#politicslive

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:43 am

dsr wrote:The referendum was made under a promise that the result would be put into effect.

You've been extremely relaxed about a whole raft of promises that have been broken so far, so why would this particular broken promise put you in a tizz?

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 7:58 am

Why is a Leave MP for Shrewsbury asking the Polish government to veto any extension requests of Article 50.

I thought we were taking back control?

Isn't colluding with a foreign government treason?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:05 am

Nadine Dorries comment from yesterday tells you all you need to know about some MPs’ priority here; themselves.

“I can feel a growing consensus among a number of MPs, faced with these Europhile kamikaze MPs who really don’t care about their careers going up in flames, who want to overturn parliamentary tradition in order to stop Brexit,”

Give me an MP that cares more about the future of Britain than their own careers any day!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:21 am

The problem Brexiteers MPs have is that they know if they were honest, that they would be in an even worse position.

So they rely on repeating the same lies, everyday. Slowly, the people interviewing them are getting the hang of actually knowing that what they are being told is a lie, but its hard to mention that in a four or five minute interview, and they are then deluged with targeted posts on social media accusing them of bias.

But if you want Brexit, then all this is fine, cos, you know, "sunlit uplands" and all that.

But yesterday, that MP for Shrewsbury effectively did what "traitors" do (using Brexiteer terminology) by asking a foreign government to intervene in UK affairs, Nadine Dorris repeated the same lie on national TV twice (despite being told off for it the first time, remember this is the MP who asked other MPs what a "customs union" was), Liam Fox admitted that only two deals (Switzerland and NZ) have been signed so far to come into operation when required (all the others are waiting to see how desperate we are if we go into a "No Deal"). Its an absolute **** show.

Basically, we are in no condition to leave with "No Deal" on March 29th 2019. We must either get a deal or extend till we get a deal. The future of the UK is more important than an arbitrary date.

And to get that extension, we have to convince the EU that we have a valid reason - the only two valid reasons are an election (which won't change anything based on current polling) and another referendum.

Reality is here everyone. Time to deal with it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:28 am

dsr wrote:No it isn't. Once again, you have taken your idea of what "advisory" means and used it at its most literal, refusing all other interpretations.

Here's an analogy. Suppose your boss told you, in writing, that if you completed a specific task within a certain time, he would pay you £1,000 bonus. You did the job in time. And then he told you that the bonus was only advisory because the paper wasn't signed, and he didn't have to pay it. Would you accept that he was right?

Well again, this is not an ‘idea’, it’s a fact. The word ‘advisory’ has a dictionary definition, so unless you are telling me dictionaries are also part of a liberal conspiracy then I’ll take what it tells me about the word ‘advisory’ as fact thank you. I know it’s only Wikipedia and that’s open to abuse, but this gives a good summary of what referenda do and don’t mean in British politics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referen ... ed_Kingdom

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:29 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:
And to get that extension, we have to convince the EU that we have a valid reason - the only two valid reasons are an election (which won't change anything based on current polling) and another referendum.
.

I generally agree with the substance of most of your posts, but I don't agree with that. I'm pretty sure that if we asked for an extension in order to explore with them a new deal that involved membership of the CU and some form of Single Market alignment (to be concluded within a time limit of say 6 months) then they would acquiesce.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:35 am

Possibly, but I'm going off what I've been reading over the last six months.

I can't imagine that an extension will be flatly refused, but if I was the EU I'd be wanting to see more progress on what we are planning to take to the table.

At the moment we have nothing agreed. Though that might all change if Lab shifts its position (Conservatives clearly never will, as its party before country and a move would split the party)

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:09 am

Another question for the Brexiteers...

If Brexit is so good, why are the likes of Tim Martin (Weatherspoons Brexit supporting boss) reporting that profits will be down and prices will go up; and why are Dyson moving to Singapore (boss also a Brexiteer); why are Sony and Panasonic moving to Holland; Why are the Japanese car firms in the UK predicting chaos? I thought you guys were saying it was all going to be great...

