Brexit...

[Gwlad]

[Romey 1878]

10 hours ago, Gwlad all over said:

Her death will be celebrated around the country after the pain she's caused. Just like her idol, Maggie.

[MikeO]

No exit polls so no indication yet what happened but this is an interesting read; I know pollsters have been hopelessly inaccurate in recent times but it concludes, "While the Brexit Party will pick up the plurality of the seats within the British EU Parliament delegation, the latest Panselbase poll suggests that 54 percent of voters want to remain the European Union."

If that's the case then I hope Boris (or whoever) respects the views of the people.

[StevO]

So who won the election?

[MikeO]

3 hours ago, StevO said:

So who won the election?

Won't be counted 'til tomorrow after all countries are done voting, over here the election is tomorrow.

[johnh]

4 hours ago, MikeO said:

No exit polls so no indication yet what happened but this is an interesting read; I know pollsters have been hopelessly inaccurate in recent times but it concludes, "While the Brexit Party will pick up the plurality of the seats within the British EU Parliament delegation, the latest Panselbase poll suggests that 54 percent of voters want to remain the European Union."

If that's the case then I hope Boris (or whoever) respects the views of the people.

Mike, you mean how Remainers have respected the views of the people?

[MikeO]

50 minutes ago, johnh said:

Mike, you mean how Remainers have respected the views of the people?

It's perfectly possible to respect a view you disagree with while trying to put across a counter argument, I respect your view completely and there's been no nastiness in this thread as far as I can recall (unlike many other places). The fundamental point (for me) is that people voted in 2016 without a clue of what the consequences of "leave" would be; you and many others I acknowledge gave it a lot of thought and came to the conclusion you did but many millions, in my opinion, voted out because they believed the "lies on the bus" or were/are racists.

The goalposts moved once the complexities and cost to the country became apparent and it seems possible that "the people" may have changed their mind (they may not have, we'll get an idea tomorrow). I still fear, while you hope, that Brexit will happen regardless. Time will tell.

 

[johnh]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

It's perfectly possible to respect a view you disagree with while trying to put across a counter argument, I respect your view completely and there's been no nastiness in this thread as far as I can recall (unlike many other places). The fundamental point (for me) is that people voted in 2016 without a clue of what the consequences of "leave" would be; you and many others I acknowledge gave it a lot of thought and came to the conclusion you did but many millions, in my opinion, voted out because they believed the "lies on the bus" or were/are racists.

The goalposts moved once the complexities and cost to the country became apparent and it seems possible that "the people" may have changed their mind (they may not have, we'll get an idea tomorrow). I still fear, while you hope, that Brexit will happen regardless. Time will tell.

 

Mike, democracy has been the keystone of this country for centuries.  I don't think Remainers have thought through the implications of usurping a democratic vote. If the Brexit vote is reversed then politics will never be the same again and certainly not for the better.  

[MikeO]

2 minutes ago, johnh said:

Mike, democracy has been the keystone of this country for centuries.  I don't think Remainers have thought through the implications of usurping a democratic vote. If the Brexit vote is reversed then politics will never be the same again and certainly not for the better.  

But if the British public are the people who "usurp" their own vote by changing their minds then that's a democratic decision is it not? Same as every five years many millions change their minds. Plus there's always the fact that the referendum was always advisory so not legally binding at all. The government should say (repeating myself here) we've listened to your advice and decided it's a really bad idea so thanks but no thanks.

And democracy in this country was rotten to the core (going back to Magna Carta 800 years ago) for many more centuries than it's been a fair representation of public opinion. For me our "first past the post" system isn'tt remotely democratic anyway because millions of smaller party supporters get scant if any representation.

[MikeO]

And we are going to have this excuse for a human being being our next prime minister when nobody voted for him to be PM (as they didn't with May), how is that democratic?

 

[MikeO]

Matthew Parris in The Times today...

Boris Johnson is enough of a rascal to rat on Brexit

"Watching Theresa May’s tearful farewell on the steps of Downing Street I felt intensely the tangle of sentiment and argument, the wrestle of conflicting emotions that now disfigure our politics as they have disfigured her premiership.

When she spoke of her disappointed hopes I felt sympathy. When she tried to drag in the kindertransport of children rescued from the Nazis — and twisted the words of its pioneer, Sir Nicholas Winton, into an argument for her Brexit compromise — I felt rage and scorn. When her voice cracked I felt pity. When she spoke of the need to seek common ground I felt indignant at a prime minister who stubbornly refused to reach out until her own position was threatened.

