[Politics] Brexit

[beorhthelm]

we should have another referendum, on the condition that we can have one every 2-3 years to confirm the sentiment of the country.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Desperate .... or just tediously baiting again.

But true, no matter how you try to spin it.

we should have another referendum, on the condition that we can have one every 2-3 years to confirm the sentiment of the country.

Astonishingly, we have a vote every five years in this country, which goes with the sentiments of the country.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Theresa May has split her cabinet into two groups to consider options for customs arrangements post-Brexit.
One group will consider a "customs partnership" whereby the UK would collect tariffs on behalf of the EU.
The other group will look at "maximum facilitation" - a solution based on using technology to minimise the need for customs checks after Brexit

Where in the referndum campaign were either of this options tabled I am pretty sure they were never mentioned

So 2 years after the vote, and 4 months before the decision has to be made, they have decided to start looking into one of the biggest and most complex areas. That's reassuring.

I wonder what the outcome will be. It won't be a fudge that is then rejected by the EU, would it

*edit* And, just seen, they are due to report back next Tuesday

 

[ManOfSussex]

And, just seen, they are due to report back next Tuesday

Yes - put simply, the cabinet has been split into 2 Conservative and Unionist negotiating teams by our strong and stable PM who told them 'see you next Tuesday'.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes - put simply, the cabinet has been split into 2 Conservative and Unionist negotiating teams by our strong and stable PM who told them 'see you next Tuesday'.

Absolute shambles. I wonder what hair-brained ideas they’ll come up with this time?

 

[beorhthelm]

Astonishingly, we have a vote every five years in this country, which goes with the sentiments of the country.

you've willfully ignored that vote is on manifestos covering all manner of issues, and this referendum is a single issue that splits the electorate along non-party lines. or are you agreeing with those that say there should not be another referendum on the matter?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

you've willfully ignored that vote is on manifestos covering all manner of issues, and this referendum is a single issue that splits the electorate along non-party lines. or are you agreeing with those that say there should not be another referendum on the matter?

There shouldn't be a referendum on the matter, but there should be a vote for the options, one of which would be to remain. I think there should be three options
Complete break, no SM, CU or FM
Leave but stay with SM, CU and FM
Stay as we are, and remain.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And we have now had an Act to leave. Job done. Gina Miller's spiteful sabotage attempt delayed things and made the Government's task just that bit harder. Bully for Gina 'look at me, I'm filthy rich and I want my 15 minutes of fame' Miller.

Unfortunately, she seems to have reinforced your belief in Project Fear - EU citizens legitimately here aren't going to be herded on to cattle boats and sent to Calais, and the Windrush affair was due to badly drafted legislation misinterpreted by people facing arbitrary targets to meet who thought they'd found an easy way to do it - nothing to do with Brexit. Removing illegal immigrants is a legitimate aim for government, whether in the EU or out.

You're worrying to much, really - your friend's kids aren't going to suddenly have their Mummy snatched away by the secret police........you've been paying too much heed to the likes of Plonks, Dribble and The Chump on here!

Example
Meet Jay who is in his twenties , and born in Birmingham. His mother was came in with the Windrush generation. Later Jay got put into care, and his foster parents couldn't get him a passport.

He tried three times to get a passport, and had to class himself as stateless eventually. The Home Office were going to deport him to Jamaica, a place he has never visited.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ion-son-theresa-may-home-office-a8313076.html


Are you still 100% sure my friend will be ok? Project Fear or just being suspicious that this load of incompetent MPs haven't got a clue what they are doing? That's a kind way of putting it.
Personally I think they were targetted to be able to boast to naive voters that this government was dealing with immigrants to court the UKIP vote. Theresa May is in this up to her neck, and Amber Rudd was just her fall guy.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

There shouldn't be a referendum on the matter, but there should be a vote for the options, one of which would be to remain. I think there should be three options
Complete break, no SM, CU or FM
Leave but stay with SM, CU and FM
Stay as we are, and remain.

I think most of us are agreed that ignoring the 2016 referendum would lead to even greater divisions in our country than the appalling mess we have at the moment (although of course certain victimhood-shrouded posters on here frothingly insist that any pre-departure consultation with the people does indeed amounts to elitist weasels and loons doing just that).

