[Politics] Brexit

[JC Footy Genius]

Matt Hancock rows back from views on suspending parliament

Health secretary defends U-turn saying it doesn’t feel like parliament will be suspended

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...rows-back-from-views-on-suspending-parliament

Sajid Javid is ‘very comfortable’ with suspending parliament despite comparing it to ‘trashing democracy’

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-boris-johnson-democracy-latest-a9086276.html

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

The Labour party as a whole have rowed back on their 2017 election promise to enact the referendum result .....

 

[theonlymikey]

If another referendum included more than 2 options, Remain would win, because the Leave vote would be split.

No it wouldn't.

If you read up on the available models, you'd agree with me.

"If a referendum were held that includes all three options then there are different ways to determine the result. The simplest approach would be to allow each voter to vote for their favoured option, with the most popular choice declared the victor. This could lead, however, to an option being implemented without support of a majority of voters.

To avoid this, voters could rank their choices in order of preference. The least popular first choice would be eliminated, and its votes reallocated based on second preferences. This would ensure that the successful option gained over 50% of first and second preferences.

Finally, the referendum could include two separate questions. Question 1 could ask whether voters wish to Leave or Remain, as in 2016. Question 2 could ask voters to select between the two different models of Brexit, if there is still a pro-Leave majority."

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/second-referendum-brexit

I am not a fan of the two question model. Simply because even though I've changed my mind and want to remain, a Remain v Leave in the first question would be a betrayal of the original result.

The one question elimination version would give the house a mandate, something which the 2016 ref failed to provide.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[theonlymikey]

Which is what they want. Win at all costs. If this was cricket they'd be the ones with the sandpaper.

I've explained why the "splitting the vote" opinion is incorrect in my last post.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[melias shoes]

Stop the coup? ....... Coup noun. 1A sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.

‘Words have consequences.’ Unless, it seems, you’re a hardcore Remainer.

“The word Reichstag is now trending on Twitter,” noted the Observer’s Toby Helm.

John Crace of the Guardian – fresh from a rather strained comparison between Nigel Farage and either Stalin or Hitler – retweeted a passage from The Handmaid’s Tale referring to the establishment of a theocratic dictatorship by a terrorist group via the suspension of the United States Constitution.

Paul Mason told a crowd of Remain protesters in Westminster that “if Boris Johnson seizes power from Parliament, I promise you we will never have another free election in this country”, and got them to swear a bizarre oath that “at 12 o’clock on Saturday, we are coming for you, Boris Johnson”.

The Independent declared the announcement of a Queen’s Speech prorogation a ‘coup’.

Kate Osamor – the charming Labour MP who infamously told a Times reporter “I should have come down here with a bat and smashed your face in” – compared the Queen doing her perfectly proper constitutional duty by not meddling in politics to the last King of Greece’s active political involvement in sparking a military coup in his country.

At a ‘#stopthecoup’ rally yesterday evening, Owen Jones, himself a recent victim of political violence, summoned up the imagery of the spilt ‘blood of our ancestors’ and branded the Prime Minister a ‘tinpot would-be dictator’. He tweeted that the issue was now a ‘war’ which ‘we are going to fight with everything we’ve got’ (though his speech and ensuing column go on to urge ‘peaceful civil disobedience’).

The Best For Britain campaign even suggested that the monarch ought to remember the fate of Charles I.

Elsewhere in hardcore Remain circles, you could find every OTT analogy you might imagine. This was a mash-up of Peterloo and Kim Jong Un. It was Hitler’s Enabling Act revived. It was fascism, communism, and any other available totalitarianism, both historical and fictional.

As I’ve written in the past, I don’t mind a vivid analogy or an emotive turn of phrase. I may even have been guilty of committing some myself on occasion. But haven’t we just spent years being told in ever more self-important tones that “words have consequences”, and therefore everybody must take great care in their speech?

I can recall plenty of times hearing that the language of betrayal used by angry Brexiteers towards politicians who break their promises is actively dangerous; that military analogies or terms of any sort are equivalent to threats of violence; and that for a newspaper to characterise rebellious Tory MPs as ‘mutineers’ constituted a direct incitement of threats towards them.

At times this crusade for more dull language has become even sillier. A year ago Owen Jones (the very same) protested that Chuka Umunna’s call for Jeremy Corbyn to ‘call off the dogs’ was part of ‘a dehumanising narrative used against…Labour members’. ‘Party members are not dogs,’ he noted, helpfully eliminating any lingering doubt.

