Brexit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by banner257 View Post
    When will the moaning remainers stop being plonkers and accept the democratic vote?
    When will 'Leavers' demonstrate that they understand that democracy doesn't end with a single vote - especially one that was meant to be advisory and which was so close that it was (in practical terms) an even split?

    If the promises made by the groups/people arguing for Brexit could genuinely have been met the UK would have already left the EU.
    What people were told they were voting for (if they voted leave) cannot be provided.

    The rest of your rant (and JKO's irrelevant conspiracy nonsense) isn't worth responding to.

    Comment


      Well you are right the figure was not 350 million. It was 362. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/1...ure-is-higher/
      I find the democracy means more than one vote very interesting. Obviously we have more than one general election. But the party who wins actually forms a government ie the result of the election is carried out. I have no problem with another referendum in say 5 years time once we have Brexited and seen what happens.
      I also love the "we didnt know what we were voting for". I assume all remain voters did? They knew that the EU would come clean after the referendum about their Army and Ever Closer Union? Or that the TV cameras would capture the EU explaining that they wished to make us a colony with the withdrawal agreement.
      Still don't let the truth get in the way of a good whine (bit like our Mr Junker in that documentary)
      Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

      Comment


        Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
        I find the democracy means more than one vote very interesting. Obviously we have more than one general election. But the party who wins actually forms a government ie the result of the election is carried out. I have no problem with another referendum in say 5 years time once we have Brexited and seen what happens.
        I find it interesting, but somewhat depressing, that so few people seem to understand that an advisory referendum is not directly comparable to a general election - other than the fact that both involve a subset of the public being allowed to vote.

        General elections (and local elections/ elections for MEP's) have specific rules that are followed, and can be declared void if the rules are not followed.
        Referendums can have specific conditions applied to them, making them legally binding on the government/parliament if the conditions are met, but this was not the case with the 2016 EU referendum - that was basically a large opinion poll.

        The 2016 referendum is more comparable with acts of parliament that propose new laws. If parliament and the house of lords both pass an act that enables new laws to be enacted, this can still be repealed before the new laws come into force, as well as afterwards.
        Democracy does not require decisions to be enacted before they can be repealed, and it never has. True democracy allows for people to change their minds at any point.


        Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
        I also love the "we didnt know what we were voting for". I assume all remain voters did? They knew that the EU would come clean after the referendum about their Army and Ever Closer Union? Or that the TV cameras would capture the EU explaining that they wished to make us a colony with the withdrawal agreement.
        Still don't let the truth get in the way of a good whine (bit like our Mr Junker in that documentary)
        It is abundantly clear that many, perhaps even most, leave voters didn't know what they were voting for, or didn't understand that what they wanted wasn't defined as what was being offered.
        I have no doubt that some remain voters, perhaps a large number, didn't really understand what they were voting for either - but most understood that they were voting to keep the status quo, even if they didn't fully understand what that meant.
        As for the EU Army, is it really so difficult to understand that this cannot possibly happen if the UK remains in the EU and doesn't agree to it?
        Nothing wrong with an ever closer union, as long as it's done in a way that favours all member states, including the UK, and I've no idea what your 'colony' jibe is referring to.
        Truth doesn't seem to be something that take much notice of.

        Comment


          You can't blame the incompetence of the government on the people who voted.

          People aren't used to the notion of an advisory referendum - this was the first one that ever happened.
          It was a colossal failure of government, and blaming the winners for their ignorance isn't going to help.

          If you asked everyone who voted if they thought the result was advisory, I suspect that the majority wouldn't agree, and that alone tells me what a huge mess the government made of the whole process.
          It was a completely new notion in UK politics and the government should have made what was happening (and what was intended to happen afterwards) clear.
          And they didn't.

          I was hugely interested in the process (I'm retired and didn't have much to distract me), and, even so, on the morning of the result, I suddenly realised I had no idea what was meant to happen next if leave won.
          A critical part of the process had been missing, and I hadn't noticed.

