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

1 hour ago, rubecula said:

to be honest I am  heartily sick of the whole sorry episode now  I was huffed to bits when I thought my vote meant something,  but it was all lies  ….

There’s many with that view mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2019 at 11:36, StevO said:

By false advertising on people’s social media to stir up racial hatred and convince vulnerable people of things that would happen if we didn’t leave. On an absolutely massive scale, they spent millions employing Cambridge Analytica to do this for them. There was such a scandal around it that there was government inquiry into the firm and the inquiry stated at the end that we will never be able to have a fair election ever again after what they did, such was the damaging but every effective work they carried out. When a government inquiry states that a fair election can never happen again I’d say that pretty damaging to democracy. 

I’d love to know your thoughts on how fair you think that it. But I suspect you didn’t even know it happened and thus you don’t really care. As a leave voter it makes me feel sick that that is how they won.

Only just spotted this.  Apologies for the delay.  No, you are right, I didn't know it happened and probably along with 17.4 millions people who voted leave and also didn't know it happened. So if our vote wasn't influenced, what's your point?

Share this post


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

Only just spotted this.  Apologies for the delay.  No, you are right, I didn't know it happened and probably along with 17.4 millions people who voted leave and also didn't know it happened. So if our vote wasn't influenced, what's your point?

The point is it did influence but in a much more subvert manner than sending out flyers 

Share this post


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

Only just spotted this.  Apologies for the delay.  No, you are right, I didn't know it happened and probably along with 17.4 millions people who voted leave and also didn't know it happened. So if our vote wasn't influenced, what's your point?

I’m not bothered about my own vote. I’m bothered about the massively unethical and intrusive tactics used. It was the result I wanted, but I wanted a fair result and this wasn’t a fair fight. 
 

I strongly suggest typing Brexit and Cambridge Analytica or AggregateIQ into Google. You might be shocked and disgusted by what you find too. 
 

I honestly believe if they didn’t employ these tactics the result would have been very much the other way. But gaining votes by using racial hatred is just not acceptable in my views. It makes me ashamed of the whole mess. 
 

Do yourself a favour John, watch the Brexit film The Uncivil War, also watch The Great Hack, you’ll see exactly what underhanded shit was carried out. I think if you did you would be just as disappointed and disgusted as I am. 

Share this post


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

Google:  'Unearthed video reveals Philip Hammond shock no deal'.

The video shows arch-Remainer, 'Philip Hammond, admitting (in the House of Commons)  that if no deal was agreed on Brexit then Britain would leave the EU 'automatically'. (no mention of the catastrophes he is now implying - my brackets).  The video is from 2016.

He is now against 'no deal' when he previously announced to Parliament that it would be 'automatic'.

What do you think you heard here?

It's not an admission of anything other than someone spelling out the withdrawal process, highlighting the fact a deal may not be agreed within the two years and that all the other member states would need to agree to an extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, RPG said:

Try to play the ball

 

22 hours ago, RPG said:

I think it is you who miss the point. Parliament acknowledged the sovereignty of the people by initially doing as directed and invoking Article 50 by a massive majority.

Have a look at the submissions made today in the Belfast High Court to see how no deal is declared as the outcome of Article 50 if no agreement is reached.

Take your own advice, you're still just replying to strawmen arguments.

Of course Parliament invoked article 50, that's how you get to the next stage of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, that is the only part with no grey area.

Keep on ignoring the fact that the referendum was not pre-legislative and the Parliament still has an obligation to the other 50 million people who live in the UK and didn't vote for either a deal or no deal Brexit.

 

Share this post


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

I’m not bothered about my own vote. I’m bothered about the massively unethical and intrusive tactics used. It was the result I wanted, but I wanted a fair result and this wasn’t a fair fight. 
 

I strongly suggest typing Brexit and Cambridge Analytica or AggregateIQ into Google. You might be shocked and disgusted by what you find too. 
 

I honestly believe if they didn’t employ these tactics the result would have been very much the other way. But gaining votes by using racial hatred is just not acceptable in my views. It makes me ashamed of the whole mess. 
 

Do yourself a favour John, watch the Brexit film The Uncivil War, also watch The Great Hack, you’ll see exactly what underhanded shit was carried out. I think if you did you would be just as disappointed a nd disgusted as I am. 

Steve0, I am not aware of anything you quote.  I made my decision to vote leave years before the referendum and would vote leave again no matter how many more referendum's we might have.  Switzerland have had five so far and vote 'No' every time. 

Share this post


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

 

Take your own advice, you're still just replying to strawmen arguments.

Of course Parliament invoked article 50, that's how you get to the next stage of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, that is the only part with no grey area.

Keep on ignoring the fact that the referendum was not pre-legislative and the Parliament still has an obligation to the other 50 million people who live in the UK and didn't vote for either a deal or no deal Brexit.

