[Politics] Brexit

[Mike Small]

I don't buy the Daily Mail.

My view point is not that extreme... Would prefer a Canada +++ but happy to no deal if the EU won't accept it. Over 337,000 people have signed a petition asking for no deal.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229963

And if there was (there may be one already) a poll opposing a no deal, it would be signed by millions and far more than the 300,000 angry little islanders that have signed that petition. I know that reference probably doesn't include everyone but please, what selfish people actually want a no deal.

 

[pastafarian]

90% of Labour members are remainers and 72% are backing a 2nd referendum.

Its not simply about labour members though is it, there are wider considerations at play.
61% of all Labour MPs elected in 2017 are MPs who have a seat in constituencies that voted to Leave.
Whilst the constituency vote is in itself not relevant to the referendum outcome. It would be very naïve to think future Labour votes and voters and not just members, are not playing on the minds of current Labour MPs and Corbyn.
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-maj...bour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/

Utter nonsense.

Trying to use a catastrophic no deal as a negotiating tool, is the diplomatic equivalent of the 'but racist bigots would riot' argument against a second vote.

And Corbyn's reluctance for a second vote has nothing to do with losing votes, and everything to do with his personal anti-EU stance.

Just as well no idiot has ever used the 'but racist bigots would riot' argument then

 

[Bold Seagull]

Our eventual deal with the EU could vary greatly from reasonable to terrible, while still not risking making ourselves bankrupt and unable to provide future trade with the EU (or not bankrupt, but so poorly off that the EU suffer). The idea that the EU will give us a good deal in order to make sure we can continue to work with them in the future is preposterous, and already proven so by the fact that they've not offered us a good deal. It seems that you're arguing for the sake of it, without really believing what you're saying.

But the EU aren't contemplating a deal that makes EU cars bad value for UK consumers - the deal the EU have offered us would mean no tariff on cars from the EU. With the possibility of No Deal, EU cars being poor value for UK consumers is a real threat. If we guarantee there won't be No Deal, the EU can put their feet up knowing that there won't be a tariff on any EU goods.

A different perspective, but again echoing that us holding a no deal scenario holds very little weight over the EU. Different angle from what I have been saying, same thing though really. You seem to think the No Deal is a desperate thing we need to hold on to as leverage in the negotiations, I still cannot agree with you.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/30/no-deal-brexit-not-end-negotiations-eu

 

[pastafarian]

First decide on a deal. Then put it to the people of this deal or remain.

Article 50 shouldn't have ever been invoked until a deal was thrashed out.

A withdrawal “deal” agreement on leaving the EU, is a mutual agreement between the UK and the EU subject to concluded negotiations.
The legal process is quite clear in the treaty articles we have signed, first there must be a notification by the member state that they are intending to Leave the Union (not simply pondering whether or not they will) then negotiations commence.
The EU cannot negotiate and thrash out a “deal” to Leave with an existing member unless they have received notification of that members intention to Leave, why would they want to even if the could (which they cant).

Funnily enough, Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested this a while ago.

JRM did has not suggested a “deal” should be negotiated with the EU before an article 50 notification is given

Gina Miller had to go to the High Court to get Parliament to vote on it, as is democratically permissable, instead of Theresa May using Henry VIII powers to go it alone.

You are confusing Henry VIII clauses and Crown Prerogative Powers which the Miller case was actually contested on (not Henry VIII clauses)

 

[cunning fergus]

It's also worth remembering what "shorting the pound" involves. It involves betting against the jobs, security, livelihoods and incomes of ordinary people. These are real lives being ruined which he has got rich off the back off. He's the very worst sort of tosser going.

Yep, we should never forget just how positive a force the EU is for maintaining the jobs, security, livelihoods and incomes of ordinary people.

https://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/ne...silvertown-fighting-eu-for-survival-1-2006991

What a load of tossers.......

 

[pastafarian]

A second vote isn't a "way out". If people vote to remain then we no longer have a "Brexit" problem. But we have a new one, perhaps a greater one. A crisis of confidence in democracy itself and the dividing political crack in this country becomes a fissure. If people vote to leave again then it's full circle and we are back where we started two years ago.

People don't want a "way out", they want the vote respected. Respecting the vote is more important than anything. The consequences of leaving the EU without a deal in place may be somewhat problematic, but the consequences of not respecting the vote are worse.

The real problem here is that the HoC find themselves, by a majority, in disagreement with the people. Only one side will have their will respected. The political class or the people. & I cannot overstate how severe a problem we would face if it turns out that we have a government for, of, and by, the politial class, rather than the people.