The best formula for a further consultation I've seen involves a two-round consultation, as in a French presidential election. The options in the first round would be: The Government's deal / No deal / Remaining in the EU. The option getting the least votes drops out and the people decide between the first two choices the following week.

If this was adopted it would be much harder than it is now to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for. Referendums will rarely produced informed decisions but at least this suggestion would be better in this respect than the on/off switch of 2016. If the two pro-Leave options got through to the second round then Remainers like me would have to either lie low or campaign for one of the two Leave options in the second round. (That would presumably be "the Government's deal".) If only one Leave option got through then the Brexit Ultras would have to campaign for it, even if it wasn't the No Deal option they ideally wanted. It would not, of course, be possible for the second round not to include a Leave option.

It seems to me that this is the best way of bringing this fractured country together. One thing's for sure though - as long as members of the pull-up-the-drawbridge society continue to scream at anything and everything that doesn't suit their beliefs, spitting out at the rule of law and our parliamentary system whenever it produces something they don't like and calling anyone who argues for a different way collaborators, dissidents and traitors then this proud old land will continue to head for hell in a handcart.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

But true, no matter how you try to spin it.



Astonishingly, we have a vote every five years in this country, which goes with the sentiments of the country.

As did the referendum when each vote was actually more 'fair' than the FPP system our government is elected by.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Absolute shambles. I wonder what hair-brained ideas they’ll come up with this time?

Had Corbyn won the election, I wonder how many posts you'd have made denouncing his government's Brexit policy.

Btw I am not a supporter of the current government, I voted labour in the last election.

 

[beorhthelm]

There shouldn't be a referendum on the matter, but there should be a vote for the options, one of which would be to remain. I think there should be three options
Complete break, no SM, CU or FM
Leave but stay with SM, CU and FM
Stay as we are, and remain.

firstly, a vote on a single issue with multiple options is still a referedum.
secondly, "leave but stay with SM, CU, and FM"... so leave what exactly?

still, we agree another referendum is a good idea, and it follows a regular refresher is necessary seeing as the last one wasn't good enough.

 

[GT49er]

Example
Meet Jay who is in his twenties , and born in Birmingham. His mother was came in with the Windrush generation. Later Jay got put into care, and his foster parents couldn't get him a passport.

He tried three times to get a passport, and had to class himself as stateless eventually. The Home Office were going to deport him to Jamaica, a place he has never visited.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ion-son-theresa-may-home-office-a8313076.html


Are you still 100% sure my friend will be ok? Project Fear or just being suspicious that this load of incompetent MPs haven't got a clue what they are doing? That's a kind way of putting it.
Personally I think they were targetted to be able to boast to naive voters that this government was dealing with immigrants to court the UKIP vote. Theresa May is in this up to her neck, and Amber Rudd was just her fall guy.

The Windrush scandal - badly drafted legislation catching out people it was never meant to catch, being misused by civil servants desperate to meet arbitrary targets imposed on them by senior civil servants. They found 'easy' targets - loophole now closed. Nothing to do with Brexit. It really isn't!

Jay's story - that is part of the Windrush scandal - absolutely no comparison to that of an EU citizen, with passport, married to a UK national and living in the UK and having given birth (in the UK?) to British children; there will be records of all those events - register of births, marriages and deaths and all that. Not the slightest similarity.

I agree with you that the Government passed the legislation to show they were dealing with illegal immigrants (which, let's face it, supporters of all parties, except maybe the more extreme lib Dems and Greens, want to happen), but what you're not taking into account is the tremendous pressure the more junior civil servants, those at the sharp end, are under to meet their targets by hook or by crook. Meeting those targets is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the Holy Grail all rolled into one for them, and if they find a loophole they can use to meet the targets - in this case the Windrush people - they will take it; their careers depend on it after all! The publicity has now effectively closed that loophole.

I strongly suspect that Jay's case will now end in the proper way, and while nothing in this world is 100%, let's say I'm 99.999% sure that you're worrying too much for your friend. I'm sure that for once you'll be delighted to be proved wrong!

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The Windrush scandal - badly drafted legislation catching out people it was never meant to catch, being misused by civil servants desperate to meet arbitrary targets imposed on them by senior civil servants. They found 'easy' targets - loophole now closed. Nothing to do with Brexit. It really isn't!

