#politicslive

[randomclaret2]

"Test User" eh ?.....mmm....posts remind me very much of another poster on here ? Who could it possibly be ?

[RingoMcCartney]

Define hard and soft remain before you expect an answer. I can define Hard and Soft Brexit pretty easily. Can you define the Hard and Soft variants of Remain without getting laughed at by the rest of us?

-------------
1. When people vote labour or tory , are all voters voting for them for the same reason? No

2. Does whoever gets the most votes form a government? No

3. Is the result implemented? No

Given your answres, you clearly have no knowledge of the history of how democracy works.

You just stick to posting childish memes while you can. Looks like your precious EU wants to try and stop you!

https://sputniknews.com/business/201901 ... diepie-eu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toodle pip Turtle.

[RingoMcCartney]

Because its a bullshit question Ringo.

Its straw clutching to try to convince everybody that because you voted for completely out, therefore everyone did.

It's not a BS question.

It's just a question you don't want to answer. There was no option of hard or soft leave , no matter how many times you want to claim there was. So I ask you one last time.


1. When people vote labour or tory , are all voters voting for them for the same reason? Yes / No

2. Does whoever gets the most votes form a government? Yes/ no

3. Is the result implemented? Yes / no

[Test User]

Given your answres, you clearly have no knowledge of the history of how democracy works.

You just stick to posting childish memes while you can. Looks like your precious EU wants to try and stop you!

https://sputniknews.com/business/201901 ... diepie-eu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toodle pip Turtle.

None of my questions were incorrect. Why do you think they are?

And no, I don't take you more seriously when you link Russian/Leave propaganda websites. But at least we've got to the bottom of why you "think" the way you do.

[Guich]

Just a thought...

Why is the suggested second referendum being called a 'people's vote' by campaigners?

Doesn't that suggest the 52 per cent who voted to leave aren't people? Kind of sums up the level of debate I suppose.

[Test User]

Just a thought...

Why is the suggested second referendum being called a 'people's vote' by campaigners?

Doesn't that suggest the 52 per cent who voted to leave aren't people? Kind of sums up the level of debate I suppose.

**** knows. Probably because it more clearly and concisely defines what it is people are calling for than anything else. And also maybe because "second referendum" sounds too much like a rerun of the first, which isn't what's being called for. (but idiots will still say it is)

[Guich]

**** knows. Probably because it more clearly and concisely defines what it is people are calling for than anything else. And also maybe because "second referendum" sounds too much like a rerun of the first, which isn't what's being called for. (but idiots will still say it is)

Ah, I was under the impression some of the prominent campaigners were asking for an 'in' or 'out' rerun.

My mistake.

Maybe call is a deal ratification vote. Not very snappy

[2 Bee Holed]

This People's Vote...…..
What question(s) is/are on the ballot paper?
I might be in favour of it, if I knew.
Please don't tell me people are campaigning for something
and they don't know what they want to ask the People?

[summitclaret]

Just a thought...

Why is the suggested second referendum being called a 'people's vote' by campaigners?

Doesn't that suggest the 52 per cent who voted to leave aren't people? Kind of sums up the level of debate I suppose.

Because the 52% are zombies. The good news is we can vote forever.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think it would have to be a reality before that could be nailed down.

But I can't see it being passed unless there is a "remain" option.

Again though, we have to try to get a deal first. That should not be as hard as it appears at the moment, and realistically all we have to do is take the "No Deal" of the table so that mays deal (or similar) becomes the default back stop if all fails.

[aggi]

If their previous predictions about what would happen to the economy if we didn't join the single currency, and if simply voted to leave are anything to go buy, their concerns will be proven to be misplaced.

I think they're being juvenile in wanting to thwart democracy through fear of being proven wrong.

YET AGAIN.!!!

True, it may be that all these businesses predicting dire Brexit consequences, the ones that have already relocated (and the people who have already lost their jobs) and the firms putting their contingency plans into action are all getting over-excited. (I guess Leave have mainly avoided falling into that trap by not actually predicting it will be good for the economy, problem solved.)

Fair enough, I guess you're judging other people by your own values.

[aggi]

You're advocating the old "it's possible to be half pregnant" argument I see.

If Remain had won. Would you expect that result to be implemented ?

I think what you're arguing here is that it was a binary choice of leave or remain, doesn't really matter what form leave takes. Is that your point?

