[Politics] Brexit

[pb21]

I can accept that for almost all circumstances except for two.

When an explicit promise is made during an election.

When a decision is deferred to the people, the people's instruction is sought, and their instruction is given.

IMO you are over reacting and/or have expectations which cant be met as quickly as you would like.

 

[Falmer Flutter ©]

The proof is in the pudding.

I bet you're the sort of person that says "another thing coming" as well.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I bet you're the sort of person that says "another thing coming" as well.

I've never said that, 'another think coming' maybe in the past.

 

[Stat Brother]

That makes sense. If the Dover Calais border gets even harder after Brexit, however, the route to Ireland via Brittany (for legal as well as illegal travel) may become more appealing.

Small point I guess - time will tell, etc.

https://www.brittanyferriesfreight.co.uk/ferry-routes/ireland/roscoff-cork

Roscoff to Cork is a 13 hour crossing, with only 2 sailings per week.

 

[pastafarian]

It was a straight forward enough question. Grow up.

It was an easy enough question for you, if you have no idea which democratic procedures have been scrapped by Johnson to impose the will of the leader then you have answered your own question as to what events havnt happened.

Brexiteers bleating about 'taking back parliamentary control' for a couple of years, now bleating about parliamentary control. Im guessing you only wanted parliamentary control to fit your own emotional wishes.

And there was me thinking all along that the relevant matter was parliament taking back control of the law making processes that have been ceded to Brussels, and was never about parliament taking control of business of the house away from the executive……..quite amusing to see a handful of people never understood this and think it was.

EARLY WARNING SIGNS OF FASCISM (Holocaust museum)

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/holocaust-museum-warning-signs-fascism/

A list from a poster that was being sold in the gift shop, that was never part of an exhibit and which they no longer sell.
Compiled by someone who describes themselves as an amateur historian.......you only have to read it to notice it is indeed very amateurish

 

[lawros left foot]

Right.

So when an MP is elected on the basis that they will respect the vote and get Brexit done - not doing so aint democracy.

I couldn't agree more.

Even more reason for a third referendum.

Also, there has been no vote in Parliament to revoke Article 50, it’s the method of leaving, MPs even the leavers,have voted against not the actual leaving.

 

[pastafarian]

Given the paralysis, I would suggest putting it back to the people for a final say. Parliament has tried and failed to determine what was meant by the first poll so a second would provide clarity. I expect at this stage that Parliament probably would sign off on the outcome of a second vote simply in order to be able to move on.

I would advocate for a two phase vote. The first would have the three options of remain, leave without a deal and leave with the deal offered to May. The second phase, possibly two weeks to a month later, would take the top two options from the first for a run off. This would prevent the leave option being split and defeated in a single vote. It would also offer leave voters two bites at the cherry, which certainly seems fair given they were the victors in the 2016 vote.

But what do I know anyway? I'm just some git trying to get on with putting food on the table and getting a daughter through university.

We have already decided not to remain and now you want to split the leave vote for your own ends against the option already ruled out?, why stop at three options. Lets split the remain vote as well just for giggles….only fair isn’t it

A/ Remain in the EU and forge ahead fully with all project EU
B/ Remain in the EU but reform the EU more to the liking of the UK
C/ Leave with no deal
D/ Leave with a withdrawal agreement

And the one thing that is guaranteed is that no one party will get more than 50% of the vote. So the same interpretations will be made by the same people based on their wish and therefore skewed version of what people voted for.

FWIW, I think the only way to ever know for sure and to shut people up (*) for good is a definitively worded second referendum. Question 1 - Do you want to leave the EU. Question 2. If we do leave the EU - do you want the WA or No Deal. Whether you want to leave or not, it is hard to argue that it wouldn't decide the issue once and for all. But as very few leavers would agree it was a good idea and even less MPs, I guess it is irrelevant.

(*) Yes I know it wouldn't shut people up for good. But would be a snapshot of the will of the people. A second vote to leave might shut remainers up. A reversal would never shut the leavers up.

Sure you are aware we have done your first question already, all you are saying is you want the first question done again because you didn’t like the orifinal answer given. Since we have completed question 1 lets move onto question 2 then

How should we leave
A/ Leave with a deal
or
B/Leave without a deal

You can do the referendum in one go though, by simply having 2nd options

One from nearly a year ago https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?368879-1st-2nd-choice-Referendum-Poll&p=8699412&viewfull=1#post8699412

Brilliant, another version of how to do it


Im starting to get the impression the second referendumers will never even agree to a formula they can agree on

 

[jimhigham]

We have already decided not to remain and now you want to split the leave vote for your own ends against the option already ruled out?, why stop at three options. Lets split the remain vote as well just for giggles….only fair isn’t it

A/ Remain in the EU and forge ahead fully with all project EU
B/ Remain in the EU but reform the EU more to the liking of the UK
C/ Leave with no deal
D/ Leave with a withdrawal agreement





Sure you are aware we have done your first question already, all you are saying is you want the first question done again because you didn’t like the orifinal answer given. Since we have completed question 1 lets move onto question 2 then

How should we leave
A/ Leave with a deal
or
B/Leave without a deal




Brilliant, another version of how to do it


Im starting to get the impression the second referendumers will never even agree to a formula they can agree on

Let's be nice. Respectfully, you've either not read my post or you have misunderstood it. The two phase vote was proposed precisely to prevent the leave vote being split. It then allows the most popular version of leave to go through to the run off stage. I even proposed a delay between polls because this provides the leave groups with an opportunity to campaign for the eventual preferred option, rather than having to split its resources between two possibilities in a one off referendum. I would argue this is natural justice, given that leave won the 2016 vote.