          But it has subsequently moved on, both of the biggest parties made putting into place the advisory wish of the people into their general election manifestos, so the general election essentially confirmed the referendum's advisory position if either of them won it.
          Which one of them did.
          Again, neither party indicated what that actually meant in practice.

          That means that there wasn't any kind of support for a no deal brexit, either.

          But again, a failure of the political parties, not the people who voted leave.

          Whatever the people who voted to leave believed they were voting for, they did so in good faith and respecting that is essential.
          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            I find the opposition to a second 'advisory' referendum interesting.

            And I can easily imagine the scenario the other way round, where if the previous result had been a 4% majority for remain then the leavers would now be shouting for a second referendum.

            Just look at Scotland's 'remain in the UK' referendum if you need an example.
            They have just passed legislation to do that one again before 2021; to see if they can get the result they want this time.
            (I'm not sure why? You think they might have learned something from the Brexit mess).

            If we do have a second referendum then it needs to be a lot clearer on just what we are being asked to vote for, and just what that will mean going forward.
            A second referendum without such clarity would indeed be meaningless, with that clarity it will pont the way forward.

            It's partly that lack of clarity in the previous referendum that has led to some of the issues we are seeing now.

            PS. There are now 12 candidates for the Conservative Party leadership, which goes a long way to show how divided opinions in that party currently are.
            TBH I'm surprised how many want what can only at the moment be a thankless, toxic, position.

            Comment


              Originally posted by nukecad View Post
              And I can easily imagine the scenario the other way round, where if the previous result had been a 4% majority for remain then the leavers would now be shouting for a second referendum.
              "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

              "[He said that] a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot."

              Mr Farage - quoted in the Daily Mirror before the referendum in May 2016
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                Macromia - the "colony" issue was not a "jibe" - I don't really do that kind of thing. However I am very surprised that someone who is interested in Brexit (or stopping it) did not watch Brexit Behind Closed Doors the BBC documentary. Lots of telling stuff which would make the most ardent remainer think twice (if they could stand to suffer watching it) but this is the issue to which I refered:

                "This was absolutely plain for all to see from the sheer derision with which the British were treated throughout the two hours of footage. On one occasion – incredibly, bearing in mind he was on camera – one of Verhofstadt’s staffers, exclaimed on hearing that we had agreed to the 585-page so-called “Withdrawal Agreement”, that “We have made them a colony!”. The sheer joy that was evidenced on the faces of the European negotiators when it became apparent that we had acceded to the “Withdrawal Agreement” tells you everything you need to know about why they regarded it as a clear victory over Britain."

                I saw that happen on screen. Telling isn't it? Other issues emerged:

                "Verhofstadt and his highly self-satisfied team are then filmed watching the result of the first Meaningful Vote in Parliament in January 2019. When the “Withdrawal Agreement” was defeated by 230 votes (the largest defeat in parliamentary history as it turns out), their disappointment is palpable. The pattern is repeated for MV2 and MV3 – by which time Verhofstadt cannot bear to watch, as he has clearly realised what is going to happen."

                As for your comments about the EU Army I simply do not believe we would be able to veto it. It is not a matter of understanding but trust (one of which I have and one of which I most certainly do not). If you are happy with Ever Closer Union then that is your right. I would object to interest rates and tax percentages being set in Brussels for example (not least because our economic cycle is rarely the same as Germany and France and you can be certain interest rates etc would be set to benefit France and Germany not us). I also object to further integration of goverment meaning my directly elected sackable MP has less power and I cannot remove the EU bureaucrats if I do not like what they do.

                The "advisory referendum" argument has been done to death. I and millions of others do not buy it. Cameron told us he would implement what we decided and we voted in good faith for him to do so. True democracy means policiticans making commitments and keeping them. Indeed as pointed out above the General Election was a huge "non advisory" vote in favour of parties committed to making Brexit happen - or was that one either a) advisory or b) one in which we Leavers are so stupid we did not know what we were voting for?