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:11 am

So based on what Mcdonnell said on Newsnight last night, Labour would hold a second referendum on it's option of a CU and some vague ST relationship with a simple yes or no. When asked what that meant he said if no won we would not leave the EU. So we either can vote for not a proper leave or remain. Well that's fair enough then. Clear as mud and a con.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:39 am

Burnley Ace wrote:Your analogy is missing a bit. If you knew that previously it had to be signed off by the senior partner and in the past the senior partner had refused to sign it off and in addition it was extremely rare for your company to give a bonus and the manager shouldn’t have really made the offer because he didn’t have the legal authority to do it, you might be able to shoehorn it in

Are you saying that there is a history of referendums not being enacted? As far as I remember, every referendum we have ever had has had its resulted enacted. Can you extend your analogy about the senior party to fit in with the Brexit referendum? Specifically, who is the senior partner equivalent who refused to sign off on this referendum? Because without that, your attempted extension to my analogy is just nonsense.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:55 am

dsr wrote:Are you saying that there is a history of referendums not being enacted? As far as I remember, every referendum we have ever had has had its resulted enacted. Can you extend your analogy about the senior party to fit in with the Brexit referendum? Specifically, who is the senior partner equivalent who refused to sign off on this referendum? Because without that, your attempted extension to my analogy is just nonsense.

To be fair he was only trying to extend your original nonsense analogy arguing against the fact that the referendum was advisory, so maybe it's you that should fix the original. No one is saying that there's a history of referenda being ignored (certainly in the UK), but that doesn't change the fact that the government/parliament had the right to ignore the eU one if they wanted. It was an ADVISORY referendum.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:00 am

summitclaret wrote:So based on what Mcdonnell said on Newsnight last night, Labour would hold a second referendum on it's option of a CU and some vague ST relationship with a simple yes or no. When asked what that meant he said if no won we would not leave the EU. So we either can vote for not a proper leave or remain. Well that's fair enough then. Clear as mud and a con.

I was thinking about this yesterday, and (although it makes it more complicated) we would have been better off in the last referendum with two questions: 1. Leave or stay? 2. Which of the following variants on leave? Clean break, deal outside of customs union, deal within customs union, closest possible relationship outside eu? At least with that information the government would have had clearer direction (and so would Europe). I know hindsight is a bit late, but it’s what I’d like to see in a second referendum. It would give everyone a close approximation to their ideal scenario.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:00 am

Re what Mcdonald said, why would you need a referendum if Labour's proposal got through parliament anyway ?

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:04 am

summitclaret wrote:So based on what Mcdonnell said on Newsnight last night, Labour would hold a second referendum on it's option of a CU and some vague ST relationship with a simple yes or no. When asked what that meant he said if no won we would not leave the EU. So we either can vote for not a proper leave or remain. Well that's fair enough then. Clear as mud and a con.

I can understand how you’d be dissatisfied with Labour’s position as outlined, but then I was dissatisfied with May’s position of her deal, or leave without one.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:08 am

summitclaret wrote:Re what Mcdonald said, why would you need a referendum if Labour's proposal got through parliament anyway ?

It’s more democratic to put the final choice back to the people. Better than having it imposed upon you. As I said, I think there should be several choices for leave. Not to split their vote (as the first question should be in or out), but to give the government direction on how to leave. Big decision, may as well take the time to get it right.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:13 am

AndrewJB wrote:I was thinking about this yesterday, and (although it makes it more complicated) we would have been better off in the last referendum with two questions: 1. Leave or stay? 2. Which of the following variants on leave? Clean break, deal outside of customs union, deal within customs union, closest possible relationship outside eu? At least with that information the government would have had clearer direction (and so would Europe). I know hindsight is a bit late, but it’s what I’d like to see in a second referendum. It would give everyone a close approximation to their ideal scenario.

But we do have the option of hindsight, but only if those who are stubborn; stupid; unable to accept changes in opinion; strop cos "Boris said we could leave the EU" all accept that the first referendum was flawed; and electoral laws broken; lies from both sides occurred; the populace are all better informed now. A second vote is the only answer in my opinion.