[Test User]

I think what you're arguing here is that it was a binary choice of leave or remain, doesn't really matter what form leave takes. Is that your point?

That's his point right up until the government tries to implement Leave, then he has a completely different point.

[RingoMcCartney]

None of my questions were incorrect. Why do you think they are?

And no, I don't take you more seriously when you link Russian/Leave propaganda websites. But at least we've got to the bottom of why you "think" the way you do.

You should have said "None of my ANSWERS were incorrect" They absolutely were but it kind of shows you're unable to "think".

As for the Russia/Leave snipe , I simply Googled "memes ban EU" and it was the first link. Nothing more than convenience Turtle.

Now as I've said to you when you were logged in using you're other personal. I don't argue with idiots as I find they just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Toodle pip.

[AndrewJB]

I can fully believe some people voted to leave in a clean break, but it’s utterly ridiculous to claim all did, when polls clearly show a significant majority of people oppose that.

Unfortunately for the country, the PM tried to negotiate and railroad a deal through without any serious attempt to build consensus beforehand. Her actions seem reactive rather than proactive, and now we’re in this position just over two months away from the deadline she set herself. There is no parliamentary majority for us to crash out, and I don’t see there is enough time to cobble anything else together that will command enough support to pass. The final step will be to return to the electorate - something the EU will allow us to extend A50 in order to do. It could be a two question ballot. In or Out, followed by several general variations on how to leave, from clean break, to something like May’s deal, to remain in the single market and customs union. This way at least if we vote out again, the government will have a clear general direction in terms of how.

[Test User]

You should have said "None of my ANSWERS were incorrect" They absolutely were but it kind of shows you're unable to "think".

As for the Russia/Leave snipe , I simply Googled "memes ban EU" and it was the first link. Nothing more than convenience Turtle.

Now as I've said to you when you were logged in using you're other personal. I don't argue with idiots as I find they just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Toodle pip.

Yep. I made an editing mistake. Well done in spotting it.

Are you going to explain how they were wrong? Or are you just going to talk ****?

[RingoMcCartney]

I think what you're arguing here is that it was a binary choice of leave or remain, doesn't really matter what form leave takes. Is that your point?

It's boiling down to binary positions actually.

Those who prioritise economic predictions.

Those who prioritise democracy.

[summitclaret]

I think it would have to be a reality before that could be nailed down.

But I can't see it being passed unless there is a "remain" option.

Again though, we have to try to get a deal first. That should not be as hard as it appears at the moment, and realistically all we have to do is take the "No Deal" of the table so that mays deal (or similar) becomes the default back stop if all fails.

No. May's current deal is not a proper leave. Would have to be leave v remain and a sub question on how to leave.

[RingoMcCartney]

Yep. I made an editing mistake. Well done in spotting it.

Are you going to explain how they were wrong? Or are you just going to talk ****?

Experience, engage, idiot and level.

[Test User]

It's boiling down to binary positions actually.

Those who prioritise economic predictions.

Those who prioritise democracy.

holy ****

Guys. If you voted Remain then democracy isn't a priority for you. Fascists!!!!!!1111one1!

[Test User]

Experience, engage, idiot and level.

[Test User]

No. May's current deal is not a proper leave. Would have to be leave v remain and a sub question on how to leave.

But it's already been explained to you how such a referendum would cause a pro-Remain bias. Which means it's a really bad idea, because structuring a referendum in a way that doesn't give a clearly defined answer isn't an accurate measure of what people actually want.

But by all means, go get your Remain-biased referendum. I'll be here to say "i told you so" when Remain wins more easily than they should.

[aggi]

It's boiling down to binary positions actually.

Those who prioritise economic predictions.

Those who prioritise democracy.

That's not really an answer is it (or true).

[nil_desperandum]

Aah the old "We need to deny the space , time continuum" Approach.

What a facile argument.

The very next day after any 2nd referendum there would be people who were too young to vote the day before , but old enough to vote the day after.

If you follow your logic you're arguing for a NEVERENDUM!

Are you Doctor Who in disguise?!

I don't think this post attempts in any way to address my post. (No surprise there).
My post that you quoted attempted to clarify - once again - the role and function of MPs, (i.e. as representatives of an entire constituency, [young and old], not just delegates for those who vote on a certain issue or who shout the loudest).
I cited both Burke and Churchill, both of whom are worth reading and both of whose voices carry significant weight.
By way of illustration, if my Indian doctor or surgeon, a constituent (but not on the electoral roll), contacts his / her MP then the MP has a duty to consult with them and try to resolve the issue. Similarly if you or I go to our MP with a concern about (e.g.) nursery education, then it is his / her duty to listen and - if appropriate - act in the interests of the infants, even though there might be a strong body of opinion amongst voters that disagrees.
My post had absolutely nothing to do with referenda.

