The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 ...49 50 51 · >>
nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#31New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 19:30:58
@shadowen Said

One of the biggest problems with Parliament over the past few months has involved politicians being elected as members of a particular party with a particular manifesto and then leaving the party they represented at the election, joining another party or group, and not asking for a by election.

Anyway, come Monday the Rebel Bill prohibiting BJ from taking the UK out of the EU without a deal could well be law. If it is then there would be no excuse whatsoever for Labour not to back a snap election. The election would most likely be held on the 15th. The people will then get yet another chance to tell Parliament what they want them to do...


Welcome to a representative democracy.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#32New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 19:34:36
@nooneinparticular Said

The question was poorly worded because it left the door open to so many questions and paths it was ludicrous.

Like what? The Government said that if the Leave vote is successful we will trigger article 50 and the UK will then leave the EU at the end of 2 years with or without a deal. It was made very clear that leave meant leave. The people were asked what they wanted Parliament to do. If the result was leave the EU then it was up to Parliament to try and reach an acceptable exit deal with the EU. If they couldn't then the country would leave with no deal. Before the referendum for example the PM stated on several occasions that no deal would be better than a bad deal. The people were asked what needed asking.

@nooneinparticular Said

This is why, when we have a direct people's vote to something in this country, we vote on proposed bills and laws, not on a nebulous, amorphous change.

The issue and question was pretty straight forward. There was a lot of debate and people had clarity when they voted. It's become a mess simply because politicians have refused to honour the wishes of the people. Politicans have tried to blur the lines but if you listen to those who voted everything was pretty clear.

@nooneinparticular Said
The UK should have first decided where they want to go and what they want to do, and then voted on it. They needed a plan to vote on, and then as the situation changed or developed, consult the populace as need be when in deadlock.

The UK parliament gave the people the opportunity to decide the direction the country took re the EU. It was pretty clear. It was stay or leave. Not complicated. There was by the way a plan of sorts to vote on in so much as the Government stated that if the Leave vote wins they will trigger article 50 and with or without a deal the country would leave the EU at the end of two years. By the way, the only reason there has been deadlock is because Parliament has refused to accept the result of the 2016 peoples vote.

@nooneinparticular Said

Apparently, however, people only wanted to vote on something once. They willingly abdicated their own voices at every step of the process after the first one and had faith in the system that everything would work out in the end, and look where that got them. A hung parliament still quibbling over what type of Brexit should be had 4 years after the fact.

There was no need for another referendum. The people had already stated what they wanted. If the pollies respected the will of the people then the country would already have been out of the EU and focusing more on domestic issues instead of being paralysed by pollies who are doing everything possible to stop the UK from leaving full stop.

@nooneinparticular Said

Democracy is a process. It starts at a vote. It doesn't end there. Especially in situations like this, where the vote itself was so close. As much as the leavers would have liked to pretend otherwise, the fact that the vote was so close indicated that the UK was split on this issue, and that Parliament would likewise be split on this issue.

In a democracy MP's are supposed to respect the will of the people. They said they would but they havent. By the way, the leave vote was successful in 9 of the 12 regions in the UK.

@nooneinparticular Said

This is one of the reasons why I advocated for some type of second vote or public input into the process.

Why? What if a 2nd referendum ended 51-49. Do you have a third vote? What if that ends 52-48. Do you have a 4th vote? What majority figure would be deemed acceptable?

@nooneinparticular Said

Lots of different ideas were floated during the campaign by all the different leave camps, and they needed to coalesce around a core of ideas.

They did. They wanted the UK to leave the EU. That meant to leave the single market and the customs union. It meant to remove the UK from the authority of the ECJ. Leave meant leave. It was clear. The problem has only arisen because most pollies oppose the UK leaving the EU and so they are doing all they can to stop it from happening. A 2nd referendum would have solved nothing but it would have undermined people's faith in referendums and the democratic process.

@nooneinparticular Said

and now they have this mess.

As stated earlier, we have 'this mess' as pollies have reneged on their promise to respect the result of the referendum.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#33New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 19:35:58
@nooneinparticular Said

Welcome to a representative democracy.


That's clearly not how representative democracy is supposed to work.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#34New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 19:46:55
@nooneinparticular Said

The reality of the matter was that even though Leave won in the end, the vote was so close

9 of the 12 regions voted leave.

@nooneinparticular Said

and there were so many versions of Brexit that they needed to come together as one in order to pass anything. Instead everyone decided to fight for their own version of Brexit, because there was no ability to gauge what the public will was and the populace did not want to have to vote on anything anymore.