They can’t really have it both ways. What would the reaction of the above people be to Nigel Farage whipping up a crowd to chant ‘we are coming for you’ about a named political opponent? Or if pro-Brexit pressure groups tweeted darkly about the execution of the Queen? Would they see it as harmless to be accused not of being merely wrong but of being would-be dictators, on the very cusp of irreversibly establishing tyranny?

Do they still believe that ‘words have consequences’, or is that only applied to words they disagree with?

https://www.conservativehome.com/th...nless-it-seems-youre-a-hardcore-remainer.html

That's exactly what it means.

 

[theonlymikey]

The Labour party as a whole have rowed back on their 2017 election promise to enact the referendum result .....

Because consecutive Tory governments has backed the house into a Remain v No Deal situation.

Hypothetically. If there was a GE before Brexit, labour would run on a referendum ticket. The model they would use wouldn't be Remain v Leave, because that kind of vagueness got us into a political black hole .

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

For every pro-EU story, there is an anti- EU one.

My friend puts up ceilings for a living. He advertises for labourers periodically. He often gets Europeans applying. He says they work hard, and then after 3 months or so they leave to set up on their own. They then undercut him.

The reason they can do this is a lot of them live in shared houses, with lower overheads and no responsibilities. My friend has a mortgage, family and bills to pay.

Now I'm sure that the customers of this guy are pleased to save money, but I completely understand how my friend is anti-EU.

Yes, I can understand that.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My reading of the comment If anyone thinks that...any sort of Brexit is right, proper and honourable, they need to have a good word with themselves' is that it is difficult to comprehend why anyone still wants BREXIT after the evidence of the the last 3 years which has proven all the lies from people like Davis & Boris about how easy it would be and how much better off we will be when we leave.
.

Quite.

 

[theonlymikey]

because vocal Labour politicans are in that camp. presenting the current situation as no-deal only option reflects this. there is no reason to believe "a customs union" option would pass parliament either. Corbyn and Labour are playing a waiting game, not committing to anything but inaction, neither supporting WA brexit or another referendum without first a GE.

elsewhere the hard left are using this as an excuse to fire up the agitators. i hope people see through them, when they say this unjustified procedure is a coup and to take to the streets, they are calling for that very thing for their purposes. Mason's claim that Johnson seizes power from parliament ignores that the act of prorogation sets the future date for a new parliament.

will the left reach a consensus with the centre right for a determined course of action, either delay, revoke or accept a50, or will they continue to use it to incite disorder and further their political aims?

If a customs union got a majority in a referendum, that is a clear instruction to parliament, and would almost certainly mean a majority in parliament. Parliament would have been presented with a 'what' plus the 'how'.

The original result only gave the 'What', you can see the problem.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If another referendum included more than 2 options, Remain would win, because the Leave vote would be split.

The Brexit company have announced a candidate for Lewes, should there be a general election. Maria Caufield is an ERG member, voted for Johnson as Prime MInister and all round 'good' Tory back bencher who does everything her leadership tells her to do. The Brexit candidate is going to split the Leave vote completely, which will probably return Lewes back to Libdem.

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/new...ty-selects-lewes-election-candidate-1-9054036

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

My reading of the comment If anyone thinks that...any sort of Brexit is right, proper and honourable, they need to have a good word with themselves' is that it is difficult to comprehend why anyone still wants BREXIT after the evidence of the the last 3 years which has proven all the lies from people like Davis & Boris about how easy it would be and how much better off we will be when we leave.

I still have had no one tell me 10 (or 5) ways as to why my life will be better when we leave. I can't see it just need some to point them out.

Good god man: doesn't the possession a blue passport mean anything to you?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The EU, by including the backstop, offered us a deal that even they would have known, could not be accepted. If they won't remove it, Parliament won't be presented with a deal that is acceptable. So in effect, whether we like it or not, a deal will not go through Parliament.

The backstop was put there by the Tory party to get around the problem in Ireland. Breaking the Good Friday agreement which is an international treaty, is not an option, or else it is a hard border.

 

[larus]

Yeah, it was never made clear what we were voting for. Even Cameron stated it would be WTO rules.

 

[beorhthelm]

Because consecutive Tory governments has backed the house into a Remain v No Deal situation.

again, they have not. there is still the WA, amended or not, or they have other options they can instruct the government to do. Parliament can still act, the purpose of the action is to focus and end perpetual indecision. its main aim is to snuff out the vote of no confidence.

