Today's Brexit vote

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:44 am

to be fair, theresa may seems that deluded, i wouldn't be surprised to see her try and negotiate to leave something we're not part of.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:47 am

Kind of like Nicola Sturgeon attempting to negotiate with the EU, for Scotland to stay...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:50 am

Darthlaw wrote:Kind of like Nicola Sturgeon attempting to negotiate with the EU, for Scotland to stay...

What is wrong with that? Her constituents favour staying in the EU even more decisively than the UK wants to leave, so why shouldn't she try to look after her country's interests?

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:56 am

So Sadiq Khan should do the same for London?

Her constituents also favour staying part of the UK. The UK has voted to leave the EU. Which of her country's interests is she looking after?

Yet again an example of an individual being unable to accept a democratic decision, albeit a high profile individual. Importantly an inability to accept two democratic decisions in her case.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:00 am

Darthlaw wrote:So Sadiq Khan should do the same for London?

Her constituents also favour staying part of the UK. The UK has voted to leave the EU. Which of her country's interests is she looking after?

Yet again an example of an individual being unable to accept a democratic decision, albeit a high profile individual. Importantly an inability to accept two democratic decisions in her case.

I wasn't aware London was a country.
I'm also unaware of her trying to take Scotland out of the UK contrary to the referendum.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:03 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm also unaware of her trying to take Scotland out of the UK contrary to the referendum.

Then you are very wet behind the ears.

Here's an example from yesterday though.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-scotland

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:04 am

Darthlaw wrote:Then you are very wet behind the ears.

What has she done to withdraw Scotland from the UK?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:09 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Ladies and Gentleman, two perfectly normal people, one wanting us to ignore the law, one wanting to make it so it doesn't interfere with anything that might stop the prime minister doing whatever she wants.

Dsr and Colburn. You need to think about what you are saying and remember that we are not a totalitarian dictatorship but doing stuff like this sets us down the road to becoming one.

What I am saying is that this is nothing to do with the Prime Minister having the ultimate say. Gina Miller herself says exactly what this issue is about, in her statement yesterday:

""Only parliament can grant rights to the British people and only parliament can take them away. No prime minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. Parliament alone is sovereign."

This is exactly what I am opposed to. Parliament should not be sovereign. Parliament, in fact, must not be sovereign. The British people as a whole must be sovereeign. I would turn Miller's statement completely round - only the British people can grant rights to Parliament, and only the British people can take them away.

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:13 am

I'm not having the argument again. If Scotland want's to be independent, they are welcome to it. I'd rather they stay but it's their decision.

I've no doubt that most Scots have more between there ears than to trust the fiscal genius of the SNP who were so keen to hedge their economy on oil -the price of which promptly bombed after the referendum.

But we're going round and round again, so as promised that's the end of my argument on Scotlands independence.

Feel free to call me an idiot or accuse me of running away and revert to standard Turtle modus operandi at your earliest convenience.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:15 am

Colburn_Claret wrote: We want to trade with Europe post Brexit, it's in their own interests that we continue to do so. Let them make an offer, I don't believe it's right or proper that we dictate any terms. If they play reasonable fair enough, if however they want to play hardball so be it. As TM said no deal is better than a bad deal.
.

Can you explain what you understand her to mean by "No deal is better than a bad deal"?"
It doesn't make any sense does it?
Presumably by saying "no deal" she means a complete break with the EU. So that would be the deal. But what would that actually mean?
Would it mean all ex-pats have to be re-patriated because we would have no reciprocal deal over such things, and that we couldn't take any workers from the EU to fill vital jobs in (e.g.) the NHS? Would we need visas to take a holiday in the EU? What about reciprocal health arrangements? What about co-operation over terrorism and our borders etc. etc.? (I know I'm being deliberately extreme, but we will need "deals" on all these points.)
Which ever way you look at it there will have to be some kind of deal. Even if it's the hardest of all possible Brexits, lines will have to be drawn somewhere, even if it's just to officially close off many of the freedoms and benefits that we currently enjoy.
This statement "no deal is better than a bad deal" is as stupid as "Brexit means Brexit", indeed if you actually take the phrase literally then "No deal" means that things remain as they are!

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:18 am

dsr wrote:What I am saying is that this is nothing to do with the Prime Minister having the ultimate say. Gina Miller herself says exactly what this issue is about, in her statement yesterday:

""Only parliament can grant rights to the British people and only parliament can take them away. No prime minister, no government, can expect to be unanswerable or unchallenged. Parliament alone is sovereign."

This is exactly what I am opposed to. Parliament should not be sovereign. Parliament, in fact, must not be sovereign. The British people as a whole must be sovereeign. I would turn Miller's statement completely round - only the British people can grant rights to Parliament, and only the British people can take them away.

