Jump to content

Referendum  

50 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, MikeO said:

It's a nutjob, this sums it up quite well...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/22/remainers-condemn-jeremy-corbyn-pledge-to-push-on-with-brexit

The Scottish National party also rebuked Corbyn, with the party’s Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, calling him “the midwife to the delivery of the [Tories’] Brexit plans”.

“Jeremy Corbyn has finally come off the fence he’s been sat on for the past two years,” he said. “But unfathomably he’s come down on the same side as Theresa May. The Labour party is incapable of providing opposition to the worst UK government that most people can remember.”

The Liberal Democrat leader, Vince Cable, added that Corbyn “refuses once again to take the blinkers off”, with the party’s policy indistinguishable from the Conservatives’.

“He is ignoring the concerns of his own supporters and the economic damage experts warn Brexit will do to the UK economy,” he said. “On Brexit, you simply cannot put a cigarette paper between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.”

The only hope appears to be the minority parties, but they are (obviously) in a minority. Labour members support Corbyn for many reasons (most of which I agree with) so the Brexit stance is just one of many policies they take into account, he should be taking his members opinions into account on this as they're so loyal to him in general but this is the defining decision for our future right now and he's wimped out on it so far.

and that is the main reason that I will not vote labour while the moron is in charge,  sorry but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I think that Corbyn has always been a Brexiteer if the truth be known, that's why he doesn't advocate a 2nd referendum and in a lot of the areas where Labour hold the seat the votes went with Brexit, even though a majority of his MP's want another referendum he will always find the safety of saying no because your constituents voted for out in the main, they can't win and he can't lose.

if he is a brexiteer he is a bit of a coward in my book as if he had the balls the prime minister has he would go against his own feelings and go for remain, paradoxically  if he went for a second referendum he would be undemocratic too so he would be shafted if he went down that road too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rubecula said:

if he is a brexiteer he is a bit of a coward in my book as if he had the balls the prime minister has he would go against his own feelings and go for remain, paradoxically  if he went for a second referendum he would be undemocratic too so he would be shafted if he went down that road too.

We are in a massive deadlock at the moment, as a remainer I've resigned myself to leaving, now we can only concentrate on getting the right deal and move on with a heavy heart.

And Rubes you won't get the Brexit you thought you were voting for and I won't get the remain I wanted we will both be in a halfway house only time will tell if it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Palfy said:

We are in a massive deadlock at the moment, as a remainer I've resigned myself to leaving, now we can only concentrate on getting the right deal and move on with a heavy heart.

And Rubes you won't get the Brexit you thought you were voting for and I won't get the remain I wanted we will both be in a halfway house only time will tell if it works.

I have already resigned myself to this scenario Palfy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

if the majority want remain, how could they want corbyn?  they're mutually exclusive in that respect, that's what i'm talking about.  how can a labour voter want a guy who doesn't represent what they want?  that seems very strange to me.

The 80% I assume are traditional voters, they may not necessarily be paid up members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, johnh said:

I thought all the EU member states were supposed to be 'equal'.  Why are two member states signing an agreement which doesn't involve the other 25?

Nothing says you can’t define your own country rules provided you adhere to the general EU regulations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnh said:

I thought all the EU member states were supposed to be 'equal'.  Why are two member states signing an agreement which doesn't involve the other 25?

Benelux sign agreements often too.  You see, as sovereign countries they can do what they want 😊.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, holystove said:

This, however, is inviting a foreign government to interfere with your sovereign parliament.

Bloody foreigners :shakingfist:

i am trying to enjoy the irony that we’re so disorganised and incapable of sorting this mess ourself that we’ve gone to the Polish of all countries to help us get something done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, johnh said:

Like Greece.

Yes like Greece. What's your point?  

Any country can make sovereign choices but it has to stand by the consequences of that choice.  If it so whishes, noone can stop Greece from making the sovereign choice to leave the euro.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, holystove said:

Yes like Greece. What's your point?  

Any country can make sovereign choices but it has to stand by the consequences of that choice.  If it so whishes, noone can stop Greece from making the sovereign choice to leave the euro.  