And when she reminded us that it was now up to her successor to secure what she had failed to secure, a Brexit that works for everybody, I felt despair. Will it be Boris Johnson? Have we learnt nothing? To that incompetent scoundrel in a moment.

For the lack of two attributes, Theresa May’s premiership has ended in failure. The want of these two qualities, unless the next prime minister can supply them, will consign his or her premiership to the same fate. And the missing ingredients? The first is logic, the second honesty. Can Mrs May’s successor supply these? In their absence, British politics chokes. Nothing matters more.

So to hell with “empathy”, “reaching out”, “listening”, “emotional intelligence” and all that jazz. To hell with Boris’s “charm”, Jeremy Hunt’s “calm”, Matt Hancock’s “energy”, Michael Gove’s “intellect” or Rory Stewart’s “back story”. And brush aside Mrs May’s tears. We’re in for a weekend of psychobabble: a summer pudding of self-pity on Mrs May’s side and, on her critics’ side, oh-so-wise advice on how she could have kept everybody sweet.

Our politics doesn’t need any further buckets of slop about “seeking the common ground”. Leadership is about so much more than relationship counselling. Process, process, process — the curse of our age, forever flinching from the crunch question, the only question: not of process but of outcome. This is what she couldn’t duck any longer. Her successor will also struggle, and fail, to avoid it.

What do I mean about honesty and logic? The frontrunner in the race for Downing Street offered a masterclass in his lack of it during the referendum: “My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it.” You can’t.

The Archangel Gabriel couldn’t have delivered Mrs May’s famous “Brexit that works for everyone” promise. It will become fashionable in columns like these to identify things she could have done to get her deal through, and the time (always yesterday) when she could have done them. And I can believe that with Mr Gove’s persuasiveness or Mr Johnson’s amiable bombast, a different prime minister might just have pushed something like her deal over the line.

But — have we all forgotten? — her deal is for the 22-month transition period, not for Britain’s final status outside the EU. So we’d now be in that transition period, still tearing ourselves apart, for it’s really only about the final status that Brexiteers and Remainers disagree.

And so to the logic. It’s possible to believe (as I don’t) that Brexit could lead us to glory: but only after a “clean” exit from the EU and the ties that come with membership. And it’s possible to believe (as I do) that we are wiser to remain. But to believe we could benefit from being half-in, half-out defies logic. The ties of membership, or half-membership, are what real Leavers believe hold us back. Real Remainers, meanwhile, share their horror at subjecting ourselves to rules we’ve lost the right to shape. The illogic of compromise that delivers the worst of both worlds would defeat Gabriel, defeated Mrs May, and will defeat whoever succeeds her.

And so to honesty. Somebody has to square with the British people. She never would. It is about Remain or Leave. We loop back to 2016, but this time with a much clearer grasp of what “Leave” means. Isn’t the Gordian knot cut by putting the question again?

And here, I don’t mean to queer Mr Johnson’s pitch by putting the wind up his Brexiteer supporters, but must mention one faint hope: a reason for hoping a Johnson premiership would not end in calamity. My Times colleague Rachel Sylvester discussed it in these pages on Tuesday. Mr Johnson might be capable of ratting on his promise to take us out of the EU — and getting away with it.

The arguments against his suitability are too many for a comprehensive list. Casual disregard for the truth; reckless caprice; lazy disregard for detail; weak negotiating skills (as Whitehall knows); moral turpitude which perhaps we should overlook in politics but which has been so destructive of others’ lives that I cannot forget it; and his failure as foreign secretary to achieve anything but an extension of his notoriety beyond our own shores.

The man’s a rascal. But like many rascals he’s capable of a big decision. It’s possible to imagine him telling the country that this Brexit business has got into such a poisonous muddle that we need to rip it up and start again: to revoke Article 50, or refer back to the people, or both. He might escape with his life. A Hunt, a Gove, a Hancock or a Javid wouldn’t.

Be clear: whoever takes over will soon enough need to be very, very bold, one way or the other. Would-be Tory leaders will shortly be wooing supporters with a promise to “go back to Brussels” for a better deal, threatening no-deal Brexit if they don’t. Whoever wins will then have to try. They’ll return empty-handed. What then? Here’s Mr Johnson, speaking in Switzerland today: “We will leave the EU on October 31, deal or no deal ... The way to get a good deal is to prepare for a no deal. To get things done you need to be prepared to walk away.”

This week the Institute for Government published an important report, suggesting that a PM intent on a no-deal Brexit could thwart parliament by a lightning decision to do it without MPs’ say-so. Be warned, would-be prime ministers: this would be nuclear, a coup against representative democracy and a breach of our unwritten constitution. This way, infamy lies. Gangrene would follow such an amputation. Don’t even think about it.

