Suspension of Parliament

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 DancingOnRock 28 Aug 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

The usual suspects are already frothing at the mouth here:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/proroguing_parliament-709343

44
 Trangia 28 Aug 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

Whatever has happened to Democracy? A dark day in the history of the country.

6
 Darron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Perhaps a PM using methods worthy of a dictator should make us all foam at the mouth?

5
 Trevers 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The usual suspects are already frothing at the mouth here:

Do you have the remotest clue of the seriousness of what is going on?

4
 fred99 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

The last person who did this had his head chopped off in public - my vote is for the same to happen to Johnson and all his cronies.

12
 Harry Jarvis 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The usual suspects are already frothing at the mouth here:

One of the argument put forward by Leave supporters in favour of their case was the re-establishment of the sovereignty of Parliament over decisions made by the EU. Are you now suggesting that the sovereignty of Parliament should not be upheld and that the House of Commons be prevented from holding Government to account? 

3
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

its a bit of a paradox for leave. They want sovereignty of parliament, but don't feel that can happen until we have fully left the EU. Whilst there are MPs who are determined to try and stop us leaving the EU, they "leave" are happy to use tactics to get leave over the line before restoring full sovereignty (that's my take on it anyway)

Post edited at 11:06
1
 DancingOnRock 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

Yes. I liken it to one of those tedious committee meetings where everyone wants their say but no one is willing to do anything. No one is willing to compromise, it has to be their way. The discussions go on meeting after meeting while time runs out. 

Eventually the chairman makes an executive decision.

That’s what happens I’m afraid. You don’t have to like it but it’s been heading this way for three years. 

42
 Trevers 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

That's a shit analogy.

Post edited at 11:19
9
 Trangia 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Eventually the chairman makes an executive decision.

Wouldn't that be the Queen in your scenario? Does she have the power to veto a runaway Government which is overruling Parliament?

2
In reply to Trevers:

Yes, because it's like a chairman making an 'executive decision' to shut down a company /destroy everything a club stands for.

2
 Jon Read 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

and run off with the pension fund.

3
 felt 28 Aug 2019
MarkJH 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes. I liken it to one of those tedious committee meetings where everyone wants their say but no one is willing to do anything. No one is willing to compromise, it has to be their way. The discussions go on meeting after meeting while time runs out. 

> Eventually the chairman makes an executive decision.

No organisation that I am part of allows the chairman to simply block the committee (or board) from voting simply because they will not support him.  That it could be legal to do so in a democracy should be seen as scandalous.  

It is true that there is such a thing as executive power in democracy, but that is entirely different from shutting down an entire branch of government to force through a decision.  Would you be happy for the prime minister to suspend a court of law in order to avoid having a decision of his be ruled illegal?  There is little difference as far as I can see.  This seems very serious.

Post edited at 12:05
3
Removed User 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes. I liken it to one of those tedious committee meetings where everyone wants their say but no one is willing to do anything. No one is willing to compromise, it has to be their way. The discussions go on meeting after meeting while time runs out. 

> Eventually the chairman makes an executive decision.

> That’s what happens I’m afraid. You don’t have to like it but it’s been heading this way for three years. 


There are two decisions that the "chairman" could have been justified in taking.

a) hold a general election to gain sufficient seats to have a majority of MPs to vote his program through Parliament.

b) to refer the matter back to the electorate who gave him this mandate three years ago on the understanding from the opposition that the result of the the referendum would be final and binding.

He doesn't want to do either because he knows he'd lose.

4
 DancingOnRock 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

In your opinion. 

22
 DancingOnRock 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Removed User:

Maybe, but the rest of the committee didn’t want that either. 

Ultimately parliament have spent 3 years bickering. Why give them any more time?

The whole country apart from the media and a bunch of forums have had enough now.

Move on. 

42
 Trevers 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> The whole country apart from the media and a bunch of forums have had enough now.

Don't ever presume to speak for the whole country.

5
 Sir Chasm 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

You're claiming to speak for the whole country? Cor!

2
OP steve taylor 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Maybe, but the rest of the committee didn’t want that either. 

> Ultimately parliament have spent 3 years bickering. Why give them any more time?

> The whole country apart from the media and a bunch of forums have had enough now.

> Move on. 

Standard brexiteer responses:

  • Move on.
  • We won.
  • Get on with it.
  • I've given you enough reasons, I'm not typing them again.
  • It's democracy, innit.

Utter bobbins.

I, like many on here, don't want to see the country my kids live in go down the pan to satisfy a minority of right wing, self-serving idiots. That's why I keep "bickering". 

5
 Climber_Bill 28 Aug 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

> I, like many on here, don't want to see the country my kids live in go down the pan to satisfy a minority of right wing, self-serving idiots. That's why I keep "bickering". 

Well said.

If anyone actually thinks that the likes of Johnson, Rees Mogg, Davis, Farage and so on are pro-brexit for the return of sovereignty and the betterment of Britain, the British people and society, they are deluding themselves.

This is about the robber barons taking back control in order to do what they always did; exploit, capitalise on the weak, make more money and use their wealth and power to ensure that they and their friends have control of all institutions that may improve the lives of ordinary people.

3
Nempnett Thrubwell 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Climber_Bill:

> Well said.

> If anyone actually thinks that the likes of Johnson, Rees Mogg, Davis, Farage and so on are pro-brexit for the return of sovereignty and the betterment of Britain, the British people and society, they are deluding themselves.

Some of them  - do at least think they are pro-leave for those reasons - I think the biggest factor is that for them personally they are not putting anything on the line. Their (relatively high) quality of life will in no way diminish in a post-Brexit era. Whereas there are many in the country who will experience a drop in the quality of life. 

Post edited at 13:08
Removed User 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Maybe, but the rest of the committee didn’t want that either. 

Rubbish.

> Move on. 

The only moving I'm considering this afternoon is down to London so I can burn down 10 Downing Street.

2
 Jon Stewart 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Ultimately parliament have spent 3 years bickering. Why give them any more time?

> The whole country apart from the media and a bunch of forums have had enough now.

You're wrong, and your opinion is idiotic. You don't seem to realise that there are huge consequences for people's lives on the line.

4
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I will NEVER stop fighting this, if its the rest of my life then fine.

Never forget, NEVER FORGIVE

8
 Michael Hood 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> One of the argument put forward by Leave supporters in favour of their case was the re-establishment of the sovereignty of Parliament over decisions made by the EU. Are you now suggesting that the sovereignty of Parliament should not be upheld and that the House of Commons be prevented from holding Government to account? 


That was my reason for voting leave (as I've posted before).

I wouldn't be voting leave again because of the complete incompetence of our political "leaders" (also as I've posted before).

I'm absolutely appalled by the latest turn of events. If Boris wants to prorogue parliament to bring in new legislation, Queen's speech etc. then he only needs to prorogue parliament for a day. I'm sure this must have been done before where one parliamentary session is shut down on one day and the next session started on the next day.

Any longer gap is obviously politically motivated by Brexit tactics to nullify parliamentary sovereignty.

 DancingOnRock 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Climber_Bill:

And these “Robber Barons” include Corbyn et al? Or is Boris’ next move to take away the democratic right to vote and stage a coup?

There really are a lot of really entrenched views on both sides of this bickering. It’s just really sad.

12
 DancingOnRock 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

There are huge consequences, which is why people bickering over it is so frustrating. So much could have been done in the last 3 years, terrible state of affairs. 

5
Removed User 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There are huge consequences, which is why people bickering over it is so frustrating. So much could have been done in the last 3 years, terrible state of affairs. 


Yes and it's the fault of the government.

I can't help but think that if Jeremy Corbyn had been trying this rather than BJ your reaction would be different.

2
 Climber_Bill 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Absolutely! This isn't about party politics, left or right, centrist etc. This is about the abuse of power and position.

I have never mentioned anything about brexit on UKC until now because I accept there are different points of view.

I have climbing friends, both traditional conservative and labour voters, who voted for brexit, for various reasons and I can see their points of view, even though I may disagree with them.

However, as I have said, the four politicians mentioned are not pro-brexit for the benefit of society.

1
 balmybaldwin 28 Aug 2019
In reply to felt:

Well that's going up quickly!

 Jon Stewart 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

It isn't bickering. There is a deadlock because people there's no viable solution to the problem of trying to leave the eu (NI border for starters). The people who could compromise to resolve this would be firstly the DUP (accept the backstop, maybe leave NI in the CU in the long run). 

Your characterisation that MPs are "bickering" fails to understand what is happening. There are important reasons we haven't left the eu: no one's come up with a plan that will work.

3
 jethro kiernan 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Follow the money as they say

there are a significant group on the left who don’t trust the EU

•it’s globalist organisation 

• it has its roots in neo liberalism 

• TTIP

• Greece

• misplaced association with decline of industry and unionism

points to be discussed, debated and challenged but ultimately other than its flirtation with TTIP it’s trends to socialism lite and like any organisation can only effectively be changed from the inside.

and if your reason for voting for brexit was TTIP 😂😂wait till you see what we get from a trump administration 

it will make TTIP look like winning the lottery

However the money for brexit all came from those who will Benifit from the ensuing crash and political chaos, its actually a political theory they subscribe too, I’m pretty certain non of them have paid up their Union subs recently.

3
 Ciro 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> There are two decisions that the "chairman" could have been justified in taking.

> a) hold a general election to gain sufficient seats to have a majority of MPs to vote his program through Parliament.

> He doesn't want to do either because he knows he'd lose.

I suspect this is actually what he wants - he just wants to force parliament to call it via a vote of no confidence rather than calling it himself, so that the finger of blame for the chaos can be pointed.

Parliament is to fractured to get behind the leader of the opposition to form an emergency government and prevent brexit - he's banking on that state of affairs continuing. The SNP, greens, PC, etc. Will get behind it, but sadly the lib Dems would rather let Boris crash us out.

1
 felt 28 Aug 2019
In reply to balmybaldwin:

It's lunchtime. 1k/minute before, now a little more. Will settle back down soon.

1
 JLS 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Climber_Bill:

>"This is about the robber barons taking back control in order to do what they always did; exploit, capitalise on the weak, make more money and use their wealth and power to ensure that they and their friends have control of all institutions that may improve the lives of ordinary people."

Can I take this opertunity to coin the phrase "Eton Gangsters". I feel going forward it will become a useful descriptor.

1
 jkarran 28 Aug 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There are huge consequences, which is why people bickering over it is so frustrating. So much could have been done in the last 3 years, terrible state of affairs. 

Ok, I'll bite. What could have been done these last three years if as I presume you mean we'd 'just got on with it'? We'd be a year or so into a transitional period of a few years, in the middle of negotiating what, 'Norway', 'Canada', 'WTO'? Or would we just be 'bickering' about that but with no way back when it emerged we didn't like any of the available options?

jk

2
 Jon Read 28 Aug 2019
In reply to JLS:

We already have Eton Mess on the menu, don't we?

1
 neilh 28 Aug 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Well as the £ is still trading higher than last week even after todays news, I suspect alot of money placed on the potentail ensuing crash has been "lost".You do have to be carful when you see headlines on the BBC like £ sliding in value.

In reply to steve taylor:

Breaking. Queen has just approved the suspension of Parliament in Sept.

Removed User 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Breaking. Queen has just approved the suspension of Parliament in Sept.


Pity she didn't tell him to "phurq orf".

I'm thinking French tactics work best. Sit downs across London, block motorways, that sort of thing.

What has become of my country?

2
 jethro kiernan 28 Aug 2019
In reply to neilh:

I’m not talking about the mundane week by week currency speculation, I’m talking about the politics of disruption and deregulation and the political and financial  opportunities that some see in this    

I'm sure you knew this 😏and it is becoming a real political force across the globe as it is seeing as working (it just won’t work for those that voted for it)

In reply to Removed User:

You seem to suggest we become French!.........Again.

Best Regards from a proud remoaner.

Post edited at 18:56
Pan Ron 28 Aug 2019
In reply to Climber_Bill:

> If anyone actually thinks that the likes of Johnson, Rees Mogg, Davis, Farage and so on are pro-brexit for the return of sovereignty and the betterment of Britain, the British people and society, they are deluding themselves.

Ah, and their Remain opponents on the other hand are virtuous and high minded I presume? Us good. Them bad.  We are people of the people and for the betterment of the country. They on the other hand are greedy and self serving. 

That was the same story being spun at the first referendum. And the majority called bullshit.

A substantial portion of 52% look at post like yours, see Remain as unhinged, and are likely to decide hard Brexit may just be no less dangerous than letting Remainers call the shots.

25
 Trevers 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

His post seemed entirely levelheaded to me. If you think today's events are par the course and acceptable, I really pity you.

Do you honestly believe that Rees-Mogg is on your team? Not just because you happened to support leave too, I mean seriously? Of all the people, Rees-Mogg is your champion? Do you not look at a rich, establishment, dishonest crook like him and think perhaps, maybe, possibly you are mistaken?

4
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A substantial portion of 52% look at post like yours, see Remain as unhinged, and are likely to decide hard Brexit may just be no less dangerous than letting Remainers call the shots.

You seem to be suggesting that rather than just the one bullet in the chamber (of the gun pointed at your head) you might as well fully load it to spite the people pointing out the gun aimed at your head!

Brilliant 

3
 Greasy Prusiks 29 Aug 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

This is exactly why the UK needs a modern codified constitution rather than a few conventions scribbled on the back of a 17th century envelope.

The whole system is massively open to abuse both by the prime minister and the head of state. 

1
 Climber_Bill 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

I was going to respond to Pan Ron, but your reply regarding Rees Mogg, and others like him, is perfect and hits the nail directly on the head.

 jethro kiernan 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Climber_Bill:

A crowd who would rather be the richest and most influential person on top of the midden rather than be a equal citizen of utopia.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Well one is a realistic, achievable ambition and the other is just a fantasy

 jethro kiernan 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

 That’s what Johnson and  Rhys Mogadishu grandparents told Nye Bevin, I’ve  more for a society that strives for utopia rather than excepting the midden😏 and the irony is we voted to be less than previous generations 😐

Post edited at 15:59
1
Pan Ron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> His post seemed entirely levelheaded to me. If you think today's events are par the course and acceptable, I really pity you.

Suspension of parliament is certainly not par for the course.  But neither is having a referendum, telling the masses it will be acted on, parliament resolving to do so, then quite clearly not acting on it.  In the circumstances, the suspension of parliament is not really surprising.  I see nothing to indicate Remain wouldn't use the same or similar tactics 

> Do you honestly believe that Rees-Mogg is on your team? Not just because you happened to support leave too, I mean seriously?

Since I'm a remainer, I doubt he's on my team.

> Of all the people, Rees-Mogg is your champion? Do you not look at a rich, establishment, dishonest crook like him and think perhaps, maybe, possibly you are mistaken?

Ah, he's rich and establishment....well, I guess he is evil then.

I think Remain has lost perspective.  The kind of tribalism they hate in Leavers is exactly what Leavers see in remain voters.

13
 Bob Kemp 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

>  I see nothing to indicate Remain wouldn't use the same or similar tactics 

This isn't a valid argument; it's just baseless rhetoric. I could equally say 'I see nothing to indicate that Pan Ron is not a shill for the Alt-right.'. It has no foundation in reason or logic. 

3
 Climber_Bill 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Ah, he's rich and establishment....well, I guess he is evil then.

No, of course not. I am not against anyone being wealthy or successful etc. as long as everyone has the same opportunities. Rees Mogg and others like him do not want a society where everyone has the same opportunites as they had and still have.

> I think Remain has lost perspective.  The kind of tribalism they hate in Leavers is exactly what Leavers see in remain voters.

I don't hate leavers. As I already mentioned some of my friends voted to leave, but they did so for a variety of reasons that I disagree with but those reasons were not based around hate or discrimination of others or greed. However, I do dislike those who want to leave the EU for racist, xenophobic, homophobic (remember, Same-sex marriage only came about because of EU legislation and who voted against it? Oh yes, Rees Mogg) reasons.