I asked previously on this thread - 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...?

no one answered, I suspect its because some people cant or refuse to accept that opinions change, people change, and they change because the situation changes. There are so many high profile global businesses fleeing the UK because of Brexit (Sony, Panasonic etc) and there will be many more which will affect jobs (it's OK though, we'll have jobs for people because the seasonal immigrants wont be allowed to come and pick strawberries); prices will go up (thats OK too, because we're all be better off); business will thrive (good on that front too - Tim Martin wants Brexit and his warning today about price increases and profits dropped are just in his imagination, nothing to do with Brexit); we'll have more money for the NHS (of course we will, so that the quango private businesses that sell services to the NHS can make even more money from ill people).

F#ck it, it's probably too late anyway... I will be one of those people in 10 years time gloating about the stupidity of leaving the EU, but thats fine too because i'll be unemployed eating my breakfast in Weatherspoons adding to the burden of the now private NHS and the brexiteers will all be still doing that too with me...

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:20 am

One thing is pretty certain. Once we leave that's it. No way back in on existing terms and no way this country would accept the euro and being in Schengen.

And our rebate will be gone.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:26 am

summitclaret wrote:One thing is pretty certain. Once we leave that's it. No way back in on existing terms and no way this country would accept the euro and being in Schengen.

And our rebate will be gone.

You don't appear to be making a very persuasive argument for leave.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:27 am

summitclaret wrote:One thing is pretty certain. Once we leave that's it. No way back in on existing terms and no way this country would accept the euro and being in Schengen.

And our rebate will be gone.

I'd agree with that to a fair extent.

One of the reasons I voted remain was that we currently have what is probably the best deal of any country in the EU. If we leave we're not getting that back if things go wrong.

(Admittedly some of the posters on here realising they were responsible for the UK joining the euro and Schengen would be entertaining.)

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:27 am

Rick_Muller wrote:Another question for the Brexiteers...

If Brexit is so good, why are the likes of Tim Martin (Weatherspoons Brexit supporting boss) reporting that profits will be down and prices will go up; and why are Dyson moving to Singapore (boss also a Brexiteer); why are Sony and Panasonic moving to Holland; Why are the Japanese car firms in the UK predicting chaos? I thought you guys were saying it was all going to be great...

Probably can't answer all your questions but, equally, I have some for Remainers:

What time does world war 3 start? When are the tax rises kicking in or the punishment budget, needed after a leave result, for that matter? What about the immediate Brexit recession triggered by a leave vote. Seen as GDP, average real wages and house prices have risen whilst unemployment fallen completely at odds to the 'shock' and 'severe shock' we were going to experience? What about the 'dangerous fantasy' of an EU army, which is now beginning in PESCO?

Or can we admit that both campaigns were full of ****?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:29 am

Darthlaw wrote:Probably can't answer all your questions but, equally, I have some for Remainers:

What time does world war 3 start? When are the tax rises kicking in or the punishment budget for that matter? What about the immediate Brexit recession triggered by a leave vote. Seen as GDP, average real wages and house prices have risen whilst unemployment fallen completely at odds to the 'shock' and 'severe shock' we were going to experience? What about the 'dangerous fantasy' of an EU army, which is now beginning in PESCO?

Or can we admit that both campaigns were full of ****?

Are you comparing forecasts with things that are actually happening?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:42 am

I think he is

Jeez Darth, you are better than that. You really are.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:47 am

Darthlaw wrote:Probably can't answer all your questions but, equally, I have some for Remainers:

What time does world war 3 start? When are the tax rises kicking in or the punishment budget, needed after a leave result, for that matter? What about the immediate Brexit recession triggered by a leave vote. Seen as GDP, average real wages and house prices have risen whilst unemployment fallen completely at odds to the 'shock' and 'severe shock' we were going to experience? What about the 'dangerous fantasy' of an EU army, which is now beginning in PESCO?

Or can we admit that both campaigns were full of ****?

Who said anything about World War 3..?

Tax rises...? have we left yet...? No...? wait till we do eh...

Brexit recession...? see above...

other points - we haven't left yet - all were predictions once we leave the EU, thankfully we haven't left yet. It hasn't stopped big businesses leaving though has it?

EU Army - we could affect that if we were still in the EU, as it is, we'll be leaving and cast adrift from influencing that.

I'm sure we can both admit that there was bull from both sides - thing is, only some people appear to be pragmatic and understand that another referendum with more knowledge of the effects of Brexit is the right option.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:50 am

aggi wrote:Are you comparing forecasts with things that are actually happening?