So you want weekly referenda then?
Our Parliamentary system is far from perfect, but it is generally acknowledged as one of the best in the world in seeking to represent the views of the people.
Out of interest. Do you support PR?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:22 am

We don't have an Athenian Democracy DSR, we have a parliamentary democracy.

The will of the people in an advisory referendum isn't the issue here. That is happening when Article 50 is triggered. You have nothing to worry about.

What worries me is that you want the PM to have the ability to change our laws without going through Parliament.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:32 am

Darthlaw wrote:Then you are very wet behind the ears.

Here's an example from yesterday though.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-scotland

You're wasting your time mate.

Some people are blissfully unaware that Scotland had a referendum to REMAIN in the UK!

Current polls show they'd be an even bigger majority for union.

One of them , who specialises in calling people idiots at every opportunity, even believe that the USA is in Europe!

Remoaners, geography, and reality. Apparently, not comfortable bedfellows...

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:33 am

dsr wrote:Parliament should not be sovereign. Parliament, in fact, must not be sovereign.

The next time we have a shambolic referendum, feel free to stamp that on the side of a big bus.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:45 am

nil_desperandum wrote:So you want weekly referenda then?
Our Parliamentary system is far from perfect, but it is generally acknowledged as one of the best in the world in seeking to represent the views of the people.
Out of interest. Do you support PR?

I think you might have misread the post. I don't see any mention of weekly referenda. Referendums should be rare, but if you have one, it must be obeyed by Parliament.

Scotland had a referendum about independence, at a time when the Scottish parliament had a majority of members in favour of the UK. If Scotland had voted to leave the UK, would the scottish parliament have been justified in trying to frustrate it? Not in my book.

No, I don't support PR. I prefer having a direct link to MPs, while PR is a way in for party placemen and career politicians.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:45 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:You're wasting your time mate.

Some people are blissfully unaware that Scotland had a referendum to REMAIN in the UK!

.

People are totally aware of this but the goalposts have now been moved entirely.
A vote that was won on a promise that the "only way the Scots could guarantee to remain in the EU was to vote to REMAIN within the UK"
It's a broken promise.
It's another of Cameron's uncomfortable legacies.When you constantly lie to people and make promises that you can't keep it all unravels in the end.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:47 am

Thats the point dst, its not "your book"

Its the rule of law in the United Kingdom

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:53 am

Sorry dsr, you've completely lost me now.
In one post you say that the people must be sovereign over Parliament and in the next you talk about the importance of being represented by local constituency MPs.
Additionally, how can the people be sovereign over Parliament if you don't support PR? A large number of the population are effectively disenfranchised because of the FPTP system. (Incidentally none of this has anything whatsoever to do with Brexit, it's a question of how our democracy works.)

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:54 am

Its almost like he's ignoring the bits that don't suit, and adding bits that do.

He's like our very own version of Donald Trump

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 9:57 am

Great tweet just popped up on my timeline

"BRITISH DEMOCRACY IS BEING SUBVERTED!! just wait until the hereditary monarch and representative chamber of the nobility hear about this"

kentonclaret · Post by **kentonclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:07 am

Nigel Farage when campaigning for Brexit stated that upon leaving the EU Britain would become "a proud, patriotic country that has control of its borders, represents itself on the world stage and makes its own laws in our own SOVEREIGN PARLIAMENT"

Gina Miller understood what the sovereignty of parliament means far better than Theresa May.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:09 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Sorry dsr, you've completely lost me now.
In one post you say that the people must be sovereign over Parliament and in the next you talk about the importance of being represented by local constituency MPs.
Additionally, how can the people be sovereign over Parliament if you don't support PR? A large number of the population are effectively disenfranchised because of the FPTP system. (Incidentally none of this has anything whatsoever to do with Brexit, it's a question of how our democracy works.)

Represented by local constituency MPs who can be kicked out at a general election. If you have PR, then you have at least a partial list system where the party apparatchiks can be "re-elected" no matter how few votes they get. (The EU elections being a case in point, though it's not the method of voting that puts me off the EU.)

There is no perfect voting system. If you emphasise MPs being voted for in person, you lose proportionality; if you emphasise proportionality, you lose personal contact with MPs. I'm happy with the current "happy medium", you aren't; that doesn't mean that either you or I are a "better democrat".

But the public must be sovereign over parliament. That's essential in any democracy, not just ours. If you want to argue that we shouldn't have referendums, fine; but if you have referendums, Parliament should not be allowed to ignore them.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:11 am

kentonclaret wrote:Nigel Farage when campaigning for Brexit stated that upon leaving the EU Britain would become "a proud, patriotic country that has control of its borders, represents itself on the world stage and makes its own laws in our own SOVEREIGN PARLIAMENT"

Gina Miller understood what the sovereignty of parliament means far better than Theresa May.