We can get through a Brexit without a deal on WTO terms. I'm not sure how we can get through a crisis of confidence in democracy itself.

Well said.
The breakdown of trust and the disintegration of the accountability relationship of parliament to the public should not be underplayed and so easily dismissed as an irrelevance.

 

[pastafarian]

But taking 'no deal' off the table destroys the UK's negotiating position. It's fine if our leaders agree among themselves that we won't leave with no deal, but if that's not even an option for the EU to worry about, then they'd have us over a barrel. Yes we know that no deal would be bad for the UK, but it is also a real fear for many business leaders in the EU. They'd rather give us a fair deal than suffer no deal.

Corbyn demanding that it's taken off the table is like him saying we'll pay for nuclear weapons, but would never use them.

May should accept and take No Deal out of the equation to get Jeremy round the table to chat. But with the precondition he takes off the table the right of all Trade Unions to ever be able again to use “possible further strike action” as a potential tool of end action if any future trade union dispute discussions break down.
Im sure he could then see what a ridiculous stance he is taking.

 

[portslade seagull]

Changing and emerging technology is completely different to self-imposed economic suicide. For one it typically impacts other countries so you’re not disadvantaged relative to other nations. Shooting your self in the foot benefits your competitors. . And picking up on one of your examples , many engineers left the UK to find work. Remember the term brain-drain?

And you’re implying people should simply get over it and find another job. There’s two words for people like you, the first is insensitive.

I and many others did in the 80s, changing roles completely. How many jobs went in Crowhurst Rd in the 80s ?.. KTM employed just under 3k, Allen West , Wade's, all big employers but all disappeared very quickly. In its heyday the start times were staggered throughout the companies because the buses couldn't cope.
Your the ones trying to score points out of job losses I call that insensitive

 

[portslade seagull]

For a bit of light relief, I saw this on the beach at Cuckmere Haven over the Christmas break.

View attachment 103874

Thought that was Palaces new changing rooms

 

[pastafarian]

Someone called Jamelia( no i havnt either) has caused some controversy apparently on the vine show by saying people over 75 should no longer be allowed to vote.

https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/...tary-uk-release-date-a4040121.html#spark_wn=1

 

[Baldseagull]

Worth remembering what happened 23 June 2016.
Remember that? That was the people's vote.
Does that excite you that people have died so they can't vote again? Sad man. I noticed that they say there would be almost 100,000 more than leave voters if everybody voted the same. Would we have to accept that figure considering there was 1,269,501 majority in favour of leave? Would we have to accept a majority of less than 100,000? When you can't accept a 1million plus majority in the first place.

No, I don't think 100,000 difference in tens of millions of voters would be a big enough majority for Brexit to be put to bed.

 

[Gwylan]

But if you put Remain on it it defranchises 52%, the winners. Sometimes in life you have to accept when you have lost and suck it up.

Why would it disenfranchise them? There's no suggestion for taking any form of Leave option off the ballot - quite the reverse in fact.

Preferential voting would sort that.

To a certain extent it would but if every Remainer decided not to vote and something like 10% of Leavers didn't (as their option wasn't available), even with preferential voting, the winner could have garnered 15 to 16% of the electorate. Would that be a mandate?

 

[Baldseagull]

How does multi millionaire hereditary Tory Peer Lord Wellington get up to the Lords?

Do you think he uses his own money, puts it on expenses or dips into the money he gets from the EU CAP.

Decisions decisions...

Strange isn't it, subsidising Agriculture to ensure food security, and protect the environment would sound like a fairly Socialist policy on the face of it. Until you find out who owns the land. Maybe there are ways we could change that apparent misuse of subsidy in either the UK parliament or the EU parliament.

 

[SK1NT]

 

[Exile]

194 For v. 170 Against at the moment, blimey it's as close as the original referendum!

As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is NOT a vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ anything. This poll is about what people think WILL happen, not what they WANT.

 

[cunning fergus]

Strange isn't it, subsidising Agriculture to ensure food security, and protect the environment would sound like a fairly Socialist policy on the face of it. Until you find out who owns the land. Maybe there are ways we could change that apparent misuse of subsidy in either the UK parliament or the EU parliament.

Come on, let’s deal with facts, CAP is not benefitting anyone but the rich and powerful, that’s my view and Greenpeace are on my side of this argument.....