Aah! The old Remoaner Get out of jail free card of, "before the referendum this that and t'other is going to happen. When none of it does happen - "but it was only a forecast guvnor"!

And when Brexiteers make predictions , europhiles claim their " just dangerous fantasy Nigel"

Then they do happen........

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:52 am

Greenmile wrote:You explain what you think sovereignty is first.

I asked the first question. You try giving me the first answer.

I'll go second.

So go on, Explain why a referendum, advisory or not, is not an example of direct democracy.?

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:55 am

Darthlaw wrote:Or can we admit that both campaigns were full of ****?

I really struggle to make the connection between ‘both sides lied’ and ‘this was a perfectly valid referendum’.

If you’re admitting that both sides lied, then you’re conceding that the referendum was fundamentally flawed and serious questions are raised about its validity.

By saying that ‘both sides lied’ you’re strengthening the case for a new referendum.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:56 am

AndrewJB wrote:I can understand how you’d be dissatisfied with Labour’s position as outlined, but then I was dissatisfied with May’s position of her deal, or leave without one.

If this was a work it would probably be sorted out along the following lines.

All mps are involved in informal in private workshops which are not binding. Chatham house rules apply. The options can then be explored without anyone giving up on anything formally. Imo this would show that no deal and revoking A50 and a second referendum would be ruled out quickly. Ditto May's deal with an unlimited backstop.

The remaining options would be:-

1 may's deal with a limited backstop (which leaves the type of trade deal for stage2)

2 some sort soft leave like labour are now talking about

3 some sort of free trade deal like canada.

The 1 thing that should not happen is ruling out no deal whilst the negotiations with the EU are on going. Unless revoking A50 and a 2nd ref are also.

2 Bee Holed · Post by **2 Bee Holed** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:58 am

Imagine this:
We leave without a deal.
What would the situation be at the Irish border on the 30th March?
Imagine that neither the Irish nor UK governments do anything at all, because of the Good Friday agreement.
So who is going to blink first the EU or the WTO?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:59 am

Rick_Muller wrote:But we do have the option of hindsight, but only if those who are stubborn; stupid; unable to accept changes in opinion; strop cos "Boris said we could leave the EU" all accept that the first referendum was flawed; and electoral laws broken; lies from both sides occurred; the populace are all better informed now. A second vote is the only answer in my opinion.

I asked previously on this thread - 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...?

no one answered, I suspect its because some people cant or refuse to accept that opinions change, people change, and they change because the situation changes. There are so many high profile global businesses fleeing the UK because of Brexit (Sony, Panasonic etc) and there will be many more which will affect jobs (it's OK though, we'll have jobs for people because the seasonal immigrants wont be allowed to come and pick strawberries); prices will go up (thats OK too, because we're all be better off); business will thrive (good on that front too - Tim Martin wants Brexit and his warning today about price increases and profits dropped are just in his imagination, nothing to do with Brexit); we'll have more money for the NHS (of course we will, so that the quango private businesses that sell services to the NHS can make even more money from ill people).

F#ck it, it's probably too late anyway... I will be one of those people in 10 years time gloating about the stupidity of leaving the EU, but thats fine too because i'll be unemployed eating my breakfast in Weatherspoons adding to the burden of the now private NHS and the brexiteers will all be still doing that too with me...

Given the number of years between the first referendum of 1975 and 2016. I'd say around 40 years or so would be a starting point. In the interim, if a party wins a general election on the ticket of pledging a 3rd referendum (providing the 2nd has, like all previous referendums, has been implamented) then democratically, then that could be as soon as the next General election.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:03 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:In the interim, if a party wins a general election on the ticket of pledging a 3rd referendum then democratically, then that could be as soon as the next General election.

Or if a party wins a general election on the ticket of pledging to re-join the EU. Which, in a Parliamentary democracy such as ours, is how we should have been leaving the EU.

Chobulous · Post by **Chobulous** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:06 am

I personally think we are now fecked either way.
We had the "best" deal because at the time the EU were terrified that if we didn't get those terms we would walk away. Well now have tried to walk away and look at the mess that has ensued. Does anyone truly believe that if we were now to reverse Brexit that the deal we had before would continue indefinitely. No chance. Our favourable terms would very quickly come under attack and we would have no credible way to resist that attack.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:08 am

Rick_Muller wrote:...There are so many high profile global businesses fleeing the UK because of Brexit (Sony, Panasonic etc) ...

