Jump to content
IGNORED

Brexit...


Hafnia

Referendum  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Chach said:

1) Your argument surely can't be so lacking in nuance that you wont accept that a number of leavers also wanted to stay in the single market and customs union, you don't have to point out something that has already been pointed out specifically by me many times like its a new argument three years and 82 pages down the track

2) Strawman, where did I state that? I said the Parliament still has to represent the interests of the entire population.

3) That video is a statement of the obvious, it's actually very prescient and honest and is not helping you.

This response is so poor on so many levels that it is not worth a response.  Just a tip,  the use of the term Strawman is so pathetic that I would think 99% of the people on here gag when they see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Matt said:

Here’s my analogy, since the car one was forgotten or misunderstood, and seemingly more fitting:

Doctor: you can live with the infection which we can manage, even treat given the right course of action (no guarantees though),  or we can do something about it

Patient: do something about it! Just do what it takes!

Doctor amputates all four limbs.

Patient asked for something to be done but had no idea of the treatment and thus no idea of the impact of his decision. You think the patient would’ve wished for more clarity and/or a second opinion if he knew?

Thats what no deal is. Not to say you can’t live a good live being quadriplegic, but there are a fair few advantages to being able bodied even if you’ve got an infection

I in no way think the EU is an infection by the way.

I recognise that that is your opinion Matt, However, it doesn't prove anything.  The Governor of the Bank of England forecast that there would be a recession in the first year following a Leave vote.  The Treasury, through Osborne, said unemployment would go up by 820,000.  Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics said that employment is the highest for 45 years. Germany are a lot closer to recession than we are, they missed it by a knife;s edge in the last quarter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, johnh said:

I recognise that that is your opinion Matt, However, it doesn't prove anything.  The Governor of the Bank of England forecast that there would be a recession in the first year following a Leave vote.  The Treasury, through Osborne, said unemployment would go up by 820,000.  Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics said that employment is the highest for 45 years. Germany are a lot closer to recession than we are, they missed it by a knife;s edge in the last quarter.

So deflection it is, John.

No one voted for a no deal simply because of one simple thing;  what “leave” meant was never explained.

Anyone, forgive me here, fucking stupid enough, to vote on a “well, it’ll be better” without evidence, doesn’t deserve a say. That’s not my opinion, that’s why we have representative democracy.

found this just now, seems fitting

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, RPG said:

That is exactly what we were promised before the referendum. We don't need another referendum. We need a General Election.

Why did you miss out the paragraph before where I clearly stated  a referendum backed by a law that what ever the outcome it had to be implemented, I think I know why but I won’t get into that and be accused of playing the man again, but please stop trying to twist what people say to suit your one view agenda. 

You will get your general election but if that comes before another referendum and won’t be an election based on party manifestos it will be on whether who you vote for is a remain or leave candidate not there party, so the easiest thing would be to bypass the crap and have a referendum that’s the simplest and fairest thing to do.

But only if you’re a fair minded person of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

Why did you miss out the paragraph before where I clearly stated  a referendum backed by a law that what ever the outcome it had to be implemented, I think I know why but I won’t get into that and be accused of playing the man again, but please stop trying to twist what people say to suit your one view agenda. 

You will get your general election but if that comes before another referendum and won’t be an election based on party manifestos it will be on whether who you vote for is a remain or leave candidate not there party, so the easiest thing would be to bypass the crap and have a referendum that’s the simplest and fairest thing to do.

But only if you’re a fair minded person of course. 

Call the cops! How dare you! Twisting and diverting, it’s the way of the day  mate

The GE will basically be a second referendum, with parties using that as the driving force. One and the same for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RPG said:

I omitted the para you referred to because a fair minded person would acknowledge that we voted under exactly the same circumstances in the referendum. I appreciate this is a hypothetical question, but honestly, what would the reaction of the remain camp have been to the referendum result if it had been 52/48 in favour of remain? I think we both know the answer to that as we are both fair minded men aren't we?

I sincerely hope the General Election comes first so that all the leave constituencies who have been betrayed by their Remain MPs have the opportunity to register their displeasure at the ballot box. How could a fair minded person object to that?

 

I wouldn’t object to that if I thought it would give us an end, but the reality is no party would have a victory it will be a split parliament and we will be at the mercy of politicians once again, surly no right minded person would want that again.

On your hypothetical question what you fail to except is that the people who voted remain at the ballot box aren’t the ones who stopped Brexit, that was squarely down to the politicians, the same ones you want to vote for and give the decision to them again, that is a completely fucked up approach in my view, you will vote Tory because you believe they are the leave party, but the reality is they aren’t, more Tory MPs have chopped and changed their view some more than once, by putting their own political future a head of the country.

