[Politics] Brexit

[Thunder Bolt]

Of course footballers earn big bucks and pay tax. Not to mention the added benefits is sale of goods etc. I am not against all immigration.

Jobs will be created, some in the home office because they will be needed. Brexit will drive change and austerity will be over soon. (Rumour has it that it already is, but I am not someone who believes the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that one!)

The Home Office. This is in court today.

[tweet]1085913711494148096[/tweet]

 

[Is it PotG?]

Referendum 1 : Do you want another referendum? Y/N

Referendum 2 : Do you think this should be the last, the very last foreverer and everer?

Referendum 3 : If you miss out on voting by age, shall we wait 6 months for you?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The only sensible question for a new referendum would be leave with May's deal vs Remain.

"No Deal" is (a) too vague and (b) violates international treaties, so the electoral commission would never allow it in the first place (if it even made it past the Commons, which it wouldn't). May's deal is how it looks to Leave (the future relationship comes later as part of the second phase during the transition period, and Remain is obviously revocation of Article 50. If different parties want to come up with different ideas of what a future relationship looks like then that feels more like an election issue than a referendum one.

Exactly.

This is the (only) way forward. Some won't like it, for sure. Hell, I won't like it, if it returns a Leave result again, but I'd accept it, as at least we'd be getting an outcome that people genuinely DID vote for, unlike now.

I think most Remain supporters would reluctantly accept that.

And then, as you say, we all get to oppose / support / lobby our political parties to shape the future relationship in our favoured form.

 

[Marshy]

I voted remain but am a stickler for democracy to be upheld so we bloody better leave.

I would vote leave if a 2nd referendum ever happens.

 

[Is it PotG?]

The Home Office. This is in court today.

[tweet]1085913711494148096[/tweet]

Nice use of the word 'COULD' in there. I thought SHALL or WILL would be more appropriate.

 

[SK1NT]

Yes, you paint a picture that is realistic. So ending free movement and choosing who we need is a benefit but the over supply of the workforce will end because it holds down wages.

EU = uncontrolled immigration, anyone can come and steal jobs from low skilled British citizens which in turn lowers their wages. Low skilled migrants from the EU, either move their familes here, start a family here and claim benefits. While others send part of their wages and benefits back to their family at home. They cost us money by not paying as much tax, claiming benefits and being a drain on our public services. Unless they are high skilled and a great value to us, i.e. a nurse, we don't want them to arrive and stay. We can still have a scheme for people to come and work on the farms.

EU migrants pay £20bn more in taxes than they receive

https://www.ft.com/content/c49043a8-6447-11e4-b219-00144feabdc0

you can't keep dismissing the facts... it merely counting..

 

[Lincoln Imp]

For the love of god please can we do all to ensure A50 isn't extended. I don't think I could cope with another year of Brexit in the news 24/7, the politicians spending another year ballsing it up and us all being in the same situation.

In seriousness what the country [and companies in the UK] need is stability, by extending A50 and thus keeping uncertainty it wont help

If you want to avoid 2/3/4 more years of spats, negotiations, walk-outs, uncertainty, cliff-hanging and night & day controversies then just hope that anything like May's woolly and useless monument to kicking the can down the road never sees the light of day again. If you want peace and calmness restored start fighting for Remain. It's your only hope.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I voted remain but am a stickler for democracy to be upheld so we bloody better leave.

I would vote leave if a 2nd referendum ever happens.

A second vote is needed, apart from anything else, because the first has been PROVEN to be 'undemocratic' - illegal funding, votes won by pure lies, postal votes delayed, eligible voters denied their say. You'd vote against the outcome you wanted, on a point of principle - to uphold the result of that?

That would be ridiculous, frankly.

 

[Is it PotG?]

A second vote is needed, apart from anything else, because the first has been PROVEN to be 'undemocratic' - illegal funding, votes won by pure lies, postal votes delayed, eligible voters denied their say. You'd vote against the outcome you wanted, on a point of principle - to uphold the result of that?