3
Pan Ron 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Climber_Bill:

> Rees Mogg and others like him do not want a society where everyone has the same opportunites as they had and still have.

I'm not convinced.  Those are big assumptions to make.  

> I don't hate leavers. As I already mentioned some of my friends voted to leave, but they did so for a variety of reasons that I disagree with but those reasons were not based around hate or discrimination of others or greed.

That's fine.  I don't see why you automatically attribute those motivations to the leaders of the Brexit movement though.  

> However, I do dislike those who want to leave the EU for racist, xenophobic, homophobic (remember, Same-sex marriage only came about because of EU legislation and who voted against it? Oh yes, Rees Mogg) reasons.

Barak Obama opposed to same-sex marriage too.  I don't see much to point towards xenophobia or racism on the part of Rees Mogg.  There are more complex and nuanced reasons for people taking "conservative" social and political positions, despite what Guardian-style caricatures would have us believe.   Just because you don't like the guy or agree with the guy doesn't mean you have to make him out to be evil.

10
 Bob Kemp 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Fact check - Barak Obama was sometimes opposed to same-sex marriage early in his career. It seems it took him a while to get used to the idea. He came out in favour, then flipped a bit, I believe for political reasons. He was still wavering at the start of his presidency but became the first president to support same-sex marriage.. 

 rogerwebb 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Climber_Bill:

> No, of course not. I am not against anyone being wealthy or successful etc. as long as everyone has the same opportunities. Rees Mogg and others like him do not want a society where everyone has the same opportunites as they had and still have.

> remember, Same-sex marriage only came about because of EU legislation 

I don't think that you are correct there. Same sex marriage is unlawful in some EU states. 

Perhaps you are mixing up the ECHR (the court for the European Convention of Human Rights whose jurisdiction we are not leaving) and the European Court (the court for the European Union whose jurisdiction we are leaving)?

I suspect more than a few leavers will be surprised to discover the difference. 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

It's just appalling how people are quite prepared to distort and even invert the truth for the sake of a malicious sound-bite.

1
 birdie num num 29 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It's just appalling how people are quite prepared to distort and even invert the truth for the sake of a malicious sound-bite.

That kind of sums up just about most of us

4
Lusk 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I was in Ireland last week and heard on the radio someone saying about Johnson that he's Churchill wànnabe and his version of the few and many quote ... It went something like this ...

Never in human history has so much misery been inflicted on so many by so few.

You get the picture.

Who the f*ck does he think he is?

Post edited at 00:40
 Trevers 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Suspension of parliament is certainly not par for the course.  But neither is having a referendum, telling the masses it will be acted on, parliament resolving to do so, then quite clearly not acting on it.  In the circumstances, the suspension of parliament is not really surprising.  I see nothing to indicate Remain wouldn't use the same or similar tactics 

I agree with you about the legislation for the referendum, a complete abrogation of responsibility by Parliament. Did they honestly think that advisory meant advisory, or that the result was clearly in the bag. Either way, the correct scrutiny was not applied. Ditto with voting for Article 50 without applying legislation specifically to block a no-deal scenario.

> Since I'm a remainer, I doubt he's on my team.

What is your preferred outcome of this mess now?

> Ah, he's rich and establishment....well, I guess he is evil then.

I never said 'evil', but I won't apologise for my comments on him. He has a talent for spreading misinformation in such a way experts cannot refute him on the spot because it's not clear precisely what argument he's making. It's clear his lies are in pursuit of his goal, and it's difficult to see how that goal aligns with the interests of ordinary citizens.

> I think Remain has lost perspective.  The kind of tribalism they hate in Leavers is exactly what Leavers see in remain voters.

Then I would suggest that those leavers are blinkered. I am dead set against Brexit because I see that it's neither in my interest nor that of my country. I'm growing increasingly concerned by the way things are escalating, but beyond that am I tribal? I'm willing to reach out and work with people from any background or political affiliation, and have spoken to many leave supporters when I've been out campaigning.

On social media I see many comments of the "we won, you lost" variety. For these people, it seems it really is all about "winning" at any cost and winding up the opponent. I see some of that from remainers but a lot less, and normally in reaction.

1
 runestone 30 Aug 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

 If you care about democracy join one of the 60 + stop the coup protests across the country (one near your local town) over the next few days & sign the 'Do not prorogue Parliament petition'

Post edited at 13:17
1
 Bob Kemp 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> On social media I see many comments of the "we won, you lost" variety. For these people, it seems it really is all about "winning" at any cost and winding up the opponent. I see some of that from remainers but a lot less, and normally in reaction.

That connects with the idea that fan culture is increasingly a feature of politics, as the link I posted in the other thread discusses:

'Trumpsters, Corbynistas and the rise of the political fan'

https://www.ft.com/content/a46fa5b6-6c17-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa 2

And behind that is post-truth politics and an ongoing cultural war - some interesting discussion on this in the US context here:

https://www.politico.eu/article/democrats-republicans-us-immigration-global...

 Trevers 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You see it all over youtube: "Mogg DESTROYS remainers", "Corbyn schooled by Boris" etc. People unable to distinguish between a sporting event and a policy choice that has real, tangible effects on people's lives, who just want to win and get one over the other team.

It's an evolution of the ancient art of divide and rule.

I voted Corbyn in 2015. I no longer support him yet it's still my instinct to try and defend him. One consequence of the steady stream of propaganda against him was seemingly to entrench support for him amongst those who voted him in 2015. Possibly that was an unintended consequence for those pushing the propaganda, but certainly not unwelcome.

In reply to runestone:

 "If you care about democracy join one of the 60 + stop the coup protests across the country"

Is it a coup? In the last decade we have had three general elections and very likely to have another later this year (so probably 4). Throw in the brexit referendum plus Scotland independence , Falklands and Gibraltar had sovereignty refs and we also had one on our voting system.

All the "death of democracy" shouts seem a bit empty to me, we have never had it so good

2
 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Is it a coup? In the last decade we have had three general elections and very likely to have another later this year (so probably 4). Throw in the brexit referendum plus Scotland independence , Falklands and Gibraltar had sovereignty refs and we also had one on our voting system.

How does all that history mean what is happening now can't be anti-democratic?  Coup isn't quite right, but willful long-term damage to our institutions of government is clearly accurate, I would say.

2
 jkarran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A substantial portion of 52% look at post like yours, see Remain as unhinged, and are likely to decide hard Brexit may just be no less dangerous than letting Remainers call the shots.

There's no cure for stupid. Sad but true.

jk

2
 jkarran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Barak Obama opposed to same-sex marriage too. 

Always with the weird American references. Don't we have a home grown British alt-right "yeah but..." answer book yet?

jk

1
In reply to MG:

isn't quite right? It wasn't violent, it wasn't sudden and it wasn't illegal (so far according to the Scottish judge, whether that changes in time I don't know but I am glad it's going to get a full hearing on tuesday which should decide)

As for the history, it was an attempt at shining a light on how the UK operates and will continue to operate (IMO). But that's because I do not see a coup, or a tin pot dictator or the day democracy died. I see a tactical ploy based on precedent to strengthen a negotiating position for a deadline in 9 weeks. Obviously other opinions are available and I know most here will disagree with me, just throwing it out there...

1
 Bob Kemp 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

>I see a tactical ploy based on precedent to strengthen a negotiating position for a deadline in 9 weeks. Obviously other opinions are available and I know most here will disagree with me, just throwing it out there...

Ben Wallace blows the gaff...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-49516694/defence-secretary-ben-wa...

Pan Ron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> I agree with you about the legislation for the referendum, a complete abrogation of responsibility by Parliament. Did they honestly think that advisory meant advisory, or that the result was clearly in the bag. Either way, the correct scrutiny was not applied. Ditto with voting for Article 50 without applying legislation specifically to block a no-deal scenario.

Agreed.  The setup and execution of the thing was a disaster in complacency.

> What is your preferred outcome of this mess now?

I want to remain.

But that outcome is less important than the process we take.  On both sides I see an unwillingness to consider the other sides opinions, or voting outcomes, (ie. the complaints that 52% even got to have a say) so that is where things need to change.

A perfect outcome for me isn't remain (or leave) any more - not if Remain is a minority choice.  The perfect outcome would be a second "ratification" referendum.  I'd be ok if that was in the form of another Brexit v No-Brexit rerun.  But that is evidently flawed, it being pretty clear by now that this isn't a binary question (if it ever was). 

This is where leadership needs to pull finger and declare a STV/run-off style vote: three choices (stay, deal, hard-brexit) with a second choice option.  They have failed catastrophically to secure something which seems absolutely essential - this is what Corbyn and the Labour party should have been banging on about for three years.  Even better would be securing further ratification referendums as the process unfolds over several years.

That way we don't unfairly split the Brexit vote in to hard and soft.  The result would almost certainly be that hard-Brexit is eliminated in the first round.  But then at least they get to throw their weight behind a soft-Brexit option if they so desire.  Or abstain in disgust if they prefer.  I don't want a soft-Brexit either.  But if that is what people want, and they've had more than enough time to see what that means, then so be it.

No sides have much credibility any more.  Telling Brexiteers that they have made a stupid decision, all the while claiming shelves will be emptied, hospitals over-run, and other apocalyptic scenarios destined to unravel, has shot our credibility to shit.  As obnoxious as some Brexiteers are, you only have to follow Brexit social media to see equal absurdity coming from rabid remainers.  Brexit, if voted for a second time, is a necessity - if Remain hasn't managed to make their case by now then they never will and we deserve to lose.  And if Brexit means things going tits-up for a while then so be it.  The theoretical predictions need to be tested because they are pure conjecture.  There are alternative examples (the breakup of Czechoslovakia for example) that indicate decline and failure scenarios are not a certainty.

> I never said 'evil', but I won't apologise for my comments on him. He has a talent for spreading misinformation in such a way experts cannot refute him on the spot because it's not clear precisely what argument he's making. It's clear his lies are in pursuit of his goal, and it's difficult to see how that goal aligns with the interests of ordinary citizens.

Maybe.  But I see that happening on all sides these days.

> but beyond that am I tribal? I'm willing to reach out and work with people from any background or political affiliation, and have spoken to many leave supporters when I've been out campaigning.

It depends how far you are willing to reach out.  If a Brexiteer was to start talking openly, about their fears for their culture and familiar way of life, for certain values, I'm afraid all too many Remainers will instantly dismiss them as racist or bigoted.  So there isn't a discussion to be had.  Brexiteers can only talk in euphemistic terms ("taking back control") or make vague economic arguments (which they'll almost always lose) because the real discussion has been utterly dismissed for decades now.  A major strain of Remainer mindset is "strength through diversity" and multiculturalism.  There's a lot of people out there that have good grounds to disagree.  But not being able to articulate themselves in a way we find palatable are pretty swiftly confined to the gammon/bigot/racist category.   

> On social media I see many comments of the "we won, you lost" variety. For these people, it seems it really is all about "winning" at any cost and winding up the opponent. I see some of that from remainers but a lot less, and normally in reaction.

In part I suspect this is because Leavers feel, culturally, they have been losing for some time.  The opportunity to crow for once will be seized, especially if it avoids having to say what it is exactly that they feel they have won.  Remainers tend not to listen at that point.

3
Pan Ron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Always with the weird American references. Don't we have a home grown British alt-right "yeah but..." answer book yet?

My point was, the accusation is being made about Mogg's opposition to gay-marriage as if that is the mark of evil.  Well, Nobel Prize nominee, man of the people, loved-by-all, Obama wasn't too cool the concept until late in the day either.  In fact there are a fair few comments he made with regard to Mexicans crossing the border that, given how far the narrative has swung in the last decade, would mark him as a rabid Republican.

Ironic you should mention "alt-right" there, don't you think?

4
 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> isn't quite right? It wasn't violent, it wasn't sudden and it wasn't illegal

It was sudden.  But anyway we seems agree it wasn't a coup.  Good

> As for the history, it was an attempt at shining a light on how the UK operates and will continue to operate (IMO). 

You don't think a PM blatantly distorting constitutional process to the point of, and possibly beyond, illegality to avoid scrutiny and then blatantly lying about is a bit different to normal service?  David Allan Green, constitutional lawyer and supporter of Brexit in principle regards it as the most significant time constitutionally since 1680.

Post edited at 15:01
2
In reply to Bob Kemp:

I don't see how that detracts from  "a tactical ploy based on precedent to strengthen a negotiating position for a deadline in 9 weeks"

It just confirms it IMO.  A tactic to thwart the threat of no deal being stopped by parliament so it focuses the EU on knowing it's now the default position. (I'm not saying it will work btw)

 Bob Kemp 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

It doesn't confirm that proroguing was about strengthening the negotiating position at all.

Wallace says it was because they didn't have a majority. That quite clearly isn't the same thing. 

1
In reply to MG:

"it was sudden"

It wasn't sudden in the scheme of debating Brexit, (as in 3.5 years down the line since the vote)  but yes, I do concede it would seem sudden to the MPs and speaker caught on the hop sunning their fat behinds on beaches all over continental Europe looking forward to some free jollys on the coast at conference season

"You don't think a PM blatantly distorting constitutional process to the point of, and possibly beyond, illegality to avoid scrutiny and then blatantly lying about is a bit different to normal service? "

I don't know if it was illegal and look forward to finding out in due course. If it is, then I fully expect it to be stopped.  I also agree that these are unusual times that are presenting unusual parliamentary practices (that will be studied for centuries to come no doubt.) As for BJ and his lies....meet the new boss, same as the old boss springs to mind, but agree....he has mastered the art of doublespeak in a plummy voice

2
 Trevers 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I agree the STV runoff second referendum is the best option. I tend to think that soft-Brexit (or May's deal, which certainly wasn't regarded as soft three years ago) would be eliminated first, and it's split would probably push Remain over the line reasonably comfortably.

I have tried listening to the concerns of leavers and understanding them. I genuinely can see why people would vote for change, or even just to spite Cameron. The problem is that I cannot see that those concerns are linked to our EU membership or that leaving ameliorates them. That's why I favour remaining followed by wide-ranging constitutional and national policy changes (I left a big post detailing this in another thread).

> It depends how far you are willing to reach out.  If a Brexiteer was to start talking openly, about their fears for their culture and familiar way of life, for certain values, I'm afraid all too many Remainers will instantly dismiss them as racist or bigoted. 

Too many will for sure, but I still think "too many" is still only a minority (though a sizeable one). But perhaps the Gordon Brown/Gillian Duffy exchange was a key moment in starting all of this. 

Post edited at 15:32
 jkarran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> It just confirms it IMO.  A tactic to thwart the threat of no deal being stopped by parliament so it focuses the EU on knowing it's now the default position. (I'm not saying it will work btw)

It doesn't significantly change the EU's position, they'll hold fast, they can't but. It does however change parliament's choices next week and if they return in October. It also marks out the ground on which a forthcoming election will be fought.

jk

In reply to Bob Kemp:

The way I see it is that the lack of majority meant that threat of no deal being taken away was high. Cummings/BJ know this weakens their negotiating position. Prorogue parliament, remove the threat and make no deal the default position. 

I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, time will tell. I don't even know if it's legal, again time will tell. But as a strategic move , it makes some sense to me. 

Of course, there could be other reasons behind their decision, but I think the lack of majority fits in with the above so doesn't really surprise me.

In reply to jkarran:

"It doesn't significantly change the EU's position, they'll hold fast, they can't but. "

I really have no idea. But from an EU point of view, no deal being removed as an option by the UK would be welcome i'm sure.

Pan Ron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> I agree the STV runoff second referendum is the best option. I tend to think that soft-Brexit (or May's deal, which certainly wasn't regarded as soft three years ago) would be eliminated first, and it's split would probably push Remain over the line reasonably comfortably.

I waver in that direction too.  Hard Brexit, in no small part due to uncompromising Remainer (as much as Brexiteer) opposition to the brexit deals, seems like it might be gaining more popularity. 

Getting moderate Brexiteers to swing in favour of Remain rather than hard Brexit very much demands that Remain do their utmost to appear a more sane alternative.  And stop buying in to, and selling, overblown scare stories that dissolve credibility.  I don't think we're doing a good job of that. 