That leaves a referendum, a revocation, a general election, or all three. Theresa May’s departing tears are unlikely to be the last shed at Downing Street’s door."

 

[MikeO]

Still on my horse here (wife had an icky tummy and an early night) another of the PM candidates...

'Announcing his candidacy, Mr Hancock ruled out a snap general election in order to resolve the Brexit stalemate, saying this would be "disastrous for the country" and would risk seeing the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn in power "by Christmas".'

So he doesn't want the British public to have a say because they might return a result he doesn't like and just wants the new PM to be elected by Tories, very democratic that eh?

[Palfy]

Rory Stewart would make the best PM out of the bad bunch who have put themselves forward, he's more grounded than the rest and at least he has a good knowledge of our the real world really is.

If you Google him you can't help to be impressed by what he has done in his life just a shame he's a Tory.

[MikeO]

4 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Rory Stewart would make the best PM out of the bad bunch who have put themselves forward, he's more grounded than the rest and at least he has a good knowledge of our the real world really is.

Never heard of him before today so no idea.

[johnh]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

And we are going to have this excuse for a human being being our next prime minister when nobody voted for him to be PM (as they didn't with May), how is that democratic?

 

Well its democratic because its in line with our political system.  Gordon Brown wasn't elected either.  With fixed term parliaments, PM's may change and are voted in by the incumbent party. I happen to have the same opinions on Johnson, I see him as a Donald Trump.  My view is that he won't get in.  He has his supporters in the party but not so much  with MP's.

 

[MikeO]

36 minutes ago, johnh said:

Well its democratic because its in line with our political system.

As I said I disagree with the system and don't agree it's democratic, however...

Would you not agree then that an advisory referendum can be overruled by the government without being labelled undemocratic? They may have promised to abide by the result but campaign promises are routinely broken by both parties.

Pleased to see your opinions on Johnson are sound, I really don't see how he's a rock solid favourite to win when nobody admits to liking him. Who would be your choice John?

[johnh]

13 hours ago, MikeO said:

As I said I disagree with the system and don't agree it's democratic, however...

Would you not agree then that an advisory referendum can be overruled by the government without being labelled undemocratic? They may have promised to abide by the result but campaign promises are routinely broken by both parties.

Pleased to see your opinions on Johnson are sound, I really don't see how he's a rock solid favourite to win when nobody admits to liking him. Who would be your choice John?

Er, dangerous logic that Mike. overrule a referendum that was promised to be binding because campaign promises have been previously broken.  Two, or more, wrongs don't make a right.  In answer to your question on who my choice would be, I'm afraid I haven't a clue.  The quality of people  (in all parties) has never been so low.  Johnson is a buffoon, the rest are lightweight. Corbyn has been in politics and the Labour party for most of his adult life.  Not one previous Labour leader saw any qualities in him.  They can't all be wrong.  Lib Dem's are run by a pensioner because there is no one else.  Where is the Monster Raving Loonie Party when you need it?

[Matt]

16 hours ago, johnh said:

Mike, democracy has been the keystone of this country for centuries.  I don't think Remainers have thought through the implications of usurping a democratic vote. If the Brexit vote is reversed then politics will never be the same again and certainly not for the better.  

John, the fundamental flaw here is a misunderstanding of what democracy actually means (as has been the case from the beginning).

politics had already be changed massively and certainly not for the better. 

[StevO]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit:_The_Uncivil_War

has anyone watched this film?

i voted out, said that many times on here, because I had my own opinion on things. When I watched this film and saw how well they targeted people online I couldn’t help but think it all must be illegal. There were people voting for things that weren’t even in the public domain, just targeted hatred. It’s madness. 

I would advise everyone to watch it, and try not to be a little bit frightened by it all. 

[Palfy]

2 hours ago, johnh said:

Er, dangerous logic that Mike. overrule a referendum that was promised to be binding because campaign promises have been previously broken.  Two, or more, wrongs don't make a right.  In answer to your question on who my choice would be, I'm afraid I haven't a clue.  The quality of people  (in all parties) has never been so low.  Johnson is a buffoon, the rest are lightweight. Corbyn has been in politics and the Labour party for most of his adult life.  Not one previous Labour leader saw any qualities in him.  They can't all be wrong.  Lib Dem's are run by a pensioner because there is no one else.  Where is the Monster Raving Loonie Party when you need it?

[johnh]

10 hours ago, Matt said:

John, the fundamental flaw here is a misunderstanding of what democracy actually means (as has been the case from the beginning).

politics had already be changed massively and certainly not for the better. 

