The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 steeleye20  Croydon 06 Dec 16 11.35am |
  |
|---|---|
|
'We may be in the gutter, but we are looking at the stars' Just to irritate H further European governments do ignore referendum results when its too close to call. If you get a sizeable result like 65-35 60-40 like in 1975 and in the italian poll at the weekend thats far safer grounds. The voters were asked their opinion 'should' the uk leave or stay that is why it is an advisory referendum and parliament is sovereign. Not according to Mrs.May tho and her stooges.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Hoof Hearted 06 Dec 16 11.52am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
'We may be in the gutter, but we are looking at the stars' Just to irritate H further European governments do ignore referendum results when its too close to call. If you get a sizeable result like 65-35 60-40 like in 1975 and in the italian poll at the weekend thats far safer grounds. The voters were asked their opinion 'should' the uk leave or stay that is why it is an advisory referendum and parliament is sovereign. Not according to Mrs.May tho and her stooges. "KLAXON" Warning. Jap's Eye's version of the EU Referendum Ballot paper wording..... The exact wording is shown above - notice the word should is not in parentheses and is very clear and precise. I knew what I was voting for.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 06 Dec 16 12.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
"KLAXON" Warning. Jap's Eye's version of the EU Referendum Ballot paper wording..... The exact wording is shown above - notice the word should is not in parentheses and is very clear and precise. I knew what I was voting for. It says SHOULD doesn't have to be in parentheses in your case you voted that we should leave. That was your advice.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 06 Dec 16 1.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
The EU is not a passive party. It is, by population and output, the preponderant force in the talks. It has decades of experience in sparring with nations, including Norway and Switzerland, that cheekily desire a happy niche in its project short of full membership. It will do more to set the terms of Britain’s extrication than Britain itself, which was always the best reason to stay. It is also characteristically candid about what those terms will be, if only we could switch off our Wildean irony radar and accept words at face value. When Donald Tusk says the “only real alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit”, there is nothing in history to suggest the European Council president is giving us his smoking lounge repartee. When Angela Merkel, German chancellor, talks up the indivisibility of the four freedoms, a good time-saving exercise is to believe her. When in the summer EU leaders rejected informal talks with Britain in advance of Article 50 being tabled, ministers in London smiled at the charade and waited for the European line to waver. They still wait. These are just the EU’s public statements but there are no more encouraging whispers being exchanged in private. If David Davis has emerged as the Eurosceptics’ lonely realist, airing the prospect that the “best possible access” to the European market will come at some cost, it is because he has done the basic work of diplomacy as minister for EU exit. He has talked to enough European capitals to lose the illusions of the summer. Paris is the hardest in rhetoric but Berlin is no softer in substance. The EU makes up for the opacity of its institutions with the transparency of its interests. It cannot afford to set the precedent that a member state’s exit can lead to a better life outside or substantial concessions to stay inside. If it does, every nation will chance its arm and the union will crumble. Abhor this brute self-preservation all you like: it is honest self-preservation. When Ms Merkel said favourable terms for Britain would create a Europe in which everyone does “what they want”, Eurosceptics flinched with their practised blend of outrage and vindication, as though she had let the cynical truth slip in an unguarded moment. But when did she claim otherwise? When did anyone? Today's FT. [Link]
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
tome  Inner Tantalus Time. 06 Dec 16 1.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Hold on a minute.... the original referendum in 1975 which resulted in us joining what was the common market was accepted in good grace by those who lost the vote! Since then the previously innocuous common market has become the EU federal state. If anything has been achieved by "preposterous lies" then surely that is what has happened to the UK with our enforced membership of the EU. No one in 1975 envisaged 300,000+ EU citizens arriving in the UK each and every year causing such hardship to communities with ghettos, lack of housing, schools, hospitals, etc. As you said the ballot paper was self explanatory.... you voted to remain or leave. Leave won this time, so just like in 1975, the losers should suck it up and accept that democracy has determined our departure from the EU. No legal challenge, no 2nd referendum to ratify terms, no Parliamentary debate. Brexit means Brexit now is just the same as our joining the common market in 1975 followed the people's voting decision. I was disappointed in 1975, but I accepted it. Please have the courtesy and respect to accept the country's decision now. I don't think grace comes into it, but I am under the impression that the margin was much wider in 1975. In any case, the vote was for something rather than against it. That to me makes a bit difference - yes, what the UK voted for in 1975 may have evolved to the EU of today, and some would say that's fair claim for a rview. But the vote was a bit empty - one side said we'll keep things roughly as they are and the other side said we won't. But they didn't have a clear picture of any alternative. Brexit means Brexit is meaningless when Brexit doesn't mean anything in particular. So it seems reasonable to have a vote on the terms - either via an election or a referendum. Why do you think the kind of scrutiny and planning for this is a bad idea? Anyhow, I'm fed up with the language around 'sucking it up' - smacks of triumphalism and bypasses debate about what actually matters.