> I have tried listening to the concerns of leavers and understanding them. I genuinely can see why people would vote for change, or even just to spite Cameron. The problem is that I cannot see that those concerns are linked to our EU membership or that leaving ameliorates them. That's why I favour remaining followed by wide-ranging constitutional and national policy changes (I left a big post detailing this in another thread).

I don't think they are directly linked to EU membership actually.  But the EU referendum was one of those few opportunities where anyone could, in a relatively clean way, express opposition to a whole lot of values that seemed to be embodied by the EU. 

That's why I view it as more of a vote against Remainers than a vote against Europe.  I am certain Brexiteer hostility is more towards our successful insistence that ("end of history"-like) that there is no valid opinion but our way.  They're against minimal controls on immigration and not immigrants. 

> Too many will for sure, but I still think "too many" is still only a minority (though a sizeable one). But perhaps the Gordon Brown/Gillian Duffy exchange was a key moment in starting all of this. 

Yep, it could have been.  Though I suspect this has been going on a while longer than that.  The automatic writing off of any less-than-cosmopolitan mindsets has done great harm, should have been confined to the bin a while ago (especially as it is less than liberal-minded to do so).  But if anything seems to have increased in recent years.  

2
 john arran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> That way we don't unfairly split the Brexit vote in to hard and soft.

The 2016 referendum split the options into two groups, one of which (Remain) was pretty clearly defined. The other encompassed a multitude of diverse possibilities and was intentionally vague to garner support from people who really wanted very different outcomes. Let's use your split of these into two groups - hard and soft.

So now we have 3 groups: remain, hard and soft.

You suggest the vote, having eliminated remain, now risks being 'unfairly split' into hard and soft. But these two options are very different from each other so any split can hardly be described as unfair. In many ways a soft Brexit has more in common with Remain than it does with no-deal. In fact the referendum could equally be said to have 'unfairly' split the non-hard vote into remain and soft right from the start, by drawing the dividing line between remain and soft rather than between soft and hard.

The whole mechanism of seeking binary division of multiple options is fundamentally flawed, as it is highly likely to produce an outcome that a majority never wanted. The only way to make sure that a majority of people are not unhappy with the outcome is to have a confirmatory ballot. Then (barring electoral malpractice) we'll know for sure that what's being implemented genuinely does have the support of the electorate. There isn't really a logical argument against it.

2
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to john arran:

So how does this confirmatory ballot work?

Is it ‘here’s a deal, do you want it or shall we remain in the EU’?

Or is it ‘here’s a deal, do you want it or shall we go back and renegotiate another one ‘?

Or is it ‘here’s  a deal, do you want it or shall we just leave’?

There must be many more options as well.

Who gets to decide the question?

1
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Getting moderate Brexiteers to swing in favour of Remain rather than hard Brexit very much demands that Remain do their utmost to appear a more sane alternative.

I have consistently argued, since before the referendum, that any 'soft brexit' (e.g. 'Norway deal') would likely require us to be fully compliant with EU regs in order to trade with the EU, would require us to continue freedom of movement, would require us to contribute to the EU. This doesn't meet any of the 'benefits' of brexit usually put forward by brexit proponents (control of our borders, 'sovereignty of parliament' (hah!), £350m per week for the NHS, etc). It leaves us as we are now, only without any say of what regs we are required to comply with. This makes no sense to anybody, remainer or brexiter. Ask the Norwegian PM or Foreign Minister what they think of the 'Norway deal'; they'll tell you not to be so stupid.

If you are going to have a soft brexit deal, you may as well stay in the EU, and work hard to make it work the way you want it. It might also be a good idea to promote the benefits the EU actually brings us, as a large part of the population seems to be unaware, and only know about bendy bananas and other Johnson-esque lies.

Everyone seems to agree that any brexit will be bad for the economy, and therefore bad for every Briton. That's not just 'project fear; that's operation yellowhammer, and all the government modelling that has been done. Therefore, we appear to be going down the brexit route on purely ideological grounds, or on the basis of a minority who think they can benefit from a brexit (unlike the general populace). I'm a pragmatist, so I'm not in favour of ideological decisions. I'm also not in favour of bastards f*cking the rest of the country over, just so they can make a quick buck.

I am deeply, deeply saddened by the division that brexit has revealed; the country I live in is no longer the country I thought it was. A giant scab seems to have been picked off a very old, festering wound.

Post edited at 16:44
 john arran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> So how does this confirmatory ballot work?

The same way that any major change should be agreed, of course. Once you've pinned down a definite proposal (as opposed to a nebulous concept) you ask the relevant body - in this case the electorate - whether they agree to the change. If they agree, you make the change. If not, you don't.

You don't see major companies polling their members or shareholders as to whether they are up for an unspecified merger or takeover. They wait until a deal is on the table and then seek shareholder opinion/approval. The deal on the table by then will be with a given company, at a given price, with given terms. People cannot (and should not be asked to) give a binding opinion unless the options are known. Any opinion prior to that can only ever be indicative, which in some cases may be perfectly fine and justified. But the deal itself is what binding votes should be counted against.

It's such a simple concept and, like I said, there's no logical argument against it, but it's amazing how people seem to become blind to such simple truths once they feel they are in a different camp and feel like they have something to lose. 

2
 jkarran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The automatic writing off of any less-than-cosmopolitan mindsets has done great harm, should have been confined to the bin a while ago (especially as it is less than liberal-minded to do so).  But if anything seems to have increased in recent years.  

Ah, the tolerance paradox, it can be confusing can't it.

Jk

1
 Robert Durran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> So how does this confirmatory ballot work?

> Is it ‘here’s a deal, do you want it or shall we remain in the EU’?

> Or is it ‘here’s a deal, do you want it or shall we go back and renegotiate another one ‘?

> Or is it ‘here’s  a deal, do you want it or shall we just leave’?

> There must be many more options as well.

> Who gets to decide the question?

In this case, there are really only three options: remain, no deal or May's/The Eu's deal (possibly with cosmetic tweaks). So it's pretty easy to see what would be fair - a single transferable vote with these three options.

I think  that what should really have happened is that following the initial vote, a group of leavers (not the government of the day) should have been given the resources, money, personnel and two years to negotiate a deal with the EU, which would then be put back to the people in a take it or leave it confirmatory vote. That way, they would have been obliged to come up with an acceptable compromise rather than the hard brexit they might have preferred or else they would end up with nothing and, if they failed to do so, they could not blame anyone else. I would like to see something like this in a second Scottish referendum too.

 Trevers 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Well we largely agree. Regarding Gillian Duffy and Gordon Brown, I meant that it was the point where that attitude was exposed, not where it began.

Post edited at 17:46
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to john arran:

All of which would have been wonderful before the referendum.

When a confirmatory vote would have been between the status quo and change with the status quo being remain and change being a form of Brexit.

However, after the referendum the status quo has changed.

Leave becoming the status quo and a form of Brexit still being the change.

But now you want a confirmatory referendum with remain as one of two options.

You just want to rerun the referendum.

How about a confirmatory referendum with a deal or leave anyway as the two options?

4
 Bob Kemp 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> That's why I view it as more of a vote against Remainers than a vote against Europe.  I am certain Brexiteer hostility is more towards our successful insistence that ("end of history"-like) that there is no valid opinion but our way.  They're against minimal controls on immigration and not immigrants.

Some sweeping statements here aren't there? Any evidence that Brexiteer hostility is because Remainers think there is 'no valid opinion but our way'? I suspect it's based on many things, and if that does play a part it's only a small one. And some leavers certainly are racists, almost certainly not the majority but enough to be noticeable, so generalising that Brexiteers are not against immigrants is a claim too far as well. 

> Yep, it could have been.  Though I suspect this has been going on a while longer than that.  The automatic writing off of any less-than-cosmopolitan mindsets has done great harm, should have been confined to the bin a while ago (especially as it is less than liberal-minded to do so).  But if anything seems to have increased in recent years.  

I'd also be interested to see your evidence that the writing off of the 'less than cosmopolitan' has done great harm? What harm exactly has it done anyway? 

1
 john arran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> All of which would have been wonderful before the referendum.

> When a confirmatory vote would have been between the status quo and change with the status quo being remain and change being a form of Brexit.

> However, after the referendum the status quo has changed.

> Leave becoming the status quo and a form of Brexit still being the change.

> But now you want a confirmatory referendum with remain as one of two options.

> You just want to rerun the referendum.

> How about a confirmatory referendum with a deal or leave anyway as the two options?

You don't seem to be listening so I'm not sure there's much point in repeating myself, but:

We're still in the EU, which remains the status quo.

I maintain, and always will, that it isn't right to agree a change without knowing what that change entails. If you have a logical argument to claim otherwise then please present it.

A confirmatory referendum would be enormously different to the original referendum (and therefore could never sensibly be described as a 'rerun', except by people whose only intention is to discredit it without foundation for doing so) by virtue of the change being presented for approval being a well-defined entity as opposed to a piece of nebulous ideology designed to trick people into voting for an eventual outcome they didn't want to see happen.

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

While your proposal for what should have happened has merit and would certainly have been better than what has actually taken place I feel that any attempt to negotiate a future relationship with the EU with the UK outside of the EU was doomed to failure as long as the EU believed that the UK wouldn’t walk away without a deal.

This isn’t an argument for the path that Johnson is going down although given the inability of parliament to agree a withdrawal agreement it might just kickstart MPs into action.

The cynic in me tells me that politicians both within the EU and the UK have conspired to thwart Brexit.

By tying the UK into sorting out a withdrawal agreement before any future relationship negotiations and making Northern Ireland central to that withdrawal agreement the EU, with the UK’s connivance, has made a soft Brexit all but impossible.

We’ll end up with a second referendum with remain or a rubbish withdrawal agreement as a choice and politicians can say that they tried their best, Brexit is impossible, remain in the EU and business as usual.

I might be seeing conspiracies where none exist.

3
 Robert Durran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

>  I feel that any attempt to negotiate a future relationship with the EU with the UK outside of the EU was doomed to failure as long as the EU believed that the UK wouldn’t walk away without a deal.

The trouble is that no deal is so bad for the UK, a completely insane option, that it would be a reasonable assumption for the EU to make, whatever the official UK line was. Of course we now do have a UK on the brink of insanity..........

> The cynic in me tells me that politicians both within the EU and the UK have conspired to thwart Brexit.

You don't need to be a cynic to think that. It is absolutely obvious. Brexit is bad for the EU, so of course they were never going to make it easy, and of course it was going to be resisted in the UK because it is bad for the UK too. And the EU held all the cards because, as I said, no deal is an insane option.

> We’ll end up with a second referendum with remain or a rubbish withdrawal agreement as a choice and politicians can say that they tried their best, Brexit is impossible, remain in the EU and business as usual.

Yes, but the goivernment could have negotiated a pragmatic soft brexit if they had not been held to ransom by the fanatics. If a confirmatory vote had been planned from the start, we would probably now be looing at a choice between remain and a soft brexit reflecting the original referendum's split.

1
baron 30 Aug 2019

IIn reply to john arran:

I am listening I’m just not agreeing.

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

While I agree that a no deal Brexit - can we call it a no withdrawal agreement? - is not a good idea because of the lack of a transition period and the resulting problems it seems strange that the UK inflicting damage on itself is seen as insane while the EU doing the same is seen as sticking to ones principles.

 Robert Durran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> While I agree that a no deal Brexit - can we call it a no withdrawal agreement? - is not a good idea because of the lack of a transition period and the resulting problems it seems strange that the UK inflicting damage on itself is seen as insane while the EU doing the same is seen as sticking to ones principles.

No deal would be far less painful for the EU than for the UK and the EU is simply making a judgment call that compromising the single market would be more damaging than no deal at least in the long run (and they quite rightly want to respect the invisibility of the Irish border). 

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Some countries in the EU will be harder hit than others.

While the EU and leaders of those countries might be OK with taking one for the team I wonder how those directly affected by Brexit feel about the integrity of the single market.

Has anyone even asked them?

It’s hard to imagine that they are any happier about how the EU and their own governments have handled Brexit than UK remainers are with the UK government.

 Robert Durran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> While the EU and leaders of those countries might be OK with taking one for the team I wonder how those directly affected by Brexit feel about the integrity of the single market.

Governments are constantly making decisions that effect some individuals badly but are for the greater average good. Maybe some sort of compensation for iodividuals or investment in affected areas would be appropriate.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> It’s hard to imagine that they are any happier about how the EU and their own governments have handled Brexit than UK remainers are with the UK government.

Why? The EU have been both  flexible and clear from day one. I know you struggle with the concept, but most EU citizens value the EU and the single marketand will be pleased it is not being endangered by the UK leaving. 

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Governments are constantly making decisions that effect some individuals badly but are for the greater average good. Maybe some sort of compensation for iodividuals or investment in affected areas would be appropriate.

I’m sure the EU will look after those who lose their jobs or businesses.

baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> > 

> Why? The EU have been both  flexible and clear from day one. I know you struggle with the concept, but most EU citizens value the EU and the single marketand will be pleased it is not being endangered by the UK leaving. 

I’m sure I’d be ecstatic knowing that losing my job kept the single market intact.

You’re right, that’s a concept that I struggle with.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I’m sure I’d be ecstatic knowing that losing my job kept the single market intact.

> You’re right, that’s a concept that I struggle with.

Who's lost their job for that? In general jobs are moving to the EU. The whole point is the single market protects and maintains jobs. 

1
 Robert Durran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Who's lost their job for that? In general jobs are moving to the EU. The whole point is the single market protects and maintains jobs. 

To be fair, I think baron is referring to people who might lose their job in the event of no deal resulting from their insistence on the backstop to protect the single market.

baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

The Netherlands could, according to some studies, see it’s GDP fall by 0.7% while Ireland could see a 4% drop.

I also give you - 

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/job-losses-no-deal-brexit-europe-leuven/

None of which, of course,  guarantees that European countries will see large job losses because we no longer believe experts, do We?

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

Yes but how's that the EUs fault? Why would citizens blame the EU, not the UK? 

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> To be fair, I think baron is referring to people who might lose their job in the event of no deal resulting from their insistence on the backstop to protect the single market.

Thanks for that.

My fault for not being more specific in my post.

I don’t want to make out that the UK won’t be hardest hit in a no deal scenario, it obviously will.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Seems not. 

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Yes but how's that the EUs fault? Why would citizens blame the EU, not the UK? 

I was trying to point out that the EU’s insistence on protecting the single market is understandable but doesn’t help those who will be directly affected.

Of course the situation has come about because of the UK’s decision to leave the EU but the EU’s position of the greater good doesn’t help those who might lose their jobs.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

It does by protecting the wider economy so there are new jobs. 

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> It does by protecting the wider economy so there are new jobs. 

Seems to be working well for the Spanish, Italians and the Greeks.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

Indeed, cf Albania and and Serbia

1
 Ridge 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> The Netherlands could, according to some studies, see it’s GDP fall by 0.7% while Ireland could see a 4% drop.

Caused by the UK's actions.

> I also give you - 

> None of which, of course,  guarantees that European countries will see large job losses because we no longer believe experts, do We?

I'm really struggling to see what point you're trying to make. Of cause Brexits going to be bad all round, (does that mean you accept that now?), but are seriously trying to blame it on the EU doing its best to protect it's member states?

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Ridge:

> Caused by the UK's actions.

> I'm really struggling to see what point you're trying to make. Of cause Brexits going to be bad all round, (does that mean you accept that now?), but are seriously trying to blame it on the EU doing its best to protect it's member states?

I was trying to point out that the EU protecting the integrity of the single market and adopting a ‘for the greater good’ approach wouldn’t be much comfort to those on the continent who might lose their jobs.

It was a response to the idea that the EU was seen as having a policy of sticking to its principles whereas the UK was seen as adopting an insane policy.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> I was trying to point out that the EU protecting the integrity of the single market and adopting a ‘for the greater good’ approach wouldn’t be much comfort to those on the continent who might lose their jobs.