Nigel Farage wants a sovereign parliament subordinate to the people. Gina Miller wants a parliament that is so sovereign that the people can't tell it what to do.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:14 am

Jesus ******* Wept

I'm out mate, you are not that dense, you just can't accept that you are totally, utterly wrong.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:17 am

nil_desperandum wrote:People are totally aware of this but the goalposts have now been moved entirely.
A vote that was won on a promise that the "only way the Scots could guarantee to remain in the EU was to vote to REMAIN within the UK"
It's a broken promise.
It's another of Cameron's uncomfortable legacies.When you constantly lie to people and make promises that you can't keep it all unravels in the end.

Fair enough. And the fact that David "brexit will lead to WW3" Cameron lied through his teeth is accepted by all right minded people.

But let the SNP have another referendum by all means.

I think they'll end up embarrassed by an even bigger snub by the Scottish people.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:24 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:I think they'll end up embarrassed by an even bigger snub by the Scottish people.

It might now be quite close. The SNP will still wipe the floor with all the other political parties at the next election. I'd even go as far as to say that if UKIP stood in every Scottish seat they would lose their deposit in each and every one of them.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:26 am

Bit of an aside, but isn't there a substantial amount of people in Scotland who vote SNP but don't want EU membership?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:28 am

Ukip are going to campaign on an English parliament.

England, I think, is the only country in Europe without its own parliament

That's a real democratic deficit.

The northern Irish, Welsh and Scots all have their own specific representation.

The anomaly should end. England should have its own voice.

I think it could be quite popular.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:34 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Ukip are going to campaign on an English parliament

How can they remain as UKIP if they want an English parliament?

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:38 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Can you explain what you understand her to mean by "No deal is better than a bad deal"?"
It doesn't make any sense does it?
Presumably by saying "no deal" she means a complete break with the EU. So that would be the deal. But what would that actually mean?
Would it mean all ex-pats have to be re-patriated because we would have no reciprocal deal over such things, and that we couldn't take any workers from the EU to fill vital jobs in (e.g.) the NHS? Would we need visas to take a holiday in the EU? What about reciprocal health arrangements? What about co-operation over terrorism and our borders etc. etc.? (I know I'm being deliberately extreme, but we will need "deals" on all these points.)
Which ever way you look at it there will have to be some kind of deal. Even if it's the hardest of all possible Brexits, lines will have to be drawn somewhere, even if it's just to officially close off many of the freedoms and benefits that we currently enjoy.
This statement "no deal is better than a bad deal" is as stupid as "Brexit means Brexit", indeed if you actually take the phrase literally then "No deal" means that things remain as they are!

No deal to me would mean that EU denied us the right to trade with them. That would be bad for us, but it would be just as bad for them. We would have the benefit of a whole world that is waiting to take Europe's place, it would take time but eventually it would settle down and balance itself out. They on the other hand would be stuck in a system where replacing us as a market is up **** creek.
A bad deal would be one where we can continue to trade with Europe, but only if we accept certain freedom of movement and cough up annually to Brussels and continue to abide by the ECOHR. That isn't what the people who voted Brexit voted for.
IMO commonsense will prevail and a deal that suits all will be reached. The negotiations need to be done in private not in the HOP. Do you think Brussels will be debating in public what they are willing to give Britain, of course they won't. You can't play poker if the other guy knows what your hand is, you end up a loser.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:41 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:What is wrong with that? Her constituents favour staying in the EU even more decisively than the UK wants to leave, so why shouldn't she try to look after her country's interests?

Scottish exports to the UK market are 5 times bigger than to the EU, go figure.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:45 am

Can the English people please have a referendum to decide if they want to become an independent country?

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can then decide their own future without interference from a UK parliament.

I know what the result would be - INDEPENDENCE.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:51 am

I think you'd be unpleasantly surprised.

Quite a lot of us are very proud to be British

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:51 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:No deal to me would mean that EU denied us the right to trade with them. That would be bad for us, but it would be just as bad for them. We would have the benefit of a whole world that is waiting to take Europe's place, it would take time but eventually it would settle down and balance itself out. They on the other hand would be stuck in a system where replacing us as a market is up **** creek.
A bad deal would be one where we can continue to trade with Europe, but only if we accept certain freedom of movement and cough up annually to Brussels and continue to abide by the ECOHR. That isn't what the people who voted Brexit voted for.
IMO commonsense will prevail and a deal that suits all will be reached. The negotiations need to be done in private not in the HOP. Do you think Brussels will be debating in public what they are willing to give Britain, of course they won't. You can't play poker if the other guy knows what your hand is, you end up a loser.