What are you trying to say Matt, that democracy is what Remainers want it to be?

[Matt]

11 hours ago, johnh said:

What are you trying to say Matt, that democracy is what Remainers want it to be?

Not at all. I want yourself and others to understand that the UK is a representative democracy (i.e. people vote in MPs to represent them - as you said, our democracy for centuries) and not a direct democracy (e.g. Switzerland). It’s been explained many times, but I can find the evidence to prove and videos explaining the difference between the two again I needed. But when people talk about democracy, they should actually know what it means.

Putting up a non-legally binding referendum to gauge opinion on a massively complex topic to a largely ignorant and misinformed public for the sake of consolidating party power is not democratic - it’s borderline fascism which will be further proven when the conservatives announce whichever “candidate” as the winner. 

[Palfy]

If the EU elections in GB were a reflection of a second referendum then the remain voters would have 40% of the vote against the leavers 34%. 

Although it was a low turnout I think it clearly shows that the majority has swung and that a 2nd referendum should be held, it also proves that armed with more facts people make better informed choices. 

Take the power away from House of Parliament they have failed us and give it back to the people to make the final decision, surely now that can be the only sensible way forward, unless of course you are Johnstone, Rees-Mogg or Farage. 

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, Palfy said:

If the EU elections in GB were a reflection of a second referendum then the remain voters would have 40% of the vote against the leavers 34%. 

Although it was a low turnout I think it clearly shows that the majority has swung and that a 2nd referendum should be held, it also proves that armed with more facts people make better informed choices. 

Take the power away from House of Parliament they have failed us and give it back to the people to make the final decision, surely now that can be the only sensible way forward, unless of course you are Johnstone, Rees-Mogg or Farage. 

Not sure if the count is complete yet but currently....

Brexit + UKIP = 5,794,052

LibDem + Green + SNP + Plaid Cymru + Change = 6,703,592

Fairly conclusive.

Farage's "triumph" amounted to 11.3% of the electorate. Not exactly a huge endorsement.

[Matt]

17 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Not sure if the count is complete yet but currently....

Brexit + UKIP = 5,794,052

LibDem + Green + SNP + Plaid Cymru + Change = 6,703,592

Fairly conclusive.

Farage's "triumph" amounted to 11.3% of the electorate. Not exactly a huge endorsement.

Still a scary amount though. 

[Palfy]

15 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Not sure if the count is complete yet but currently....

Brexit + UKIP = 5,794,052

LibDem + Green + SNP + Plaid Cymru + Change = 6,703,592

Fairly conclusive.

Farage's "triumph" amounted to 11.3% of the electorate. Not exactly a huge endorsement.

All that’s really happened is the Brexit Party have taken UKips seats for me there’s no difference between them, now the Parties that advocate remain have gained hugely at the expense of the Tories and Labour and swung the vote for a clear remain mandate, the truth always comes out in the end. 

[MikeO]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Still a scary amount though. 

Just over one in ten who were eligible to vote were energised enough to support them though Matt. It's too many I agree but still very much a minority, 89% of the electorate chose not to vote for them.

[johnh]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

Not at all. I want yourself and others to understand that the UK is a representative democracy (i.e. people vote in MPs to represent them - as you said, our democracy for centuries) and not a direct democracy (e.g. Switzerland). It’s been explained many times, but I can find the evidence to prove and videos explaining the difference between the two again I needed. But when people talk about democracy, they should actually know what it means.

Putting up a non-legally binding referendum to gauge opinion on a massively complex topic to a largely ignorant and misinformed public for the sake of consolidating party power is not democratic - it’s borderline fascism which will be further proven when the conservatives announce whichever “candidate” as the winner. 

Matt. 

1.  The government of the day said the referendum would be 'binding'.

2.  Leave won

3. At the subsequent GE both main parties said that they would deliver Brexit, (it was in their manifesto's)

17m+  voters in the referendum voted to leave the EU.  Everyone who voted Conservative and Labour in the last election voted for parties committed to Brexit.  Seems fairly democratic to me.  Also seems to be fairly undemocratic to be trying to usurp the decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeO]

28 minutes ago, johnh said:

17m+  voters in the referendum voted to leave the EU.

So how do you explain less than 6m voting for it on Wednesday? 11m+ people who voted to leave didn't do so last week, so what's more democratic; enacting the will of a largely ignorant public three years ago or the going by a more informed opinion offered last Wednesday? 

Oh as an aside manifesto's are routinely torn up once a party gets power John, you know that as well as I do.

[Tonsta]

I just love the argument if you dont agree with me you are ignorant and mis informed, typical losers speak.