> It was a response to the idea that the EU was seen as having a policy of sticking to its principles whereas the UK was seen as adopting an insane policy.

A government acting for the overall good is hardly remarkable.  Pretty much any policy will have some who come out worse off, at least in the short term..  Govenrment (probably the Dutch or Irish in your) will probably put in place mitigation measures. How you can compare the EU aiming for the greater good while the UK aims to make everyone worse of is beyond me - one policy is rational and normal, the indeed insane

1
 Robert Durran 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> Of course the situation has come about because of the UK’s decision to leave the EU but the EU’s position of the greater good doesn’t help those who might lose their job.

Of course. They have simply been put in the position of having to choose the lesser of two evils

baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

The Irish stand to lose the most from a no deal Brexit. Besides the UK that is.

The dogmatic approach to the negotiations by the EU look like inflicting the very thing on to Ireland that they (the EU) were trying to avoid.

Hard border here we come.

5
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Of course. They have simply been put in the position of having to choose the lesser of two evils

They have indeed.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> The dogmatic approach to the negotiations by the EU look like inflicting the very thing on to Ireland that they (the EU) were trying to avoid.

They were actually flexible.  The only thing they are entirely reasonably insisting is the integrity of the single market  - they met the UK's demands that the UK government has now failed to support..  Frankly, trying to make out it is the EU's fault is ludicrous.

1
 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> They have indeed.

If you accept that, why do you keep asking why people will be upset when they chose the lesser?

1
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

They threw the Irish border into their withdrawal agreement agenda not because of its importance but because they knew how difficult/impossible a solution would be. It’s such a contentious issue that it was, in a fashion all too typical of Anglo/ Irish, North/South, Loyalist/Republican relations, fudged in the Belfast agreement and doesn’t even get a direct mention. 

And before you go off on one, I’m not saying that the Irish border isn’t an important issue, it’s obviously really, really important. Just that it’s importance is not the reason for it’s inclusion in the withdrawal agreement negotiations.

So, is making an almost insolvable problem a mainstay of your negotiating position and then refusing to allow the one thing that might go some way to providing a solution it - a future trade deal - to be discussed, an example of the EU’s flexibility?

Post edited at 22:02
7
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> If you accept that, why do you keep asking why people will be upset when they chose the lesser?

Because while an EU citizen might usually support the EU I am suggesting that if they are going to lose their job then they might think that their government is not doing everything it could to help them, even if their government didn’t cause the problem, and is choosing to protect the single market instead.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

Have you ever left England. Foreigners aren't all knaves in reality. Thats just a song. 

2
baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> Have you ever left England. Foreigners aren't all knaves in reality. Thats just a song. 

You are supposing that I live in England.

baron 30 Aug 2019
In reply to MG:

> No it wasn't. It was uks proposal. 

It was the EU who said that negotiations should focus on, among other things, the EU’s external border i.e. the Irish border.

The backstop was yet another example of the UK’s crack negotiating team in action.

 MG 30 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> It was the EU who said that negotiations should focus on, among other things, the EU’s external border i.e. the Irish border.

Of course they would!

1
In reply to MG:

I wish someone would explain just what Boris means when he talks about this 'Deal that we want'? We are never told. I mean, just what does he want the EU to give us now, over and above the May deal? Some kind of huge leaving present, just after we've stuck two fingers up at them and that last (final) May deal? As I've said several times before, it so often looks as if Brexiters are wanting all or most of the advantages of being in the EU, without having to be in it, or having to say we're in it. Or having to pay anything. Really, really weird. In our latest Prime Minister, we're seeing perhaps the most extreme case of lunacy in our entire political history. Only yesterday, he was asking Ireland to leave the EU and join the UK! For those who think I'm making it up, no, he really did. He has to be quite literally stark raving mad. Here he is today: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49524124

 MargieB 31 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Johnson started from a premise, {an incorrect one in my view} that the UK benefits from WTO rules based Brexit. Our confusion with him lies with his deceitful and duplicitous character. Knowing that this is essentially unpalatable to most people in the UK he's embarked on a image of agreement- seeking with the EU { he has even taken in Ruth Davidson} but his true agenda  { now very visible} is  orchestrating events so that WTO rules Brexit is enforced upon us.

He speaks to those not very involved with politics in the simplest terms eg let's get on with it- and knows that the electorate often works on a very short term memory so if he can blame the EU for not budging he can win a few more votes over. Many will see that is the way it is rather than remembering all the contortions he himself has orchestrated. It is a clever act of attrition based on having two layers of intent - one for public consumption , one his true agenda.

His character is well suited to this- ask Marina I suspect. 

Post edited at 08:35
1
 Mike Stretford 31 Aug 2019
In reply to baron:

> They threw the Irish border into their withdrawal agreement agenda not because of its importance but because they knew how difficult/impossible a solution would be. It’s such a contentious issue that it was, in a fashion all too typical of Anglo/ Irish, North/South, Loyalist/Republican relations, fudged in the Belfast agreement and doesn’t even get a direct mention. 

> And before you go off on one, I’m not saying that the Irish border isn’t an important issue, it’s obviously really, really important. Just that it’s importance is not the reason for it’s inclusion in the withdrawal agreement negotiations.

> So, is making an almost insolvable problem a mainstay of your negotiating position and then refusing to allow the one thing that might go some way to providing a solution it - a future trade deal - to be discussed, an example of the EU’s flexibility?

No. The Irish border issue is in there because it really is major issue. It cannot be solved by a future trade deal which doesn't tie the UK into a customs union, or leave NI in one, or other options leading Brexiteers won't accept. UK politicians should be taking it seriously but are instead using it to bash the EU and deflect attention from their own failings. 

1
 wercat 31 Aug 2019
In reply to MargieB:

I think I know how Russians felt at the time of the Yeltsin putsch

 MargieB 31 Aug 2019
In reply to wercat:

Interesting analogy. The Court system in Russia declared that there was a coup attempt. 

Ours is not a similar state but there is a  simple analogy in that the courts are involved. We have no written constitution but it could be an advantage in that precedent alone is not only  taken into consideration but also there is adaptability/ room for judgements to be made in new situations like the one we are in now.

As far as I know there has been no prorogation of Parliament of this length nor at a time of intense state/economically -changing political decisions. We also know the will of Parliament {through indicative votes of a 43 majority}  that a no deal Brexit should be halted .A judgement is required as regards legal right to prorogation versus the demands of a Parliamentary democracy. Intent will be at the heart of it .Will this be our strength, constitutionally? 

Post edited at 09:56
In reply to MargieB:

Am I right in thinking this ruling will be made next Tuesday, or will it take longer than that? (We're fast running out of time!)

 MargieB 31 Aug 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

My understanding is that there a two simultaneous court actions on this issue. One in the Scottish Court of Sessions by Scottish MPs due to be heard on Tuesday and a simultaneous one in the High Court London brought by Gina Miller with support of English MPs. Two pronged approach to cover all bases.Don't know timetable of London one.

It has occurred to me that if the courts find Boris can't prorogue Parliament because of his intent to block a legislative approach to block a no deal Brexit,   Boris will be forced, by logical procedure, into a 2nd referendum or GE. There is nothing extra coming from the EU to vote on. It could make it happen. Boris may have inadvertently found the route to this. He believed very strongly, imo, that a legislative blocking of a No deal brexit was extremely feasible and that is why  he reverted to the extreme action of prorogue. Maybe all he'll have left is the argument for the wording on a referendum paper.

Post edited at 10:57
 Robert Durran 31 Aug 2019
In reply to MargieB:

I read today that the EU may unilaterally offer an extension to continue negotiations. This strikes me as a great move. If Boris turns it down, he is revealed to be lying about wanting a deal, strengthening the remain hand, and if he accepts it, he is going back on his "do or die" approach, losing the support of the nutters and making a GE before Brexit much more likely.

 jethro kiernan 31 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Unfortunately the third way he will play it is that he is bringing the EU to heel with his tough negotiating stance, any attempt as being reasonable by the EU will just be played out as weakness by the ERG. ie they should have played hardball from day one if only those lily livered remainers hadn't held them back etc.

In reply to steve taylor:

Crumbs Steve,

It seems to me that thanks to Ireland, Britain and the EU are like Siamese Twins requiring a very complicated and well thought surgical  procedure to separate them in order to ensure the survival of both. Boris the non elected PM seems prepared to use an axe. Lets hope Trump hasn't put that idea into his head.

Post edited at 21:08
1
 MargieB 31 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think that is interesting too. He'll reject the extension on offer because he will claim it is a waste of time because, any idea of Irish backstop removal could have been offered before October 31st and if it not removed in that time frame, in his mind it is unlikely to be removed after 31st October. He's really building voter support now for a WTO rules based Brexit. He's not doing too badly actually as regards getting people to accept this version of Brexit,{ the EU election results proved that]. He's chucking money into the advertisement and shoving in bills by the minute to sell the idea.

I think he will go for a referendum rather than a GE because ultimately  he wants to seize the moment to entrench WTO rules Brexit  as the only viable version of Brexit and pit this against Remain. Couldn't risk a reversion to some other version in a newly elected hung Parliament This has been really the end goal over the last year. And it has been very successful as a strategy.

Post edited at 23:21
 Robert Durran 31 Aug 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> I think he will go for a referendum rather than a GE because ultimately  he wants to seize the moment to entrench WTO rules Brexit  as the only viable version of Brexit and pit this against Remain. This has been really the end goal over the last year. And it has been very successful as a strategy.

I disagree. Potentially, if the timing is right, he could, with first past the post, win a big majority in a GE even if remain parties total more votes. I doubt no deal would beat remain in a referendum, though it is possible a deal might.

 MargieB 31 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

He's a high risk, do or die personality, by his own admission!

with also a tendency to go OTT and fail. Then he becomes the disingenuous little boy with the engaging smile to curry sympathy. 

Post edited at 23:36
 Robert Durran 31 Aug 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> He's a high risk, do or die personality, by his own admission!

But he's forced himself into that hole he has dug for himself by unscrupulously and without any principles doing and saying whaever it took to get to the position of PM. We can only hope that he ends up buried (along with the tory party which brought this shitshow up us) at the bottom of it.

 MargieB 31 Aug 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

He'll still try the naughty boy disingenuous smile and jokiness to cling onto power.  Ask Marina. Took her years to see through it. But in the meantime he's certainly making us all run.

Post edited at 23:58
 MargieB 01 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

And where is the weakness in all this that Boris can exploit whether Referendum or GE ? There is no "Better to stay in the EU" campaign at all working the electorate. At the moment it is just a reaction to what Boris throws in the works.  The opposition is just a reactive force not a positive force and hasn't got its act together.

Boris is sweetening the electorate with piecemeal bills on education, NHS, Police,  working on an intense short terminism that could just work.

Post edited at 09:16
 Robert Durran 01 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

>  There is no "Better to stay in the EU" campaign at all working the electorate.

I the event of a referendum there will be.

In the event of an election, we have to hope that there is some sort of remain alliance, otherwise there is a real danger, with the remain vote split, that Johnson could win a majority even if, say, only 40% of the electorate want to leave the EU. If that happens, the United Kingdom is utterly f*cked.

In reply to MargieB:

> There is no "Better to stay in the EU" campaign 

And, with the major opposition party led by someone who doesn't believe in the EU. We're not likely to.

 MargieB 01 Sep 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

Swinson Sturgeon and Lucas sound a convincing media trio for a campaign and they would have to give the performances of their lives to compensate for Corbyn's performance {or rather Corbyn can and will be used by Boris  an own goal for Boris. }

But the problem is Boris has had all the media coverage for months and of course another great side effect advantage of proroguing is to keep all but his face in the media for the immediate future.

Post edited at 12:08
In reply to MargieB:

> Swinson Sturgeon and Lucas sound a convincing media trio

Good luck to them getting media coverage...

 MargieB 01 Sep 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

They'll have to get cracking now on a campaign, they'll have to co-operate to get beyond the FPTP system. That seems possible to me.

Labour will be the reactive "stop a no deal action party" but where do they have a GE edge???

 MargieB 01 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

You seem right about a GE, And the polls are saying Johnson will win a majority. Seems like people aren't overly bothered by our Parliamentary system to react  and this is coupled with a split opposition/FPTP. Incredible that people are not overwhelmingly shocked to turn against him and they really have been sold a wto rules Brexit as good for the economy.

I think the pro EU parties should form a one off coalition and run GE as a coalition. Really change UK politics through a co-operative approach. Possible??

1
 Robert Durran 01 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> I think the pro EU parties should form a one off coalition and run GE as a coalition. Really change UK politics through a co-operative approach. Possible??

It might just happen if Johnson's government continues to outrage, perhaps by refusing to act on a parliamentary vote to avoid no deal, but it might have to be before Brexit happens to serve a purpose and I'm not sure how that could be forced. Maybe more likely that increasing outrage might make an emergency coalition government following a no confidence vote more likely.

It is intriguing that by removing the whip from any tories who vote against the government this week, Johnson would wipe out his own majority - what happens then?

 MargieB 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Boris Johnson doesn't care about this Parliament because the more he outrages this Parliament the more he claims he is being frustrated by Parliament which is his strategy to gain public support for a sudden quick gain of votes for a quick GE. Ultimate short term approach. Could just work .......Uses Corbyn's call for a GE to advantage!! Hard to believe people fall for it but polls suggest they are.

Sell the idea of WTO Brexit

Outrage public opinion about Parliament.

That's his approach, nasty but true.

Post edited at 08:46
 wercat 02 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

It struck me this morning that we are about to find out whether our much vaunted checks and balances really exist to limit an extremist government or whether they were always a British Myth excusing an unwritten constitution

Post edited at 09:57
 MargieB 02 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

And the truth of the matter is both the 2016 referendum and 2017 Parliaments are legal but to say one is "more" Legal than another, that Parliament frustrates referendum,    is a complete nonsense. 

But May started this by walking out of Parliament and "appealing"  to a "force" beyond Parliament, a legitimacy of the People which is apparently not vested in Parliament when in fact is a nonsense  since Parliament is the sum total of our elected representatives.

It is an erroneous and dangerous dynamic that Boris has built on.

Post edited at 09:59
 wercat 02 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

There are a lot of unchallenged falsehoods involved in the No Deal project and even more if you widen it to Brexit generally.

In reply to MargieB:

Yes, it shows either a deliberate undermining, or a fundamental ignorance of our constitution (founded on parliamentary democracy).

Post edited at 12:10
1
 MargieB 02 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

And now talk of snap election Oct 14th because Boris has the prerogative to set it after no confidence etc. And he's off the blocs first in my view.

baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> And now talk of snap election Oct 14th because Boris has the prerogative to set it after no confidence etc. And he's off the blocs first in my view.

Johnson calls an election, loses seats to the Brexit party, Labour form the next government.

That’s a heck of a plan.

 MargieB 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

No

Best to not call no confidence vote.

More democratic to get a 2nd referendum through a legislative process.

the No confidence/ GE is a contortion of events to Boris' undeserved advantage .

Post edited at 17:19
 MonkeyPuzzle 02 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

Would 2/3 MPs vote for a GE without No Deal dealt with in advance? I suspect he's just trying to waste another day or two of parliamentary time.

baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> No

> Best to not call no confidence vote.

> More democratic to get a 2nd referendum.

> the No confidence/ GE is a contortion of events to Boris' undeserved advantage .

How is Johnson calling an election which he will probably lose to his advantage?

 Dave B 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

The polls suggest he probably should NOT lose a ge currently.

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/overview/all

Etc. 

Removed User 02 Sep 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

I think that it's important this evening to bear in mind that the only reason the tories won't put all this crap to bed by holding a confirmatory referendum is because they know they'll lose.

1
In reply to Removed User:

Really important point, yes. Shockingly true. Yet they have the cheek to call what they are doing 'democratic'.

2
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> I think that it's important this evening to bear in mind that the only reason the tories won't put all this crap to bed by holding a confirmatory referendum is because they know they'll lose.