That would be ridiculous, frankly.

If there were another vote, the losing side will, no doubt, find skulduggery abound to kick up another storm and have Round 3.

 

[nicko31]

GBP / USD highest since mid-Nov, no deal clearly not priced in.

This makes the prospect of it even more attractive for disaster capitalists at 55 Tufton St...

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The only sensible question for a new referendum would be leave with May's deal vs Remain.

"No Deal" is (a) too vague and (b) violates international treaties, so the electoral commission would never allow it in the first place (if it even made it past the Commons, which it wouldn't). May's deal is how it looks to Leave (the future relationship comes later as part of the second phase during the transition period, and Remain is obviously revocation of Article 50. If different parties want to come up with different ideas of what a future relationship looks like then that feels more like an election issue than a referendum one.

Sensible in who's eyes ? For me as a leaver I would still consider it a possible 'remain' via the backdoor. We've already decided to leave. If there has to be another vote then all the options have to be leave options.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Sensible in who's eyes ? For me as a leaver I would still consider it a possible 'remain' via the backdoor. We've already decided to leave. If there has to be another vote then all the options have to be leave options.

Is the correct answer.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Yes, that's the main problem with a second referendum. If you just have a re-run of the first, you're heading for the same problem but if you include different out options (eg no deal, Norway option, May's deal), we could have the situation where Remain gets 35% but because the Out option splits each way, Remain wins.

That would cause far more problems than it solves.

Very true.

And seeing as another referendum wouldn't be for 18 months/2 years, that's a lot more time with significant uncertainty.

 

[pb21]

Is the correct answer.

I am not sure it would be very democratic asking people a question where half the people being asked don't want either option being offered!

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Sensible in who's eyes ? For me as a leaver I would still consider it a possible 'remain' via the backdoor. We've already decided to leave. If there has to be another vote then all the options have to be leave options.

How would a vote for Remain, via a (second) democratic referendum, be in any way 'via the backdoor'?

Argue all you like about the 'will of the people', and all that. Argue against holding a second referendum - valid. But to suggest that a vote for Remain in a second free vote is somehow deceitful is stupid. As has been asked around 400 times on this thread already - How can a free public vote be 'undemocratic'?

 

[nicko31]

Yes, that's the main problem with a second referendum. If you just have a re-run of the first, you're heading for the same problem but if you include different out options (eg no deal, Norway option, May's deal), we could have the situation where Remain gets 35% but because the Out option splits each way, Remain wins.

That would cause far more problems than it solves.

It can't be the same question.

May's deal YES or NO, of that's a NO then Remain or No Deal.

Much fairer than a Norway deal by the back door. If Britain really wants to destroy itself, let them vote for it. But right now, no one voted for no deal and May's deal will never fly..

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Nice use of the word 'COULD' in there. I thought SHALL or WILL would be more appropriate.

It is in court today. The QC quoted is fighting it.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I am not sure it would be very democratic asking people a question where half the people being asked don't want either option being offered!

Part one was covered in the referendum...Leave/Stay.

Part two would be a logical move forward based upon the result of Part one. A chain of events if you like.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Can you answer the question I asked you earlier?

Sorry, I took a break for my yoga class. Nicely relaxed now. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, negotiating position.

They've told us what they are prepared to give against May's criteria for a deal, with a No Deal scenario hanging over them - it hasn't achieved what you're saying it would as position. The threat of no deal hasn't made them compromise on the back stop. It has no strength, the bluff is already called in. She went back, with the threat hanging over them with time running out and clear that her deal was going to be rejected, and they didn't blink. It clearly has no strength in the terms you are suggesting.

Besides, it doesn't have to be definitive at this point. May could concede to Parliament that should we fail to reach a deal now, we will extend Article 50 to avoid a No Deal on the 29 March. That doesn't rule it out happening at a later date.

 

[Is it PotG?]

It is in court today. The QC quoted is fighting it.

Fighting a 'COULD' case?

Hope it's pro bono.