So basically, when you say "no deal", you are only referring to trade, which is but a small part of our relationship with the EU?
By deal I assume all the issues that affect us in our daily lives. Whether we trade successfully with the EU or elsewhere in the world will clearly have an indirect impact on me due to its impact on the economy [Could be good / could be bad], but I'm far more interested in all the other issues that do directly have an impact on me.
Earlier you mentioned Schengen. Are you seriously suggesting that whilst EU members continue to travel freely across land borders in the EU, we should tell 27 other countries that they have to spend billions in closing their borders, even though we are outside Schengen and outside the EU?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:52 am

claretandy wrote:Scottish exports to the UK market are 5 times bigger than to the EU, go figure.

What's that got to do with Darthlaw's point, or my reply?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:54 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:No deal to me would mean that EU denied us the right to trade with them.

That's not an option under World Trade Organisation rules. If countries have no trade deal in place, eg. the EU and USA have no deal, then the WTO sets down a red line beyond which trade wars and tariff imposition can't go. WTO members aren't allowed to randomly ban trade between members.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:56 am

If that is the case Colburn, lets hope that court case in Ireland about Article 50 being reversible goes in our favour then. No deal sounds like a total disaster for everybody, even Brexiteers.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:57 am

dsr wrote:Nigel Farage wants a sovereign parliament subordinate to the people. Gina Miller wants a parliament that is so sovereign that the people can't tell it what to do.

What has Miller done to make you think she wants a parliament that the people can't tell it what to do? When have the people ever been able to tell parliament what to do in a way that they can't right now?

You still seem to think that this lawsuit was about blocking brexit.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:59 am

claretandy wrote:Scottish exports to the UK market are 5 times bigger than to the EU, go figure.

Maybe, but let's assume we have a hard brexit and there are trade barriers between the UK and the EU.
A Scotland that remained in the EU and enjoyed all the benefits of free trade might be a land of opportunity, with large multi-national companies locating north of the border rather than here, and with Scotland able to export it's goods to the EU tariff free.
I would imagine that these would be the sort of issues that would be up for debate if the SNP decided to go for independence, and if Scotland is denied access to the Single market on favorable terms then I think it is highly likely that there'll be pressure for another independence vote.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:02 am

Sturgeon sees being out of the EU as being "isolated"

She sees being out of the UK as "independent"

Oh dear......

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:04 am

Lancs
I agree, but it's a disaster for everybody, which is why I'm not concerned about it ever happening. I'm more concerned that any deal we reach is weakened because we carry out our arguments in public. I've never voted Tory in my life, but WE elected them. We have to trust them to do their best for us. If they don't, or we aren't happy, then we'll have the opportunity to make them pay at the next general election.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:07 am

Okay Colburn, do you think that the right of the Tory party are going to accept anything other than what May is demanding?

Its what they have been campaigning for decades. They will **** the country before they let May dilute it.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:13 am

No, they probably won't, but then the people who voted for Brexit didn't vote for a watered down version either. It was in or out, no ifs, buts or maybes.
I accept that it is more complicated than that, but the premise that we are leaving the EU regardless shouldn't be lost.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:21 am

Its taken seven pages, but accepting that its "more complicated than that" is a f**king start!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:25 am

7 pages later and some believe you can be partly pregnant!

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:30 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:No, they probably won't, but then the people who voted for Brexit didn't vote for a watered down version either. It was in or out, no ifs, buts or maybes.

all of them?

unfortunately, thats not true.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:32 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Okay Colburn, do you think that the right of the Tory party are going to accept anything other than what May is demanding?

Its what they have been campaigning for decades. They will **** the country before they let May dilute it.

Yeah they've been campaigning for it for decades. And they won the referendum! So why would they listen to the losers!?

Would sturgeon listen to those who want to remain in the UK if she won a referendum!? Would she balls!

Arsenal beat burnley on Sunday.

The UK voted to leave the EU.

I've got over the former. You should do the same regards the latter.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:36 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:The UK voted to leave the UK.

Did it?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:36 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:What has Miller done to make you think she wants a parliament that the people can't tell it what to do? When have the people ever been able to tell parliament what to do in a way that they can't right now?

You still seem to think that this lawsuit was about blocking brexit.

She said this yesterday:

""Only parliament can grant rights to the British people and only parliament can take them away." It was a prepared statement, not an off-the-cuff remark. "Supremacy of parliament" means over the king/queen, not over the people it claims to represent.

I would say she has got it the wrong way round. I would say, or at least I would have hoped to say, ""Only the British people can grant rights to parliament and only the British people can take them away."

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:37 am

If only it was as simple as that Ringo.

Anyone who compares a game of football to a generation changing decision for 67 million people doesn't really get it.