According to Owen Jones there’s no chance of Parliament agreeing to a referendum and even less chance of them agreeing to a question for said referendum.

You’ll have to pin your hopes on a general election.

In reply to baron:

Well, he's just ruled it out (so he says.)

The poor, poor demented man is coming across as more of a fool than ever. 'Let's get Brexit done by October 31st.' Doesn't he realise it will only then be starting? There will then follow months and years of painful and depressing negotiations. Wasting ever more time in which business could otherwise be getting on unfettered. He keeps on going on about getting 'concessions' from the EU. Just what on earth is it that he wants, or expects them to give us? He's quite literally mad, I think.

Post edited at 18:20
2
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Johnson seems very bullish for a man who is likely to lose his no deal plan.

While that would be good news it doesn’t move us on from the stalemate of the May government.

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> According to Owen Jones there’s no chance of Parliament agreeing to a referendum and even less chance of them agreeing to a question for said referendum.

> You’ll have to pin your hopes on a general election.

I don't thgink anyone ever envisaged this parliament agreeing to a referendum; there was always going to have to be a GE first.

 GridNorth 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think a general election would be the fairest way to settle this.  This would of course be along Brexit/Remain lines and associated manifestos.

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Well, he's just ruled it out (so he says.)

> The poor, poor demented man is coming across as more of a fool than ever. 'Let's get Brexit done by October 31st.' Doesn't he realise it will only then be starting?

Of course he realises that, but he's a ruthless liar. He went for "do or die" to get elected tory leader (and therefore PM by default) and now he'll lie about a rosy post Brerxit future to try to win an election.

Removed User 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> According to Owen Jones there’s no chance of Parliament agreeing to a referendum and even less chance of them agreeing to a question for said referendum.

> You’ll have to pin your hopes on a general election.


Owen Jones is a bit too Left wing for me. If the government wanted to hold another referendum and whipped their MPs to vote for it, they'd get one.

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> I think a general election would be the fairest way to settle this.  This would of course be along Brexit/Remain lines and associated manifestos.

It would to a large extent, but the tories will try to fight it on an anti-Corbyn vote (and quite possibly win) and then, of course lie that that they have a mandate for no deal or whatever. Tony Blair was warning about ths today. The best chance to defeat Johnson will be some sort of remain alliance with a view to a remain coalition.

1
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Owen Jones is a bit too Left wing for me. If the government wanted to hold another referendum and whipped their MPs to vote for it, they'd get one.

I’m not sure that any party is able to whip their MPs these days.

As Johnson is likely to find out soon.

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Johnson seems very bullish for a man who is likely to lose his no deal plan.

> While that would be good news it doesn’t move us on from the stalemate of the May government.

Johnson has just effectively announced that if Parliament block no deal (and it looks like it will) then he will ask for an election with a likely date of 14th Oct.  I think the best response would be for parliament to refuse him his election but then force one after we have failed to leave on 31st Oct. Johnson will have failed in his main policy on which he was elected leader, he'll lose votes to Farage and we could end up with a government with a mandate for a referendum and a likely end to this shitshow.

 elsewhere 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Johnson has just effectively announced that if Parliament block no deal (and it looks like it will) then he will ask for an election with a likely date of 14th Oct.  I think the best response would be for parliament to refuse him his election but then force one after we have failed to leave on 31st Oct. Johnson will have failed in his main policy on which he was elected leader, he'll lose votes to Farage and we could end up with a government with a mandate for a referendum and a likely end to this shitshow.

Not attractive to Tory MPs who would lose their seats.

 John2 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Removed User:

We've had a referendum. Do you think that we should have a series of referendums until we come up with the answer that you favor? That certainly seems to be the EU way of doing things.

10
In reply to John2:

No, we have another referendum on the same principle that we have regular GEs to find out what the electorate want NOW, not three years ago. All the poll evidence it that a majority of the electorate does not now want Brexit and about 65% don't want a no deal Brexit. So to go ahead now would actually be going against the 'will of the people' as well as against the people's representatives in Parliament. A very dangerous situation, surely?

1
In reply to elsewhere:

I think it's quite likely Parliament will stop a GE, because it requires a 2/3 majority vote to do that, doesn't it?

1
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> We've had a referendum. Do you think that we should have a series of referendums until we come up with the answer that you favor? That certainly seems to be the EU way of doing things.

Oh dear, that is a tired old l;eavers' argument. I don't know of anyone who does not think that a second referendum should be binding and on well specifioed outcomes (no deal, specific deal, remain).

1
Removed User 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

I'm not sure how often it's got to be explained to brexiters.

A confirmatory referendum would be just that, do you want what's been negotiated/leave with no deal or do you want to forget the whole thing. The decision would be final.

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

1
In reply to Robert Durran:

They forget, too, that the last one was not legally binding.

1
In reply to John2:

> Do you think that we should have a series of referendums until we come up with the answer that you favor?

Well, we could hold a series of referenda that refine the question being asked, I suppose...

Democracy relies on an informed electorate. I hope we're a bit more informed now, after three years of negotiation and debate about what 'Leave' might actually mean in reality.

1
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I think it's quite likely Parliament will stop a GE, because it requires a 2/3 majority vote to do that, doesn't it?

Johnson has just said that he will not ask the EU for an extension. Assuming this is not a lie (obviously it might be), If parliament block no deal, that means that either he has to get a deal thropugh parliament before Oct 31st or win an election before Oct 31st and get parliament to reverse blocking no deal. So what does he do if parlimenmt does not grant him an election and he can't get a deal through. Resign? 

 John2 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

So how do you explain the two Irish referendums on the Lisbon Treaty? The people of Ireland rejected it the first time round, the EU  in effect told them that they had come up with the wrong answer and the second time round (for whatever reason) the result was different.

I guess my real question is, why do you think that the result of referendum number two is more valid than the result of referendum number 1.

6
 GridNorth 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> No, we have another referendum on the same principle that we have regular GEs to find out what the electorate want NOW, not three years ago. All the poll evidence it that a majority of the electorate does not now want Brexit and about 65% don't want a no deal Brexit. So to go ahead now would actually be going against the 'will of the people' as well as against the people's representatives in Parliament. A very dangerous situation, surely?

The last referendum was one too many and it would be impractical to hold them on a regular basis. If you want to claim that ALL the poll evidence suggests the electorate does not want Brexit and 65% do not want no deal it would be helpful if you could provide the source data to support that otherwise it's just your anecdotal "feelings"

In reply to John2:

Because a, it will be far better informed (there will be concrete details for vote on for a deal, plus there will be a no deal option and a remain option), b, the electorate has changed both in its wishes and demographics. C, it will be (should be) a mandatory rather than an advisory referendum this time round.

In reply to GridNorth:

I don't know how many times one has to post up this regular poll of polls, but here it is again – or rather, the latest:

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/euref2-poll-of-polls-2/

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/

There's also this one, showing how it's gone on for months and months:

https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-remain-a-me...

Post edited at 19:55
1
 John2 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

So in ten years time the EU collapses because of its internal contradictions, would we not be better informed in ten years time as to the wisdom of being a member? I like your suggestion that your 'confirmatory' referendum should be mandatory rather than advisory - I'm sure history's greatest tyrants would be on your side.

And what do you think of the Irish referendums on the Lisbon Treaty?

2
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> So how do you explain the two Irish referendums on the Lisbon Treaty? The people of Ireland rejected it the first time round, the EU  in effect told them that they had come up with the wrong answer and the second time round (for whatever reason) the result was different.

That was a toptally different situation - either accept the treaty or reject it. The first EU referendum did not in any way specify what sort of brexit we might end up with (this is why it was open to absurd fantastical promises and lies). A confirmatory vote would be to accept or reject a specifis foirm of Brexit.

> I guess my real question is, why do you think that the result of referendum number two is more valid than the result of referendum number 1.

In one sense because people would know pretty clearly what they were voting for, and in another sense because it would be binding in law.

1
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Because a, it will be far better informed (there will be concrete details for vote on for a deal, plus there will be a no deal option and a remain option), b, the electorate has changed both in its wishes and demographics. C, it will be (should be) a mandatory rather than an advisory referendum this time round.

The attempts to have three options on the referendum which would split the leave vote and allow an easy remain win would never be seen by leavers as a fair result.

And there in lies one of many problems with a second referendum whether it’s the best way to solve the stalemate or not.

1
In reply to John2:

I'd be only to happy to have another advisory referendum, provided it wasn't then treated as mandatory, as the last one dishonestly was.

1
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> So in ten years time the EU collapses because of its internal contradictions, would we not be better informed in ten years time as to the wisdom of being a member?

Presumably, if it collapses, nobody will be a member any more. In the meantime we are much better being a strong and influential member of the EU, building on its strengths and arguing for reform where it is needed and, hopefully, ensuring that it doesn't collapse. 

1
 John2 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

No, the PR for the Lisbon Treaty stated that it needed to be unanimously adopted. That turned out not to be the case.

That's how the EU works - it's in no way democratic.

Fantastical promises and lies - you must admit that if we do leave, we will no longer be funding the construction of motorways in Romania.

9
In reply to John2:

Because, as others have said, it should be 

1/ between 3 concrete outcomes, which have by now been exhaustively debated, and are all immediately available

2/ and be legally binding in its outcome 

1
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The attempts to have three options on the referendum which would split the leave vote and allow an easy remain win would never be seen by leavers as a fair result.

Oh dear, that daft leaver one too.......

Obviousaly it would be grossly unfair to have a straight three way choice of no deal, deal or remain. If there are three choices there would have to be transferable vote.

1
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

And once again any attempt at a reasonable debate goes down the pan when a participant has to resort to insults.

> Oh dear, that daft leaver one too.......

2
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> No, the PR for the Lisbon Treaty stated that it needed to be unanimously adopted. That turned out not to be the case.

I'm not too familair with it. Were things changed so that some countries could be given an opt out.

> That's how the EU works - it's in no way democratic.

In what way?

> Fantastical promises and lies - you must admit that if we do leave, we will no longer be funding the construction of motorways in Romania.

Obviously not. Nor many roads I have driven on in the UK. What is your point?

1
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> And once again any attempt at a reasonable debate goes down the pan when a participant has to resort to insults.

Well it is frustrating when absurd non-arguments get wheeled out over and over again. Nobody has ever suggested a referendum which would split the leave vote - as I said obviously unfair.

1
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Well it is frustrating when absurd non-arguments get wheeled out over and over again. Nobody has ever suggested a referendum which would split the leave vote - as I said obviously unfair.

Well we had the idea of a referendum choice between remain and May’s deal (which for many leavers was the worst deal possible).

That would have split the leave vote.

And should there ever be any agreement on holding a referendum and then on what the question should be, how long would the result be binding for?

As an aside, we can all frustrated.

 GridNorth 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Thank you for that but it's hardly an overwhelming majority is it.  In fact it's as small as the referendum results which many remainers  complained was too small to be valid. The difference is so small that there is probably a poll somewhere that proves the opposite,

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 02 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> Thank you for that but it's hardly an overwhelming majority is it. 

It's a clear majority for Remain. And has been for a while. What it isn't is a mandate for no deal.

> In fact it's as small as the referendum results which many remainers complained was too small to be valid. 

Citation needed.

> The difference is so small that there is probably a poll somewhere that proves the opposite,

It's an aggregated poll of polls.

1
 John2 02 Sep 2019
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

You are reading a lot into the words in and out.

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Well we had the idea of a referendum choice between remain and May’s deal (which for many leavers was the worst deal possible).

> That would have split the leave vote.

In that some would have preferred to remain?

Obviously, if it were not to be a rerun of the original referendum, there woul;d have to be a range of specific proposals. Obnviously not everyone's favourite proposal could be there. 

> And should there ever be any agreement on holding a referendum and then on what the question should be, how long would the result be binding for?

Following  the referendum we would either leave or revoke according to the result. In that sense it would be binding. I imagine any future government could have another referendum in their manifesto if ythey wanted.

 John2 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

For fvcks sake. When we have a general election in the UK people don't say, 'We don't like that MP. Let's have another go'.

6
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> For fvcks sake. When we have a general election in the UK people don't say, 'We don't like that MP. Let's have another go'.

If that is supposed to be an analogy with the EU referendum, it fails in two ways. Firstly we know what MP we are voting for - if we just voted for a party and they then imposed some outlier extremist on us, we might well feel justified in having another shot. Secondly, we know that we shall have achance to vote out the MP again within 5 years anyway.

1
 John2 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

No, it's an analogy with the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

 MonkeyPuzzle 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> For fvcks sake. When we have a general election in the UK people don't say, 'We don't like that MP. Let's have another go'.

*cough*

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/21/petit... 

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> No, it's an analogy with the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

In that case, you'd need to explain the analogy to me.

Removed User 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

Do you actually take these arguments seriously yourself? I mean really, after you've thought about them for a minute or two?

youtube.com/watch?v=9Y17YaZRRvY&

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=693835264415208

This seems to explain as well as anything why an ill conceived first referendum has left the country in this monumental clusterf*ck. Assuming you are not mad enough to favour walking away without a deal, how do you suggest we extricate ourselves from it?

1
In reply to John2:

> For fvcks sake. When we have a general election in the UK people don't say, 'We don't like that MP. Let's have another go'.

No, but a lot of them say, 'We don't like this government, let's have another one.' Several times in my half-century life of voting I've changed my party allegiance at a general election.

Post edited at 21:07
1
 Postmanpat 02 Sep 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

  If I understand them correctly,

The latest average of 6 polls 19/6/19-31/8/19 shows 53-47 remain over leave.

 The latest average of 6 polls 16/6/16-23/6/16 (pre-referendum) showed 52-48 remain over leave.

  Referendum result: leave 52 remain 48

To the question "Is leaving the EU without a deal better or worse than staying in the EU?"

about 42 replied better and  and 47 worse (poll 30/8/19-estimated from bar charts)

Source : "What the UK thinks EU" website.

There is also one (which I'm not sure I understand given that it contradicts the in/out polls) that shows 40% favouring remain, about 33% leave with a deal, and 19% no deal.

  You can draw your own conclusions and I'm sure you will.

Post edited at 21:11
2
In reply to the thread:

this looks like “John Yates” back again. I imagine “he” will be very busy across the Brexit threads for a while, until “he” is banned again.

1
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   You can draw your own conclusions and I'm sure you will.

I conclude that the country is pretty much f*cked, because it has been utterly divided by an ill conceived referendum. 

2
 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> this looks like “John Yates” back again.

Unless I am massively mistaken, it's not!

baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In that some would have preferred to remain?

> Obviously, if it were not to be a rerun of the original referendum, there woul;d have to be a range of specific proposals. Obnviously not everyone's favourite proposal could be there. 

> Following  the referendum we would either leave or revoke according to the result. In that sense it would be binding. I imagine any future government could have another referendum in their manifesto if ythey wanted.

We could have another remain or leave question.

Offering May’s deal as a referendum option isn’t helpful considering many think it’s a terrible deal. (I know it’s the one that was negotiated and the EU say it can’t be renegotiated).

Offering no deal as another option is also unhelpful as that’s not what most leavers want.

Given that May, a remainer, negotiated a rubbish deal, and that deal or a catastrophic no deal is all that’s being offered you might see why many leavers aren’t happy with another referendum.

It’s a bit like remainers being offered a referendum with no remain option in it.

Will I have to wait long for remainers to reply by mentioning unicorns?

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Given that May, a remainer, negotiated a rubbish deal, and that deal or a catastrophic no deal is all that’s being offered you might see why many leavers aren’t happy with another referendum.

> It’s a bit like remainers being offered a referendum with no remain option in it.

That's fair enough. As I said in another thread, leavers should have been given the chance to come up with the best deal they could and then put it up against remain in a confirmatory vote. But that's not where we are now, so what do you suggest?

Post edited at 21:34
1
 john arran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

We know very well now that in a binary poll with an unspecified practical outcome on one side, there will always be a proportion of people voting for something they think would be great but which in reality is undeliverable. If you haven't learned that by now, and the need to ask a more specific question comparing two deliverable outcomes, I don't know where you've been hiding these last 3 years.

