Brexit: Now What? Part IV

[ceptimus]

The government chose to ask the people what they wanted - they weren't forced to do it by rioting on the streets - it was the Tory party's own decision and written into its manifesto.


They asked the question and got their answer. What's difficult to understand? If the decision is eventually reversed then it means that democracy is broken.


This would be no surprise in a corrupt EU: Italy, Greece, and Ireland have already held referendums on matters concerning the EU, and all three referendum results were ignored by their governments because their voters returned the "wrong answer" from the EU's point of view. The EU's sneering, arrogant, elitist, privileged, entitled, snobbish and anti-democratic attitude is, in large part, the reason that Leave won the Brexit referendum.

 

[Information Analyst]

They asked the question and got their answer. What's difficult to understand? If the decision is eventually reversed then it means that democracy is broken.

Which bit of "purely advisory" don't you understand?

 

[Lothian]

The government chose to ask the people what they wanted - they weren't forced to do it by rioting on the streets - it was the Tory party's own decision and written into its manifesto.


They asked the question and got their answer. What's difficult to understand?

What is difficult to understand is why leave voters think leaving the EU but staying in the single market and customs union. Maintaining free movement of people and agreeing to let the ECJ oversee disputes is not an option covered by leave in the referendum.

 

[ceptimus]

What is difficult to understand is why leave voters think leaving the EU but staying in the single market and customs union. Maintaining free movement of people and agreeing to let the ECJ oversee disputes is not an option covered by leave in the referendum.

Because it's manifestly stupid. It has all the drawbacks of remaining completely in the EU but removes our existing small element of democracy. We'll have no representation at the EU's democratic institutions but we'll still have to abide by all its rules, and we'll still be paying for access to the single market. We won't be able to negotiate our own independent trade deals so compared to the status quo it has no merit whatsoever.

No one in their right mind would ever have voted for such a change so it's vastly insulting behaviour of remain supporters to suggest that it's an outcome that ANYONE would have voted for - let alone a majority of all those that did vote.

As you well know, what is being advocated is just a worse form of remain. They can spin it any way they want but the majority that voted leave will know that they are being lied to, and that democracy is once again being ignored by the corrupt EU supporting establishment.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Oh for sure it's very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very strongly indicative but we cannot know for absolute certain that the same thing wouldn't have happened if the vote had gone the other way

(Does quick cut and paste for next discussion about priest socks)

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Which bit of "purely advisory" don't you understand?

Only the first couple of words.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Because it's manifestly stupid.

Theres a lot of that about with the brexiteers. everything suggested on NI for example. Suggesting that leavers wouldnt vote for something manifestly stupid seems to be a contradiction in terms.

 

[jimbob]

Landrover moving new Discovery production to Slovakia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44438846

ETA partly as a hedge against Brexit

JLR boss Andy Goss told Sky News that its investment in a car plant in Slovakia should now be seen as a "hedge" against uncertainty around the post-Brexit trading environment.

"It's become a hedge by default - we will assess everything in the cold light of day - we don't expect to do it, but if we have to we will," he told me.

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-foren ... d-11041671

 

[The Don]

Landrover moving new Discovery production to Slovakia

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44438846

ETA partly as a hedge against Brexit


https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-foren ... d-11041671

Interesting, earlier in the day they said it was unrelated to Brexit.

 

[McHrozni]

Because it's manifestly stupid.

All of Brexit it manifestly stupid, from A Apple to Z Zebra, to quote the only book most Brexiteers will ever read. Why is choosing the least stupid out of stupid ideas any more stupid than any of the alternatives?

McHrozni

 

[Lothian]

Because it's manifestly stupid. It has all the drawbacks of remaining completely in the EU but removes our existing small element of democracy. We'll have no representation at the EU's democratic institutions but we'll still have to abide by all its rules, and we'll still be paying for access to the single market. We won't be able to negotiate our own independent trade deals so compared to the status quo it has no merit whatsoever.

No one in their right mind would ever have voted for such a change so it's vastly insulting behaviour of remain supporters to suggest that it's an outcome that ANYONE would have voted for - let alone a majority of all those that did vote.

As you well know, what is being advocated is just a worse form of remain. They can spin it any way they want but the majority that voted leave will know that they are being lied to, and that democracy is once again being ignored by the corrupt EU supporting establishment.

But remain is better economicly than all versions of brexit in the Government's modelling. Therefore a brexit which delivers that while still complying with the leave option on the referendum form is the best result for the UK. Fact is the people voting for brexit all had different reasons. Each benefit in the model above is likely to have majority support and 48% supporting all of it. Happy for you to explain a model which has greater public support.

 

[The Don]

The infighting in the Conservative Party continues.....

