Brexit...

[Palfy]

Here we go again the French are saying they are going to vote against a three month extension, just as they said they would last time, but didn’t because Germans said they had to sanction it, and if it suits the Germans to have another extension which I’m sure it will then the French will be put back in there place once again. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

I don't disagree with your assessment of the EU side of the equation but I think there are still a few twists and turns between now and 31/10/19 on the UK side.

Most definitely there are going to be as you said more twists and turns, but whether that means we leave by said date I’m not so sure. 

Although I do believe the government are enforcing very strongly that we will be, I’m in Spain at the moment and I was listening to a local English radio station and a , gov.uk announcement came on advising all UK citizens to seek help and advice with their travel and passport arrangements after the 31st October to and from EU countries. 

Personally I would want article 50 revoked but I know that that would be wrong, so what I would hope will happen is that all parties agree to a 2nd referendum, where the result has to stand and can’t be opposed by law, for me that would be the quickest way to resolve this and I won’t  say the fairest because leavers would certainly disagree with that after the outcome of the 1st vote, but I would counteract that by saying you aren’t winners because you haven’t got what you voted for and are unlikely to as it stands. 

As crazy as it seems at the moment the remainers who lost the vote look more like the winners than the leavers, so let’s just get on with the 2nd referendum and take the power back from the politicians who will fight this forever and never agree and give it back to the people.  

[holystove]

Someone made a post on here linking research that concluded the S*n boycott helped to cut Euroscepticism in Liverpool.

Over the weekend, the former Europe correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, David Rennie, gave some insights into how his paper goes about covering Brussels:

"As one of Boris Johnson's successors as Telegraph Brussels correspondent from 2005-2007, I fear Sir Max is being too easy on the role his paper played in establishing the idea that Europe has only foolish and bad ideas, imposed on a hapless Britain.  I inherited Boris's office, with its fine view over a Brussels park and lake, and his assistant who told adoring tales of her scallywag boss.  I also inherited a beat predicated on the idea that stories about the EU did not have to be wholly true as long as they were funny.  I wrote at the time that UK journalism felt like school bullying and the EU was the kid in the playground with glasses who had to be punched, because it never fought back and deserved it.  I should say I had some fine Foreign desk editors, who let me knock down flase stories, but it felt like swimming against a tide.  Two small stories, then I'll stop.  I once asked for a briefing about a project to connect national databases of asylum applications.  A patient EU Commission official explained how real-time maps could now be shared with governments.  I rang London and was told to speak to the home news desk.  I explained the scheme to the editor on duty.  He was sincerely baffled. "But that's helpful to the UK", he said. "Yes," I said. "It sounds sensible," he went on, audibly at a loss at what to do with the story.  It was buried.  Last story.  Shortly before my move to The Economist in 2007 I was rung to be told that the Telegraph was closing its Brussels staff bureau and wanted me to move to Paris as Europe editor.  I argued for keeping an EU staff job, though I already knew I was off. I reminded my then boss that an op-ed colleague Simon Heffer had that week written a column comparing the EU threat to Nazi Germany. "Don't you think our readers should have a correspondent here to explain what such an institution is actually doing?" I asked.  My then boss told me: "Telegraph readers hate the EU so much they don't want to read about it." This was the logical end of years of unserious, unprincipled, lazy polemic. Europe's wickedness was established as a feeling, a delicious channeling of contempt and rage. Facts didn't matter because the EU didn't sue and if Eurocrats complained that proved the UK press was doing something right.  Boris Johnson didn't invent that journalism, but he and Sir Max put it on page 1, week after week, forcing others to compete, and changing UK debate."

Eye-opening, though unsurprising.

[Palfy]

34 minutes ago, holystove said:

Someone made a post on here linking research that concluded the S*n boycott helped to cut Euroscepticism in Liverpool.