Personally I am a remainer but I have no fear of leaving for myself, I’m 60 and financially secure, but what I am concerned about is the future of my children and grandchildren. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RPG said:

We will have to disagree, at least in part, on your second para. No argument that the current situation is down to Remain MPs in Parliament betraying the express wishes of the people they are supposed to represent. But, a General Election would clear that problem almost 100% and certainly by a big enough margin to have Parliament's mind in line with that of the electorate. I understand that 90 Labour constituencies in northern UK voted Leave but are represented by Labour MPs who voted Remain and who are therefore the cause of much of the gridlock in Parliament. A General Election would see most of those MPs given their P45 and replaced by either Tory or Brexit Party MPs. Factor those numbers into Parliamentary seats (with a tory / brexit party / DUP coalition if necessary) and I think the outcome would finally be what the people voted for.

I have good friends in Yorkshire who have voted Labour all their lives but will now be voting for whoever convinces them they will support Leave - and that is probably the Brexit Party in most cases (many have even joined the brexit party) but a few have even said they will be voting tory.

I think we will always disagree not just because we sit on different sides of the Brexit argument, but more how we overcome the impasse we find ourselves in, you want a general election and MPs to make the final decision, I want a 2nd referendum that by law has to be implemented and the people to make the final decision. 

Your counter argument to that is the people have already made the decision to leave, well great let’s leave I’ve no problem with that not going to happen though is it because the politicians can’t agree they’ve been allowed to go against the people’s will to leave, yet you still want another election because you think it will bring a Tory majority and ultimately a government that can’t be shackled by a no leave opposition. 

I honestly don’t see it as easy as that and here’s my problem, you might get a Tory victory, and a vote in the commons for a deal or no deal policy will get passed in the belief it offers better leverage on getting a deal, but when it becomes clear that there is no deal to be had you then believe that all these Tory MPs are going to be happy to let us crash out without a deal, well I’m not I believe a good percentage are only prepared to leave with a deal and if it increasingly looked like no deal was going to happen they would then pull back there support leaving us in the same situation as now. 

Now what I and a lot of people prepose is going to stop any chance of that or something like that happening by taking any decision out of the hands of the MPs surly that would make sense for a better outcome a no going back outcome. 

I honestly believe for all your bravado you don’t want another referendum because you believe remain could prevail, and that is what is stopping you from accepting the easiest option to resolve this, now the only reason I can find for there to be a different outcome is that a good few people believe they were lied to or mislead when voting and would use this opportunity to change the way they voted, and I can see that worries leavers because they know deep down there is a lot of truth in that argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last paragraph Palfy; I voted leave. I wouldn’t do that again. As you stated (and I’ve banged the drum for a while now) I feel the lies are a major point. But the main reason I would vote remain if given a second chance is because I don’t trust the government to be able to complete the task. I voted leave because I thought it was an opportunity to try something new, to grow, to be a different influence on the world and mostly around business. Almost in a capitalist kind of way, as we are major buyers and not really sellers. What we got was lots of MPs and leaders just playing games and looking out for themselves and trying to score points against the other sides. Lost all faith in MPs in the last couple of years. Give me the Status Quo and get back to how things were a few years ago. Things weren’t this bad under Cameron, at least he didn’t make the country look ridiculous in front of the worlds press. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StevO said:

That last paragraph Palfy; I voted leave. I wouldn’t do that again. As you stated (and I’ve banged the drum for a while now) I feel the lies are a major point. But the main reason I would vote remain if given a second chance is because I don’t trust the government to be able to complete the task. I voted leave because I thought it was an opportunity to try something new, to grow, to be a different influence on the world and mostly around business. Almost in a capitalist kind of way, as we are major buyers and not really sellers. What we got was lots of MPs and leaders just playing games and looking out for themselves and trying to score points against the other sides. Lost all faith in MPs in the last couple of years. Give me the Status Quo and get back to how things were a few years ago. Things weren’t this bad under Cameron, at least he didn’t make the country look ridiculous in front of the worlds press. 

Very honest and insightful post, and there will be voters who voted remain who want to now leave, but the truth is the real deal lies with the people not the politicians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Very honest and insightful post, and there will be voters who voted remain who want to now leave, but the truth is the real deal lies with the people not the politicians. 

I wouldn’t disagree with that at all mate. My lack of faith in the politicians to just do their job is still worrying me, mostly for the future of the country. I feel like there is nothing they won’t do for their own personal gain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/09/2019 at 09:06, holystove said:

Best one I've read is this one :

 

I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish.