                Watch the documentary - you will be shocked.
                Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                Comment


                  I watched the documentary and I wasn't shocked.
                  What I saw was a group of experienced and smart people make our government look like incompetent fools.

                  Made me much more keen to be part of the EU.
                  I'd rather be governed by experts.

                  The EU army is a complete myth (unless it's essentially created by the US withdrawing from NATO).
                  A - we do have a veto for our joining (as do all members) and it's probably something that would have to be unanimous (like most significant EU issues) and B - it's impractical while we're members of NATO (which already has standardised weapons, tactics and planning). You can't have two different standards, tactics and plans for the same threats and operations.
                  When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                  Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                    You can't blame the incompetence of the government on the people who voted.
                    Not entirely, no - but you have to take into account the following:
                    1. It is the voting public that elected the MP's that make up our parliament and government.
                    2. Voters have the responsibility of ensuring that they are adequately informed about issues that they are voting on.


                    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                    People aren't used to the notion of an advisory referendum - this was the first one that ever happened.
                    No it wasn't. The majority of referenda that have been held in the UK have been advisory, only some of them have had minimum turnouts/results set that would make them binding if achieved. In all cases parliament remain sovereign and can chose to overrule, or later reverse action taken based on referendum results.
                    The fact that some politicians, including David Cameron, made promises that they had no authority to make doesn't change the fact that the referendum was legally advisory only.


                    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                    I was hugely interested in the process (I'm retired and didn't have much to distract me), and, even so, on the morning of the result, I suddenly realised I had no idea what was meant to happen next if leave won.
                    A critical part of the process had been missing, and I hadn't noticed.
                    I agree - which is why the "simple" referendum question should never have been considered the end of the matter. It was never enough to know that a (very slim) majority of the people who voted considered that the UK should leave the EU. Why and how they wanted this to happen both need to be established, and now it is questionable whether even a slim majority would like to see the UK leave the EU at all.


                    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                    IBut it has subsequently moved on, both of the biggest parties made putting into place the advisory wish of the people into their general election manifestos, so the general election essentially confirmed the referendum's advisory position if either of them won it.
                    Which one of them did.
                    No.
                    The general election "confirmed" nothing about whether or not the voters wanted to go ahead with Brexit.
                    Most people (and all sensible people) do not vote in general elections on the basis of a single issue. In fact, many don't give much thought to the issues at all, they vote for the same party they have always voted for.


                    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                    IWhatever the people who voted to leave believed they were voting for, they did so in good faith and respecting that is essential.
                    But exactly what were "they" voting for? Why did they vote this way? And what do they expect to achieve?
                    Without knowing the answers to these three questions (the answers to which will be different for different leave voters) it is impossible to 'respect' their vote. Even if we leave the EU, I have no doubt that the majority of leave voters will not be getting what they thought they were voting for.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                      I find the opposition to a second 'advisory' referendum interesting.
                      Indeed.
                      There is absolutely no valid reason for anyone who claims to think that democracy is important to resist another referendum now that the public is clearer about what leaving the EU would mean.


                      Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                      IJust look at Scotland's 'remain in the UK' referendum if you need an example.
                      They have just passed legislation to do that one again before 2021; to see if they can get the result they want this time.
                      (I'm not sure why? You think they might have learned something from the Brexit mess).
                      It's not about "getting the result they want this time", it's giving the public the opportunity to give their opinion after the situation (or their understanding of it) has changed.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Macromia View Post
                        It's not about "getting the result they want this time", it's giving the public the opportunity to give their opinion after the situation (or their understanding of it) has changed.
                        Fair enough, but if the Scots had voted to leave the UK last time then do you really think they would even be considering another referendum about it now to see if opinion had changed and they wanted to stay after all?

                        Or do you think that their 'UK leavers' would be shouting that a second referendum would be undemocratic?