Over the weekend, the former Europe correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, David Rennie, gave some insights into how his paper goes about covering Brussels:

"As one of Boris Johnson's successors as Telegraph Brussels correspondent from 2005-2007, I fear Sir Max is being too easy on the role his paper played in establishing the idea that Europe has only foolish and bad ideas, imposed on a hapless Britain.  I inherited Boris's office, with its fine view over a Brussels park and lake, and his assistant who told adoring tales of her scallywag boss.  I also inherited a beat predicated on the idea that stories about the EU did not have to be wholly true as long as they were funny.  I wrote at the time that UK journalism felt like school bullying and the EU was the kid in the playground with glasses who had to be punched, because it never fought back and deserved it.  I should say I had some fine Foreign desk editors, who let me knock down flase stories, but it felt like swimming against a tide.  Two small stories, then I'll stop.  I once asked for a briefing about a project to connect national databases of asylum applications.  A patient EU Commission official explained how real-time maps could now be shared with governments.  I rang London and was told to speak to the home news desk.  I explained the scheme to the editor on duty.  He was sincerely baffled. "But that's helpful to the UK", he said. "Yes," I said. "It sounds sensible," he went on, audibly at a loss at what to do with the story.  It was buried.  Last story.  Shortly before my move to The Economist in 2007 I was rung to be told that the Telegraph was closing its Brussels staff bureau and wanted me to move to Paris as Europe editor.  I argued for keeping an EU staff job, though I already knew I was off. I reminded my then boss that an op-ed colleague Simon Heffer had that week written a column comparing the EU threat to Nazi Germany. "Don't you think our readers should have a correspondent here to explain what such an institution is actually doing?" I asked.  My then boss told me: "Telegraph readers hate the EU so much they don't want to read about it." This was the logical end of years of unserious, unprincipled, lazy polemic. Europe's wickedness was established as a feeling, a delicious channeling of contempt and rage. Facts didn't matter because the EU didn't sue and if Eurocrats complained that proved the UK press was doing something right.  Boris Johnson didn't invent that journalism, but he and Sir Max put it on page 1, week after week, forcing others to compete, and changing UK debate."

Eye-opening, though unsurprising.

I bare to see what relevance that has now, I do think we are all clearly aware that Boris is a no fan of the EU. 

On the subject of our press I do agree that they represent the views and wishes of some of our society’s idiots, and they lie to suit their agenda, I personally don’t read any of the papers they are mainly full of trivia and the views of other people who want you to believe in their agenda. 

But I know John is a reader of the Telegraph and what you wrote about there readers could well be true, because John is an ardent leaver but only he can say whether what he reads has had a bearing on his condemnation of the EU.

But for me the biggest influences on the way think is driven by social media, and as we’ve witnessed round the world people will infiltrate social media to interfere and corrupt the truth, as Russia did in the Presidential elections, but let’s be frank a lot of the EU press are anti British and in your own admission you have changed your stance, and become more against what we are doing, could that be because of the anti British papers you may be reading, who knows but it would be fair to say that we are all influenced by what’s being broadcast around us willingly or not. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

I won't ever agree that a second referendum offers a solution. We were told, quite clearly, what the outcome of a Leave vote in the referendum would be and there has, subsequently, been an attempt by people who really should know better to turn it into something it never was purely because they wish to reverse the decision but are paranoid about not being seen as the one's responsible for doing so.

Unfortunately, the political battle lines have now been drawn and it has got a little ugly and shows every sign of getting uglier. I think the battle now has to be played out to a conclusion, based on the outcome of the referendum.

We were but what we didn’t realise was it could be challenged by MPs of all parties, and with the vote being so close and lies told by both sides it could prove that it was   fortuitous that it was challenged. 

Armed with more knowledge people may wish to change their minds, after all many MPs have had a change of heart and they’ve had the opportunity to change their vote and change the coarse of Brexit some have changed sides numerous times particularly in the Tory party. 

To say the battle should be played out to it’s conclusion does not guarantee that we will leave, it could as easily result in article 50 being with drawn if an election pursues and the Tories are defeated. 

[johnh]

19 hours ago, Palfy said:

possibly, to be honest I’m not happy with Corbyn so much so that I feel like that for the first time in my life I cannot see me voting for Labour, trust me John when that day comes it will be one of the saddest days of my life, more because I feel rightly or wrongly I would have in some way let the memory of my parents down. 