Are you absolutely certain that the "Dutch Sandwich" tax dodge whereby a company from outside the EU can save fortunes in tax by moving to Holland, isn't part of the reason? Those companies you mention both chose the Netherlands out of the choice of 27 EU countries, and it just so happens that the Netherlands is the one EU company that lets you pay intellectual property profits out of the EU without paying withholding tax.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:08 am

Apart from the veto.

Which would make such attacks completely pointless.

But other than that, we'd be defenceless.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:10 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:Or if a party wins a general election on the ticket of pledging to re-join the EU. Which, in a Parliamentary democracy such as ours, is how we should have been leaving the EU.

John, genuinely , I don't understand what you mean. Not taking the p or being sarcastic ......

pureclaret · Post by **pureclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:14 am

Why do people think we can stay in the customs union/single market and make and follow our own rules and regs and not have to abide by EU directives. And also not have to allow the free movement of EU people.
And why are people so hung up on the no deal as part of negotiation, If any one ever does negotiations then they usually have in mind that if they dont get what the require within the parameters they feel make it a good deal then you walk away.
For example you go to look at a house that you would like to buy and the price in the estate agents is £325,000, you have decided that you can afford £310,000 do you offer the £325,000 knowing you cant do it, do you offer £310,000 knowing you can do it or do you offer £300,000 and hope the seller says no but £310,000 whilst buying a house is not quite the same as brexit it illustrates the principles of negotiation.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:15 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:John, genuinely , I don't understand what you mean. Not taking the p or being sarcastic ......

I mean if a political party, Labour for example, ran a general election campaign to rejoin the EU, and won enough seats to form a majority government, they would have a clear mandate to rejoin the EU. No referendum required. That's how our Parliamentary democracy ought to work.

If we were doing this properly, a political party should have campaigned to leave the EU, and if they won enough seats, they could form a majority government and they would have a clear mandate to leave the EU.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:20 am

dsr wrote:Are you absolutely certain that the "Dutch Sandwich" tax dodge whereby a company from outside the EU can save fortunes in tax by moving to Holland, isn't part of the reason? Those companies you mention both chose the Netherlands out of the choice of 27 EU countries, and it just so happens that the Netherlands is the one EU company that lets you pay intellectual property profits out of the EU without paying withholding tax.

Perhaps I should have included Dyson...? I have contacts (senior management level) at a global Vehicle Manufacturer who are ready to "push the button" and leave the UK once we have left the EU, he said it's not going to be immediate, but the long term plan is there ready to be enacted - does that not worry you...?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:23 am

This tweet from Leave.EU hasn't aged well

https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/sta ... 9811226624" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:28 am

If you wonder why the likes of Dyson are upping sticks...

: IMG_20190123_111630.jpg (113.12 KiB) Viewed 2015 times

Its probably because of the threat of the UK becoming a communist state at the next general election

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:30 am

Oh good

"Project Fear"

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:34 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:I mean if a political party, Labour for example, ran a general election campaign to rejoin the EU, and won enough seats to form a majority government, they would have a clear mandate to rejoin the EU. No referendum required. That's how our Parliamentary democracy ought to work.

If we were doing this properly, a political party should have campaigned to leave the EU, and if they won enough seats, they could form a majority government and they would have a clear mandate to leave the EU.

OK fair enough. I can see where your coming from . However, when people on the Leave side claim that around 84% of voters , in the 2017 general election, voted for parties that pledged to leave the European Union. People on the Remain side say people voted for the parties for various reasons, so you can't assume they approve of leaving the EU. A referendum confirms the assumption.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:34 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Aah! The old Remoaner Get out of jail free card of, "before the referendum this that and t'other is going to happen. When none of it does happen - "but it was only a forecast guvnor"!

And when Brexiteers make predictions , europhiles claim their " just dangerous fantasy Nigel"

Then they do happen........

If you want to say that companies actually leaving the UK and the associated job losses and economic damage don't matter because some forecasts were made that turned out to be not 100% correct then I guess you can. It's a weird argument though.