 

Chac, no one voted for a deal or a no deal.  It was Leave or Remain.  Out of your 50 million (which I assume includes those who voted remain?) why do you assume that the balance who didn't vote would have voted remain?   I have already pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to Parliament, prior to the referendum, that the alternative to not securing  deal was to leave automatically.  Though I guess that was before they thought up project fear.

Share this post


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

I have already pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to Parliament, prior to the referendum, that the alternative to not securing  deal was to leave automatically. 

But that's a bit different to your earlier assertion that, "It was discussed in the House of Commons prior to the referendum - and not logged as a major problem..." isn't it? That video clip you've referred to is completely without context so no more than a meaningless soundbite really. It may have been a statement of theoretical fact but it was a situation that nobody seriously thought we'd be stupid enough to allow ourselves to get into.

Also how do you square Gove saying...

“But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.

“Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just checked.  The Treasuries 'Project Fear' forecast that Brexit would reduce employment by 820,000..  Today, the Office for National Statistics said that in the 3 months to July we have added another 31,000 jobs to send unemployment back down to a 45 year low of 3.8pc.  Great news eh.

Share this post


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

1)Chac, no one voted for a deal or a no deal.  It was Leave or Remain.  2) Out of your 50 million (which I assume includes those who voted remain?) why do you assume that the balance who didn't vote would have voted remain?   3)I have already pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced to Parliament, prior to the referendum, that the alternative to not securing  deal was to leave automatically.  Though I guess that was before they thought up project fear.

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.

Share this post


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

I have just checked.  The Treasuries 'Project Fear' forecast that Brexit would reduce employment by 820,000..  Today, the Office for National Statistics said that in the 3 months to July we have added another 31,000 jobs to send unemployment back down to a 45 year low of 3.8pc.  Great news eh.

Brexit hasn't happened yet John.

Share this post


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

Steve0, I am not aware of anything you quote.  I made my decision to vote leave years before the referendum and would vote leave again no matter how many more referendum's we might have.  Switzerland have had five so far and vote 'No' every time. 

Nobody is questioning or arguing with your motives for voting leave John; you've been clear from the start of this and everyone respects your position. It's just that the evidence that Ste is talking about suggests that a whole lot of other people who voted leave were influenced by their use of social media. I suspect that you (like me) don't spend every waking hour on Faceache and Twitter but many do, and there's a definite smoking gun there.

Share this post


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

But that's a bit different to your earlier assertion that, "It was discussed in the House of Commons prior to the referendum - and not logged as a major problem..." isn't it? That video clip you've referred to is completely without context so no more than a meaningless soundbite really. It may have been a statement of theoretical fact but it was a situation that nobody seriously thought we'd be stupid enough to allow ourselves to get into.

Also how do you square Gove saying...

“But we didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped lead. During that campaign, we said we should do a deal with the EU and be part of the network of free trade deals that covers all Europe, from Iceland to Turkey.

“Leaving without a deal on March 29 would not honour that commitment."

Why is it different?  Unless you class 'leaving automatically' as a catastrophe?   I can't believe you think that nobody was aware of the potential of a no deal, apart from the fact that you imply that you know how everyone is thinking.  As Hammond said, if there was no deal to be agreed, leaving would be automatic.

Share this post


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

Why is it different?  Unless you class 'leaving automatically' as a catastrophe?   I can't believe you think that nobody was aware of the potential of a no deal, apart from the fact that you imply that you know how everyone is thinking.  As Hammond said, if there was no deal to be agreed, leaving would be automatic.

So as I asked afterwards why did Gove say that was not something he campaigned for and that to leave without a deal would not honour [leave's] commitment?

Share this post


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

Why is it different? 

Difference is you said it was discussed (suggesting a discussion) in the House of Commons prior to the referendum - and not logged as a major problem (again suggesting a discussion) and you said you'd provide evidence of this.

The "evidence" you provided consisted of a thirty second clip of Hammond mentioning it; that's quite a significant difference. 

Share this post


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

Brexit hasn't happened yet John.

Chac, the Bank of England said a vote to leave would result in an immediate recession.  Osborne who was Chancellor of the Exchequer said that unemployment would increase by 820,000. This was prior to the referendum.

Share this post


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

So as I asked afterwards why did Gove say that was not something he campaigned for and that to leave without a deal would not honour [leave's] commitment?

Mike, you are conflating two separate issues.  The purpose of the Hammond video was to prove that the issue of no deal had been discussed prior to the referendum. The  important issue being 'prior to the referendum'. This was in response to a view on this site that no deal had never been discussed.

What Gove said was fairly recent and anyway, as we know, Gove changes his views almost as much as Corbyn.

Share this post


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

Mike, you are conflating two separate issues.

I'm actually not, I'm putting two separate points in the same post.

1) A remain MP mentioned the default position pre-referendum, there was no discussion or analysis of the potential problem (which you assured us you would provide proof of).

