of the population. A good Govt would revert back to the population and ask them a simple," Should Britain leave under these terms?" ballot.

Which is exactly what Labour want to do are are being pilloried for it...

Mostly because Corbyn won't pick a side but not picking a side makes perfect sense. It is saying to the electorate YOU choose.

Forty Seven

VinLieger wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes we do. What we don't have are sore losers demanding another vote after one has just been completed. Democracy would not last for long if this happened often.

So when Ireland had a GE in 1981 then 2 more in 1982 Democracy stopped existing did it?

What about the UK GE in 2015 and then just over 2 years later one in 2017?

It happens. It does not mean it should. These are outliers. Not the norm.

Christy42

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes we do. What we don't have are sore losers demanding another vote after one has just been completed. Democracy would not last for long if this happened often.

Err, yes we do. I saw some out today with anti choice signs.

And I support their right. If enough them start cropping up then we should look at the issue again even if I support the pro choice side. The populace retains the right to change their mind in a democracy. To sent them this right is undemocratic. How long before it can be looked at again? Should the original join the EU vote stand instead of this latest one?

Then you have the fact that the Irish refereumdum are well defined in advance. The government posted legislation before the vote. People knew what they were getting which didn't happen with Brexit. The question was vague (leave and keep single market, no deals, Canada style)??? None were explicitly stated as the win.

People were promised the single market and and end to free movement by campaigners which is like running a campaign on giving people fast food everyday and increasing their life expectancy.

One has to go and the people deserve to be able to clarify what they want now they have the facts.

PeadarCo

Forty Seven wrote:

So. 2 more years before another referendum then? Roughly. To keep in line with the norm. We have even brought in the fixed term bill. Funnily enough. 5 years too. I'm cool with another go in 2021 if you are.

Well 5 years is the maximum you can go without an election. No reason an election can't take place a few weeks after the previous one. Its happened that multiple elections have taken place in the same year. Why not the same for referendums?

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes we do. What we don't have are sore losers demanding another vote after one has just been completed. Democracy would not last for long if this happened often.

So when Ireland had a GE in 1981 then 2 more in 1982 Democracy stopped existing did it?

What about the UK GE in 2015 and then just over 2 years later one in 2017? Or the two they had in 1974??? What about 1950 and then another in 1951? They also had one in 1922 1923 and 1924......

God democracy has been dead for a while at this rate

Forty Seven

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes we do. What we don't have are sore losers demanding another vote after one has just been completed. Democracy would not last for long if this happened often.

So.. the first vote was to join the EU. Your saying the Brexit vote was undemocratic because you were asked to vote again on a subject you had already voted on?

No. We voted to join something and a couple of generations later we voted to leave something that is now a very different entity.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

It may be non-binding, but they definitely voiced their opinion that they wished to leave.

And at what stage does that become 'the will of the people'? 'Oh well since you have voted the way we wanted it becomes immutable. If you had voted remain we could have said it was only advisory and it really would be a good idea to leave, we will do a bit more promotion and you can vote again'.

The analogy to an election fails if the election is not an election, just a glorified opinion poll in which people are informally asked to choose between candidates with no information on what their policies are.

Seth Brundle

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Maybe the whole reason the brexit negotiations have gone so badly is because this may be the first time in modern history where the UK has meet its equal in terms of negotiating power. I mean the empire was basically a no choice in the matter. The world wars were the British being part of a group giving the Germans a damn good kicking twice. When has the UK ever had to negotiate in this manner ever ?

I would disagree with the bit in bold.
The UK had next to nothing to negotiate with. Their negotiating team were offered a deal by the EU which they accepted. I would have no doubt that the UK team let by Ollie Robbins knew they were lame ducks and knew that they had to take what they were offered.
The EU team on the other hand are experienced but more importantly, they know that the UK were ill-prepared, disorganised and to a certain extent untrustworthy.
IMO any good negotiator would not have sat in on the UK side unless they wanted the ultimate challenge!