If a customs union got a majority in a referendum, that is a clear instruction to parliament, and would almost certainly mean a majority in parliament. Parliament would have been presented with a 'what' plus the 'how'.

we dont get to such a majority in a referedum, there are too many options, its too complex to have a multiple choice referendum. this is were we need MPs to vote on our behalf, apply their judgement on the best way forward. to even hold a referedum requires them to vote for one, so they can vote for the options directly to resolve this. they failed to reach a consensus before, though only narrowly, and in one case because the SNP tactically abstained. MPs voted for brexit (twice) setting the date, so they need to grasp the nettle and decide what to do now.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Yeah, it was never made clear what we were voting for. Even Cameron stated it would be WTO rules.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPcmebRH904

Lot's of remoaners making barefaced lies there and they try to spin it all on Boris.
I would like to see the remoaners try and defend them now.

Leave means to leave.

 

[larus]

Lot's of remoaners making barefaced lies there and they try to spin it all on Boris.
I would like to see the remoaners try and defend them now.

Leave means to leave.

Of course, we never believed Boris or Nigel as they are liars.

So we believed Cameron, Osborne, Mandleson, Major, Letwin, Cooper, Corbyn, Starmer who all stated that we would leave, no second vote and, according to Cameron, it would be on WTO rules.

So why are the remainers saying we’re thick. It was clear what we were voting for. It’s on record.

 

[theonlymikey]

again, they have not. there is still the WA, amended or not, or they have other options they can instruct the government to do. Parliament can still act, the purpose of the action is to focus and end perpetual indecision. its main aim is to snuff out the vote of no confidence.



we dont get to such a majority in a referedum, there are too many options, its too complex to have a multiple choice referendum. this is were we need MPs to vote on our behalf, apply their judgement on the best way forward. to even hold a referedum requires them to vote for one, so they can vote for the options directly to resolve this. they failed to reach a consensus before, though only narrowly, and in one case because the SNP tactically abstained. MPs voted for brexit (twice) setting the date, so they need to grasp the nettle and decide what to do now.

The deal BJ said is dead unless the backstop is removed even though the ERG would still vote against it? That deal? That's very helpful isn't it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[osgood]

If you'd done some research, you'd know Corbyn held discussions with EU negotiator about a customs union. Positive noises were made. Yet people think Labour wanted to stop brexit. They do now that it's only no deal on the table. If an GE comes before Brexit labour will campaign for a referendum. this will not be straight up Leave v Remain . But will actually indicate what type of Brexit will be palatable to the electorate.

There are several referendum models to take into consideration more than two choices.

This isn't betrayal, it's common sense.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

"its only no deal on the table " ....!
thats not true though, is it ?
have you been paying attention ?

 

[dingodan]

Look, I always regarded Brexit as a red herring, the desire of madmen, kept alive as an issue by mischievous media intrigued by the weirdness of the likes of John Redwood, and the vulgar chutzpah of Farrage, a one issue nitwit. Brexit was never a serious goal of any serious politician.

You entire post is just arrogant ranting, which seems to be a trend amongst people who don't want to leave the EU. But take the above as a classic example of what you and others have done in this debate.

There is no politician for whom leaving the EU has been a "serious" goal. Leaving the EU is the "desire of madmen".

The question as to whether we are members of the EU or not, is a question about whether we are governed from Westminster or Brussels.

You can't imagine that any serious politician would consider it a serious aim to change the situation from one of being governed from another country to one of being governed from their own country?

You can't imagine that that would actually be a serious and sincere matter of principle for anyone other than a madman?

The toxicity in the Brexit debate has mostly been a result of people with sincere and substantive concerns over matters of meaningful principle, being derided and cast as mad or nasty or similar, while their views have been dismissed as somehow pretend or delusional.

When you hate the views of other people so much that you are willing to convince yourself that those people don't really have those views, you have lost your ability to think straight, and more importantly you have given up on the need to even bother considering in any depth what those views might really be or why they might be held at all.

Your arrogance is a tragic blend of embarassing and (genuinely) sad.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Of course, we never believed Boris or Nigel as they are liars.

So we believed Cameron, Osborne, Mandleson, Major, Letwin, Cooper, Corbyn, Starmer who all stated that we would leave, no second vote and, according to Cameron, it would be on WTO rules.

So why are the remainers saying we’re thick. It was clear what we were voting for. It’s on record.

I think there is a massive campaign going on to try and brainwash the public with their bullshit and some like us will not buy It.
Ps, you forgot to mention 'I don't know what party I support Chukka!'

 

[Murray 17]

Which is what they want. Win at all costs. If this was cricket they'd be the ones with the sandpaper.

And if they lost a second referendum, they'd want a third.