2) Leading leave MP says (more recently) that the threatened result of the current situation was not what was campaigned on/people voted for. You say he changes his views; when was he a remainer exactly?

Share this post


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

Steve0, I am not aware of anything you quote.  I made my decision to vote leave years before the referendum and would vote leave again no matter how many more referendum's we might have.  Switzerland have had five so far and vote 'No' every time. 

I fully get that John, I voted leave for my own reasons too. But many many people voted because of the underhanded race and fear related tactics employed by leave.eu. 
Do you not think that the referendum on something so major should have a transparent result with as much honesty as possible?
I wanted to leave, but I wanted it to be the honest will of the people. What was done by leave.eu took away that honesty, and it’s a very very tainted result because of those actions for me. 
The minute the government inquiry was ordered this referendum result should have been put on hold while the investigation was carried out. 
 

As a man clearly of integrity John, I’ve always found you to be an honest and fair man during our time on TT, I’m sure you would want any election or referendum to be run fairly. I’ll post a link to the summary of the government inquiry, take a read. As a leave voter I find it all quite horrible. I really think you will think the same with a bit of clear information to hand. 
 

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/fake-news-report-published-17-19/

Share this post


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

Nobody is questioning or arguing with your motives for voting leave John; you've been clear from the start of this and everyone respects your position. It's just that the evidence that Ste is talking about suggests that a whole lot of other people who voted leave were influenced by their use of social media. I suspect that you (like me) don't spend every waking hour on Faceache and Twitter but many do, and there's a definite smoking gun there.

That’s it Mike. I had my reasons, I can live with them. It’s the people who were influenced by these things that worry me. 
I’m not on Facebook so I couldn’t have been targeted, but millions were. 
 

The same tactics were employed in the Trump election by the same company. 

Share this post


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

I'm actually not, I'm putting two separate points in the same post.

1) A remain MP mentioned the default position pre-referendum, there was no discussion or analysis of the potential problem (which you assured us you would provide proof of).

2) Leading leave MP says (more recently) that the threatened result of the current situation was not what was campaigned on/voted for. You say he changes his views; when was he a remainer exactly?

I'm getting confused here Mike.  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announces in the House of Commons (pre referendum) that failure to negotiate a deal with the EU would result in Britain leaving the EU automatically.  If no deal was negotiated, 'automatically' means no deal.  This responds to a post that said that no deal was ever mentioned prior to the referendum.

Where did I say that Gove was a remainer?  He keeps changing his mind on which of the Tory strategies are the most popular this week.  Don't rate him, think he's a weasel.

Share this post


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

I'm getting confused here Mike.  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announces in the House of Commons (pre referendum) that failure to negotiate a deal with the EU would result in Britain leaving the EU automatically.  If no deal was negotiated, 'automatically' means no deal.  This responds to a post that said that no deal was ever mentioned prior to the referendum.

Where did I say that Gove was a remainer?  He keeps changing his mind on which of the Tory strategies are the most popular this week.  Don't rate him, think he's a weasel.

OK so we'll skip the second bit, leave wants to pick and choose who and when to believe or ignore so forget that.

You still fail to provide (despite multiple requests to offer up the promised evidence) your proof that no deal was "discussed" and analysed at any point pre-referendum.

It just wasn't, and no amount of internet searching will come up with a link supporting that argument. I say again; a few seconds mention doesn't equate to a discussion, a discussion takes more than one person laying out a position.

I could say, "stones are sentient" and rightly get no reply. That's not a discussion.

Share this post


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

Steve0, I am not aware of anything you quote.  I made my decision to vote leave years before the referendum and would vote leave again no matter how many more referendum's we might have.  Switzerland have had five so far and vote 'No' every time. 

Switzerland has been neutral for 500 years (although only recognised as neutral 100 years ago). They chose to not join and remain neutral, it’s not close to comparable situation. 

Also, not being personally aware is largely irrelevant. The majority of people have a social network link, that’s the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

Share this post


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

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.

Just as I expected, weak as piss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/09/2019 at 09:27, Palfy said:

And if any side wants to argue about it let them in the knowledge that they can go on till the cows home, but what ever the result it will be implemented as a decision by the people based more facts than fiction. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


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

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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.     

Share this post


Link to post
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:

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Palfy said:

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. 

The reason another referendum is not desirable is because it would drive a coach and horses through the biggest democratic exercise in our country's electoral history.

And I could turn your argument around and say that the reason you don't want an election is because you are worried about getting a Parliament that would actually enact the democratically expressed wishes of the people.

The one thing this debate has confirmed to me is that there will, ultimately, have to be winners and losers - and that is sad. May tried to keep everyone happy and that blew up in her face. We have to go one way or the other, no half measures, and imho that way should be consistent with the referendum result.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


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

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

It is my opinion, but neither of us know for sure because it hasn’t happened. Yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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."

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...