Lets have a look at what Pierre Moscovici (EU Commissioner for Economic ad Financial Affairs) had to say about Greece.  (2017)

'handling of Greece's bailout program was 'a scandal in terms of democratic processes......I am talking about the basic details of the life of a country which were decided in a  body, behind closed doors, whose work is being prepared by technocrats without the minimum control of a parliament'.

Yep!  sounds just like sovereignty to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, johnh said:

Lets have a look at what Pierre Moscovici (EU Commissioner for Economic ad Financial Affairs) had to say about Greece.  (2017)

'handling of Greece's bailout program was 'a scandal in terms of democratic processes......I am talking about the basic details of the life of a country which were decided in a  body, behind closed doors, whose work is being prepared by technocrats without the minimum control of a parliament'.

Yep!  sounds just like sovereignty to me.

The bailout wasn't a sovereign choice, it was a decided necessity. Scandalous as it may have been, it has nothing to do with sovereignty or Greek democracy even

Leaving the Euro would be their sovereign choice, as Bailey pointed out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Chach said:

Clear as day, and come back with tail between legs and a better attitude down the road.

Admins, please change my vote to leave :D

Don’t you know you’re not allowed to change your mind? so we can’t change your vote, it’ll bring democracy on the forum to its knees!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matt said:

Don’t you know you’re not allowed to change your mind? so we can’t change your vote, it’ll bring democracy on the forum to its knees!

I don't recall any vote in our history being re-run because of 'change of mind'.  There was one MP in the last General Election who won by 1 vote (after several recounts).  The vote was accepted by the electorate.  This re-run of voting idea is a brain child of the EU.  There have been several referendums which have gone against the EU and all have been re-run.  Not one of the referendums in favour of the EU have ever been re-run.  We don't want EU 'democracy' anywhere near this forum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Quinn31 said:

Good post - I work in aviation and saw this quote and was going to post it but you beat me to it!

Aerospace is one of the few manufacturing industries where the UK (and the US...) still have a leading presence. 

My brother works for Airbus (currently based in Germany but just back from a few months in Singapore) and he said to me a year or more ago that they'd be off. Brexiteers said companies were bluffing but he called it, roughly "you think we're bluffing, fucking watch this".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, johnh said:

I don't recall any vote in our history being re-run because of 'change of mind'.  There was one MP in the last General Election who won by 1 vote (after several recounts).  The vote was accepted by the electorate.  This re-run of voting idea is a brain child of the EU.  There have been several referendums which have gone against the EU and all have been re-run.  Not one of the referendums in favour of the EU have ever been re-run.  We don't want EU 'democracy' anywhere near this forum. 

Strawman, theres no suggestion that there should be a second vote because of a change of mind on Brexit per se, its because there has been a material change in what Brexit means and what the electorate now understand it to mean.

We're 67 pages in, at least represent the arguments correctly :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, johnh said:

I don't recall any vote in our history being re-run because of 'change of mind'.  There was one MP in the last General Election who won by 1 vote (after several recounts).  The vote was accepted by the electorate.  This re-run of voting idea is a brain child of the EU.  There have been several referendums which have gone against the EU and all have been re-run.  Not one of the referendums in favour of the EU have ever been re-run.  We don't want EU 'democracy' anywhere near this forum. 

You mean direct democracy? A much more sensible option to what the UK has. 

Im curious, John. Are you happy with the plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, johnh said:

This re-run of voting idea is a brain child of the EU.  There have been several referendums which have gone against the EU and all have been re-run.  Not one of the referendums in favour of the EU have ever been re-run.  We don't want EU 'democracy' anywhere near this forum. 

Not really an EU competence that, John, .. forcing countries to organize referendums; let alone "re-run" them.

Is this UK 'democracy'? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46971390 (Mogg proposes the Queen (!) shuts down Parliament to protect brexit) 😉   .. Though if you brought that to this forum, I don't know who would play the Queen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, holystove said:

Not really an EU competence that, John, .. forcing countries to organize referendums; let alone "re-run" them.