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                          Macromia - the "colony" issue was not a "jibe" - I don't really do that kind of thing. However I am very surprised that someone who is interested in Brexit (or stopping it) did not watch Brexit Behind Closed Doors the BBC documentary.
                          Perhaps it wasn't a jibe from you, but from what you describe it most definitely was a jibe - it was a jibe from an individual in the EU aimed at the UK's government and the people who voted for Brexit. It was pointing out, with a degree of sarcasm, the fact that the UK would be following rules set by the EU but without any further say in what the rules are.
                          The reality is that this will be the position for all UK businesses that wish to trade with EU countries regardless of whether we leave with a deal or without one.
                          As for watching the program, I can't legally do that without going somewhere where they have a TV license. I also have no real desire to watch a program that, from the way that you describe it, clearly seems to have been made as propaganda for the pro-Brexit crowd (I would equally not be keen on watching a program that misrepresented the facts in order to be strongly biased towards remaining in the EU).
                          I don't try and claim that the EU is perfect, never have and never will. There are problems with the EU and there are problems with leaving the EU - the way that you describe this program tells me where the bias of the producer was in this case (it is extremely rare for media not to show a bias, on the BBC that bias is different on different programs).

                          Do you really expect everyone working for the EU to pretend that the UK leaving the EU is going to be good for the UK and that the EU won't have more influence over the UK than we have over them if we leave?


                          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                          As for your comments about the EU Army I simply do not believe we would be able to veto it.
                          Whether you believe it or not doesn't change the fact that the UK could veto an EU army - and could also veto changes to EU law that would remove our veto. It seems that you have neither understanding, or trust, when it comes to this matter.


                          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                          I also object to further integration of goverment meaning my directly elected sackable MP has less power and I cannot remove the EU bureaucrats if I do not like what they do.
                          The EU is actually more democratic than the UK's parliamentary system. In the UK the public have no say over who is chosen for ministerial posts in the cabinet and no say over who is Prime Minister (other than sort of choosing the party that ministers and PM come from). We also have no say at all about who sits in the House of Lords.


                          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                          The "advisory referendum" argument has been done to death. I and millions of others do not buy it.
                          Whether you "buy it" or not makes no difference to the fact that, legally, the referendum WAS advisory - it just shows that you didn't understand that parliament were under no legal obligation to abide by the result.

                          What Cameron said is irrelevant, because he had no authority to promise that the result of the referendum would be enacted - only parliament as a whole had the authority to make that decision. Isn't parliamentary sovereignty something that 'leavers' claim that they were voting for?


                          Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                          Indeed as pointed out above the General Election was a huge "non advisory" vote in favour of parties committed to making Brexit happen - or was that one either a) advisory or b) one in which we Leavers are so stupid we did not know what we were voting for?
                          As stated above, the general election was not an indication of whether or not people supported Brexit.
                          I would like to think that voters in the last general election didn't vote solely on the single issue of Brexit - but if they did then, yes, I would have to say that they are pretty stupid and didn't understand what they were voting for (much like al those who voted for 'The Brexit Party' in the EU elections, you have to be pretty stupid to vote for MEP's based on a single issue - which is one that MEP's have no influence over).

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by nukecad View Post
                            Fair enough, but if the Scots had voted to leave the UK last time then do you really think they would even be considering another referendum about it now to see if opinion had changed and they wanted to stay after all?

                            Or do you think that their 'UK leavers' would be shouting that a second referendum would be undemocratic?
                            I think that whenever there is a high enough percentage of a population that want a particular change (or to avoid a proposed change) there will be enough noise made for serious consideration to be given to what they want.

                            If there is evidence of changes that may be significant enough to sway the opinion and reverse a previous decision, it is more than reasonable for them to campaign for a vote.

                            There would obviously be people who wanted the previous decision to stand who would try to prevent a further vote, and who would claim that it was undemocratic, but they would be wrong.