As I've said before, analogies are opinions, they don't prove anything.  Glad you got pleasure from them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Palfy said:

I honestly believe for all your bravado you don’t want another referendum because you believe remain could prevail

Not commenting on RPG's personal viewpoint, but I do think there is truth in this. I have some sympathy for the Leavers as, after so long waiting to Leave, and being under the impression that they would, that a combination of utter government incompetence, doubt over what was said at the time, a parliament whose sympathies were with Remain, and maybe a shift in popular feeling to Remain, could forestall their plans. However, unlike RPG, I have less bad feeling to the Remain MPs on both sides as I do to the government of Theresa May, whose arrogance and stupidity in trying to force through a Tory Brexit left her bereft of a majority capable of delivering one. This was always a cross-party issue. The referendum was too close to make sweeping changes. She should have consulted parliament first, seen what she could get through, then gone to the EU. I hold her utterly responsible for the mess. No party has come out of this well, and there is hypocrisy on all sides. Brexit, Remain, it's a pyrrhic victory for whichever side.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnh said:

As I've said before, analogies are opinions, they don't prove anything.  Glad you got pleasure from them though.

An analogy is defined as, "a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification..." so not really an opinion in itself, the opinion only comes into whether you believe any given analogy is accurate or not.

:otvwhistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

An analogy is defined as, "a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification..." so not really an opinion in itself, the opinion only comes into whether you believe any given analogy is accurate or not.

:otvwhistle:

Mike, without putting words into Matt's mouth, I think his opinion is that it is accurate.  My opinion is that it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, StevO said:

That last paragraph Palfy; I voted leave. I wouldn’t do that again. As you stated (and I’ve banged the drum for a while now) I feel the lies are a major point. But the main reason I would vote remain if given a second chance is because I don’t trust the government to be able to complete the task. I voted leave because I thought it was an opportunity to try something new, to grow, to be a different influence on the world and mostly around business. Almost in a capitalist kind of way, as we are major buyers and not really sellers. What we got was lots of MPs and leaders just playing games and looking out for themselves and trying to score points against the other sides. Lost all faith in MPs in the last couple of years. Give me the Status Quo and get back to how things were a few years ago. Things weren’t this bad under Cameron, at least he didn’t make the country look ridiculous in front of the worlds press. 

Steve, you say 'give me the status quo and get back to how things were a few years ago'.  That's the problem with the EU Steve, there is no 'status quo'.  It is a continuously evolving body.  The real problem is that they never produce a manifesto.  All the decisions are behind closed doors by the unelected elite in Brussels.  Just one example:  If your 'status quo' is the date of the referendum, the EU were lying through their teeth that there were  plans for an EU Army.  Even Britain's Deputy Prime Minister was saying an EU Army was a 'fantasy'.  We all know different now.

Steve, rather than concentrate on the status quo, tell me where you think the continuously evolving EU will be in 5 years time?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, johnh said:

Steve, you say 'give me the status quo and get back to how things were a few years ago'.  That's the problem with the EU Steve, there is no 'status quo'.  It is a continuously evolving body.  The real problem is that they never produce a manifesto.  All the decisions are behind closed doors by the unelected elite in Brussels.  Just one example:  If your 'status quo' is the date of the referendum, the EU were lying through their teeth that there were  plans for an EU Army.  Even Britain's Deputy Prime Minister was saying an EU Army was a 'fantasy'.  We all know different now.

Steve, rather than concentrate on the status quo, tell me where you think the continuously evolving EU will be in 5 years time?

 

I don’t know where it will be John. What I do know is that our MPs are too busy fighting and point scoring over Brexit that they aren’t spending any time actually running the country. My Status Quo is MPs running the country, yes the EU isn’t perfect but it’s not bad either. 
 

I’m starting to think the whole Brexit idea is like looking for the answer to a question that doesn’t exist, or if it does exist does it need asking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, johnh said:

Steve, you say 'give me the status quo and get back to how things were a few years ago'.  That's the problem with the EU Steve, there is no 'status quo'.  It is a continuously evolving body.  The real problem is that they never produce a manifesto.  All the decisions are behind closed doors by the unelected elite in Brussels.  Just one example:  If your 'status quo' is the date of the referendum, the EU were lying through their teeth that there were  plans for an EU Army.  Even Britain's Deputy Prime Minister was saying an EU Army was a 'fantasy'.  We all know different now.

wait .. we do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, RPG said:

We have to go one way or the other, no half measures, and imho that way should be consistent with the referendum result.

But if you leave it to MPs all your going to get is half measures, not as the referendum set out, you will end up with a deal that benefits the EU more than us and we will still be paying into it and benefiting less. 