Is this UK 'democracy'? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46971390 (Mogg proposes the Queen (!) shuts down Parliament to protect brexit) 😉   .. Though if you brought that to this forum, I don't know who would play the Queen.

That’s very clearly Louis 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chach said:

There's that then all of the treaties, contracts etc. on top... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point this (from the same person who @Chachlinked)...

"The referendum was always advisory, not legally binding. That meant that even though the Electoral Commission found evidence of tampering at the criminal level of being beyond any reasonable doubt, the referendum could stand. Had the thing carried legal weight, the courts would have cancelled it and ordered another."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeO said:

Interesting point this (from the same person who @Chachlinked)...

"The referendum was always advisory, not legally binding. That meant that even though the Electoral Commission found evidence of tampering at the criminal level of being beyond any reasonable doubt, the referendum could stand. Had the thing carried legal weight, the courts would have cancelled it and ordered another."

Why did it not carry legal weight I don't understand I'm missing the point which isn'tt unusual I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Why did it not carry legal weight I don't understand I'm missing the point which isn'ttt unusual I know.

Because it was only ever glorified opinion poll to serve as a political stunt for the Tory’s 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MikeO said:

 

Capture.JPG

So technically the government can still say to the voters thanks for your vote, we have tried to implement your decision but it would harm the country immeasurably, so we've taken the decision to remain for the stability of the country and everyone in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However the referendum was sold to people on the basis that the result would be carried out and that it would be a generational decision.

Furthermore, since the referendum a general election has been held where the two main parties campaigned to leave the EU. 

The other issue is that any future referendum on EU membership will still not have a clearly defined definition of what "leave" means. If leave won a second vote, and as an example May's deal happened to be on the ballot paper, that doesnt actually determine very much at all about the future european relationship so would we then have another x month / years debating the whole bloody thing only to require another referendum. 

The bottom line is that the govt asked the people what they wanted. They answered and then it is down to the politicians to see that through. The politicians who want a second vote either are either inadequate at their jobs as they cant see through the job they are paid to do, or they believe that the decision of the people was wrong but they are collectively too afraid to bring the case themselves that they hope a 2nd referendum will sort it out for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bailey said:

The bottom line is that the govt asked the people what they wanted.  They answered and then it is down to the politicians to see that through.

But they asked a question that people had no idea what the consequences of the answer would be.

It's like asking me if I'l like a Ferrari or a Ford Focus; I'd plainly opt for the first but then when presented with the bill and an insurance quote I might have a rethink. Obviously that's taking the argument to an extreme but asking people unqualified to make such a decision (not picking on anyone there, I include myself in that group) and then sticking blindly to it is madness. Are MP's astute enough to make a decision? Debatable but they get voted in as our representatives to make decisions on our behalf as they "appear" to know more about this stuff. It's their job after all. The majority of them want to stay in so do we go with the largely uninformed (and lied to) Joe Public or do we go with the "informed" people who govern?

At the moment we're just doing "Charge of the Light Brigade" style policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bailey said:

The bottom line is that the govt asked the people what they wanted. They answered and then it is down to the politicians to see that through. The politicians who want a second vote either are either inadequate at their jobs as they cant see through the job they are paid to do, or they believe that the decision of the people was wrong but they are collectively too afraid to bring the case themselves that they hope a 2nd referendum will sort it out for them. 

The majority of the public who voted leave did so on a lie about the EU costing us a fortune and that money would be pumped into the NHS. They had no actual basis to go off other than propaganda. The leave option was never clearly explained. To simplify Mike's example, given a choice of a red passport or blue passport most of us would pick blue. If you're then told picking red protects your health and human rights whereas picking blue means you or people you know may lose their jobs most would then pick red. 

The public weren't told this, the consequences weren't clearly put to the public largely thanks to the the loud mouth brexit politicians (who are no where to be seen now the shit has hit the fan) and a self serving media. Given most people now have an awareness of the consequences surely it would be best for all to have another vote or better yet treat it as advisory only. Madness to fuck over the whole country based on lies and try and call a minor margin the will of the people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, markjazzbassist said:

mike i do wonder if the politicians know that, surely they can just call it a day and repeal that article that gets them out?