It’s been over 3 years and we are no further forward than day one, trust me John it’s done we cannot go any further with the original referendum, the politicians are playing party politics and won’t come together to make any movement possible in any direction, so therefore I think it’s fair to say it’s dead. 

Palfy, whilst I don't consider the referendum as 'dead', I have posted on here that I  do not fear a second referendum (even though I would still consider it undemocratic). I think leave would win it comfortably.  However, I also think it wouldn't solve the current problems as I do not think Remain would accept that result either. There is a hard core of Remain supporters who treat the EU like a religion and they won't let go.

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, johnh said:

Palfy, whilst I don't consider the referendum as 'dead', I have posted on here that I  do not fear a second referendum (even though I would still consider it undemocratic). I think leave would win it comfortably.  However, I also think it wouldn't solve the current problems as I do not think Remain would accept that result either. There is a hard core of Remain supporters who treat the EU like a religion and they won't let go.

Without a doubt there will be people on both sides that will never be happy John including many MPs, that’s why a next referendum has to have a condition attached that says that the result can’t be challenged. 

[MikeO]

2 hours ago, johnh said:

There is a hard core of Remain supporters who treat the EU like a religion and they won't let go.

Works both ways. Hard core of leave supporters who won't change their mind whatever the widely predicted (even by the Tory right) damage to the country.

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

[johnh]

46 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Without a doubt there will be people on both sides that will never be happy John including many MPs, that’s why a next referendum has to have a condition attached that says that the result can’t be challenged. 

Palfy,  the remain propaganda leaflet which was sent to every household in the country prior to the referendum stated:  'This is your decision, the Government will implement what you decide'.    So, regretfully, any condition attached to a second referendum, wouldn't be worth the paper its written on.

[johnh]

8 hours ago, Palfy said:

I bare to see what relevance that has now, I do think we are all clearly aware that Boris is a no fan of the EU. 

On the subject of our press I do agree that they represent the views and wishes of some of our society’s idiots, and they lie to suit their agenda, I personally don’t read any of the papers they are mainly full of trivia and the views of other people who want you to believe in their agenda. 

But I know John is a reader of the Telegraph and what you wrote about there readers could well be true, because John is an ardent leaver but only he can say whether what he reads has had a bearing on his condemnation of the EU.

But for me the biggest influences on the way think is driven by social media, and as we’ve witnessed round the world people will infiltrate social media to interfere and corrupt the truth, as Russia did in the Presidential elections, but let’s be frank a lot of the EU press are anti British and in your own admission you have changed your stance, and become more against what we are doing, could that be because of the anti British papers you may be reading, who knows but it would be fair to say that we are all influenced by what’s being broadcast around us willingly or not. 

My anti-EU stance goes back way before the referendum, back into the last century.  The devious way the Lisbon treaty went through (we should have had a referendum) and Ireland being ordered to vote again just hardened my position.

[pete0]

https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2019/09/09/youve-got-to-hand-it-to-the-irish-pm-he-just-out-boris-ed-boris-right-to-his-face/?fbclid=IwAR15vuPWWAg1vTjah8iOBcdKlO0R2LytPQt4Ux8bBHMruk8LFaevKEtGUXU

[Palfy]

57 minutes ago, johnh said:

My anti-EU stance goes back way before the referendum, back into the last century.  The devious way the Lisbon treaty went through (we should have had a referendum) and Ireland being ordered to vote again just hardened my position.

That’s fair enough John I was just trying to find out if the theory put forward by Holystove had any influence on your thinking. 

[StevO]

3 hours ago, johnh said:

Palfy,  the remain propaganda leaflet which was sent to every household in the country prior to the referendum stated:  'This is your decision, the Government will implement what you decide'.    So, regretfully, any condition attached to a second referendum, wouldn't be worth the paper its written on.

It was about as useful as the Facebook ads leave.eu posted stating that 60m Turks were about to move to Britain if we stayed in the EU. 

Lets not forget the bus too.

Amazing what people will say and do to get their desired outcome. 

[Chach]

11 hours ago, RPG said:

I won't ever agree that a second referendum offers a solution. We were told, quite clearly, what the outcome of a Leave vote in the referendum would be and there has, subsequently, been an attempt by people who really should know better to turn it into something it never was purely because they wish to reverse the decision but are paranoid about not being seen as the one's responsible for doing so.

Sorry mate, there's many ways to leave the EU and leave with no trade deal is only one of them. I can use Matt's argument more implicitly. If it was a binary vote to leave or stay why was the referendum advisory and not pre-legislative?

The mechanism to leave the EU was well known > trigger article 50 > two year negotiation > leave, absolutely no reason it couldn't have been pre-legislative.

The only possible reason you won't agree a second referendum offers a solution is that you are worried a more informed electorate will overturn your preferred decision. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

Quite the contrary mate.

My worry is that a second referendum will split the country even further and serve no purpose other than to waste more time.

The government gave a solemn undertaking that the result of the referendum will be honoured. I, and the majority of the electorate (including many who voted Remain), therefore expect it to be honoured.

Your completely missing the point mate, you did vote to leave and leave won the day, but it was then left to parliament to agree with the EU a strategy to leave, as chach said that was always part of the process, the problem is our parliament can’t agree on a deal to take to the EU and let’s be honest never will. 

So if we are to leave that decision at the moment is firmly in the hands of the EU who could force us to crash out with a no deal, so let’s say the biggest power in the EU Germany doesn’t want us to leave and in no uncertain terms like last time tells others members you have to agree to more extensions, this will rumble on for years with us paying in the same amount as before we triggered article 50 yet with no say, which is a great position for the EU and a terrible one for us constantly stuck in limbo. 

So RPG how do you propose we get out of the situation we find ourselves in when parliament won’t allow us to leave without a deal yet won’t agree on a deal. 

[StevO]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

But we are not talking about how useful it was. We are talking about the solemn assurances it offered. Our 'once in a lifetime decision that the government will implement. It will be your decision, not government's, not Parliament's!'

My point is that they both lied in their campaigns, if they don’t see it through it’s just one more lie. It’s a tainted referendum anyway, I personally don’t see any good reason to progress it. I wanted out, now I just wish it didn’t happen. 

[Chach]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

Quite the contrary mate.

My worry is that a second referendum will split the country even further and serve no purpose other than to waste more time.

The government gave a solemn undertaking that the result of the referendum will be honoured. I, and the majority of the electorate (including many who voted Remain), therefore expect it to be honoured.

With all due respect, you're just repeating the same platitudes and factoids and not addressing the fact that the referendum was not pre-legislative so always contingent on the details.

How can asking the question a second time split the country further? 

[pete0]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

Quite the contrary mate.

My worry is that a second referendum will split the country even further and serve no purpose other than to waste more time.

The government gave a solemn undertaking that the result of the referendum will be honoured. I, and the majority of the electorate (including many who voted Remain), therefore expect it to be honoured.

It was almost 50/50 so very little wiggle room to split further. 

Leave campaign was misleading and people didn't really understand the implications. No deal wasn't even mentioned. For those reasons alone the vote should be null (and a fair few deserve to go to prison for their lies and racial tensions created).

Now everyone is more informed surely it makes sense to have another one. If leave wins it reaffirms the initial vote and no one would have much argument. Just look at boxing, in a close fight there's always a rematch. 

[Palfy]

24 minutes ago, pete0 said:

It was almost 50/50 so very little wiggle room to split further. 

Leave campaign was misleading and people didn't really understand the implications. No deal wasn't even mentioned. For those reasons alone the vote should be null (and a fair few deserve to go to prison for their lies and racial tensions created).

Now everyone is more informed surely it makes sense to have another one. If leave wins it reaffirms the initial vote and no one would have much argument. Just look at boxing, in a close fight there's always a rematch. 

That would make complete sense to right minded people, and how you and me got there would be a complete mystery to most people. 

[StevO]

I’ve just found myself agreeing with Pete and Palfy at the same time!

Brexit is bringing people together

[Chach]

Just now, RPG said:

It is not a platitude. It is a hard fact.

The electorate wete given an assurance that the outcome of the biggest democratic exercise this country has ever had would be acted upon.

A massive Parliamentary majority voted to trigger Article 50. Article 50 stated that we had 2 years to leave with a deal but that we would definitely leave 29/3/19. Parliament is in contempt as far as I am concerned.

You just did it again, Article 50 is a formal notice and a process by which member states notify the EU of their intention to leave, the reason that the Parliament had to vote to invoke article 50 is because the referendum was not pre-legislative.

The invocation of Article 50 can be rescinded with a solitary letter.

The Parliament is the only constitutional authority by which to make and repeal laws and that is what it is doing, the idea that it is not functioning can only be based on an ignorant understanding of how democracy works. They don't sit around the campfire singing "Kumbaya my Lord", they argue until they reach a consensus on the legislation and if they can';t do that there is zero reason why no deal becomes the default when a second referendum can be held on the options.

If people are unhappy with the member they elected they can change them at the next GE, the answer is more democracy not less.

So again, how can a second vote and more democracy divide the country?

[Palfy]

16 minutes ago, RPG said:

It would split the country further because there are many Remainers now who are insisting that the democratic outcome of the referendum be acted on - Piers Morgan probably being amongst the most well known of them. A second referendum would divide those who are now even on the same side as some would welcome a second referendum (in the hope of overturning it) but many Remainers would not as they feel that the democratic outcome of the biggest democratic exercise in this country's history must be respected.

Mate seriously holding Piers Morgan up as a figure head, a person who when editor of the Daily Mirror admitted he had published fake photographs of British soldiers beating Iraqi prisoners, if you want to pin your flag to a cunt like that carry on mate. 

[johnh]

3 hours ago, pete0 said:

It was almost 50/50 so very little wiggle room to split further. 

Leave campaign was misleading and people didn't really understand the implications. No deal wasn't even mentioned. For those reasons alone the vote should be null (and a fair few deserve to go to prison for their lies and racial tensions created).

Now everyone is more informed surely it makes sense to have another one. If leave wins it reaffirms the initial vote and no one would have much argument. Just look at boxing, in a close fight there's always a rematch. 

No deal was mentioned.  It was discussed in the House of Commons prior to the referendum - and not logged as a major problem.  I will post details later.

[johnh]

21 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Mate seriously holding Piers Morgan up as a figure head, a person who when editor of the Daily Mirror admitted he had published fake photographs of British soldiers beating Iraqi prisoners, if you want to pin your flag to a cunt like that carry on mate. 

Remain have got Tony Blair.

[Palfy]

17 minutes ago, johnh said:

Remain have got Tony Blair.

agreed John but you’ll never find a post from me holding him up as an example of someone who was right. 

[Chach]

30 minutes ago, johnh said:

No deal was mentioned.  It was discussed in the House of Commons prior to the referendum - and not logged as a major problem.  I will post details later.

Very keen to see this, I've been trying to find evidence that the leaders of the leave campaign even mentioned no deal outside the Parliament let alone inside it.

[MikeO]

5 minutes ago, Chach said:

Very keen to see this, I've been trying to find evidence that the leaders of the leave campaign even mentioned no deal outside the Parliament let alone inside it.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-we-cant-find-evidence-that-dominic-raab-warned-of-no-deal-brexit

Interesting extract... 

'If Mr Gove did raise the possibility of a no-deal Brexit in the referendum campaign, it must have been an accident, because he wrote this in a Daily Mail article in March this year:

“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. It would undoubtedly cause economic turbulence.”'

[johnh]

1 hour ago, Chach said:

Very keen to see this, I've been trying to find evidence that the leaders of the leave campaign even mentioned no deal outside the Parliament let alone inside it.

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'.

[Matt]

15 minutes 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.

Parliament is made sovereign by the electorate. The people themselves are not sovereign. 

[Palfy]

28 minutes ago, RPG said:

Try to play the ball and not the man please. I gave Morgan as an example of a Remain voter who believes in democracy and expects us to to now leave.

You failed to answer the point I made.

And I’m sure there are thousands of decent people who voted leave but now want to remain, because of the reality of what they voted for wasn’t what they were led to believe, Piers Morgan is a corrupt journalist who would say anything to get attention, I’m not playing the man you threw that ball into the arena.