What for just so Johnstone can say I delivered and got you out, and damn the costs and consequences. 

I may be wrong but you seem to me to be someone who wants to leave at any cost just to be classified as a winner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Brexit exactly, but "mechanics". Yanks have no mechanism or equivalent for a no-confidence, general election or national referendum, so it's an unfamiliar discussion to follow.

Party A wins 310 MP seats

Party B wins 300 MP seats

50 MPs from 7 other parties

Party A doesn't automatically assume control because they didn't get 331 seats. So if Party B can get 31 of the 50 to join them in coalition, they select the PM, and Party A is the Opposition, despite actually winning the most seats.

If at some point the Opposition thinks they have a simple majority, they can put forth a no-confidence vote. If successful the government resigns and parliament is dissolved. If a new coalition can't secure a confidence vote in 2 weeks, automatically triggers a general election for the entire House of Commons, regardless how much time is left in their term.

I'm sure there are a lot of nuances, but is that basically correct?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Not Brexit exactly, but "mechanics". Yanks have no mechanism or equivalent for a no-confidence, general election or national referendum, so it's an unfamiliar discussion to follow.

Party A wins 310 MP seats

Party B wins 300 MP seats

50 MPs from 7 other parties

Party A doesn't automatically assume control because they didn't get 331 seats. So if Party B can get 31 of the 50 to join them in coalition, they select the PM, and Party A is the Opposition, despite actually winning the most seats.

If at some point the Opposition thinks they have a simple majority, they can put forth a no-confidence vote. If successful the government resigns and parliament is dissolved. If a new coalition can't secure a confidence vote in 2 weeks, automatically triggers a general election for the entire House of Commons, regardless how much time is left in their term.

I'm sure there are a lot of nuances, but is that basically correct?

Party A is given the first chance of forming a government by negotiating a deal with one or more of the smaller parties (the situation we were in until recently); if they can't party B (Her Majesty's opposition) is given the chance to do the same. If they can't then the "default" I think (may be wrong) is that party A forms a minority government which is unable to pass any legislation so they are effectively forced to call a GE. This was before the "Fixed Term Parliaments" act was introduced in 2011, now the government isn't allowed to call an election before the fixed term ends unless the house of commons agrees with a two thirds majority.

So what happens when our respected (I use the term loosely) members come back whenever the current hiatus ends? F'ck knows, new territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StevO said:

I don’t know where it will be John. What I do know is that our MPs are too busy fighting and point scoring over Brexit that they aren’t spending any time actually running the country. My Status Quo is MPs running the country, yes the EU isn’t perfect but it’s not bad either. 
 

I’m starting to think the whole Brexit idea is like looking for the answer to a question that doesn’t exist, or if it does exist does it need asking?

Steve, I know, my question was rhetorical.  No one, not even the most ardent Remainers know where the EU will be in 5 years time, because its all decided behind closed doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, holystove said:

wait .. we do?

Reported in the Independent (November 2018) Merkel, addressing the European Parliament said she supported a 'real, true' European Army.  Macron in favour too.  Didn't look at it, but I think there is also a video of Merkel's address.  Also quotes the EU Commission as saying they are delighted that the leaders of France and Germany have backed the creation of a 'real' EU Army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, johnh said:

Steve, I know, my question was rhetorical.  No one, not even the most ardent Remainers know where the EU will be in 5 years time, because its all decided behind closed doors.

Most things in politics are decided behind closed doors though. We only see and hear what they want us to, or when they have to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, johnh said:

We all know different now.

 

3 hours ago, holystove said:

wait .. we do?

That's a bit of a thing though isn't it John, I have no idea (without googling) what the differences are on the prospect of an EU army but as you say, "we all know different now" and we do about many, many things. Is that not a great argument for another chance for the people to have their say? What we "knew" in 2016 isn't what we "know" now like you say; we are now better informed and understand the ramifications of all courses of action far more clearly than we did during the lying and mud-slinging shenanigans that went on three years ago.

I know your vote will never change and I completely respect that and I know that my vote will never change either (which I'm sure you respect also); but there are people like Ste who have changed their mind over the years, doubtless in both directions. I know you didn't agree with the fish analogy but how about, "I went to the doctor three years ago and he told me I was in tip-top shape but I'm feeling really ill now.....I'm not going to bother going back to see him though because I'm in tip-top shape, he said so."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, johnh said:

Steve, I know, my question was rhetorical.  No one, not even the most ardent Remainers know where the EU will be in 5 years time, because its all decided behind closed doors.

Well that an no one is clairvoyant. Same can be said for the British Parliament too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...