Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I can't understand this at all. You are asking people to vote for something but aren't willing to tell them what it is? This just seems fundamentally dishonest.

And we absolutely are at that stage because the next step is negotiating and we don't have a negotiating position because its not clear what people actually voted for.
Click to expand...
This.

And you don't really get a say now TBF
 
Francesca R said:
Not in dispute, not from me anyway. Glad you agree the remain campaign was dishonest.
Click to expand...

Yes it was at times. I don't think DC and Gideon could do honest if their lives depended on it. But I'd say it was tactically dishonest - in that the arguments were basically true and the communication exaggerated them or spun them for effect - whereas Leave was strategically dishonest - in that it was fundamentally based on lies.
 
cullennz said:
This.......
Click to expand...

No, not that. Before you accept this received wisdom, consider what status any promise or plan made by a cross party...........cross-party............campaigning group would have had with the government post the referendum. The answer, of course, is that it would have had none at all. I don't know why I have to keep saying this, but why would a Conservative government feel in any way bound by a promise or a plan made by someone opposing the official government position, whether it from their own party or the opposition? Why would Cameron or Osborne (Conservative) have taken the blindest bit of notice of a commitment made by, say, Gisela Stuart (Labour)? Offering such an unfulfillable plan or promise would have become the single biggest piece of dishonesty in the campaign, and, further, would have been akin to Leave handing Remain a huge stick to beat them with.

For people to keep on repeating this crap about lack of a plan, (it's become some sort of mantra for the Remainers), is indicative of nothing other than a lack of thought on the matter.
 
MikeG said:
For people to keep on repeating this crap about lack of a plan, (it's become some sort of mantra for the Remainers), is indicative of nothing other than a lack of thought on the matter.
Click to expand...
I read this as your agreement that Leave could only ever have won (and did win) as a protest movement.

Which I agree with too, (and which was why there should not have ever been a referendum.)
 
MikeG said:
For people to keep on repeating this crap about lack of a plan, (it's become some sort of mantra for the Remainers), is indicative of nothing other than a lack of thought on the matter.
Click to expand...
Two questions suggest themselves.

Upon whom did the responsibility for thinking this thought primarily fall? The people who were campaigning for Leave, or the people who were campaigning for No Change?

Whose was the primary responsibility for working out a plan? The people who were campaigning for Leave, or the people who were campaigning for No Change?
 
MikeG said:
No, not that. Before you accept this received wisdom, consider what status any promise or plan made by a cross party...........cross-party............campaigning group would have had with the government post the referendum. The answer, of course, is that it would have had none at all. I don't know why I have to keep saying this, but why would a Conservative government feel in any way bound by a promise or a plan made by someone opposing the official government position, whether it from their own party or the opposition? Why would Cameron or Osborne (Conservative) have taken the blindest bit of notice of a commitment made by, say, Gisela Stuart (Labour)? Offering such an unfulfillable plan or promise would have become the single biggest piece of dishonesty in the campaign, and, further, would have been akin to Leave handing Remain a huge stick to beat them with.

For people to keep on repeating this crap about lack of a plan, (it's become some sort of mantra for the Remainers), is indicative of nothing other than a lack of thought on the matter.
Click to expand...

I agree that you could not have had a plan for leave before the vote but I also think that to suggest that we will have a plan fairly soon after the Tory leadership vote is also going to turn out to be impossible.

I think it will take a number of months possibly up to 6-9 to first map out and then to determine policy options in each of the 18 ministerial and civil service departments and it will probably mean that there will either a further delay to putting down article 50 or an agreement by all parties that the process will not take 2 years but a minimum of 3.

My estimation is that there is a minimum of 5 key areas per department that will need to be negotiated. This means we will be negotiating approximately 90 different issues and possibly more.

There will also need to be built in to the timetable, time for the devolved Parliaments/assemblies to enact changes to policy as required. This is not even thinking about the strategy for changing EU law which is intertwined into UK law or any possible Indyref2 for Scotland.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
I read this as your agreement that Leave could only ever have won (and did win) as a protest movement.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on what "they" did win ?

Was it access to the single market, freedom of movement and paying for the privilege.

Or was it the sovereignty that had been lost.

Just asking because I'm not sure what the prize is yet.
 
MikeG said:
No, not that. Before you accept this received wisdom, consider what status any promise or plan made by a cross party...........cross-party............campaigning group would have had with the government post the referendum. The answer, of course, is that it would have had none at all. I don't know why I have to keep saying this, but why would a Conservative government feel in any way bound by a promise or a plan made by someone opposing the official government position, whether it from their own party or the opposition? Why would Cameron or Osborne (Conservative) have taken the blindest bit of notice of a commitment made by, say, Gisela Stuart (Labour)? Offering such an unfulfillable plan or promise would have become the single biggest piece of dishonesty in the campaign, and, further, would have been akin to Leave handing Remain a huge stick to beat them with.

For people to keep on repeating this crap about lack of a plan, (it's become some sort of mantra for the Remainers), is indicative of nothing other than a lack of thought on the matter.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that at the very least there wasn't a Cabinet decision about when article 50 would be invoked. Cameron's cabinet again comes across as reckless. Now, it may be that the Leave campaign included a number of parties - Tory, UKIP, Labour and George Galloway, but the party in power who argues that the results of a fifty-fifty referendum must be respected and one that they introduced ought to have had at least a convincing contingency plan for either outcome.
 
Francesca R said:
I read this as your agreement that Leave could only ever have won (and did win) as a protest movement........
Click to expand...

I tend to think that agreement should be treated a little like consent: you need to have been asked a question, and one's response should be informed by facts. I don't go along with presumed consent, and nor do I support presumed agreement.
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
Evidently for several of them, that's why they have stepped down, their work is done.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that. Imagine the founders of the US signing the Declaration of Independence, and then saying, that's it. Our work is done. The brexiteers know very well it's not done too. But they don't want to hang about and do it. They can see the toil and danger ahead. Let someone else do that bit.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
.........the party in power who argues that the results of a fifty-fifty referendum must be respected and one that they introduced ought to have had at least a convincing contingency plan for either outcome.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. That there was no contingency planning for a Leave vote is scandalous.
 
Francesca R said:
Evidently for several of them, that's why they have stepped down, their work is done.
Click to expand...

Who has stepped down, work done?

This is becoming another unchallenged mantra: "the Brexiteers are running away from their responsibilities".......well go on, which Brexiteers (who could have any conceivable ongoing role in the exit process) have stepped down?

1/ Boris........(knifed)
2/ ??????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom