[Politics] Brexit

[nicko31]

Been a lot of talk about Brexit and how its divided the nation by generation, and it has.

But more than anything its a class war, seems to have passed most of the media by. Football is one of the few places where all social classes mix, little surprise and debate here has been so lively. Interesting article

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-about-age-its-all-about-class-a7119406.html

The tragedy is that leaving the EU will not make Britain a more prosperous place. It may well not make it a nicer or fairer place either. And those who voted to leave because they were disillusioned with the political status quo may be no less disillusioned two or three years down the line. The challenge of the next set of party leaders is to prevent that scenario arising – EU or no EU.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

they may have had doubts about each other, you'd expect that among political types. article in the Evening Standard today seemed very informed from both sides, painted a picture of Gove having slowly taken over the back office, essentially becoming the man behind the scene, then a couple of incidents made him realise Boris couldnt be trusted with power. first he forgets to send a letter to Leadsom to assure her of a place in the team (its been left in the office), leading to her assuming she'd beed frozen out and runs herself. second he hasnt prepared any speech the evening before the planned announcment. Boris who we know is a bit scatty, isnt appearing to cope with the pressure of a simple leadership election. with his people running the show anyway, Gove sees that theres only one sensible way forward. backstabbing, or taking decisive action to prevent a very bad situation (Boris winning and becoming PM).

According to David Laws, who was a minister alongside Michael Gove before last year's election, Gove had a poor opinion of Boris's abilities long before the referendum was called. Something of a gossip, he was prepared to diss him in private even then. The implication of this is that Gove campaigned alongside Johnson in the full knowledge that the 'entertainer-politician' would be absolutely useless leading a Brexit government but would certainly drag in a shed load of votes on 23 June. As he surely did. In the absence of actual Brexit policies Boris was a non-rechargeable vote-winner. On such cynical strategies does the future of our lovely old country hang.

 

[Notters]

I think both sides were scaremongering as much as each other.

I only think it's scare mongering if you're dealing with fiction.

 

[GT49er]

You are confused. The democracy in the UK is that we elect our representatives to pariliament to make our laws on our behalf. They cannot delegate that. The referendum ia hot some sort of higher order democracy in law, its for information. It will be acted on in some way of course, but then there may be an election of some other event that provides new information. A long way to run, as is right.

They can and they did. Then they lost - just because you (and they) don't like the democratic result, doesn't give you (or them) the right to ignore it. The people / democracy has spoken.

 

[Simster]

They can and they did. Then they lost - just because you (and they) don't like the democratic result, doesn't give you (or them) the right to ignore it. The people / democracy has spoken.

It won't be anything like as black and white as that. For a start, the majority is paper thin - 52-48 - and we're talking about a fundamental, risky change. Remember, unlike a GE, we can't unwind this decision once made. Secondly, this campaign has been fought with lies and mistruths. It's been underhand. Thirdly, the electorate haven't really been told what they were voting for when they voted Brexit. We have no idea what the deal is going to look like.

I'll repeat what I think is the only solution - that as winners of the referendum, senior Brexit campaigners are handed the negotiating reigns and they are held responsible for the exit deal, which is then put to a second referendum. Brexit people ought to have nothing to fear if they are convinced this is the way to go. Equally, remain people should accept it if the referendum produces the same result because by then, everything will have come out in the wash and we'll all know exactly where we stand.

I actually find it hard to accept this hasn't already been proposed. Then again, the number of Brexiters who have washed their hands of this mess they created pretty much shows exactly the sort of people we're dealing with. They are all gutless career politicians.

 

[Jim in the West]

They can and they did. Then they lost - just because you (and they) don't like the democratic result, doesn't give you (or them) the right to ignore it. The people / democracy has spoken.

Parliament absolutely must NOT ignore the vote - but in their deliberations, they should remember the following:

- The campaign was riddled with lies, deception and scare-mongering;
- The Leave campaign didn't clarify what "leave" actually meant - hence there is no clear mandate for any particular version of Brexit (eg: cessation of free movement of people);
- Well over a quarter of the electorate did not express a view, and only 37% of the electorate voted Leave;
- The Referendum is advisory - it doesn't bind the government to anything;
- Brexit will almost certainly make this country poorer for decades to come - in the aftermath of the vote most commentators seem to agree that the economic outlook is much grimmer than it was before 23rd June.

Some of the people spoke, but that shouldn't usurp the right of parliament to make their own decision. At the end of the day, that's what happens in a parliamentary democracy.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

- The Leave campaign didn't clarify what "leave" actually meant - hence there is no clear mandate for any particular version of Brexit (eg: cessation of free movement of people)

I have to pick this claim up - one I've heard time and time again. Firstly, Remain didn't tell us what the EU would look like in 2030 either. The idea that in 14 years there wouldn't be further integration would be foolish - so what WAS going to be the outcome if we stayed ? We'll put aside that the remain campaign did very little to suggest the positives of staying - only the negatives of leaving.

Regardless, how would it be possible for Leave to lay out what the outcome would be when the EU won't negotiate until Article 50 is enacted ?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

It won't be anything like as black and white as that. For a start, the majority is paper thin - 52-48 - and we're talking about a fundamental, risky change. Remember, unlike a GE, we can't unwind this decision once made. Secondly, this campaign has been fought with lies and mistruths. It's been underhand. Thirdly, the electorate haven't really been told what they were voting for when they voted Brexit. We have no idea what the deal is going to look like.