1
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> That's fair enough. As I said in another thread, leavers should have been given the chance to come up with the best deal they could and then put it up against remain in a confiormatolry vote. But that's not where we are now, so what do you suggest?

I suppose that the best course of action depends on what the final aim is.

If we want to remain then revoke Article 50 and try to deal with the backlash by addressing the domestic problems that caused many to vote leave. Do we now trust our politicians to deliver on any future promises?

If we want to leave we probably need a Brexit that includes a customs union and guaranteed workers rights.

Anything harder won’t carry labour support and anything softer will lose conservative support.

How we get to one of those two is anybody’s guess.

Hopefully Parliament blocks no deal, there’s a general election, then what?

Without a majority in Parliament for either leave, remain or a referendum are we stuck in limbo until the EU refuse any more extensions?

 GridNorth 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

IMO a general election will essentially be a second referendum.  Out of necessity the parties will have to declare where they stand on Brexit. Leave on WTO rules or remain will be fairly straightforward propositions but selling some deal or other could prove difficult. On a personal level I would not feel as betrayed by a general election as I would with a formal second referendum. 

Al

baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

Agreed on the general election.

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> IMO a general election will essentially be a second referendum. 

Unless there are leave/remain alliances, it could be a travesty of a referendum - if all leave (say) votes are concentrated in one party, but the remain votes are split, a leave party could get a good majority while getting far fewer votes than the remain parties combined.

1
 jkarran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

Wha do you think is rubbish about May's withdrawal agreement? Specifically.

Jk

1
 climbingpixie 02 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The attempts to have three options on the referendum which would split the leave vote and allow an easy remain win would never be seen by leavers as a fair result.

But this perfectly encapsulates the problem with the leave vote - it was never a vote FOR something, it was a vote against something. None of the leave outcomes outranks remain as an option, leave only won because it encompassed various contradictory flavours of Brexit. If 48% of people want to remain, why should that be outranked by 30% who want no deal, 10% who want a hard Brexit and 12% who want a Norway Brexit?

1
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Wha do you think is rubbish about May's withdrawal agreement? Specifically.

> Jk

Have we not done this before?

baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

The wording of the referendum was, I believe, voted on by parliament.

It did indeed contribute to the current difficulties.

However, is there not more than one type of remain?

1
In reply to baron:

Only in degrees of enthusiasm, but there can't be different kinds. You can't be only half in it, for example. It's a bit like saying there's different kinds of remaining a member of the Alpine Club, for example.

1
baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Only in degrees of enthusiasm, but there can't be different kinds. You can't be only half in it, for example. It's a bit like saying there's different kinds of remaining a member of the Alpine Club, for example.

You mean like full, group or aspirant member? Sorry, just trying to be a smart arse.  

In reply to baron:

And you've succeeded.

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

> But this perfectly encapsulates the problem with the leave vote - it was never a vote FOR something, it was a vote against something. None of the leave outcomes outranks remain as an option, leave only won because it encompassed various contradictory flavours of Brexit.

Yes, I think this gets to the heart of the problem; because Brexit was sold with misinformation, impossible promises and vacuous slogans, we are now in the position where it seems that any actual possible Brexit probably looks worse than remain to parliament or people. Because of this the "true believers" have been forced into the corner of no deal. Whether a way out can be found remains to be seen.

 Robert Durran 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth

Labour people on Newsnight seemed to be saying that Labour would turn down a GE. This could leave Johnson in real difficulty having said that in no circumstances would he ask for an extension but unable to get a deal through parliament and blocked from leaving with no deal. Checkmate? 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, I think that's quite possible. And what an extraordinary situation we'd then be in. Boris would have to resign (his only way out being a referendum?); then maybe, maybe we might get a caretaker PM like Kenneth Clarke. But I haven't a clue really how this will play out.

baron 02 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Is it true that while Johnson might be forced to ask for an extension - although gosh only knows what we’d do with the extra time - he doesn’t have to accept an extension?

The reason being that it would be unreasonable for Parliament to force any PM to accept an extension before any conditions that might be imposed by the EU for granting said extension are known.

 Robert Durran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> Is it true that while Johnson might be forced to ask for an extension - although gosh only knows what we’d do with the extra time - he doesn’t have to accept an extension?

I'd have thought that the most obvious thing to do with the extra time would be to have an election to try to break the impasse.

> The reason being that it would be unreasonable for Parliament to force any PM to accept an extension before any conditions that might be imposed by the EU for granting said extension are known.

So maybe wait for the conditions and then parliament finds a way of forcing him to accept the conditions........ I don't know.

Post edited at 00:20
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Funnily enough in the same poll there's no majority for a second referendum (currently 47:41 against evens in the last), no majority for stopping Brexit (only 29% want to abandon it, 28% want no deal right now), and Parliament should not bring down Boris (46:34) or stop him proroguing Parliament (44:34).

Post edited at 00:39
1
 tehmarks 03 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> That's how the EU works - it's in no way democratic.

Right...and suspending parliament and going on record to say that the government might not follow the law in order to push Brexit through is democratic?

Yes, great. We've really taken back control, haven't we?

This current situation is an affront to democracy, and I can't believe that there are otherwise intelligent people who can find reasons to support it. It's outrageous.

1
 MargieB 03 Sep 2019
In reply to tehmarks:

my ideal plan of  action. / result

Courts rule against Prorogation.

Parliament legislates for 

a.legislation  on No deal Brexit to be removed  as default on Oct 31st.

b. by  legislation for an extension of EU deadline

c. legislation on a 2nd referendum on whatever option for Brexit.: {a  Deal or WTO -whichever one Boris will eventually have to come clean about and which he has been angling for all the time- I suspect WTO} 

d. avoid no confidence and GE at this stage.

 JLS 03 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

>”gosh only knows what we’d do with the extra time”

Take a holiday until the new deadline got a bit closer. 

 MargieB 03 Sep 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

I'm voting Lib dem on Oct 14 cause it is tactical to vote with English Remainers as I'm in Scotland Highland  and Labour doesn't figure here. I want to stop Boris and get past the FPTP system. I think Boris has a chance- He's worked up the outrage Brexit vote to great effect.

Post edited at 07:24
 climbingpixie 03 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> The wording of the referendum was, I believe, voted on by parliament.

True, and I think shows the complacency of parliamentarians that the UK would make the 'right' choice and vote to remain. A better phrased question which removed the ambiguity around the meaning of leave could've saved a lot of trouble down the line.

> However, is there not more than one type of remain?

I'm open to counter-arguments but I don't think there was really. At the time of the referendum no-one had started talking about 'remain and reform', remain was seen as the status quo. So I'd say that 48% of people voted in favour of a clearly defined outcome.

1
 climbingpixie 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

As in the commons, as in the referendum - there's no absolute majority FOR anything, just majorities against options. Any polling that doesn't allow people to define their choices in order is going to run into these problems.

I thought this was an interesting piece of analysis the other day on ranking Brexit outcomes. It shows that remain is the option preferred by most respondents but that it's also very divisive, with more disapproving of it than approving. Soft (Norway-style) Brexit gets the same net approval rating as remain because it's less divisive - no one really wants it but it's hated by the least number of people. No deal is pretty much a write off - it has the lowest approval rating of all the options and the highest number of people who believe it to be a bad or very bad outcome.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/29/search-med...

 wercat 03 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> Fantastical promises and lies - you must admit that if we do leave, we will no longer be funding the construction of motorways in Romania.

Or much needed roads in the Highlands of Scotland?  I drove up there in the days before those new roads assisted by EU funding were in place and it's hard to describe how much easier it is to get up there now compared to tsituation as late as the early 1980s when I was living and working up there.

Another Lie against the EU, Dr Goebbels?

Post edited at 08:49
1
 JLS 03 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

>"A better phrased question which removed the ambiguity around the meaning of leave could've saved a lot of trouble down the line."

I actually believe those that voted for leave, for the most part, did actually vote for no deal. I'm guessing few really understood the implications of their choice and the rest simply didn't care. The ambiguity really only came after the result, once polititions started to think through how they could deliver/mitigate "leave".

2
 Ian W 03 Sep 2019
In reply to baron:

> I suppose that the best course of action depends on what the final aim is.

> If we want to remain then revoke Article 50 and try to deal with the backlash by addressing the domestic problems that caused many to vote leave. Do we now trust our politicians to deliver on any future promises?

Unfortunately dealing with the domestic issues that caused many to vote leave involves a wholesale change in political and media narrative, and a de facto admission by many many (predominantly conservative, but some labour also guilty) politicians that they have been guilt of wholesale "misleading" of the UK electorate for political gain for a number of years.

 girlymonkey 03 Sep 2019
In reply to John2:

> Fantastical promises and lies - you must admit that if we do leave, we will no longer be funding the construction of motorways in Romania.

But contributing to Romanian infrastructure means that our trade there moves faster so benefits UK business. We, personally, contribute very little, and benefit from better EU wide infrastructure on so many levels. Improving the lives of others also improves our own!

1
 SenzuBean 03 Sep 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Not attractive to Tory MPs who would lose their seats.

Maybe we should remind them they'll lose more than their seats if they don't choose what's best for their constituents...

 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

I don’t think we should follow polls, for those that do there are problems though.  There’s no majority for remaining in the EU in practice, regardless of polls showing remain would just about win in a new referendum.

People were talking about reform prior to the referendum.  It came after Cameron’s attempt at a new deal so reform was in people’s minds and it was the main response to problems with the EU.  “Yes, it’s not perfect but we can’t fix it if we leave.”  E.g. https://labourlist.org/2016/04/europe-needs-to-change-but-i-am-voting-to-st...

Post edited at 09:26
1
 jkarran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Maybe we should remind them they'll lose more than their seats if they don't choose what's best for their constituents...

I appreciate your frustration but I think we should strive to keep things civil, that really isn't a route we want to take, it goes nowhere good.

jk

 Sir Chasm 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There’s no majority for remaining in the EU in practice,

On what are you basing the above statement?

1
 David Riley 03 Sep 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> But contributing to Romanian infrastructure means that our trade there moves faster so benefits UK business. We, personally, contribute very little, and benefit from better EU wide infrastructure on so many levels. Improving the lives of others also improves our own!

It would be great to have infinite resources to spend on everything.  But we do have to limit expenditure on the NHS and welfare.  The congested M6 should have priority over empty motorways in sparsely populated countries.  Monuments to the EU and unwanted public parks in Malta, and vast buildings thought a joke in Hungary, demonstrate the EU has the wrong incentives to target the money.  Perhaps we can afford the EU waste.  But it is, of course, just getting started and wants the really expensive, wasteful stuff, an army.

3
 subtle 03 Sep 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> It would be great to have infinite resources to spend on everything.  But we do have to limit expenditure on the NHS and welfare.  The congested M6 should have priority over empty motorways in sparsely populated countries.  

Perhaps we should be looking at ways to try and cut congestion on the M6 - less cars/lorries - alternative transport - by "we" I mean all of us - not just British, or the EU.

Mind you, with the expected food shortages brought on by a no deal Brexit part of this may be realised, by default.

1
 SenzuBean 03 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> I appreciate your frustration but I think we should strive to keep things civil, that really isn't a route we want to take, it goes nowhere good.

I was only suggesting they lose their desks as well as their seats.

But in all seriousness, I think they should know very well they will have eternal condemnation and blame for choosing party over country.

 girlymonkey 03 Sep 2019
In reply to David Riley:

I don't know what the procedure is for deciding how money gets spent, but my assumption is that either the EU says "Here's some money for some large scale road building" and the country decides which roads need built, or that there is a pot of money available and countries apply for the funding for specific projects. It strikes me as unlikely that the EU decides to build a park that no one wants in Malta.

We have received funding for road building throughout the highlands of Scotland which allows tourism and goods to move safely and quickly through areas where that was previously very difficult. It keeps the more remote parts of scotland well served. Do we need an M6 upgrade? No, I think we need traffic reduction!

I agree that NHS funding is a problem, but that is nothing to do with EU funding, that is entirely our own problem and governments mismanagement. If they can find money to pay for votes (which didn't even work for them) then they could fund the NHS better. 

1
 Bob Kemp 03 Sep 2019
In reply to David Riley:

>  But it is, of course, just getting started and wants the really expensive, wasteful stuff, an army.

That tired bit of propaganda rests on a wilful misinterpretation of a few careless remarks. 

https://www.theweek.co.uk/98495/fact-check-does-the-eu-want-a-european-supe...

1
 jkarran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to David Riley:

> But it is, of course, just getting started and wants the really expensive, wasteful stuff, an army.

The irony of brexiters decrying waste is just too much.

jk

1
 galpinos 03 Sep 2019
In reply to David Riley:

Unwanted parks in Malta? Could you be more specific?

re the M6, I think we need better public transport, the M6 at 4 lanes wide is big enough.

1
 Sir Chasm 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

In which postmanpat says "The latest average of 6 polls 19/6/19-31/8/19 shows 53-47 remain over leave.". 

1
 climbingpixie 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

But there's also no majority for any single form of Brexit either and there's more of a difference between no deal and Norway than there is between Norway and remain. It's a horrendous situation - there are huge divisions across the electorate and whatever the outcome of Brexit a significant proportion of the electorate are going to be seriously and justifiably unhappy. Direct democracy got us into this and it's the only thing that might possibly resolve it but only if it's a choice between remain and the various possible post-EU futures via a three or four way vote with STV.

Interesting link, thanks. Good to see that Jezzer can actually speak quite coherently in favour of remain and he's right that the only way we could possibly effect reform is from inside. I didn't read it that he was saying remain was contingent on reforms though, more the acceptance that the EU isn't perfect but it's still better to be in than out. But perhaps you're right and there are a proportion of remain voters who only voted remain because they believed there would be change. That doesn't undermine the legitimacy of a confirmatory referendum to make sure that there's a mandate for whatever course of action we choose.

 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

> But there's also no majority for any single form of Brexit either and there's more of a difference between no deal and Norway than there is between Norway and remain. It's a horrendous situation - there are huge divisions across the electorate and whatever the outcome of Brexit a significant proportion of the electorate are going to be seriously and justifiably unhappy. Direct democracy got us into this and it's the only thing that might possibly resolve it but only if it's a choice between remain and the various possible post-EU futures via a three or four way vote with STV.

People are often (always) unhappy, a large proportion would be unhappy with a second referendum being held.  No one has voted for one, no party has been voted in saying they’d hold one.  That’s why it lacks legitimacy - that and the reason for a rerun.

> Interesting link, thanks. Good to see that Jezzer can actually speak quite coherently in favour of remain and he's right that the only way we could possibly effect reform is from inside. I didn't read it that he was saying remain was contingent on reforms though, more the acceptance that the EU isn't perfect but it's still better to be in than out. But perhaps you're right and there are a proportion of remain voters who only voted remain because they believed there would be change. That doesn't undermine the legitimacy of a confirmatory referendum to make sure that there's a mandate for whatever course of action we choose.

I agree he didn’t say remain was based on reforms, but he and many others said that reform was needed (not the same reform mind).  There was nothing in the referendum to say leave was contingent on a deal being agreed, it was just leave or not.

If votes go the way it’s being suggested we’ll end up with MPs preventing an election (because they’re scared of how we’d vote) in order to prevent us from leaving the EU, while keeping in government an administration that wants to leave!  Crazy.

2
 climbingpixie 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> People are often (always) unhappy, a large proportion would be unhappy with a second referendum being held.  No one has voted for one, no party has been voted in saying they’d hold one.  That’s why it lacks legitimacy - that and the reason for a rerun.

A second referendum isn't an end state, it's a process to resolve the current impasse. You say there's no mandate for a second referendum but there's also no mandate for a no deal Brexit but that won't stop Johnson if he gets his way. And it's not a re-run - it's a refinement, it's asking people specifically what they want to do now we have set options rather than a woolly and ambiguous concept of 'leave'.

> There was nothing in the referendum to say leave was contingent on a deal being agreed, it was just leave or not.