Not true. The leave campaign was very clear about articulating what they wanted, and it involved the UK LEAVING the EU. Not sort of leaving but completely leaving. This was a very consistent theme in the run up to the 2016 peoples vote. The different versions of Brexit applies to Parliament and not the people. May's government was staffed by remainers. As we have seen with people like Hammond they dont want to deliver the Brexit people voted for. Then their are others who will oppose the UK leaving the EU no matter what the people want. Finally you have those who want to deliver the Brexit that over 17.4 million people voted for.
nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#35New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 19:55:19
@shadowen Said

Like what? The Government said that if the Leave vote is successful we will trigger article 50 and the UK will then leave the EU at the end of 2 years with or without a deal. It was made very clear that leave meant leave. The people were asked what they wanted to Parliament to do. If the result was leave the EU then it was up to Parliament to try and reach an acceptable exit deal with the EU. If they couldn't then the country would leave with no deal. Before the referendum for example the PM stated on several occasions that no deal would be better than a bad deal. The people were asked what needed asking.


They said they would leave at the end of 2 years with or without a deal? Do you have a citation for that or...? I remember seeing a fair bit of Brexit talk, but I don't remember ever seeing anyone claim that they would not ask for an extension of the deadline no matter what.

Quote:

The issue and question was pretty straight forward. There was a lot of debate and people had clarity when they voted. It's become a mess simply because politicians have refused to honour the wishes of the people. Politicans have tried to blur the lines but if you listen to those who voted everything was pretty clear.


I've gone through many many pages on multiple forums about Brexit and the impression I got of Leavers was very different. Either way, anecdotal evidence is not an indication of statistical certainty.

Quote:

The UK parliament gave the people the opportunity to decide the direction the country took re the EU. It was pretty clear. It was stay or leave. Not complicated. There was by the way a plan of sorts to vote on in so much as the Government stated that if the Leave vote wins they will trigger article 50 and with or without a deal the country would leave the EU at the end of two years. By the way, the only reason there has been deadlock is because Parliament has refused to accept the result of the 2016 peoples vote.


That qualifies as a plan?

Quote:

In a democracy MP's are supposed to respect the will of the people. They said they would but they havent. By the way, the leave vote was successful in 9 of the 12 regions in the UK.


In a democracy, you elect representatives to represent you and fight for your interests and your districts will, not the will of all the people in the country. Hence why representative democracies get into weird number games where the people who get the most votes don't necessarily win.

Quote:

Why? What if a 2nd referendum ended 51-49. Do you have a third vote? What if that ends 52-48. Do you have a 4th vote? What majority figure would be deemed acceptable?


If you are voting on specific courses of action, then simple majority is fine. You just need an indication of public opinion to choose a path if government cannot decide on one.
nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#36New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 19:56:01
@shadowen Said

That's clearly not how representative democracy is supposed to work.


Once again, how things are supposed to work is a matter of opinion. How things actually work is a matter of fact.
mrmhead 14 minutes ago




NE, Ohio
#37New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 20:14:01
I get the impression that "Article 50" states a 2 year time limit to leave.
Is that an EU article or a UK article?

And apparently Extensions are permitted.

Is there a limit to the number or time of the extensions?

And Oct 30 is the current "Time Limit"?

But if the "No Deal, No Brexit" thing becomes law, chances are Oct 30 will come and go with nothing changed (except maybe a PM)

How long before the EU gets tired of the bickering and pissing and just kicks the UK out? .... of course that would probably take another year or two...
nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#38New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 20:51:39
@shadowen Said

9 of the 12 regions voted leave.


So? Donald Trump won 30 states and lost the popular vote. Not all of the regions in the UK hold the same number of people, so in a straight majority vote, they will be weighted differently. The only number that matters in a referendum is the number of votes, not how many regions either side wins.

Quote:

Not true. The leave campaign was very clear about articulating what they wanted, and it involved the UK LEAVING the EU. Not sort of leaving but completely leaving. This was a very consistent theme in the run up to the 2016 peoples vote. The different versions of Brexit applies to Parliament and not the people. May's government was staffed by remainers. As we have seen with people like Hammond they dont want to deliver the Brexit people voted for. Then their are others who will oppose the UK leaving the EU no matter what the people want. Finally you have those who want to deliver the Brexit that over 17.4 million people voted for.


'Completely leaving the EU' as you put it is a version of Brexit, how can it be that the people never voted on a type of Brexit, but voted to completely leave the EU? Are you actually saying that leave's plan here is to completely leave the EU on bad terms, to renege on it's debts with the EU, to completely disregard both the EU's and UK's interests at the Irish border, turn around and ask them for a trade deal or possibly 'something similar to Norway or Switzerland' to paraphrase Farad? Is that the plan here? Is that what Leave thinks will happen?
nooneinparticular On April 29, 2020




, Hawaii
#39New Post! Sep 05, 2019 @ 21:05:54
@mrmhead Said

I get the impression that "Article 50" states a 2 year time limit to leave.
Is that an EU article or a UK article?