Jay's story - that is part of the Windrush scandal - absolutely no comparison to that of an EU citizen, with passport, married to a UK national and living in the UK and having given birth (in the UK?) to British children; there will be records of all those events - register of births, marriages and deaths and all that. Not the slightest similarity.

I agree with you that the Government passed the legislation to show they were dealing with illegal immigrants (which, let's face it, supporters of all parties, except maybe the more extreme lib Dems and Greens, want to happen), but what you're not taking into account is the tremendous pressure the more junior civil servants, those at the sharp end, are under to meet their targets by hook or by crook. Meeting those targets is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the Holy Grail all rolled into one for them, and if they find a loophole they can use to meet the targets - in this case the Windrush people - they will take it; their careers depend on it after all! The publicity has now effectively closed that loophole.

I strongly suspect that Jay's case will now end in the proper way, and while nothing in this world is 100%, let's say I'm 99.999% sure that you're worrying too much for your friend. I'm sure that for once you'll be delighted to be proved wrong!

Jay has been given British citizenship now. David Lammy MP announced it, which is how I found the article. Not without a couple of years of threats, heartache and being messed around by civil servants and those who are supposed to know what they're doing.


In the meantime, why does Theresa May keep avoiding the question of EU citizens? She has been questioned many times in the House, and keeps avoiding the answer, like a true politician.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

As did the referendum when each vote was actually more 'fair' than the FPP system our government is elected by.

The Referendum were Vote Leave broke electoral law five times.
https://www.electoralcommission.org...ches-of-electoral-law-following-investigation

They've been fined a paltry £70K. A mere slap on the wrist.

 

[astralavi]

The Referendum were Vote Leave broke electoral law five times.
https://www.electoralcommission.org...ches-of-electoral-law-following-investigation

They've been fined a paltry £70K. A mere slap on the wrist.

yes too low, there should be more of a deterrent on such matters

 

[ManOfSussex]

Jay has been given British citizenship now. David Lammy MP announced it, which is how I found the article. Not without a couple of years of threats, heartache and being messed around by civil servants and those who are supposed to know what they're doing.


In the meantime, why does Theresa May keep avoiding the question of EU citizens? She has been questioned many times in the House, and keeps avoiding the answer, like a true politician.

I really don't understand why some people just assume everything will be okay for all non-Irish EU citizens here when 'Settled Status' is (allegedly) rolled out at the end of the year by The Home Office.

 

[biddles911]

I think most of us are agreed that ignoring the 2016 referendum would lead to even greater divisions in our country than the appalling mess we have at the moment (although of course certain victimhood-shrouded posters on here frothingly insist that any pre-departure consultation with the people does indeed amounts to elitist weasels and loons doing just that).

The best formula for a further consultation I've seen involves a two-round consultation, as in a French presidential election. The options in the first round would be: The Government's deal / No deal / Remaining in the EU. The option getting the least votes drops out and the people decide between the first two choices the following week.

If this was adopted it would be much harder than it is now to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for. Referendums will rarely produced informed decisions but at least this suggestion would be better in this respect than the on/off switch of 2016. If the two pro-Leave options got through to the second round then Remainers like me would have to either lie low or campaign for one of the two Leave options in the second round. (That would presumably be "the Government's deal".) If only one Leave option got through then the Brexit Ultras would have to campaign for it, even if it wasn't the No Deal option they ideally wanted. It would not, of course, be possible for the second round not to include a Leave option.

It seems to me that this is the best way of bringing this fractured country together. One thing's for sure though - as long as members of the pull-up-the-drawbridge society continue to scream at anything and everything that doesn't suit their beliefs, spitting out at the rule of law and our parliamentary system whenever it produces something they don't like and calling anyone who argues for a different way collaborators, dissidents and traitors then this proud old land will continue to head for hell in a handcart.

Interesting idea and perhaps the least worst option BUT you’d still be faced with many of the problems that bedevilled the first referendum.

The Government “deal” with the EU will, no doubt, run to several hundred pages (at least) and distilling it into something comprehensible to most people will be a challenge to put it mildly.

Most people will be more interested in the consequences anyway which will be fraught with even more uncertainty and open to interpretation on all sides.