                            The narrower the 'winning' margin, the more reasonable it is to campaign for a further vote, because it is more realistic that majority opinion might have changed.

                            Comment


                              I think that what I'm trying to say is that the positions and arguments of both the leave and remain camps are totally interchangable.

                              If the Brexit referendum had gone the other way we would still be hearing exactly the same arguments; but put by the other side.

                              When you have 'camps' there will always be some unhappy campers.

                              Comment


                                Macromia - far from being made by the pro leavers the documentary I refer to was made by the BBC (huge remain bias) and was filmed by a Belgian team: "The gripping untold story of the Brexit negotiations... from the other side. For two years, Belgian film-maker, Lode Desmet, has had exclusive access to the Brexit co ordinator of the European parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, and his close knit team. This revelatory fly-on-the-wall film captures the off-the-record conversations and arguments of the European negotiators as they devise their strategy for dealing with the British." Nothing was misrepresented as you allege. You can hear Junker and Verhofstadt dig their own holes...pity you are unable to watch it - you may be surprised.
                                To say JP that you would rather be governed by that shower ("experts" think not!) is rather sad.
                                As far as the EU army it brings a tear to my eye to read how trusting you all are of the great and good of the EU...there are ways in which "permanent structured cooperation" can be invoked which is not legally an army but is, really. We cannot veto that if we are in because it is officially "not an army". I am happy for you that you trust the EU not to do this in spite of its stated leanings in this direction.
                                We certainly live in interesting times...
                                Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                • Brexit
                                  craig2222
                                  I'm wondering how many of you voted for brexit and would you change your mind if you had the chance ? . I didn't vote and I still wouldn't be sure if I would choose leave or remain if we had another chance...
                                  30-09-2018, 16:17 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  islandgirl
                                  As for fruit pickers, I know strawberry farmers who bring seasonal workers from non-Eu countries every year (eg Russia etc) and have queues of people wanting to work the picking season here...no unpicked fruit there....
                                  21-10-2019, 23:08 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  Kape65
                                  "EU immigration has continued to fall since 2016 and is at its lowest level since 2013. This is mainly because of a fall in immigration for work, which is now less than half the level it was at its peak in the year ending June 2016." Office for National Statistics

                                  That's a major...
                                  21-10-2019, 19:30 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  theartfullodger
                                  "The Times" today...

                                  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...away-ctsdvtbsw...
                                  21-10-2019, 18:47 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  ram
                                  You get taken to court in U.K.for calling some one a Nazi

                                  "May" signed the pact, and not one of the U.K. citizens were asked if they want to financially support 3rd world unskilled people, apart from having no where to put them, and our homeless are still homeless.
                                  If they...
                                  21-10-2019, 18:31 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  theartfullodger
                                  Just get remain done...
                                  21-10-2019, 18:20 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  islandgirl
                                  "Although you don't like it, is a fact that the 2016 referendum, like almost all referendums in the UK, was advisory." When you are in a hole.....
                                  21-10-2019, 18:14 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  Macromia
                                  The countries being referred to as 'their world countries' here are NOT countries in the EU, and the UN is NOT the EU.

                                  Regardless of whether or not Theresa May was right to sign the UK up to this pact - it has nothing at all to do with the EU.

                                  This is a rant that has no relevance...
                                  21-10-2019, 17:20 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  Macromia
                                  This pretty much hits the nail on the head.
                                  I think that, if polls of Conservative party members hadn't shown that most members think that holding another referendum, or not going ahead with Brexit, would pretty much mean the end of the Conservative party, and that members would apparently prefer...
                                  21-10-2019, 17:04 PM
                                • Reply to Brexit
                                  Macromia
                                  Although you don't like it, is a fact that the 2016 referendum, like almost all referendums in the UK, was advisory.
                                  If the referendum hadn't been advisory, there would not still be any argument as to whether or not politicians should be supporting leaving the EU on the basis of the result of...
                                  21-10-2019, 16:41 PM
                                Working...
                                X