[Politics] Brexit

[pb21]

They aren't 'happy' with it, they are voting for it because they think parliament will revoke, dilute Brexit or say we need two referendum votes to leave (only one to remain obviously) ... with some justification.

Ceded sovereignty is supposedly the overriding issue regarding the desire to leave the EU, and the price of leaving the EU is worthwhile.

It's rank hypocrisy to vote for something that will very likely result in a very real and genuine loss of sovereignty.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

It amazes me how anybody is trying to make any sense of any of what is going on at the moment. And I think a great deal of it us because far too many of our politicians do not care about the people under their charge:
- I can understand why people in Lincolnshire or Sunderland felt abandoned, which is down to Londoncentric austerity
- many people have said - and said months ago - that this was an opportunity for a national consultation about what sort of country we want. Fat chance.
- a billionaire hedge-fund manager has been calling for the hardest of Brexits, while it has been revealed he has paid £650,000 to Malta for citizenship for he and his family. (Not a politician, obviously)
- Jacob Rees-Mogg was the other day making anti Winchester College jokes in parliament as an Etonian. It's a game!

The government we do have is a crowd of bungling incompetents. The extra ferries we are paying ridiculous amounts of money for started running today...... empty.

What the #@*% are They all playing at. How we exit, or don't exit, is a bit like a lottery - almost Russian Roulette. Our whole governmental system is not fit for purpose.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Things already going well for Change UK.

[tweet]1111622654061150214[/tweet]

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It must be refreshing to see the world in black and white terms. The Government's agreement is the agreed process for leaving, and the only viable one. Therefore the Government is trying to push it through and finding itself blocked by the Commons. It could change the means of withdrawal to make it more palatable to Parliament (e.g. Customs Union / Single Market) but chooses not to do so. In that scenario it should take it back to the people as a choice with the only other viable option currently on the table.

Democracy does not stop at given moments, however much certain people like the result at any time and wish it could.

And as I feel like we keep having to remind you, one thing the referendum did not specify in any terms of "how".

I just respect UK democratic norms win or lose and expect the result to be enacted. You don't fair enough.

There were two options to vote for ... people who ended up on the minority side adding further conditions to try and get another go (which is the real motivation) don't respect democracy.

If you are only concerned about the terms of leaving then argue for a referendum that sets out the leaving options eg Norway +, Canada +, no deal.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Must have missed them. Can you provide any quotes/examples?

I have, before, in this thread. The original threats are also in this thread. It’s Friday PM and I have better things to do, but you’re free to scroll back yourself

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Nothing finer than watching BBC Parliament Channel with the sound off, even half an hour before a massive vote. There's about a hundred monkeys in there, all finger pointing and jabbering away. Meanwhile, the big beasts just turn up at the last moment and say what they said a week ago. There's nobody listening to anybody else. If there was any natural justice, each and every one of them would spend the rest of their working lives on Universal Credit.

 

[Simster]

A Brexit mainly defined by the majority, those who believed it was the best course of action and following the general themes of the campaign see 'take back control' .. not a BRINO second prize for remainers which satisfies no one.

Sorry, not having that. The question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?". Any solution that delivers leave is perfectly acceptable, regardless of what YOU decide it actually meant.

 

[Bold Seagull]

A Brexit mainly defined by the majority, those who believed it was the best course of action and following the general themes of the campaign see 'take back control' .. not a BRINO second prize for remainers which satisfies no one.

Taking back control - doesn't mean you don't continue to align your rules and regulations with your closest trade partner. A customs union is only a trade deal. Trump is rubbing his hands because he will have the upper hand in being able to force the UK to accept their chlorine wash meat, GM crops, or whatever else – that isn't taking back control, that is being dictated to and ceding control.

The real control the hard brexiters want, is the same battle the Tories have fought with the Unions, and that is to deregulate and be able to exploit. The whole concept of negotiating trade deals around the world is a complete smokescreen behind what is really behind the ERG's policies.