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| tome Inner Tantalus Time. 06 Dec 16 1.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Because the Lib Dems, hence part of their name, have always banged on about accepting democracy. By saying they will ignore the result of the referendum because it doesn't suit them, has a big whiff of hypocrisy hanging over it. Who said they'd ignore it? I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether the public think the terms are good enough to leave. Just out of curiosity - were you in favour of the proportional representation exercise the Lib Dems pursued in coalition?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 06 Dec 16 1.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
It is different, Jamie. The Lib Dems have always had a preoccupation with democracy. They have always extolled the virtues of a change to the democratic process in the UK and campaigned for the change side when the STV referendum happened a few years ago. What they are doing now is cynically seeking to get the Remain vote by saying they will ignore democracy and vote against leaving the EU. It's hypocrisy at its highest level. It will contribute to wiping out Labour at the next election. I would normally welcome that but under these circumstances, no. Not really, there was Labour against the EU, and obviously a lot of Euroskeptic Torys, but I don't remember any Lib Dems being for an exit. Also, if they have a manifesto that includes 'remaining in the EU' and win a majority at an election, that is a democratic mandate to remain in the EU. A second referendum would arguably be more democratic, but either is democratic. Its not undemocratic to overturn a referendum, if you do so in a manner that fulfils legal democratic due process. Now I don't agree with the idea, but its not hypocrisy, or wrong or undemocratic. Hypocrisy is supporting only the democratic processes that you agree with, when they go your way. And I very much doubt UKIP would have just 'given up and gone home' if they'd lost by a similar margin.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 06 Dec 16 2.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by tome
Who said they'd ignore it? I think it's perfectly reasonable to ask whether the public think the terms are good enough to leave. Just out of curiosity - were you in favour of the proportional representation exercise the Lib Dems pursued in coalition? The referendum has happened, the result was to leave, the people instructed the government to do this. There was no mention of further referendums or of disputing or manipulating the result. You have to deal with this. Saying matters are 'perfectly reasonable' maybe so in your mind but would was decided was decided.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 06 Dec 16 2.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Not really, there was Labour against the EU, and obviously a lot of Euroskeptic Torys, but I don't remember any Lib Dems being for an exit. Also, if they have a manifesto that includes 'remaining in the EU' and win a majority at an election, that is a democratic mandate to remain in the EU. A second referendum would arguably be more democratic, but either is democratic. Its not undemocratic to overturn a referendum, if you do so in a manner that fulfils legal democratic due process. Now I don't agree with the idea, but its not hypocrisy, or wrong or undemocratic. Hypocrisy is supporting only the democratic processes that you agree with, when they go your way. And I very much doubt UKIP would have just 'given up and gone home' if they'd lost by a similar margin. The Lib Dems are trying to manipulate the situation for their own ends. If you cannot see this, or refuse to see this, that is your decision.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 06 Dec 16 2.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
The Lib Dems are trying to manipulate the situation for their own ends. If you cannot see this, or refuse to see this, that is your decision. If the lib dems are anti-brexit, then it is their prerogative to follow that path. Politics innit. Personally, I just want us to get on with it... But...We do need to start investing in manufacturing, building and infrastructure now, cause if we don't we'll be left with our pants down. Edited by nickgusset (06 Dec 2016 2.17pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 06 Dec 16 2.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
The referendum has happened, the result was to leave, the people instructed the government to do this. There was no mention of further referendums or of disputing or manipulating the result. You have to deal with this. Saying matters are 'perfectly reasonable' maybe so in your mind but would was decided was decided. you know the ref was advisory only and not binding on the government
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 06 Dec 16 2.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
you know the ref was advisory only and not binding on the government Facts are ignored in this day and age stuk says I'm not allowed to usePost-Truth
|
|
| 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.