David Davis has told Conservative MPs the UK's whole approach to negotiations with the EU risks being undermined by amendments to its flagship Brexit bill.

The Commons will vote later on whether to give MPs a decisive say on any final deal struck with the EU in the autumn.

In a letter to Tory MPs, the Brexit secretary said it was "simply not right" that Parliament could overturn the referendum result with such a vote.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44446633

As has been pointed out in this thread (apologies, I forget who), the threat of Corbyn is May's only trump card.

I am amused by the notion that undermining the UK's whole negotiation approach is a bad thing - given how utterly shambolic it has been to date (though ceptimus would doubtless blame Remoaners for this).

I also find it interesting that the unelected second house is pushing to allow the elected first house to have a say in the process whereas our elected government seem to want a simple rubber stamping of whatever omnishambles they come up with.

 

[ceptimus]

What do you think the "meaningful vote" options might be? Accept whatever pathetic deal is negotiated or crash out with no deal whatsoever? The only other options are, "try to negotiate a better deal" or "abandon Brexit and remain". Both of those latter ones rely on the EU being prepared to offer them - what if they don't?

 

[uke2se]

What do you think the "meaningful vote" options might be? Accept whatever pathetic deal is negotiated or crash out with no deal whatsoever? The only other options are, "try to negotiate a better deal" or "abandon Brexit and remain". Both of those latter ones rely on the EU being prepared to offer them - what if they don't?

If they don't, you're back to the first two options. So, you have four options. The clearly best one is the last one.

 

[ceptimus]

We had the most meaningful of meaningful votes already. All the voters in the country were entitled to vote in that one, and it's now up to parliament to deliver what was voted for.

 

[The Don]

If they don't, you're back to the first two options. So, you have four options. The clearly best one is the last one.

As long as "Abandon Brexit and remain is still on the table"

We may have burnt our bridges with our EU colleagues to such an extent that there's no walking this one back - especially because the UK's likely first action in the event of a reversal of Brexit will be to go back to the EU and ask for more concessions and exceptions.

I'm highly biased, but I'm very worried that if Theresa May has her way, the economic future will have been decided by a deeply split Conservative cabinet without any meaningful oversight from parliament.

 

[Lothian]

We had the most meaningful of meaningful votes already. All the voters in the country were entitled to vote in that one, and it's now up to parliament to deliver what was voted for.

We voted to leave the EU. What should parliament deliver on the single market, customs union, border in Ireland, membership of Interpol, Euratom, Erasmus, Galileo satellite system.

What did we vote for on those issues?

 

[uke2se]

As long as "Abandon Brexit and remain is still on the table"

We may have burnt our bridges with our EU colleagues to such an extent that there's no walking this one back - especially because the UK's likely first action in the event of a reversal of Brexit will be to go back to the EU and ask for more concessions and exceptions.

I'm highly biased, but I'm very worried that if Theresa May has her way, the economic future will have been decided by a deeply split Conservative cabinet without any meaningful oversight from parliament.

I'm pretty sure the EU would let by-gones be by-gones and simply forget about the last two years if the UK wanted back in. It's going to cost us EU tax payers quite a bit to accomodate the UK's idiocy - not as much as it'll cost the UK tax payers, but then again, we got no say. It would clearly be better for all parties if we simply forgot about the whole thing.

 

[The Don]

We had the most meaningful of meaningful votes already. All the voters in the country were entitled to vote in that one, and it's now up to parliament to deliver what was voted for.

The referendum was advisory so parliament is under no obligation to do anything. That said, the two largest parties are new pro-Brexit (one of them against the will of most of its members and supporters) so unless there is a seismic shift, Brexit in some form appears inevitable.

Apart from leaving the EU, there was no indication about what the post-Brexit situation should be (and at least some people didn't vote on the basis of leaving the EU but instead getting another £350m a week for the NHS).

There was no statement in the referendum about what leaving the EU would constitute but I'd be surprised if the majority of those who voted leave would be happy with a post-Brexit scenario in which the UK remains part of the EEA and customs union (and hence has to provide the four freedoms, continues to be subject to EU laws and has to make hefty contributions to the EU budget) and yet that is as much what was voted for as a hard "no deal" Brexit, or whatever versions of Brexit are currently sloshing around the cabinet.

 

[Amazer]

I'm pretty sure the EU would let by-gones be by-gones and simply forget about the last two years if the UK wanted back in. It's going to cost us EU tax payers quite a bit to accomodate the UK's idiocy - not as much as it'll cost the UK tax payers, but then again, we got no say. It would clearly be better for all parties if we simply forgot about the whole thing.

And have to go through this whole ordeal again in a couple of years? While I understand the desire to ward off the short term negative effects... in in the long run it's probably better to let the Uk fend for itself for a while. It will provide the proof that it's better to be in than to be out.



Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk