Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

[P.J. Denyer]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1181814412400906241



Article embedded in first tweet.

"We are not a Cabinet of sock puppets and nodding dogs"

In the background Liz Truss silently agreed with everything....

 

[Samson]

Can we start a sweep on how many chapters this thread will run to if the EU allow an extension to June 2020?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-to-extend-deadline-for-brexit-deal-to-summer

It's not complicated. They will only need to have an election, design a referendum, hold the referendum, then act on the result.

 

[ceptimus]

It's not complicated. They will only need to have an election, design a referendum, hold the referendum, then act on the result.

They did all that back in 2015/2016 (except the last part).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

They did all that back in 2015/2016 (except the last part).

Oh they acted on the result alright. But reality has a way of making impossible promises difficult to deliver.

 

[Lothian]

It's not complicated. They will only need to have an election, design a referendum, hold the referendum, then act on the result.

They don't need to act on the result if the referendum is advisory. That makes it complicated as some people struggle to understand that and think promises that the referendum would be acted on have weight whereas promises written in the side of a bus or in the manifesto don't.

 

[catsmate]

If the effects of the No Deal Brexit as as bad as most are predicting, then Bojo is going to learn the truth of that old saying "Be careful about what you wish for;you may get it".

I've sure he'll find a home somewhere.

 

[catsmate]

The problem for leavers is that Labour's idea of "Credible Leave" will mean staying in the Single Market and Customs Union - and almost everyone, leavers included, agree that would be worse than remain.

You're lying again.

 

[dudalb]

If Putin's goal...and I think it was....was to throw the two oldest Western Democracies into chaos, mission accomplished.

 

[ceptimus]

They don't need to act on the result if the referendum is advisory. That makes it complicated as some people struggle to understand that and think promises that the referendum would be acted on have weight whereas promises written in the side of a bus or in the manifesto don't.

There was a booklet posted to every household in the country by the government that promised, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." Do you think it's acceptable for the government to go back on a promise like that?

Note that it also promised that this was a 'Once in a generation decision.' Three and a half years isn't a generation - well it's more than a generation for rats, but much less than a generation for humans.

 

[Manger Douse]

There was a booklet posted to every household in the country by the government that promised, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." Do you think it's acceptable for the government to go back on a promise like that?


[qimg]https://moraymint.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/fullsizerender.jpg?w=439&h=371[/qimg]


Note that it also promised that this was a 'Once in a generation decision.' Three and a half years isn't a generation - well it's more than a generation for rats, but much less than a generation for humans.

The government goes back on promises all the time and I'd damn well want them too when they turn out to be the ****-show we've got now.

I draw your attention to the line:

"The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the referendum to be implemented"

Written on the damn bill itself, not some mailshot

 

[Nessie]

There was a booklet posted to every household in the country by the government that promised, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." Do you think it's acceptable for the government to go back on a promise like that?


[qimg]https://moraymint.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/fullsizerender.jpg?w=439&h=371[/qimg]


Note that it also promised that this was a 'Once in a generation decision.' Three and a half years isn't a generation - well it's more than a generation for rats, but much less than a generation for humans.

Since governments of all persuasions have a terrible history of not implementing decisions they promise to do, why should this decision be any different? Referendums are not binding.

 

[Garrison]

There was a booklet posted to every household in the country by the government that promised, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." Do you think it's acceptable for the government to go back on a promise like that?


[qimg]https://moraymint.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/fullsizerender.jpg?w=439&h=371[/qimg]


Note that it also promised that this was a 'Once in a generation decision.' Three and a half years isn't a generation - well it's more than a generation for rats, but much less than a generation for humans.

Wow you really have descended into pure desperation haven't you? What's the harm in having the people vote on the terms actually on offer rather than the fairy stories Johnson and co, trotted out to con people into voting leave? Oh that's right I forgot you brexiteers aren't really all that keen on democracy.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem is that the smaller parties insist Jeremy Corbyn not being the acting PM....

Justifiably or not, Corbyn is a divisive figure. Ask yourself whether a figure as divisive as Corbyn is a good fit to lead a government of national unity.

 

[Francesca R]

Justifiably or not, Corbyn is a divisive figure. Ask yourself whether a figure as divisive as Corbyn is a good fit to lead a government of national unity.

The best argument for not Corbyn in my view is that the caretaker PM (whose only tasks should be to get a brextension and call an election after that) should be essentially a technocrat who "doesn't want to be PM". Rather than the guy who wants to be the next PM. (I think it was you who made this argument)

But the other thing is that anyone is better than nobody, even Corbyn.

 

[Lothian]

There was a booklet posted to every household in the country by the government that promised, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." Do you think it's acceptable for the government to go back on a promise like that?


[qimg]https://moraymint.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/fullsizerender.jpg?w=439&h=371[/qimg]


Note that it also promised that this was a 'Once in a generation decision.' Three and a half years isn't a generation - well it's more than a generation for rats, but much less than a generation for humans.

Do you want me to post links to where the official leave campaign still promises that we would have free trade with the EU? You insist that we need to break that promise. You refuse to back a customs union which delivers it and back a hard border which doesn't.
The question is not how many promises will be btoken, the question is what is best for the UK. Vote leave got it right. We do need to be in the same customs area and single market as the EU to avoid catastrophic damage to the UK.

 

[dudalb]

Do you want me to post links to where the official leave campaign still promises that we would have free trade with the EU? You insist that we need to break that promise. You refuse to back a customs union which delivers it and back a hard border which doesn't.
The question is not how many promises will be btoken, the question is what is best for the UK. Vote leave got it right. We do need to be in the same customs area and single market as the EU to avoid catastrophic damage to the UK.

I find it incredible that some in the UK still refuse to admit the UK geographically is part of Europe and the days of "splendid Isolation" are over.

 

[dudalb]

The best argument for not Corbyn in my view is that the caretaker PM (whose only tasks should be to get a brextension and call an election after that) should be essentially a technocrat who "doesn't want to be PM". Rather than the guy who wants to be the next PM. (I think it was you who made this argument)

But the other thing is that anyone is better than nobody, even Corbyn.

It's that old saying in the Catholic Church that the only person who should be pope is somebody who runs away when his name is suggested.

 

[ceptimus]

Since governments of all persuasions have a terrible history of not implementing decisions they promise to do, why should this decision be any different?

Because they don't normally spend taxpayers' money printing a booklet full of promises like, 'once in a generation', and, 'the government will implement what you decide', and then posting that booklet to every single household in the country. This was exceptional.

As to referendums not being binding, why the hell do they want another one? Will the next one be binding because they really really promise, with sugar on?

 

[ceptimus]

Do you want me to post links to where the official leave campaign still promises that we would have free trade with the EU? You insist that we need to break that promise. You refuse to back a customs union which delivers it and back a hard border which doesn't.
The question is not how many promises will be btoken, the question is what is best for the UK. Vote leave got it right. We do need to be in the same customs area and single market as the EU to avoid catastrophic damage to the UK.

You should understand the difference between the promises made by government and those made by campaigns.

 

[Information Analyst]

You should understand the difference between the promises made by government and those made by campaigns.

You should understand that a result where 13 out of every 25 people wanted one thing, and 12 people wanted another thing, does not justify doing what only a subset of the 13 want(ed).