[RingoMcCartney]

That's not really an answer is it (or true).

It is answer.

You may not agree with the suggestion held within it.

But it's still an answer.

[Test User]

That's not really an answer is it (or true).

Short on answers and facts. That's Ringo all over.

He's claimed twice now that my answers to his questions were wrong. So naturally i've asked him to explain why my answers to his questions were wrong, and yet he refuses to explain.

He's full of ****.

This video explains him pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CrosspoolClarets]

No. May's current deal is not a proper leave. Would have to be leave v remain and a sub question on how to leave.

May’s deal would be OK, in not defining the future relationship, as long as there wasn’t all that stuff in the Withdrawal Agreement about the backstop / customs arrangement being the starting point for the future relationship. It isn’t rocket science to notice that the EU will simply say nothing meets the Irish needs so that big Customs area would need to remain in place.

Put simply, I don’t trust them. And I don’t trust many of our MPs either.

[nil_desperandum]

This People's Vote...…..
What question(s) is/are on the ballot paper?
I might be in favour of it, if I knew.
Please don't tell me people are campaigning for something
and they don't know what they want to ask the People?

Covered this before but, (and I still think a vote would have to be a last ditch resort when all else has failed).
However questions would have to be simple and transparent, something like:
Question 1. Do you wish to leave the EU?
Question 2 If there is a simple majority for leave in question 1 then which of the following options do you wish to be enacted
A/ No deal
B/ Whatever deal the government puts on the table at the time. (So at present it would be May's Deal, but it might be different by the time the questions were set out).

[Bordeauxclaret]

At some point the question is going to be asked of Ringo - “Who radicalised him and when?”

[RingoMcCartney]

I don't think this post attempts in any way to address my post. (No surprise there).
My post that you quoted attempted to clarify - once again - the role and function of MPs, (i.e. as representatives of an entire constituency, [young and old], not just delegates for those who vote on a certain issue or who shout the loudest).
I cited both Burke and Churchill, both of whom are worth reading and both of whose voices carry significant weight.
By way of illustration, if my Indian doctor or surgeon, a constituent (but not on the electoral roll), contacts his / her MP then the MP has a duty to consult with them and try to resolve the issue. Similarly if you or I go to our MP with a concern about (e.g.) nursery education, then it is his / her duty to listen and - if appropriate - act in the interests of the infants, even though there might be a strong body of opinion amongst voters that disagrees.
My post had absolutely nothing to do with referenda.

If our "representatives" are going to ignore the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed, the 2016 Peoples Vote, which voted to Leave.

If our "representatives" are going to ignore their constituencies. The majority of which (approximately 420) voted Leave.

And if our "representatives" are going to ignore the manifestos on which they were democratically elected. Both labour and conservatives manifestos pledged to leave the European Union, end free movement of people, leave the single market and customs union and end the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

Then they are choosing to sever the party political connection they were elected on and they should have stood as INDEPENDENT candidates. 

Parliament passed sovereignty to the People when it delegated the decision whether or not to leave the European Union in the referendum. A referendum is direct democracy. MPs votes were worth exactly the same as yours and mine.

Then when the decision went against what the majority of MPs wanted they, and those who couldn't accept the result decided they wanted to move the goalposts and start to claim that MPs are back to being our "democratic representatives. 

Your claim that we live in a Representative Democracy is bang on. When you're referring to a general election which is based on labour manifestos, tory manifestos. We send our constituency MPs to parliament to represent us. And we know that they may vote with their conscious which may be at odds with their constituents or even their manifesto. 

The referendum was entirely different. The ballot paper did not have a "labour leave " or "labour remain" option. Nor did it have a "tory leave" or a "tory remain". It didn't even take place on a constituency basis. It took place on a "voting area" basis. So the roll of MPS was irrelevant. 

But if you want to mix direct and representative democracy up. Then as said previously, the majority of constituencies ( according to a electoral Oxford university expert) voted Leave and around 84% of voters chose a party committed to leaving the EU at the 2017 general election.

[Test User]

At some point the question is going to be asked of Ringo - “Who radicalised him and when?”