If Mike knows and the politicians don't then make Mike PM😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeO said:

But they asked a question that people had no idea what the consequences of the answer would be.

It's like asking me if I'l like a Ferrari or a Ford Focus; I'd plainly opt for the first but then when presented with the bill and an insurance quote I might have a rethink. Obviously that's taking the argument to an extreme but asking people unqualified to make such a decision (not picking on anyone there, I include myself in that group) and then sticking blindly to it is madness. Are MP's astute enough to make a decision? Debatable but they get voted in as our representatives to make decisions on our behalf as they "appear" to know more about this stuff. It's their job after all. The majority of them want to stay in so do we go with the largely uninformed (and lied to) Joe Public or do we go with the "informed" people who govern?

At the moment we're just doing "Charge of the Light Brigade" style policy.

Mike, Remainers had no idea of what the consequences of remaining would be.  Go into Youtube and Google  Farage v Clegg referendum debate. Farage raises the EU Army issue, Clegg says it is a fantasy. Clegg almost loses his cool he is so adamant that there will not be an EU Army. It is cringeworthy.  Now Clegg, let us not forget, was DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER.  He was either 'Lying'  or he was 'clueless'.  Now I think Clegg is an honest guy but that leaves only the fact that he was clueless.  The Deputy Prime Minister of Britain had no idea what was going on behind closed doors in Brussels.  Neither did anyone else.  Mike, did you get a vote on it? It is now being openly discussed by senior EU officials. This is how the EU operates, behind closed doors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, johnh said:

Mike, Remainers had no idea of what the consequences of remaining would be.  Go into Youtube and Google  Farage v Clegg referendum debate. Farage raises the EU Army issue, Clegg says it is a fantasy. Clegg almost loses his cool he is so adamant that there will not be an EU Army. It is cringeworthy.  Now Clegg, let us not forget, was DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER.  He was either 'Lying'  or he was 'clueless'.  Now I think Clegg is an honest guy but that leaves only the fact that he was clueless.  The Deputy Prime Minister of Britain had no idea what was going on behind closed doors in Brussels.  Neither did anyone else.  Mike, did you get a vote on it? It is now being openly discussed by senior EU officials. This is how the EU operates, behind closed doors. 

There's not going to be a Brexit John, you lost get over it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, johnh said:

Mike, Remainers had no idea of what the consequences of remaining would be.  Go into Youtube and Google  Farage v Clegg referendum debate. Farage raises the EU Army issue, Clegg says it is a fantasy. Clegg almost loses his cool he is so adamant that there will not be an EU Army. It is cringeworthy.  Now Clegg, let us not forget, was DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER.  He was either 'Lying'  or he was 'clueless'.  Now I think Clegg is an honest guy but that leaves only the fact that he was clueless.  The Deputy Prime Minister of Britain had no idea what was going on behind closed doors in Brussels.  Neither did anyone else.  Mike, did you get a vote on it? It is now being openly discussed by senior EU officials. This is how the EU operates, behind closed doors. 

All irrelevant John (for one thing I'm not going to watch Farage at any price and if you're invoking him you're really scraping the barrel).

Did I get a vote on what? I'm not quite clear, I got a vote in a general election (and the EU elections) to put my representative forward to make decisions for me in their respective bodies along with the rest of my fellow voters, that's how our democracy works isn'ttt it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MikeO said:

But they asked a question that people had no idea what the consequences of the answer would be.

It's like asking me if I'l like a Ferrari or a Ford Focus; I'd plainly opt for the first but then when presented with the bill and an insurance quote I might have a rethink. Obviously that's taking the argument to an extreme but asking people unqualified to make such a decision (not picking on anyone there, I include myself in that group) and then sticking blindly to it is madness. Are MP's astute enough to make a decision? Debatable but they get voted in as our representatives to make decisions on our behalf as they "appear" to know more about this stuff. It's their job after all. The majority of them want to stay in so do we go with the largely uninformed (and lied to) Joe Public or do we go with the "informed" people who govern?