And before you accuse me of simply wanting to stay in by stealth, if you read my post you would have seen that I was content to see us leave in March. Parliament is now paralysed and unable to deliver another form of leave, which is why I suggested the new vote.

If you have a better idea, fill your boots but I suspect Parliament won't be able or prepared to deliver it.

 

[Mellotron]

I think we need to agree some kind of fair distribution of labour on this and organize a 'take turns to explain how democracy works to [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION]' system.

 

[pastafarian]

WTO rules also means a hard border, as I understand it.

There are NO WTO rules that require a member government to secure their border.

 

[WATFORD zero]

So we now seem to be collectively paralysed. I'm not a fan of the option of another general election, as it takes the defining issue of the day and bundles it up with everything else. This skews the outcome and means that nobody can legitimately claim they have a mandate on any issues pertaining to Brexit.

Given the paralysis, I would suggest putting it back to the people for a final say. Parliament has tried and failed to determine what was meant by the first poll so a second would provide clarity. I expect at this stage that Parliament probably would sign off on the outcome of a second vote simply in order to be able to move on.

I would advocate for a two phase vote. The first would have the three options of remain, leave without a deal and leave with the deal offered to May. The second phase, possibly two weeks to a month later, would take the top two options from the first for a run off. This would prevent the leave option being split and defeated in a single vote. It would also offer leave voters two bites at the cherry, which certainly seems fair given they were the victors in the 2016 vote.

But what do I know anyway? I'm just some git trying to get on with putting food on the table and getting a daughter through university.

We have already decided not to remain and now you want to split the leave vote for your own ends against the option already ruled out?, why stop at three options. Lets split the remain vote as well just for giggles….only fair isn’t it

A/ Remain in the EU and forge ahead fully with all project EU
B/ Remain in the EU but reform the EU more to the liking of the UK
C/ Leave with no deal
D/ Leave with a withdrawal agreement

I'm guessing that simply ignoring what has been written is far easier having to edit other peoples posts before quoting them

 

[Simster]

I'll eat my own fingers if bashldir actually replies to this.

I knew [MENTION=22389]bashlsdir[/MENTION] wouldn't. Mind you, I knew [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] wouldn't either.

It's funny, bashlsdir loves to take great offence if you take a view on his limited will/ability to answer questions coherently, but when presented with real debate, he runs away. Absolutely pathetic.

As for dingodan, well he acts like he's above all that analysis nonsense. He's a conspirasist who doesn't need to bother with actual in-depth reasoning. It's far too much like pointless hard work I'm sure.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Let's be nice. Respectfully, you've either not read my post or you have misunderstood it. The two phase vote was proposed precisely to prevent the leave vote being split. It then allows the most popular version of leave to go through to the run off stage. I even proposed a delay between polls because this provides the leave groups with an opportunity to campaign for the eventual preferred option, rather than having to split its resources between two possibilities in a one off referendum. I would argue this is natural justice, given that leave won the 2016 vote.

And before you accuse me of simply wanting to stay in by stealth, if you read my post you would have seen that I was content to see us leave in March. Parliament is now paralysed and unable to deliver another form of leave, which is why I suggested the new vote.

If you have a better idea, fill your boots but I suspect Parliament won't be able or prepared to deliver it.

Think yourself lucky that he just leaves it at not reading what's in your posts. In the past, he's actually edited my posts and then quoted his edited versions to try and support his argument

(To tell the truth, his posts are such an utter irrelevance now, I can't even be arsed to check)

 

[pastafarian]

Let's be nice. Respectfully, you've either not read my post or you have misunderstood it. The two phase vote was proposed precisely to prevent the leave vote being split. It then allows the most popular version of leave to go through to the run off stage. I even proposed a delay between polls because this provides the leave groups with an opportunity to campaign for the eventual preferred option, rather than having to split its resources between two possibilities in a one off referendum. I would argue this is natural justice, given that leave won the 2016 vote.

And before you accuse me of simply wanting to stay in by stealth, if you read my post you would have seen that I was content to see us leave in March. Parliament is now paralysed and unable to deliver another form of leave, which is why I suggested the new vote.

If you have a better idea, fill your boots but I suspect Parliament won't be able or prepared to deliver it.