Not on the ballot paper but the campaigning was pretty clear that we'd get a deal, an easy deal, with access to the single market and frictionless trade and all the rest of it. Any mention of leaving without a deal was rebuffed as 'project fear'. I genuinely can't be arsed to dig out the plethora of examples of leading Brexiteers promising anything and everything other than no deal because it's all been posted before and you know as well as I do that that was the pre-referendum message.

> If votes go the way it’s being suggested we’ll end up with MPs preventing an election (because they’re scared of how we’d vote) in order to prevent us from leaving the EU, while keeping in government an administration that wants to leave!  Crazy.

That's obviously not true - you've either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting the current situation. The opposition parties and the Tory rebels are saying that they won't vote for an early election until after the no deal legislation has been put through. This is because the PM has executive power to change the date of an election after its been agreed and parliament would be dissolved and therefore unable to do anything about it while the UK left the EU without a deal. And since Boris Johnson has shown himself to be entirely without scruples and capable of lying to anyone and everyone, from the queen onwards, that seems like a sensible precaution to take

1
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

> A second referendum isn't an end state, it's a process to resolve the current impasse. You say there's no mandate for a second referendum but there's also no mandate for a no deal Brexit but that won't stop Johnson if he gets his way. And it's not a re-run - it's a refinement, it's asking people specifically what they want to do now we have set options rather than a woolly and ambiguous concept of 'leave'.

There is a clear mandate for no deal - “no deal is better than a bad deal” plus the vote to leave.  Leave is a clear thing - it’s what MPs are trying to prevent.

> Not on the ballot paper but the campaigning was pretty clear that we'd get a deal, an easy deal, with access to the single market and frictionless trade and all the rest of it. Any mention of leaving without a deal was rebuffed as 'project fear'. I genuinely can't be arsed to dig out the plethora of examples of leading Brexiteers promising anything and everything other than no deal because it's all been posted before and you know as well as I do that that was the pre-referendum message.

You know as well as I do that there was never a guarantee that there would be a deal.  There were arguments that we would/should get one - if they knew we were leaving either way.

> That's obviously not true - you've either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting the current situation. The opposition parties and the Tory rebels are saying that they won't vote for an early election until after the no deal legislation has been put through. This is because the PM has executive power to change the date of an election after its been agreed and parliament would be dissolved and therefore unable to do anything about it while the UK left the EU without a deal.

Im not sure that’s actually true, source?  It doesn’t explain why they didn’t get rid of him pre summer, they knew his plans.

> And since Boris Johnson has shown himself to be entirely without scruples and capable of lying to anyone and everyone, from the queen onwards, that seems like a sensible precaution to take

So vote no confidence and get rid of him, rather than rewriting the rules so that Parliament can dictate to the PM.

Post edited at 14:54
6
 WaterMonkey 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There is a clear mandate for no deal - “no deal is better than a bad deal” plus the vote to leave.  Leave is a clear thing - it’s what MPs are trying to prevent.

Democratically we all voted for the Tories to carry out Brexit. Page 6 of their manifesto explicitly mentions leaving with a deal.

Therefore there is NO mandate for no deal. Literally nobody voted for no deal.

EDIT: Also page 8:

"Brexit and a changing world. We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from

the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and

allies across Europe.""

Post edited at 15:34
3
 climbingpixie 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There is a clear mandate for no deal - “no deal is better than a bad deal” plus the vote to leave.  

"No deal is better than a bad deal" isn't a policy position, it's a soundbite. It's certainly not a mandate to cause chaos and economic decline for the next 15 years, especially since no deal also isn't an end point, it inevitably leads to restarting negotiations from a weakened position as a 3rd country.

> Leave is a clear thing - it’s what MPs are trying to prevent.

That's funny, if leave was such a clear thing then why can't the leavers agree on it?

> You know as well as I do that there was never a guarantee that there would be a deal.  There were arguments that we would/should get one - if they knew we were leaving either way.

That we would get a deal was a key assumption during the campaign, as can be seen by the fact that no deal was not part of the narrative back in 2016. No deal was an outlying extreme possibility that only remainers mentioned and was dismissed as project fear, not  a proposition to aim for.

> Im not sure that’s actually true, source?  It doesn’t explain why they didn’t get rid of him pre summer, they knew his plans.

I can't find a source other than news stories on the BBC/Guardian. But the opposition/rebels believe he has the power to do it so they're right to lock in the legislation first. Even without changing the date, an election throwing up another hung parliament in mid-October still runs the risk of no deal by accident because the sitting government continues until the new one is formed.

Pre-summer the Tory rebels wanted to give their new PM a chance so the opposition wouldn't have had the numbers. Besides, who knew which version of Boris Johnson we were going to get at that stage - the one who supported the EU, the one who voted against May's deal, the one who voted for May's deal...?

> So vote no confidence and get rid of him, rather than rewriting the rules so that Parliament can dictate to the PM.

Yes, fine, once the necessary safeguards are in place to avoid an accidental no deal Brexit happening that parliament hasn't voted for. Then we can have a general election and see what happens. If parliament returns a mandate for no deal then we can crash out at the end of January. If not then we'll probably be having another referendum.

1
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

What does it say? I can see “we will get on with the job and take Britain out of the European Union” on page 6.

4
 WaterMonkey 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> What does it say? I can see “we will get on with the job and take Britain out of the European Union” on page 6.


Page 6:

Now more than ever, Britain needs a strong and stable government to get the best deal

for our country

Page 9:

Under the strong and stable leadership of Theresa May, there will be no ideological

crusades. The government’s agenda will not be allowed to drift to the right. Our starting

point is that we should take decisions on the basis of what works. And we will always be

guided by what matters to the ordinary, working families of this nation.

Page 10 "

If we are going to make sure Britain emerges from Brexit as a strong and united

nation, we will need strong leadership and good government: to get the right deal

for Britain in Europe, to strike new trade deals around the world and to make sure

our economy is strong for the years ahead.

Page 32

The best possible deal for Britain as we leave

the European Union delivered by a smooth,

orderly Brexit

Need I go on?

Post edited at 15:46
1
 Bob Kemp 03 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

"no deal also isn't an end point, it inevitably leads to restarting negotiations from a weakened position as a 3rd country."

This can't be repeated too often. Here's Ivan Rogers on what no deal will lead to:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/ivan-rogers-the-realities-of-a-no-dea...

 Robert Durran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> There is a clear mandate for no deal 

That is a straight lie. Not worthy of any further comment.

2
 MG 03 Sep 2019

F*ck nuts have lost their majority 

1
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

If you want to show where it says we won’t leave without a deal, yes...  It quite clearly says we will leave.

10
 Robert Durran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to MG:

> F*ck nuts have lost their majority 

Yep, it's all falling apart for the bastards.

1
 WaterMonkey 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> If you want to show where it says we won’t leave without a deal, yes...  It quite clearly says we will leave.


What?? It clearly says, on several pages, we will negotiate a great deal. That is the polar opposite to no deal.

1
In reply to MG:

What a great letter of resignation he wrote, too. https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-49557734

1
 Ridge 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> What does it say? I can see “we will get on with the job and take Britain out of the European Union” on page 6.

I can't see the "by an arbritary date, no matter how devastating the consequences" bit that you seem convinced exists.

1
 climbingpixie 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Also, how crap is Boris Johnson? Where is his vaunted charisma and rhetorical prowess?

ETA - also, I'm struck by how embarrassed Tory MPs look when he starts trying to be matey and gesticulating. It's like the grown ups humouring an annoying toddler.

Post edited at 16:22
1
 MG 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

It  says lots of things if you dishonestly quote mine phrases to suit your disgusting agenda.  Taken as a whole, as Waterbaby  has shown, it, doesn't come close to suggesting a no deal exit.

2
 GridNorth 03 Sep 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

It's hard I know but forgetting the politics for a moment.  I wouldn't want anyone negotiating on my behalf, in any situation, if that person was not willing to walk away if they did not think they were getting a good deal.  This is not politics it's basic common sense.

I don't agree with what the government is doing but I can't see the alternatives. What does Parliament think it can achieve with a 3 month extension that it's failed to do in 3 years if, as they keep pointing out, the EU is not willing to budge.

Al

2
 Sir Chasm 03 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> It's hard I know but forgetting the politics for a moment.  I wouldn't want anyone negotiating on my behalf, in any situation, if that person was not willing to walk away if they did not think they were getting a good deal.  This is not politics it's basic common sense.

So you send someone to negotiate the purchase of a cow, or some magic beans. You tell them to walk away without a good deal. They don't get a good deal so they walk away. But the important thing is that they haven't bought the cow.

> I don't agree with what the government is doing but I can't see the alternatives. What does Parliament think it can achieve with a 3 month extension that it's failed to do in 3 years if, as they keep pointing out, the EU is not willing to budge.

Well, i can see 2 alternatives, revoke article 50 or have a referendum to confirm that we want to leave with no WA.

1
Gone for good 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

What's great about it? It seems to me that the MP for Bracknell, who has been given a vote of no confidence by his conservative association, in a constituency that voted 54% to leave will do anything to cling onto his job even though his job means he should represent the views of his constituency. Will he do a Chuka and go for a third party when he finds out the Lib Dems are useless?

8
 GridNorth 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

That's not a good analogy.  If the negotiator was not prepared to walk away they could end up with a cow, right enough, but a cow with all sorts of issues.

Yes they are possible but neither is very democratic.  One ignores the referendum result and the other one is an insult to those who voted in the first one.

Al

 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

> "No deal is better than a bad deal" isn't a policy position, it's a soundbite. It's certainly not a mandate to cause chaos and economic decline for the next 15 years, especially since no deal also isn't an end point, it inevitably leads to restarting negotiations from a weakened position as a 3rd country.

Chaos, etc is just hyperbole.  I’m guessing you didn’t vote for them, but what do you think people were supposed to take from the phrase if not the obvious meaning?  There are no end points in life, it just keeps going.

> That's funny, if leave was such a clear thing then why can't the leavers agree on it?

Pretty sure they can.  The rebel Tories are remainers.

> That we would get a deal was a key assumption during the campaign, as can be seen by the fact that no deal was not part of the narrative back in 2016. No deal was an outlying extreme possibility that only remainers mentioned and was dismissed as project fear, not  a proposition to aim for.

Thats just not true.  It was mentioned and discussed by both sides.

> I can't find a source other than news stories on the BBC/Guardian. But the opposition/rebels believe he has the power to do it so they're right to lock in the legislation first. Even without changing the date, an election throwing up another hung parliament in mid-October still runs the risk of no deal by accident because the sitting government continues until the new one is formed.

Well I don’t know, and I won’t be going on the word of one side.  A potential hung Parliament is down to us, of course.

> Pre-summer the Tory rebels wanted to give their new PM a chance so the opposition wouldn't have had the numbers. Besides, who knew which version of Boris Johnson we were going to get at that stage - the one who supported the EU, the one who voted against May's deal, the one who voted for May's deal...?

The one who stood for the leadership election and said clearly what he was going to do afterwards...

> Yes, fine, once the necessary safeguards are in place to avoid an accidental no deal Brexit happening that parliament hasn't voted for. Then we can have a general election and see what happens. If parliament returns a mandate for no deal then we can crash out at the end of January. If not then we'll probably be having another referendum.

Well we’ll see.

7
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

The polar opposite is remaining.

2
 Sir Chasm 03 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> That's not a good analogy.  If the negotiator was not prepared to walk away they could end up with a cow, right enough, but a cow with all sorts of issues.

Well, you wanted to put politics aside, what sort of negotiation were you thinking of? Because I'm agreeing with you, if you send someone to do a deal and they can't then you walk away from the deal, you don't buy the goods.

> Yes they are possible but neither is very democratic.  One ignores the referendum result and the other one is an insult to those who voted in the first one.

How is a referendum not democratic? 

1
 Harry Jarvis 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Pretty sure they can.  The rebel Tories are remainers.

It's an interesting oddity of this whole sorry affair that it's not long since the rebel Tories voting against the Government were the arch-Brexiteer ERG, holding out against the hapless May's WA and many of those who are now considered rebels voted consistently to leave under the terms of that WA. 

 balmybaldwin 03 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

Fair point, but walking away from a deal normally means returning tot he status quo.  These people have made walking away walking off a cliff

1
 Jon Stewart 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The rebel Tories are remainers.

You do know that if it wasn't for the ERG's sabotage of May's deal, we'd have left the EU ages ago, don't you? Remain MPs could easily have been defeated, because most fell into line behind the referendum result, voting for A50 and many for May's deal - the fact that leavers couldn't agree on leaving is the reason we're here.

"Brexit means Brexit"; "Leave means leave"; "just get on with it". My arse.

1
 Jon Stewart 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Beat me to it!

1
 Robert Durran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The one who stood for the leadership election and said clearly what he was going to do afterwards...

Yes, he has consistently lied and promised whatever was necessary to get elected by the Tory membership. In doing so he has boxed himself into a corner from which I think and hope there is no escape. He is getting excatly what he deserves - he looks finished to me.

 climbingpixie 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Chaos, etc is just hyperbole

You say hyperbole, I say the inevitable consequence of an abrupt separation of processes, supply chains and institutions that have been increasingly integrated for the last 40 years. Do you genuinely believe that there won't be problems with trade, with EU workers rights in the UK, with the rights of Brits in Europe if we leave without a deal?

> The rebel Tories are remainers.

I was talking about the ERG rebels. The ones who rejected Brexit 3 times.

> Well I don’t know, and I won’t be going on the word of one side.  A potential hung Parliament is down to us, of course.

It really doesn't matter whether you believe it. You asked why the rebels didn't just go for an election and I told you why. It's not fear of an election it's fear of chicanery. If there's a risk that Johnson will promise one thing and deliver another (which would be a massive surprise, I'm sure...) then the rebels are right to focus their attention on preventing a no deal Brexit first.

> The one who stood for the leadership election and said clearly what he was going to do afterwards...

This would be the one who told Tory MPs as part of his election campaign that he was against the idea of proroguing Parliament? He's an unprincipled liar, of course Tory MPs were going to wait to find out who he was lying to before taking action.

Post edited at 17:12
 MG 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The polar opposite is remaining.

The polar opposite to no deal isn't remaining, its joining Schengen, the Euro, cancelling the rebate, signing up to the social chapter, changing all plug sockets, driving on the right and advocating for a European army and tax-raising powers.

2
 Jon Stewart 03 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

> This would be the one who told Tory MPs as part of his election campaign that he was against the idea of proroguing Parliament? He's an unprincipled liar

How dare you say that about Boris "no deal a million to one" Johnson? 

Incidentally, I hear that the negotiations on the brilliant new Brexit deal are going really, really well. Did you know that? Really, really well. Brilliant in fact. It's going really well. A lot of progress happening, we're just, you know, dotting the i's and all that. It's great. Brilliant. Fantastic actually.

Edit: Whoever disliked this post should turn on Radio 4 now. The EU say that there are no negotations happening, and that it suits the UK internal politics to pretend that there are. You might not like it, but I'm afraid I'm right, factually. Boris is lying about the negotiations. Accept it.

Post edited at 17:47
1
 galpinos 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Thats just not true.  It was mentioned and discussed by both sides.

It was mentioned by the (woeful) remain campaign but was branded as "project fear" by Vote Leave. As I remember it, it was never an option that was on the table. To quote some key figures:

Gove:

“We didn’t vote to leave without a deal. That wasn’t the message of the campaign I helped to lead”

“Let no one be in any doubt how damaging [a No Deal Brexit] will be on British farming”

“I emphatically do not want to run the risks leaving without a deal would involve”

Johnson:

“There is no plan for No Deal because we are going to get a great deal”

Hannan:

“Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market”

Grayling:

“There will be a free trade agreement that allows our businesses to trade feely to and from continental Europe”

Fox:

“The Free Trade Agreement we will do with the European Union will be the easiest in History”

Patterson:

“Only a madman would leave the single market”

Vote Leave:

“We will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave”

1
pasbury 03 Sep 2019
In reply to galpinos:

We, as a nation, have been gaslit to an unprecedented extent.

 toad 03 Sep 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

It would appear the real reason he wished to suspend parliament is that he is a shockingly ineffectual parliamentarian. Compare his TV appearances with a soft interviewer to his awful showing in parliament today. 

 jkarran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

Johnson is not negotiating with the EU with any expectation of meaningful change, he is pretending to in order to buy time so he can force Parliament's hand or lie to his electorate in a GE.

He's a con man. 

Jk

Post edited at 18:34
 MargieB 03 Sep 2019
In reply to toad:

Boris is still in a position to call a GE on October 14th even if they legislate for No deal to be stopped if No deal or a deal are not approved by Parliament.

He's still in a position of strength on that one- it's his prerogative to .pre-empt everything.

And who says Corbyn will win outright or Lib Dem - or  just leave Boris to squeeze a majority. Their deluded egos are just as contorting unless they join forces for  GE.

The only fair way is second referendum first and that ain't apparently going to be legislated on before Oct 14- not enough time and no will to do it, as yet and Boris can still call a snap election to pre-empt that

Post edited at 18:41
 climbingpixie 03 Sep 2019
In reply to toad:

Totally agree. Even putting aside my distaste for his party and policies it was a dreadful performance. Any lingering hope that behind his clownish persona was a serious parliamentarian must surely have been quashed by now. 

 MG 03 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> Boris is still in a position to call a GE on October 14th even if they legislate for No deal to be stopped if No deal or a deal are not approved by Parliament.

> He's still in a position of strength on that one-

Is he?  He can't just call one because of the FTPA.  Corbyn being the clown he is will posisbly facilitate it but Johnson can't force it (quite possibly can't even get an act of parliament through about it or even VONC on himself now).

Post edited at 18:43
 jkarran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to MargieB:

> Boris is still in a position to call a GE on October 14th even if they legislate for No deal to be stopped if No deal or a deal are not approved by Parliament.

How. No way he gets 66%+ vote without his hands tied regarding the election date. I very much doubt he can win/lose a simple majority for a no confidence motion in himself at this point. That would anyway throw open the risk of a Harmen/Clark government even if he won by losing. 

> And who says Corbyn will win outright or Lib Dem - or  just leave Boris to squeeze a majority. Their deluded egos are just as contorting unless they join forces for  GE.

That won't happen. An fptp election to resolve this better than fighting but worse than just about every other option in so much as its near random and highly likely selects a winning government for the losing brexit position.

Jk

Post edited at 18:51
 GridNorth 03 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Johnson is not negotiating with the EU with any expectation of meaningful change, he is pretending to in order to buy time so he can force Parliament's hand or lie to his electorate in a GE.

You might well be right but I wouldn't presume to think I can read his mind.  How do you know this?  In any case the EU has also expressed it's intention to not yield so it doesn't really leave him much room.

1
 MargieB 03 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I see your point on timing. 

I wouldn't underestimate the support he has amongst the electorate. he may lose the battle and win the war yet.

pasbury 03 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

A prediction I've seen suggests a hung parliament. Where would that lead us?

 MonkeyPuzzle 03 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

Are you not aware of the multiple leaks, in one of which Cummings describing their supposed negotiating as a "sham"? The leaks over the last couple of days expose the lies for just as blatant as we thought.

 Robert Durran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> A prediction I've seen suggests a hung parliament. Where would that lead us?

Hopefully a remain coalition,a  referendum and a remain vote.

 jkarran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> You might well be right but I wouldn't presume to think I can read his mind.  How do you know this?  

EU says he's misleading us. They are lying or he is. He has clear motive and form, they don't on this occasion.

Jk

2
 jkarran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> A prediction I've seen suggests a hung parliament. Where would that lead us?

Out of the EU, on to a refurendum or back to the polls. Impossible to say with any certainty, technology is changing elections and the various parties have yet to pitch, we should really be expecting the unexpected up to and including no election this year.

Jk

 Jon Stewart 03 Sep 2019
In reply to GridNorth:

> You might well be right but I wouldn't presume to think I can read his mind.  How do you know this?  In any case the EU has also expressed it's intention to not yield so it doesn't really leave him much room.

Interviews on Channel 4 now. The EU bigwigs say the UK has made no proposals. There are no negotiations. The so-called "threat" that we'll leave no deal, coupled with no proposals, doesn't seem to be a very persuasive negotiating strategy.

1
pasbury 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

In my fantasy world that coalition would be progressive enough to have another go at proportional representation too. That would lead us out of the abyss in the longer term.

pasbury 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Black Knight: None shall pass.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: None shall pass.
King Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
King Arthur: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
Black Knight: I move for no man.
King Arthur: So be it!
[rounds of melee, with Arthur cutting off the left arm of the black knight.]
King Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Black Knight: Tis but a scratch.
King Arthur: A scratch?! Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No it isn't.
King Arthur: Well what's that then? [Pointing to the knight's arm lying on the ground.]
Black Knight: I've had worse.
King Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on then, you pansy! [Charges Arthur, who chops the knight's remaining arm off.]
King Arthur: Victory is mine! [kneels and starts to pray] We thank thee Lord, that in thy-- [is kicked in the head by the armless knight.]
Black Knight: Come on then!
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you! [Kicks Arthur]
King Arthur: You are indeed brave, good Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
Black Knight: Oohh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: Look!
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound. [Continues to kick and taunt Arthur]
King Arthur: Stop that!
Black Knight: Chicken! Chicken!
King Arthur: Look, I'll have your leg. [Recieves a very sharp kick] Right![Chops off one of the black knight's legs]
Black Knight: Right! I'll do you for that!
King Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you going to do, bleed on me?!
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: You're a looney.
Black Knight: The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then. [Hopping on one leg towards King Arthur]
[King Arthur chops his other leg off, leaving his body upright on the ground.]
Black Knight: Alright, we'll call it a draw.
King Arthur: Come, Patsy!
Black Knight: Oh, oh I see. Running away, eh?! You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!!
[Fade to black.]

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I really wish the media would press home this message of serial lies; it really ought to be utterly unacceptable, as it used to be.

Maybe when we return to the golden days of our former imperial past, as some brexiteers seem to believe, politicians will start to behave like they used to, and resign when caught lying.

And they'll ride off into the sunset on their unicorn.

2
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Your maths needs checking.  Even with the ERG all voting in favour it still would not have passed.

1
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to climbingpixie:

> You say hyperbole, I say the inevitable consequence of an abrupt separation of processes, supply chains and institutions that have been increasingly integrated for the last 40 years. Do you genuinely believe that there won't be problems with trade, with EU workers rights in the UK, with the rights of Brits in Europe if we leave without a deal?

Chaos and problems are not the same thing.  What did you think May meant when she said no deal is better than a bad deal?  What message was she trying to send, if not I’ll leave without if I can’t get a good deal?

> I was talking about the ERG rebels. The ones who rejected Brexit 3 times.

The deal they voted against was made by remainers, not leavers.

> It really doesn't matter whether you believe it. You asked why the rebels didn't just go for an election and I told you why. It's not fear of an election it's fear of chicanery. If there's a risk that Johnson will promise one thing and deliver another (which would be a massive surprise, I'm sure...) then the rebels are right to focus their attention on preventing a no deal Brexit first.

You told me your version of why, not a fact.  They knew what Boris was planning before the summer, why didn’t they vote no confidence then?  They have the numbers to do it, they don’t want an election.  They said so (they don’t want Corbyn as PM).

> This would be the one who told Tory MPs as part of his election campaign that he was against the idea of proroguing Parliament? He's an unprincipled liar, of course Tory MPs were going to wait to find out who he was lying to before taking action.

He refused to say he wouldn’t do it, despite being asked repeatedly to do so, and you think that’s a promise not to do it?

In reply to captain paranoia:

Can you remember the huge fuss that was made when Profumo 'lied to Parliament' about having an affair with Christine Keeler? In one afternoon Boris tells about 10 lies that are about 10000 times more serious.

2
pasbury 03 Sep 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I really wish the media would press home this message of serial lies; it really ought to be utterly unacceptable, as it used to be.

> Maybe when we return to the golden days of our former imperial past, as some brexiteers seem to believe, politicians will start to behave like they used to, and resign when caught lying.

> And they'll ride off into the sunset on their unicorn.

To examine the performance of their hedge funds.

1
 Jon Stewart 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

So what - it's not relevant whether those who voted against May's deal were actually ERG members (I'm quite happy to concede the point that the blame extends beyond them). The point is that Brexit has been prevented not just by those who want to remain (there were always going to be MPs who would never cast a vote for Brexit, and would be representing their constituents fairly in doing so), but also those leavers who campaigned for a soft Brexit (see above) and then sabotaged the efforts to leave because the deal wasn't hard enough.

Is that true or false?

2
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to galpinos:

I can’t be bothered to check the quotes, that Hannan one I recognise as being debunked many times.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36401578

To refresh your memory (30th May 2016) - “Vote Leave campaigners argue the U.K. can rely on WTO rules” 

2
pasbury 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Chaos and problems are not the same thing.  What did you think May meant when she said no deal is better than a bad deal?  What message was she trying to send, if not I’ll leave without if I can’t get a good deal?

None, it was bluster, bluff, bullshit.

> The deal they voted against was made by remainers, not leavers.

It was a withdrawal agreement.

> You told me your version of why, not a fact.  They knew what Boris was planning before the summer, why didn’t they vote no confidence then?  They have the numbers to do it, they don’t want an election.  They said so (they don’t want Corbyn as PM).

I don’t think anyone knew what Johnson was planning. There is an impression of a carefully planned campaign of lies and obfuscation.

> He refused to say he wouldn’t do it, despite being asked repeatedly to do so, and you think that’s a promise not to do it?

It’s not a promise to do it either. The government lied about it’s intentions after the prorogation was decided upon.

If there is any question of trust in Johnson or his government surely that has been answered now.

Post edited at 20:48
1
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Is what true or false?  That ERG members voted against a deal agreed by remainers?  They did that, yes.

No question at all that your previous comment was just false, it’s simply not true that the ERG’s actions stopped the deal from passing, or us from leaving.

1
 Jon Stewart 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> He refused to say he wouldn’t do it, despite being asked repeatedly to do so, and you think that’s a promise not to do it?

What do you think of Johnson's reasons for prorogation? Do you think he's telling the truth or lying?

2
 thomasadixon 03 Sep 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> None, it was bluster, bluff, bullshit.

If you dismiss all evidence against your view as bluster then of course you’ll come to the conclusion you want to come to.  She didn’t bang on about it over and over for no reason - she did it to get leavers’ votes.

> It was a withdrawal agreement.

So!?

> I don’t think anyone knew what Johnson was planning. There is an impression of a carefully planned campaign of lies and obfuscation.

He said leave by 31st, deal or no deal and he’s set out to do exactly what he said.  It’s exactly that plan that MPs are trying to block.  No change from when he was elected leader.

> It’s not a promise to do it either. The government lied about it’s intentions after the prorogation was decided upon.

It’s a statement that he’s keeping it as an option.

> If there is any question of trust in Johnson or his government surely that has been answered now.

He’s done exactly what he said he would.

5
Gone for good 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

You have mastered the art of understatement and avoiding the detail. There was a bit more to it than just a minister telling a porkie in Parliament which of course you knew anyway.

When the Profumo–Keeler affair was first revealed, public interest was heightened by reports that Keeler may have been simultaneously involved with Captain Yevgeny Ivanov, a Soviet naval attaché, thereby creating a possible security risk. Keeler knew both Profumo and Ivanov through her friendship with Stephen Ward, an osteopathand socialite who had taken her under his wing. The exposure of the affair generated rumours of other scandals, and drew official attention to the activities of Ward, who was charged with a series of immorality offences. Perceiving himself as a scapegoat for the misdeeds of others, Ward took a fatal overdose during the final stages of his trial, which found him guilty of living off the immoral earnings of Keeler and her friend Mandy Rice-Davies.

An inquiry into the affair by a senior judge, Lord Denning, indicated that there had been no breaches of security arising from the Ivanov connection, although Denning's report was later condemned as superficial and unsatisfactory. Profumo subsequently sought private atonement as a volunteer worker at Toynbee Hall, an East London charitable trust. Keeler found it difficult to escape the negative image attached to her by press, law and parliament throughout the Profumo affair. In various, sometimes contradictory accounts, she challenged Denning's conclusions relating to security issues. Ward's conviction has been described by analysts as an act of Establishment revenge, rather than serving justice. In January 2014 his case was under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with the possibility of a later reference to the Court of Appeal. Dramatisations of the Profumo affair have been shown on stage and screen. Profumo died in 2006, while Keeler died in 2017.

 Alkis 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> To refresh your memory (30th May 2016) - “Vote Leave campaigners argue the U.K. can rely on WTO rules” 

Do you seriously want to play this game? 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/29/wha...

2
pasbury 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

You’re wasting my time and your own.

2
 Jon Stewart 03 Sep 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Is what true or false?  That ERG members voted against a deal agreed by remainers?  They did that, yes.

> No question at all that your previous comment was just false, it’s simply not true that the ERG’s actions stopped the deal from passing, or us from leaving.

We're just going to have to disagree then. There was insufficient support for the deal because while plenty enough MPs could be persuaded to back a soft brexit, hard brexiters led by the ERG couldn't; so the deal on the table was May's deal, and even that the hard brexiters wouldn't support (and nor would the remainers who would have agreed to a soft brexit). 

We could have left the EU with a soft brexit, but because the hard brexiters wouldn't back that, we're here.

2
In reply to Gone for good:

Yes, re. Profumo, there was a possible security risk to the UK. But as your good summary shows, it amounted to very little. My main point (that I didn't express properly) was just how much higher our/and Parliamentary moral standards were in those days cp. with now. Boris makes Profumo look like a fine gentleman. (Also, as your account mentioned, P attoned for it to some degree by a huge amount of very useful charity work.) But please don't let us get drawn off into a discussion of the Profumo case. I wish I hadn't mentioned it now. Just wanted to point out how times have changed.

Post edited at 21:49
1
Gone for good 03 Sep 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I can't take credit for the summary. That was a copy and paste from Wiki.

 jkarran 03 Sep 2019
In reply to steve taylor:

1 resigned, 21 to be sacked, Johnson has no authority left and no hope of regaining his majority if he can't force us out of the EU. This is going to get really dangerous.

jk

1
 MargieB 03 Sep 2019
In reply to jkarran:

why not 21  join others to legislate for a 2nd referendum? Seems these rebels would not want GE to put none conservative in power, And Corbyn knows there is a potential of a quick GE being a win for Cons. And no 66 percent for fixed Parliament process needed to trigger GE.

Post edited at 22:41
In reply to climbingpixie:

> Also, how crap is Boris Johnson? Where is his vaunted charisma and rhetorical prowess?

He doesn 't have it. He's like Trump; good at bullying people who can't reply and pumping up rallies. He's a demagogue, not an orator.

jcm

 Doug 04 Sep 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I watched a little of Johnson's 'performance' & was surprised at quite how bad he was - I expected to disagree with his ideas but I did expect him to be coherent & convincing.

As for the images of ReesMogg stretched out across the green benches, what on earth was he thinking ? that image sums up the percieved arrogance of the right wing tories & must be worth a few votes to the other parties in the election, whenever it comes.

In reply to Doug:

And what an incredible liar he is too. Only yesterday evening he was trotting out again "the largest mandate in the nation's history". When there have been many much bigger ones. He seems to have forgotten, for example, that the 1975 referendum was 67% Remain. They all trot out the 17.4 million as if it's some kind of unassailable 'argument' (when it was just 52% of those who bothered to vote, and 37% of the electorate). None of them seem to care what the same electorate (minus those who've died, and the huge number of young people who've joined) think NOW, especially now that they know a lot more about it. The other huge lie is that people voted for no deal, when the way it was sold to us was that it would be a wonderful deal, and one of the easiest in history etc. Their whole point was that it would be a very good deal.

Post edited at 08:48
1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...