That will be Remainers fault too.

[Quickenthetempo]

https://www.facebook.com/LiamTuffsOffic ... 201407773/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How funny is this.

It's the top video if the link shoots you to a page of linked videos. Just scroll up.

[aggi]

It is answer.

You may not agree with the suggestion held within it.

But it's still an answer.

It's probably my own fault for expecting a sensible answer. The debate had been a little bit more grown-up in the past week or so but I should have realised that would only be temporary.

[Test User]

https://www.facebook.com/LiamTuffsOffic ... 201407773/
How funny is this.

It's the top video if the link shoots you to a page of linked videos. Just scroll up.

Still going with the £350m/week figure, eh?

[Lancasterclaret]

To be fair to Ringo, the tactic he is using is being used by leave voters all over the place. Swamping the debate, insisting on certainties, using terms like "remoaner", "traitors", "anti-democracy" all to try to convince people that its "No Deal" is what what was voted for.

Even the ERG want a "No Deal", immediately followed by a trade deal when the EU collapse at our heroism and stoic belief in unicorns.

Those people going "WTO is fine" are ones who don't know that "WTO is not fine".

Whether leavers or remainers like it or not, something has to get through parliament, and that something will include things that we all hate BUT IT WILL STILL BE BETTER THAN A NO DEAL.

[RingoMcCartney]

It's probably my own fault for expecting a sensible answer. The debate had been a little bit more grown-up in the past week or so but I should have realised that would only be temporary.

Stop the condescending and sneering.

John Curtis one of the leading UK pollsters earlier today and an academic speaking on LBC right now. Have said following in depth analysis, the population is now identifying as either leavers or remainers. We are less inclined to describe ourselves on traditional party lines and have become entrenched in their views.

Therefore, as I said, the polarisation we are seeing means that two distinct parties are emerging.

Remain - who Base their view on economic predictions.

Leave- who Base their view on sovereignty and increasingly basic democracy.

Listen to LBC right now if you don't accept my answer.

[aggi]

Stop the condescending and sneering.

John Curtis one of the leading UK pollsters earlier today and an academic speaking on LBC right now. Have said following in depth analysis, the population is now identifying as either leavers or remainers. We are less inclined to describe ourselves on traditional party lines and have become entrenched in their views.

Therefore, as I said, the polarisation we are seeing means that two distinct parties are emerging.

Remain - who Base their view on economic predictions.

Leave- who Base their view on sovereignty and increasingly basic democracy.

Listen to LBC right now if you don't accept my answer.

That may be the case now but I don't really see the relevance of that to what people were voting for two and a half years ago or your half-pregnant analogy that you were talking about.

[Lancasterclaret]

Oh look, Mr "Believe in Britain" Dyson moves his HQ to Singapore.

[aggi]

Oh look, Mr "Believe in Britain" Dyson moves his HQ to Singapore.

Well, at least we know he couldn't have done that on the basis of economic predictions.

[biggles]

the referendum has been and gone; it was a 'one-off'. following due procedure the country voted to leave the EU. a 2nd referendum which could possibly alter that decision cannot possibly be justified. the UK have to leave the EU, WHATEVER. the type of deal decided is totally irrelevant to that premise. it's a pity the politicians didn't accept that and put all their efforts into getting the best possible deal for the UK. TM is the architect of this disaster. Brexit should have been a done deal months ago; then there would be no uncertainty and all efforts could have been put into place to make the transition as smooth as possible rather than the panic that will now ensue.

[Rick_Muller]

I have a question for Brexiters - what time frame would be acceptable for having a vote to rejoin the EU in the future...?

2 years...?
5 years...?
10 years...?
20 years...?
higher...?

Just asking in case you all regret your decision

[nil_desperandum]

the referendum has been and gone; it was a 'one-off'. following due procedure the country voted to leave the EU. a 2nd referendum which could possibly alter that decision cannot possibly be justified. the UK have to leave the EU, WHATEVER. the type of deal decided is totally irrelevant to that premise. it's a pity the politicians didn't accept that and put all their efforts into getting the best possible deal for the UK. TM is the architect of this disaster. Brexit should have been a done deal months ago; then there would be no uncertainty and all efforts could have been put into place to make the transition as smooth as possible rather than the panic that will now ensue.

I think a majority of the population agree with you. It's May's red lines and her failure to reach compromise in her own party, (let alone with other parties) that has led us to the current position.