Their negotiating team now is a massively weakened bunch let by David Frost, former political advisor to Johnson. They have nothing to offer which is what negotiations are about. There are effectively pretend negotiations going on as in the UK claim their negotiating with the EU but the EU aren't budging a centimetre (in fact the talks were recently described as "going backwards"). The UK team now even withold their latest documented "ideas" as they are property of Her Majesty :rolleyes:

There isn't a remote possibility that the UK negotiating team has met it's equal. The EU team is vastly more effective.

Forty Seven

SeaBreezes wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

You appear to be viewing democracy as just referendums. You cannot have losers trying to constantly challenge a democratic vote. If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

Ha ha ha ha that's hilarious.

It was deemed bad form when women campaigned for the vote, but they kept challenging and educating the majority.

And brexit was campaigned for and put to the people. The people decided. Your point?

SeaBreezes

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes we do. What we don't have are sore losers demanding another vote after one has just been completed. Democracy would not last for long if this happened often.

So.. the first vote was to join the EU. Your saying the Brexit vote was undemocratic because you were asked to vote again on a subject you had already voted on?

Forty Seven

PeadarCo wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote:

You appear to be viewing democracy as just referendums. You cannot have losers trying to constantly challenge a democratic vote. If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

What are purpose of elections? In both Ireland and the UK TDs and MPs are challenged at minimum every 5 years and in a lot of cases even more regularly. The opposition starts challenging the government the day after a government is formed. In Ireland and the UK that system has kept democracy going for over 100 years. Or is that not a long time?

So. 2 more years before another referendum then? Roughly. To keep in line with the norm. We have even brought in the fixed term bill. Funnily enough. 5 years too. I'm cool with another go in 2021 if you are.

SeaBreezes

Forty Seven wrote: »

You appear to be viewing democracy as just referendums. You cannot have losers trying to constantly challenge a democratic vote. If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

Ha ha ha ha that's hilarious.

It was deemed bad form when women campaigned for the vote, but they kept challenging and educating the majority.

FrancieBrady

Forty Seven wrote: »

Yes we do. What we don't have are sore losers demanding another vote after one has just been completed. Democracy would not last for long if this happened often.

If you get enough of a mandate then you can demand a referendum. That is a function of democracy.

Forty Seven

Deleted User wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

You appear to be viewing democracy as just referendums. You cannot have losers trying to constantly challenge a democratic vote. If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

You are moving the goalposts regarding majority. No deal was not defined. In or out. Out won. Moving the posts to the cornerflag is a churlish endeavour in this context.
Scottish independence referendum was also defeated by a majority.

Those are the majorities I'm talking about as you well know. You can huff and puff as is your right but it changes nothing.

I dunno, I quite like having divorce in Ireland.

Not sure what you mean.

Forty Seven

VinLieger wrote: »

Forty Seven wrote: »

If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

Thank god we don't have regular elections then.....

Yes we do. What we don't have are sore losers demanding another vote after one has just been completed. Democracy would not last for long if this happened often.

PeadarCo

Forty Seven wrote:

You appear to be viewing democracy as just referendums. You cannot have losers trying to constantly challenge a democratic vote. If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

What are purpose of elections? In both Ireland and the UK TDs and MPs are challenged at minimum every 5 years and in a lot of cases even more regularly. The opposition starts challenging the government the day after a government is formed. In Ireland and the UK that system has kept democracy going for over 100 years. Or is that not a long time?

VinLieger

Forty Seven wrote: »

If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

Thank god we don't have regular elections then.....

[Deleted User]

Forty Seven wrote: »

You appear to be viewing democracy as just referendums. You cannot have losers trying to constantly challenge a democratic vote. If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form.

You are moving the goalposts regarding majority. No deal was not defined. In or out. Out won. Moving the posts to the cornerflag is a churlish endeavour in this context.
Scottish independence referendum was also defeated by a majority.

Those are the majorities I'm talking about as you well know. You can huff and puff as is your right but it changes nothing.

I dunno, I quite like having divorce in Ireland.