No deal would be easier to explain but its consequences even more difficult to predict.

Remain sounds the easiest option in terms of explanation and consequences but I don’t think we can assume that that will just mean the status quo as I’ve certainly heard it suggested by some EU leaders that, if we did change our mind, the various opt outs and rebates we currently enjoy may no longer be available.

Given the shocking mess this government is in, I have no idea what the likely outcome(s) might be in terms of a “deal” but it seems very unlikely to me that there will be time to agree more than the bare outline of a deal which will probably simply fudge the key issues for lack of time, in similar fashion to the transition “deal”.......

This has all the makings of a “poll tax” schism across the country....... I intend to invest in some tin hats and, possibly, a nuclear bunker.

If Brexit doesn’t get us then Trump’s stupidity probably will........!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GT49er]

Jay has been given British citizenship now. David Lammy MP announced it, which is how I found the article. Not without a couple of years of threats, heartache and being messed around by civil servants and those who are supposed to know what they're doing.

Good, I'm pleased for him. I think I'm entitled to a quick "Told you so" though!

In the meantime, why does Theresa May keep avoiding the question of EU citizens? She has been questioned many times in the House, and keeps avoiding the answer, like a true politician.

Agreement has been reached through the transition period, has it not? Any EU citizens coming to the UK in that period to be treated the same as those already here? Besides, in the longer term, she is negotiating Brexit with the EU - who themselves are playing hard-ball. Have you heard anything at all from Barnier or Juncker (or Merkel or any other EU leader) about the right of UK citizens in the EU? Honestly, have you heard a single guarantee for our people abroad? Why would you want the EU to keep their cards close to their chest whilst demanding that the UK lays all its cards on the table now? - bit one sided, isn't that?

 

[pastafarian]

I think most of us are agreed that ignoring the 2016 referendum would lead to even greater divisions in our country than the appalling mess we have at the moment (although of course certain victimhood-shrouded posters on here frothingly insist that any pre-departure consultation with the people does indeed amounts to elitist weasels and loons doing just that).

Agreed, ignoring the referendum vote to Leave would be incredibly damaging, people do not like their democracy ignored.

The best formula for a further consultation I've seen involves a two-round consultation, as in a French presidential election. The options in the first round would be: The Government's deal / No deal / Remaining in the EU.
.

Oh is see you have an option for ignoring the referendum vote to Leave, that didn’t take long.

The option getting the least votes drops out and the people decide between the first two choices the following week.

Yeah we have already had one of those, remaining in The EU option has already received the least votes, so we can discard that one then already.

We are now left with your remaining two options
1/ Leave with the Government/EU withdrawal deal
2/ Leave without the Government/EU withdrawal deal

The only real question left is, after a withdrawal agreement has been reached, is their enough parliamentary time to set up a new referendum via a new referendum act before the expiry date of Article 50, or should parliament just decide.
Many remainers on here are quite adamant referendums are a bad idea and the decision should be parliaments.

If this was adopted it would be much harder than it is now to argue that people didn't know what they were voting for. Referendums will rarely produced informed decisions but at least this suggestion would be better in this respect than the on/off switch of 2016. If the two pro-Leave options got through to the second round then Remainers like me would have to either lie low or campaign for one of the two Leave options in the second round. (That would presumably be "the Government's deal".) If only one Leave option got through then the Brexit Ultras would have to campaign for it, even if it wasn't the No Deal option they ideally wanted. It would not, of course, be possible for the second round not to include a Leave option.

Bit of a waste of time this bit, we have already established the Remain option has already been voted on and lost.

It seems to me that this is the best way of bringing this fractured country together. .

Or stop trying to wreck a democratic vote, that would also stop the division.

One thing's for sure though - as long as members of the pull-up-the-drawbridge society continue to scream at anything and everything that doesn't suit their beliefs, spitting out at the rule of law and our parliamentary system whenever it produces something they don't like and calling anyone who argues for a different way collaborators, dissidents and traitors then this proud old land will continue to head for hell in a handcart.

Spitting out our “parliamentary system whenever it produces something they don't like” …….you mean like those people that moan about having a referendum in the first place,don’t like losing a referendum and dont like leaving the EU?, A referendum being a product of the parliamentary system along with a vote to commence the process of leaving.