Negative things are starting to happen. Firms are starting to leave, a lot of the finance companies are opening offices in Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin and growing there rather than the UK. Japanese banks, Philips, Schaeffler, etc are leaving the UK. Over $1,000,000,000 of assets have been moved out of the UK because of Brexit.

These aren't forecasts, they are reality.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:36 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Oh good

"Project Fear"

: IMG_20190123_113510.jpg (285.99 KiB) Viewed 2001 times

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:36 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:I mean if a political party, Labour for example, ran a general election campaign to rejoin the EU, and won enough seats to form a majority government, they would have a clear mandate to rejoin the EU. No referendum required. That's how our Parliamentary democracy ought to work.

If we were doing this properly, a political party should have campaigned to leave the EU, and if they won enough seats, they could form a majority government and they would have a clear mandate to leave the EU.

That's nearly what happened, except the leader of that party polled fewer votes than this dolphin.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:37 am

I even liked that tweet Damo!

It was clearly a **** take!

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:39 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:I even liked that tweet Damo!

It was clearly a **** take!

To be fair, it's difficult to determine which stories are meant in jest sometimes

Darthlaw · Post by **Darthlaw** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:39 am

Rick_Muller wrote:Who said anything about World War 3..?

Not WW3 specifically but peace was called into question...
David Cameron - Can we be so sure that peace and stability on our continent are assured beyond any shadow of doubt? Is that a risk worth taking?

Rick_Muller wrote:Tax rises...? have we left yet...? No...? wait till we do eh

All were promised within weeks of a vote to leave by Gideon and his punishment budget.

Rick_Muller wrote:we haven't left yet - all were predictions once we leave the EU, thankfully we haven't left yet.

NOPE - Not once we leave - impact of a vote to leave
HM Treasury economic analysis 2016

fear.png

Rick_Muller wrote:EU Army - we could affect that if we were still in the EU, as it is, we'll be leaving and cast adrift from influencing that.

So you're admitting that a 'dangerous fantasy' is now becoming reality?

EDIt - Can't believe I'm agreeing with Ringo but his point that Remainers like to point out their incorrect fiscal predictions as ' only a forecast', yet when Leave's forecast of a EU army is correct its a 'we could still affect it if we were in, though'.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:43 am

aggi wrote:If you want to say that companies actually leaving the UK and the associated job losses and economic damage don't matter because some forecasts were made that turned out to be not 100% correct then I guess you can. It's a weird argument though.

Negative things are starting to happen. Firms are starting to leave, a lot of the finance companies are opening offices in Frankfurt, Paris and Dublin and growing there rather than the UK. Japanese banks, Philips, Schaeffler, etc are leaving the UK. Over $1,000,000,000 of assets have been moved out of the UK because of Brexit.

These aren't forecasts, they are reality.

While we've been in the EU thousands of manufacturing jobs have gone abroad.

But -

Emergency budget the morning after a leave vote.

Siemens will leave.

Unemployment will rise by 850,000 in 18 months

Nissan will leave

A £4000pa per family tax rise

Housing market crash

Toyota will upsticks

Stock market crash

"Confidence in the UK economy would evaporate overnight " Alistair Darling

Inward investment would dry up.

Wages would go down.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:48 am

Could I perhaps point out that recent events in the USA have made an European Army project suddenly look like a better idea?

Possibly not for the UK, but for the EU nations on the Russian border..........

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:52 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:While we've been in the EU thousands of manufacturing jobs have gone abroad.

But -

Emergency budget the morning after a leave vote.

Siemens will leave.

Unemployment will rise by 850,000 in 18 months

Nissan will leave

A £4000pa per family tax rise

Housing market crash

Toyota will upsticks

Stock market crash

"Confidence in the UK economy would evaporate overnight " Alistair Darling

Inward investment would dry up.

Wages would go down.

OK, you can have that warm glow of a few forecasts being wrong (admittedly a number of those forecasts relate to after Brexit has been implemented so you don't actually know if they're wrong), reality is over-rated.

It's amazing how someone who was so keen to tell us he was so concerned about his fellow workers at the bottom of the pile is so blase about the possibility of them losing their jobs. You "won" though so that's the important thing.