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/20...-millions-eu-subsidies-go-richest-landowners/

As for CAP representing a socialist policy, I can go for a degree of state protection and subsidy when it’s needed, however it’s only socialist if the poor benefit in comparison to the rich.

https://iea.org.uk/blog/abolish-the-cap-let-food-prices-tumble

What CAP does though, is benefit the rich at the expense of the consumer and correspondingly the poor suffer.

It could not be a more Tory inspired policy if it tried, even the most ardent EU supporter should accept it, but some are so “hardcore” they don’t. Quite sad.

 

[cunning fergus]

The historical left wing opposition to the monarchy and secular beliefs

Fair point, but nevertheless the origins are clear, change (left wing) status quo (right wing).

Even economically speaking the economic policies of the EU are for private business interests, markets and mercantilist (right wing) they are not for trade unions, nationalisation and socialist.

The sooner we all get this straight, the clearer the position is concerning remain and leave.

 

[LadySeagull]

Originally Posted by Mellor 3 Ward 4

Just out of interest who are the eligible voters denied their say?

Postal voters. There are appeared to be over 900K missing or arrived too late.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...endum-electoral-commission-post-a7125711.html

''over 900,000 missing'' - really?

Hmmm....that's not what your link tells us.

The Electoral Commission said it could not provide a figure for the number of lost or delayed postal votes and those affected,
but that 52 queries had been received on the matter.

A spokesperson for the Electoral Commission said expats had been “encouraged” to register by 16 May to allow time for postage, or alternatively register for a proxy vote instead. “We appreciate the frustration that any overseas voters who could not cast their vote for the EU Referendum will have felt,” she added.

“From the 16 May, we advised overseas electors to consider applying for a proxy vote rather than a postal vote, if they were concerned that they would not receive their postal ballot pack in time.

Infuriated voters have reported more than 500 cases to The Independent where they registered but did not receive their papers in time for the historic referendum.

But then my views are (apparently) 'simplistic' - so maybe I missed something in those stats?

 

[pastafarian]

You’re talking absolute bollocks.

I pity you for believing the competences afforded to the EU via treaty are false and thinking directly applicable EU law, where legislation from the EU in some cases can become directly effective on member states and can bypass the need for national parliaments to make implementing measures on domestic legal systems is all a load of made up ballocks.
Believing as you must therefore do, that MPs that believe this form of pooled sovereignty is a price worth paying even if some sovereign parliamentary powers are ceded to Brussels are simply just making the issue up anyway or that MPs on the other side of the debate who have been increasingly frustrated over the years at the increases in these competences and the increase in powers and legislation moving from Westminster to Brussels have just imagined it, is astonishing.
Did you forget 100`s of MPs who were opposed and voted against the Lisbon Treaty (but failed)from ever coming into force, a treaty where competence areas to legislate in this way by the EU were increased.
Perhaps you will try to say the European Communities Act which specifically recognises the existence of directly applicable EU law (that you consider ballocks) and makes it possible for it to operate within the UK legal system without further parliamentary enactment and decision input is an imaginary piece of legislation too.
This is the issue at the heart of the parliamentary sovereignty debate yet you have simply dismissed it all as utter rubbish and a load of made up waffle……………....wow.

 

[LlcoolJ]

I pity you for believing the competences afforded to the EU via treaty are false and thinking directly applicable EU law, where legislation from the EU in some cases can become directly effective on member states and can bypass the need for national parliaments to make implementing measures on domestic legal systems is all a load of made up ballocks.
Believing as you must therefore do, that MPs that believe this form of pooled sovereignty is a price worth paying even if some sovereign parliamentary powers are ceded to Brussels are simply just making the issue up anyway or that MPs on the other side of the debate who have been increasingly frustrated over the years at the increases in these competences and the increase in powers and legislation moving from Westminster to Brussels have just imagined it, is astonishing.
Did you forget 100`s of MPs who were opposed and voted against the Lisbon Treaty (but failed)from ever coming into force, a treaty where competence areas to legislate in this way by the EU were increased.
Perhaps you will try to say the European Communities Act which specifically recognises the existence of directly applicable EU law (that you consider ballocks) and makes it possible for it to operate within the legislation too.
This is the issue at the heart of the parliamentary sovereignty debate yet you have simply dismissed it all as utter rubbish and a load of made up waffle……………....wow.

My word, you really are incredibly stupid.

Stick to *******. We all do that.

Your embarrassing porn stash is way less embarrassing than your attempts at political discourse. [emoji182][emoji182][emoji182]