We have taken back control, and this is what our democratic control looks like. It isn't pretty, but should be celebrated that a minority government in this country cannot just do what it wants. This isn't a totalitarian state giving credit to political decisions through populist backing. The people have voted, but what is being delivered is not good enough, simple as that.

The very union of the United Kingdom is at risk, that really isn't taking back control, that is losing control completely.

 

[Weststander]

Must have missed them. Can you provide any quotes/examples?

@HT’s recollections are correct, and it spread to other non-political threads where he posted innocuous stuff. Not from bright people with the ability to debate, but just a couple of thicko’s who try to bully (but fail miserably).

 

[Stat Brother]

A Brexit mainly defined by the majority, those who believed it was the best course of action and following the general themes of the campaign see 'take back control' .. not a BRINO second prize for remainers which satisfies no one.

You (we all) voted on a concept.

Those that wanted to stay were easily satisfied with 'Better Together'.

Those of you that voted to leave had no idea what you were voting for, beyond soundbites and lies on buses.

That's not your fault, the blame for that lies entirely with the politicians who quite clearly didn't know what they were doing then, and haven't done since.


If you're not getting what you voted for, then you should get another vote on the proposal you want.

 

[nicko31]

You (we all) voted on a concept.

Those that wanted to stay were easily satisfied with 'Better Together'.

Those of you that voted to leave had no idea what you were voting for, beyond soundbites and lies on buses.

That's not your fault, the blame for that lies entirely with the politicians who quite clearly didn't know what they were doing then, and haven't done since.


If you're not getting what you voted for, then you should get another vote on the proposal you want.

Votes need to be on deliverable solutions, not unicorns.

 

[Stat Brother]

[tweet]1111550418545446912[/tweet]

 

[Mellotron]

The point is, there are versions of Brexit that are palatable to parliament. It is the Tories self-imposing red-lines that are the problem.

There is no version of Brexit that is palatable to all, perhaps even to a majority of Leave voters. Leave voters voted leave for a myriad of reasons, and there are probably dozens of versions of Brexit being wished for. It's unworkable.

Take away the red lines and you no doubt enfuriate millions of voters.

 

[A1X]

I just respect UK democratic norms win or lose and expect the result to be enacted. You don't fair enough.

There were two options to vote for ... people who ended up on the minority side adding further conditions to try and get another go (which is the real motivation) don't respect democracy.

If you are only concerned about the terms of leaving then argue for a referendum that sets out the leaving options eg Norway +, Canada +, no deal.

So your argument is that more public voting is anti-democratic? Democracy is worth more if people don't get a vote?

That seems a very dangerous road to take yourself down. Forgive me if I don't follow you.

 

[Mellotron]

A Brexit mainly defined by the majority, those who believed it was the best course of action and following the general themes of the campaign see 'take back control' .. not a BRINO second prize for remainers which satisfies no one.

Doesn't answer my question. Which version of Brexit did people vote for?

Customs Union?
Common Market?
Norway?
No Deal?
Canada?

The reason we're in this mess (and always will be, whilst the "official" line is that the UK wishes to leave the EU, with **** all further detail) is that there isn't a clear mandate for what sort of Brexit is to be delivered.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Here we go then - MP's are voting.

 

[Bold Seagull]

[tweet]1111550418545446912[/tweet]

That is simply hilarious.

You just know Raab and an advisor spent ages deciding which books to have behind him. You know, a book on Nixon is probably pretty apt for the way the Tories are behaving.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Rees-Mogg has voted for it.

 

[BigGully]

@HT’s recollections are correct, and it spread to other non-political threads where he posted innocuous stuff. Not from bright people with the ability to debate, but just a couple of thicko’s who try to bully (but fail miserably).

Don't think he was asking you to be the arbiter here, he quite simply asked for the examples.

 

[ManOfSussex]

More ERG have voted for it than originally thought apparently.