The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Matov  01 Oct 19 5.39pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| steeleye20 Croydon 01 Oct 19 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
I believe that millions of us will never 'live with' another referendum with Remain as an option in any way, shape or form. Remain lost. And a GE has to happen eventually. Then we cast our votes solely based on who will take us out of the EU immediately. No referendums just a simple trip to Brussels, hand in the notice again and a default position of no deal. We are leaving the EU no matter what or else the UK implodes. Funny I don't remember the UK 'imploding' after 31st March. You are either talking through your arse as usual, or referring to it......
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle Online  01 Oct 19 5.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The only relevant law which dictates how Parliament works is the fixed Parliament act. Everything else is convention and conventions can be amended by circumstances. The Supreme Court have just ruled that the government's attempt to prorogue Parliament for political reasons was unlawful, so the law has been clarified in that regard. As the SC is our constitutional court it is naturally the place where such questions get answered. As no Judge, thank goodness, is elected, to impute any kind of political motivation to them is very unfair and completely untrue. How it is being dealt with is 100% correct and I am very proud that it is working as it is. That we must explain things better and restore faith in the system is true, but a separate issue. The Supreme Court has only been in existence for 10 years. Who would have made this decision prior to its creation?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Oct 19 5.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
But a majority did agree with me. That is the point. Leave won. I am not the one arguing for a second chance because my side lost. Why this constant win and lose rhetoric? Isn't it obvious that after 3 years no-one "won"? We all have lost. The result in 2016 wasn't 99:1. It was 52:48. With the 52% far from united on why they voted as they did. Since then, despite a lot of effort we haven't found a way to leave that Parliament can live with. This needs to be resolved and it won't be if one side thinks it has 100% of the truth on it's "side". And given the mood in the country at the moment do you honestly think a second referendum will solve anything? I will not vote in another referendum that has Remain on the ballot paper and will refuse to accept the legitimacy of any result from it. That's your choice but also your loss. I hope you don't have to make that choice.
Parliament will, I am quite sure, try to stop us leaving without a deal. Whether the EU will agree is unknown. Mostly likely is a GE in November with an extension agreed. The new Parliament could decide to revoke Article 50, but it's very unlikely unless it is just to buy time. More likely is either a "no deal" majority of the Tories and the Brexit Party, with the Tories still a minority government, or a hung Parliament with a "no deal" consortium trying to form a government and offering a referendum of the type I have described. A continuing mess though. But another referendum? Can you imagine how toxic that would be? Or what happens if there is a mass boycott of it? It ramps tensions up and gives a legitimate justification for people to lose faith in the voting process. We will need cool heads and real leadership. Which is not currently coming from either the Tories or Labour. Not only before the June 23rd vote but since there are reams of footage of a variety of politicians promising to honour the result then doing a complete U-turn. At least if they betray the Leave vote on the back of a manifesto promise to do so in the run-up to a GE we still maintain a semblance of living in a democracy. But a second referendum when the first has not been honoured? I shudder to think about it. You are wrong. The first referendum result has been "honoured"! A great deal of effort has been made to honour it but it simply hasn't yet yielded a result acceptable to our Parliament and Parliament is where the final decisions are always taken. What Parliament does now to try to reconcile the various positions is a big challenge, but what we must all do, you included, is to recognise that your's is not the only position.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 01 Oct 19 5.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Funny I don't remember the UK 'imploding' after 31st March. You are either talking through your arse as usual, or referring to it...... And there we have it. Remainer logic. Lets envisage you get your way. A second ref, a turn out of under 50% and less than 17.4 million votes for a Remain victory. What then? Is that faith in our process restored? Do people say 'oh well, that is all fine now.'. Of course they don't. MILLIONS feel betrayed. MILLIONS feel let done. MILLLIONS feel their votes count for nothing. And a stab in the back narrative is cemented firmly into the nations political DNA. You cannot undo the result on June 23rd. People voted to Leave the EU. You might not like it but that is what happened. Opening the doors to all sorts. Because somebody can, quite legimately and with absolute proof, make the point that voting for change is a waste of time. You want change, it has to be forced. Taken. Forget the ballot box, a waste of time. And the blame for that will lie at the feet of people like you. You want that? Do you honestly think a second referendum settles anything at all?
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 01 Oct 19 5.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
The Supreme Court has only been in existence for 10 years. Who would have made this decision prior to its creation? The Law Lords.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 01 Oct 19 5.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
As you know I don't want another referendum on this, or any other issue, ever again. I want our elected Parliament to do their job and work together across the aisle, and for as long as it takes, to find a solution. However, having done so, if at the end of that process they decided to consult the people directly to learn their opinion why couldn't ALL the viable options be put to them? Things have moved on a long way since 2016. Everyone is better informed. Asking if the people approve of a negotiated deal, no deal or no Brexit makes sense. Are you scared that a majority wouldn't agree with you? Just be honest about that. Own it. The Electoral Commission has ruled out multiple choice referendum, of course they can be overruled but their view is that any question must be binary. If the question involves more than a simple yes or no I predict it will be fought out in the court both before and after the result by whoever feels they lost.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle Online 01 Oct 19 6.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The Law Lords. So another branch of Parliament.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 01 Oct 19 6.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The Law Lords. Yup and they generally did not interfere with the supremacy of Parliament. In the US they have a written constitution and the Supreme Court's job is to defend that against politicians who would seek to subvert it. The problem we have in this country is that our constitution is based on precedent, multiple and sometimes conflicting laws, parliamentary privilege and legal rulings. The danger with this is that The Supreme Court starts to make law because it cannot find a law that applies. I have no doubt that Johnson was playing politics but a better response from the court would have been to throw out the case whilst advising Parliament that they should draft legislation around the rights and obligations of the PM. In the past the law lords used this approach and the government of the day would take the hint. No one can point to a law that Johnson broke. We are where we are but in the future I think that some politicians may regret bringing the courts into what was a political matter.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| chris123 hove actually 01 Oct 19 6.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
And there we have it. Remainer logic. Lets envisage you get your way. A second ref, a turn out of under 50% and less than 17.4 million votes for a Remain victory. What then? Is that faith in our process restored? Do people say 'oh well, that is all fine now.'. Of course they don't. MILLIONS feel betrayed. MILLIONS feel let done. MILLLIONS feel their votes count for nothing. And a stab in the back narrative is cemented firmly into the nations political DNA. You cannot undo the result on June 23rd. People voted to Leave the EU. You might not like it but that is what happened. Opening the doors to all sorts. Because somebody can, quite legimately and with absolute proof, make the point that voting for change is a waste of time. You want change, it has to be forced. Taken. Forget the ballot box, a waste of time. And the blame for that will lie at the feet of people like you. You want that? Do you honestly think a second referendum settles anything at all? And what about all those terrible hedge funds who only make money if the economy tanks.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 01 Oct 19 6.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Funny I don't remember the UK 'imploding' after 31st March. You are either talking through your arse as usual, or referring to it...... And I don't remember it imploding after leave WON despite what Osborne/Carney etc predicted. There is only one poster on here talking through his a*** and it is not Matov
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 01 Oct 19 6.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
And what about all those terrible hedge funds who only make money if the economy tanks. Is that meant to be a serious answer? Or should elections only be decided based on hedge funds losing or making money? Pure hysteria. But again, a question. Do you think a second referendum with Remain as an option settles anything?
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.