I understood it perfectly thanks, by having remain on that ballot you split the leave vote v remain......lets no forget we have already decided NOT to remain, but if you insist on ignoring that aspect lets split the remain vote with those who are not massive fans of the EU but insist we should however stay in and reform it to suit what we like (quite a few on here) and those that think the EU is wonderful and we should fully embrace it.......lets have how should we remain as two options as well.
Alternatively lets just let parliament and the executive do what they are supposed to be doing and sort out delivering the decision to leave as they are supposed to do and trying to do, but having difficulty

 

[Stat Brother]

[MENTION=21401]pastafarian[/MENTION] can I have your input on this please.

I'm asking as you and [MENTION=396]WATFORD zero[/MENTION] in particular are frequently banging on about tariffs WTO and the such like that is way way above my comfort level.

It started way back on page #2425, this morning with this from [MENTION=17322]Lenny Rider[/MENTION]:-

Not a huge fan of his but good point from Farage on BBC Breakfast, the project fear lot talk of huge fuel shortages at the petrol pumps after a No Deal Brexit, but none of that fuel comes from the EU, so how will there be shortages?

As I've already said where it not for Farrage's name I may well have taken that at face value, instead I found this:-

There are six major petroleum refineries in the UK, supporting around 120,000 jobs directly and contributing about £8.6bn to the economy.

The concern, which is shared by both the Scottish and Welsh governments, relates to the UK government's decision not to apply tariffs - taxes on trade - to imports of petrol in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The decision was made to lessen the inflationary impact on prices in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The current tariff on fuel imports from non-EU countries is 4.7%.

However, under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, a zero tariff rate must apply to petrol imports from all countries, opening up the UK to Russian fuel imports.

At the same time, the EU has said it will apply a tariff, under WTO rules, of 4.7% to UK exports, making the trade with, for example, Ireland "uneconomical", according to insiders.


Should you chose to help me see the positives in this situation, I should say the investigating continued into a few other articles dispelling some other 'facts' along the way.

 

[Mellotron]

I understood it perfectly thanks, by having remain on that ballot you split the leave vote v remain

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Leavers have been shafted, pure and simple. There is only so much people will put up with here. It's an absolute Fing disgrace.

You're absolutely right. I voted Tory in 2015 and 2017 because I wanted fox hunting brought back. The government have done nothing in spite of their promises and the joyous pleasure of killing small animals is being denied to me. IT'S DISGUSTING. I SHALL NEVER VOTE AGAIN.


Same principle.

 

[pastafarian]

I'm guessing that simply ignoring what has been written is far easier having to edit other peoples posts before quoting them

It splits the Leave option when you have it versus remain, because you dont want to believe it actually does is an opinion you have convinced yourself is true

 

[Is it PotG?]

You're absolutely right. I voted Tory in 2015 and 2017 because I wanted fox hunting brought back. The government have done nothing in spite of their promises and the joyous pleasure of killing small animals is being denied to me. IT'S DISGUSTING. I SHALL NEVER VOTE AGAIN.

Why did you want such a barbaric thing? How odd.

 

[WATFORD zero]

[MENTION=21401]pastafarian[/MENTION] can I have your input on this please.

I'm asking as you and [MENTION=396]WATFORD zero[/MENTION] in particular are frequently banging on about tariffs WTO and the such like that is way way above my comfort level.

It started way back on page #2425, this morning with this from [MENTION=17322]Lenny Rider[/MENTION]:-

Not a huge fan of his but good point from Farage on BBC Breakfast, the project fear lot talk of huge fuel shortages at the petrol pumps after a No Deal Brexit, but none of that fuel comes from the EU, so how will there be shortages?

As I've already said where it not for Farrage's name I may well have taken that at face value, instead I found this:-

There are six major petroleum refineries in the UK, supporting around 120,000 jobs directly and contributing about £8.6bn to the economy.

The concern, which is shared by both the Scottish and Welsh governments, relates to the UK government's decision not to apply tariffs - taxes on trade - to imports of petrol in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The decision was made to lessen the inflationary impact on prices in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

The current tariff on fuel imports from non-EU countries is 4.7%.

However, under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, a zero tariff rate must apply to petrol imports from all countries, opening up the UK to Russian fuel imports.

At the same time, the EU has said it will apply a tariff, under WTO rules, of 4.7% to UK exports, making the trade with, for example, Ireland "uneconomical", according to insiders.


Should you chose to help me see the positives in this situation, I should say the investigating continued into a few other articles dispelling some other 'facts' along the way.

Far be it for me to poke my nose in but,

As part of Brexit 'no deal' planning the Government have said that they will give a zero tariff on fuel imports in order to lessen the inflationary impact on prices in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

This means that under WTO Most Favoured Nation rules, we must zero tariff fuel from anywhere in the world (including Russia).

The EU have said that they will continue to charge 4.7% on all fuel coming from outside the EU (which of course Britain will be) having a significant effect on any fuel exports to the EU (including Ireland). Of course we currently export at zero tariffs within the EU.

The UKs fuel refineries seem to think this could have a devastating effect on the six major petroleum refineries in the UK.

But I'm sure [MENTION=21401]pastafarian[/MENTION] knows better