At the moment we're just doing "Charge of the Light Brigade" style policy.

But they never will know what the consequences will be due to the nature of the question.

I would say it is more like asking do you want to be self employed or employed. Self employed you get a lot more opportunity to chart your own path but along with that comes a lot more risk and a lot more unknowns, most of which that with all the planning in the world, you wont anticipate. You can stay employed, have a relative amount of choice and be much more secure and stable. Whilst you know what you are getting, you never know what is going on behind the scenes and whether one day you will be made redundant.

I agree that asking the question in the first place was naive at best but its happened and that cannot be changed. They asked the question, they said it was a lifetime decision and it would count. People then turned out in record numbers to vote upon the issue. Where does this stop? Do we get 2 years after a general election and decide they aren't what we want anymore and have another election? What happens is another vote is given and the result is the same?

Listening to the politicians it is clear that many are not informed whatsoever and that hasn't changed since the build up to the vote itself. I don't think you can clearly state that the majority do want to remain, albeit I think you are probably right. The majority decided to represent parties who campaigned to exit the EU, rather than as independents. The other problem I see is that you have 3 sets of politicians. There are probably the majority on either side who have made up their mind and aren't for changing. The next largest group are the ones who take the path of least resistance and then the final group, who are probably the smallest, are those MP's that are actually listening to each other and trying to work with each other and achieve something.

17 hours ago, pete0 said:

The majority of the public who voted leave did so on a lie about the EU costing us a fortune and that money would be pumped into the NHS. They had no actual basis to go off other than propaganda. The leave option was never clearly explained. To simplify Mike's example, given a choice of a red passport or blue passport most of us would pick blue. If you're then told picking red protects your health and human rights whereas picking blue means you or people you know may lose their jobs most would then pick red. 

The public weren't told this, the consequences weren't clearly put to the public largely thanks to the the loud mouth brexit politicians (who are no where to be seen now the shit has hit the fan) and a self serving media. Given most people now have an awareness of the consequences surely it would be best for all to have another vote or better yet treat it as advisory only. Madness to fuck over the whole country based on lies and try and call a minor margin the will of the people. 

If that is the case then why do opinion polls still keep the vote very even despite everyone being much more knowledgeable about all these lies that were being told? Why do also fail to see that these lies were provided by both sides and still are. The leave option can never be "clearly explained" because no-one actually knows what will happen. There are a wide range of very different "leave" options where as there is only one way to remain. Its this point that it part of the problem because MP's aren't really sure why people actually wanted to leave. I think they do have a fairly decent grip of why that is but that reason is different for varying different socioeconomic groups.

The direction the country takes if Brexit does ever happen completely depends on the governing party and the people in the country. A forward thinking government and a population that want to grasp the nettle can make it work. It will never be easy, not that any reasonable person thought it would, and there will be significant issues that arise but with the right approach and mentality, they are issues that will be overcome. With the wrong approach, they are issues that will rip the country further apart. Given how these negotiations have been approached, on what appears to be on both sides to an extent, the latter would appear more likely that the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/01/2019 at 07:19, Matt said:

You mean direct democracy? A much more sensible option to what the UK has. 

Im curious, John. Are you happy with the plan?

Matt, I presume you mean this question?  If by 'the plan' you mean Theresa May's deal, then no, I am not.  I am in favour of a hard Brexit if that is the only option.

Incidentally, when I voted to join the Common Market in the 1970's, that is the perfect example, in an EU context, of not knowing what you were voting for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/01/2019 at 16:43, MikeO said:

Interesting, vote built on lies (and illegal practices) that the international community wants overturned; how dare they?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-47014322

Maduro is an absolute piece of shit but that kind of intervention (the kind the U.S. already made with oil sanctions) makes me incredibly nervous as it has gone poorly over and over again, resulting in dictatorships and even more brutal oppression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, holystove said:

House of Commons says "OXI".

Nai surely? But will the 27 say oxi to renegiotiation? They've said unequivocally that they won't so what will Mrs Maybe come back to the commons with?

Don't miss next week's action packed adventure!

Share this post


Link to post
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...