I'll repeat what I think is the only solution - that as winners of the referendum, senior Brexit campaigners are handed the negotiating reigns and they are held responsible for the exit deal, which is then put to a second referendum. Brexit people ought to have nothing to fear if they are convinced this is the way to go. Equally, remain people should accept it if the referendum produces the same result because by then, everything will have come out in the wash and we'll all know exactly where we stand.

I actually find it hard to accept this hasn't already been proposed. Then again, the number of Brexiters who have washed their hands of this mess they created pretty much shows exactly the sort of people we're dealing with. They are all gutless career politicians.

My thoughts had been spinning off in the direction of MPs forcing an election and then forming a Grand Alliance to fight it on a Stop the Exit ticket, but yours is a more elegant solution. It would work most smoothly if Theresa May formed the government as a nominal Remainer, and then delegated the negotations to, as you say, Brexiters.

 

[Soulman]

Shall we just keep having referendums until the losers in the first referendum finally get their way. Will save more protests and whining in the long run.

 

[studio150]

So today the Bank of England has had to step in and relax rules on banking safeguards so that High Street loans do not dry up and credit is available to both the public and business. Effectively a £150bn sweeter directly due to Brexit.

So all those that were shouting about stricter controls on banks following the financial crisis of a few years ago may need to decide what they are going to shout loudest for now.

 

[studio150]

Shall we just keep having referendums until the losers in the first referendum finally get their way. Will save more protests and whining in the long run.

It would of course be better if the winners divulged all the facts when quoting details rather than omitting information that is completely at odds with the point they are making even where the information is from Washington DC.

 

[beorhthelm]

I'll repeat what I think is the only solution - that as winners of the referendum, senior Brexit campaigners are handed the negotiating reigns and they are held responsible for the exit deal, which is then put to a second referendum. Brexit people ought to have nothing to fear if they are convinced this is the way to go. Equally, remain people should accept it if the referendum produces the same result because by then, everything will have come out in the wash and we'll all know exactly where we stand.

I actually find it hard to accept this hasn't already been proposed.

this is because remainers and EU have taken a big position of "no negotiation before Article 50", which cuts off this avenue. prehaps once the leadership is resolved there can be a grown up conversation with Merkel about just what can be discussed in advance to allow such a scenario.

 

[pb21]

Shall we just keep having referendums until the losers in the first referendum finally get their way. Will save more protests and whining in the long run.

Oh do come one and get off your high horse, but be careful you are a long way up. Brexit clowns were already clamouring for a second referendum prior to the first one even being undertaken and then were trotting out tin foil hat conspiracy theories about how it would be rigged blah blah blah.

If the result had been the opposite we would have been flooded with Brexit clowns demanding a second referendum.

 

[Simster]

this is because remainers and EU have taken a big position of "no negotiation before Article 50", which cuts off this avenue. prehaps once the leadership is resolved there can be a grown up conversation with Merkel about just what can be discussed in advance to allow such a scenario.

Regardless of rhetoric, that can't true in reality because the minute that clause is invoked, our negotiating position is massively weakened. I do agree with you that we might get some sensible behaviour once the leadership is sorted out. Until then, it's all just posturing.

Shall we just keep having referendums until the losers in the first referendum finally get their way. Will save more protests and whining in the long run.

No you're absolutely right. Let's just abide by the result of a ridiculously tight referendum voted on by 34m voters who didn't have the facts at hand even though there is no way of reversing it if it transpires that this country has made an absolutely massive mistake.

It might not be a mistake of course, but how can we possible KNOW that until an exit deal has been negotiated?

 

[heathgate]

Oh do come one and get off your high horse, but be careful you are a long way up. Brexit clowns were already clamouring for a second referendum prior to the first one even being undertaken and then were trotting out tin foil hat conspiracy theories about how it would be rigged blah blah blah.

If the result had been the opposite we would have been flooded with Brexit clowns demanding a second referendum.

I haven't read this thread for a while.... but I see you are still trotting out the ever more tedious, ill-informed tripe.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Simster]

I haven't read this thread for a while.... but I see you are still trotting out the ever more tedious, ill-informed tripe.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

No, no he isn't:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

 

[daveinprague]

I haven't read this thread for a while.... but I see you are still trotting out the ever more tedious, ill-informed tripe.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Especially as the 2nd referendum online request was created by a Brexiteer a day or two before the vote, who raised it thinking they were going to lose.

Imagine if they had lost. I think pb21 is on the money.

 

[pb21]

I haven't read this thread for a while.... but I see you are still trotting out the ever more tedious, ill-informed tripe.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Ha, says the poster who thought the economy would be better if we stayed in the EU, but voted out so the economy wouldn't blow up in our faces!

 

[pb21]

No, no he isn't:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

There were others too.

 

[sydney]

According to David Laws, who was a minister alongside Michael Gove before last year's election, Gove had a poor opinion of Boris's abilities long before the referendum was called. Something of a gossip, he was prepared to diss him in private even then. The implication of this is that Gove campaigned alongside Johnson in the full knowledge that the 'entertainer-politician' would be absolutely useless leading a Brexit government but would certainly drag in a shed load of votes on 23 June. As he surely did. In the absence of actual Brexit policies Boris was a non-rechargeable vote-winner. On such cynical strategies does the future of our lovely old country hang.

hmmm....so it would appear that labour come out of this with the moral high ground...when is the next election.....not too late to get back in.?...what a mess...!!