[Greenmile]

.... A referendum is direct democracy....

An advisory referendum isn’t. It’s just a glorified opinion poll.

[dsr]

So do I. My constituency voted for Brexit. My MP cannot represent all the individual constituents individually which is why we vote, to get the overall 'result' for a complete constituency. In my constituency this was OUT and my MP should fight to implement that wish in parliament rather than follow his own or own party's agenda.

I wouldn't agree at all. This was a referendum for the country as a whole to decide whether to stay in or to get out. All MPs, whatever their personal views, should be working towards carrying out the referendum result.

How would it have worked on the Scottish referendum, if the SNP had got their way? Would it have been fair enough for an English MP who thought the UK was better off with Scotland staying in, doing what he could to thwart the result? A majority of MPs could have overturned the result - could that have been justified on the grounds that they were following what they believed to be their constituents' views?

[dsr]

An advisory referendum isn’t. It’s just a glorified opinion poll.

It amazes me how many people appear to seriously believe that Cameron could (and should?) have come out and said "I had my fingers crossed when we promised the referendum, so it doesn't count".

[Greenmile]

I wouldn't agree at all. This was a referendum for the country as a whole to decide whether to stay in or to get out. All MPs, whatever their personal views, should be working towards carrying out the referendum result.

How would it have worked on the Scottish referendum, if the SNP had got their way? Would it have been fair enough for an English MP who thought the UK was better off with Scotland staying in, doing what he could to thwart the result? A majority of MPs could have overturned the result - could that have been justified on the grounds that they were following what they believed to be their constituents' views?

That’s not how representative democracy is supposed to work. Our MPs are elected to make the best decisions for their constituents, not just to follow their constituents’ views. This isn’t always the same thing.

Ps - I think you may have quoted the wrong post. The one you quoted appears to be broadly in agreement with you.

[Greenmile]

It amazes me how many people appear to seriously believe that Cameron could (and should?) have come out and said "I had my fingers crossed when we promised the referendum, so it doesn't count".

I never said I believed that did I? I was just pointing out a(nother) factual error in Ringo’s diatribe.

As it happens, I believe he could, but not that he should.

It doesn’t amaze me that you seem to be far more equanimous about the numerous proven lies from the Leave campaign (which folk like Boris are continuing with his latest comments re Turkey), than a hypothetical lie from Cameron.

[dsr]

Here's what we want. We want free access to the EU market. This, at current prices, is an export market worth £240 billion, and if we don't get free access the tariffs will add (based on Lancaster's 3% average) £7.2 billion. We don't want this, so what are we offering in exchange?

We are offering:
Free access for the EU to the UK market. This, at current prices, is a market worth £320 billion, and so at 3% will add £9.6 billion to the price of their exports. They don't want this any more than we do.

AND we are offering €39 billion cash down.
AND we are offering €10 billion per annum for as long as the deal will run.

I would have thought the EU is getting the better of that deal; but they don't. They say it's not enough; the also want control of the export policy of part of the UK, and they want to ensure the deal will continue for as long as they say so; the UK can't stop paying €10 billion p.a. until the EU says they have enough money, thanks, and son't want this any more.

[dsr]

That’s not how representative democracy is supposed to work. Our MPs are elected to make the best decisions for their constituents, not just to follow their constituents’ views. This isn’t always the same thing.

Ps - I think you may have quoted the wrong post. The one you quoted appears to be broadly in agreement with you.

No. Masham Ale was saying that an MP should vote (in the Brexit debates) the way his constituency voted. I was saying that he shouldn't; he should vote the way the country as a whole in the referendum voted. And it would have been the same the other way round - if (as could have happened) Remain had won the vote, then MPs should not have been voting in Parliament to leave the EU even if personally they thought the public had given the "wrong" result.

[2 Bee Holed]

Covered this before but, (and I still think a vote would have to be a last ditch resort when all else has failed).
However questions would have to be simple and transparent, something like:
Question 1. Do you wish to leave the EU?
Question 2 If there is a simple majority for leave in question 1 then which of the following options do you wish to be enacted
A/ No deal
B/ Whatever deal the government puts on the table at the time. (So at present it would be May's Deal, but it might be different by the time the questions were set out).

This membership of the EU (as it is now) has been an issue for decades.
If we are going to start asking the Leavers what type of leave they want,
why are we not trying to iron out future problems by asking the Remainers
what type of Remain they want?