And apparently Extensions are permitted.

Is there a limit to the number or time of the extensions?

And Oct 30 is the current "Time Limit"?

But if the "No Deal, No Brexit" thing becomes law, chances are Oct 30 will come and go with nothing changed (except maybe a PM)

How long before the EU gets tired of the bickering and pissing and just kicks the UK out? .... of course that would probably take another year or two...


Article 50 is an EU article to facilitate withdrawal of a member state which is initiated by a member state. Originally, it allows for a 2 year grace period to 'facilitate orderly withdrawal' so that things like trade and such do not grind to a screeching halt due to lack of paperwork and other concerns. I'm pretty sure that there is no limit on the amount of time or number that an extension can occur, but both parties must agree to it each time.

It is unclear what would happen in the case of the No Deal bill passing and still surpassing the time limit. I can't find any information on what the bill actually says so I can't really guess on what happens.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#40New Post! Sep 06, 2019 @ 13:48:10
@nooneinparticular Said

'Completely leaving the EU' as you put it is a version of Brexit, how can it be that the people never voted on a type of Brexit, but voted to completely leave the EU? Are you actually saying that leave's plan here is to completely leave the EU on bad terms, to renege on it's debts with the EU, to completely disregard both the EU's and UK's interests at the Irish border


Brexit meant leaving the EU. Brexit meant to LEAVE. It didn't mean to mainly leave or partly leave...it meant to LEAVE. To leave the single market, to leave the customs union. That's what leave voters wanted. The so called 'soft Brexit' is what remainers want if they can't stop the UK from staying fully in the EU.

The plan is not, and never was, to leave 'on bad terms'. But if refusing to accept a terrible deal for the UK means that the country leaves with the EU having ill will towards them then so be it. The ideal situation was, and is, to leave with a deal that both parties were comfortable with. However Parliament took a no deal exit off the table before negotiations even began. They therefore ensured that at the beginning of negotiations the UK effectively went to the EU and said we are prepared to accept any deal. That a bad deal would be better than no deal. And so the EU gave them a bad deal. They bent the UK over and...the result (May's deal) is one that doesnt do what leave supporters voted for. You know May's deal is a shocker when people like Farage say that faced with a choice btw May's deal and staying in the EU they would choose the latter.

As for debts. The UK would only owe the EU the reported £39bn as a part of a divorce bill. This means if the UK left with a deal. If the UK left without a deal then the amount legally owed would be significantly less. Strictly speaking the UK probably wouldn't owe the EU anything in the absence of an exit deal. Either way the UK would not be reneging on it's so called debts.

You say that leaving without a deal would be "to completely disregard both the EU's and UK's interests at the Irish border". That's not a fact, it's your opinion. Many obviously hold a very different view. As for the Irish, the biggest economic threat they currently face is from the unelected bureaucrats at the EU who are demanding that Éire change their Corporation tax.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#41New Post! Sep 06, 2019 @ 13:51:04
What people said about the single market before the Referendum.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#42New Post! Sep 06, 2019 @ 14:34:17
Remainers’ loudest cry is that people didn’t vote to leave the single market. This is blatantly untrue. Many people on both sides of the debate said that a vote to Leave the EU in all likelihood would result in the UK leaving the single market.

Michael Gove, in an interview with Andrew Marr on 8 May 2016, said: “We should be outside the single market...we should not be governed by the rules that the European Court of Justice imposes on us.”

Michael Gove also said: "Voting Leave would ideally mean Britain being 'outside' the single market"

Leading Remainers also made it clear that voting Leave would likely entail pulling Britain out of the single market. David Cameron said: "What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market." George Osborne echoed him: "We would be out of the single market." So there you have it, two of the most powerful men in the UK back in 2016 saying before the referendum that voting Leave would mean leaving the single market. And yet even just yesterday I heard a remainer politician on Channel 4 claiming that nobody ever mentioned anything about leaving the single market back in 2016.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#43New Post! Sep 06, 2019 @ 14:41:08
Cameron on Leaving the single market...

shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#44New Post! Sep 06, 2019 @ 14:42:34
Cameron and Osborne

shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#45New Post! Sep 06, 2019 @ 14:44:51
Cameron on what would happen if the Leave vote succeeded...


Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 4 5 ...49 50 51 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Mon Feb 09, 2009 @ 18:45
0 223
New posts   Politics
Tue Oct 19, 2010 @ 18:12
9 569
New posts   Law
Wed Oct 15, 2008 @ 14:09
3 769
New posts   Jokes & Humor
Mon Apr 03, 2017 @ 04:16
0 182
New posts   Politics
Thu Oct 10, 2019 @ 05:17
31 2872