• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly. Only Project Fear would say the EU would say no to that.
Oh and claim that businesses like Dyson's will leave the UK, because clearly he supported Brexit and will keep his headquarter... oh wait.
 
ceptimus said:
Don't keep confusing business interests with democracy.
Click to expand...

Wasn't part of the brexit lies that there would be a business upsurge once the UK would leave?

Why is it democratically unsound to re-evaluate a vote once it is clear the promises made in a campaign were either impossible to fulfill or complete fabrications? Especially once it became clear that the leading politicians in the brexit campaign rapidly got their own money out of the UK the moment the result was clear?
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Wasn't part of the brexit lies that there would be a business upsurge once the UK would leave?

Why is it democratically unsound to re-evaluate a vote once it is clear the promises made in a campaign were either impossible to fulfill or complete fabrications? Especially once it became clear that the leading politicians in the brexit campaign rapidly got their own money out of the UK the moment the result was clear?
Click to expand...

Even the parts that were completely under our control were lied about, Gove was absolutely specific that nothing would change for 5 years while a deal was arranged. They were absolutely clear that a deal would be struck before triggering A50. Not just a failure to achieve what was promised, intentional implementation of a plan contrary to what was promised.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Even the parts that were completely under our control were lied about, Gove was absolutely specific that nothing would change for 5 years while a deal was arranged. They were absolutely clear that a deal would be struck before triggering A50. Not just a failure to achieve what was promised, intentional implementation of a plan contrary to what was promised.
Click to expand...

I think you are misusing the word 'plan' - there were as many plans as their were people campaigning for and voting for Brexit. The first problem was they couldn't agree between themselves what they actually wanted to do. the vote was for some ill-defined incoherent mess. So in that regard the people did get what they voted for.
 
Leave got 52% by not having a plan.

There was never, and could never have been, a version of leaving which could have got a majority.

That's where we got stuck: at Leave vs Leave, not Leave vs Remain.
 
ceptimus said:
Do you really believe that if remainer MPs had accepted the result (and their party manifestos in most cases) and voted in favour of leaving (or merely abstained) that we wouldn't have left already?
Click to expand...
They did. Parliment by a significant majority voted to leave and that hasn't been overturned since then.

The issue isn't us leaving it is how we leave and sadly it has been clear that the Brexiters can't decide on that.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Even the parts that were completely under our control were lied about, Gove was absolutely specific that nothing would change for 5 years while a deal was arranged. They were absolutely clear that a deal would be struck before triggering A50. Not just a failure to achieve what was promised, intentional implementation of a plan contrary to what was promised.
Click to expand...

The plan was say whatever people want to hear to get them to vote Leave, then insist whatever deal you actually get from the EU is take it or leave with no deal because it's the 'will of the people'.
 
Darat said:
They did. Parliment by a significant majority voted to leave and that hasn't been overturned since then.

The issue isn't us leaving it is how we leave and sadly it has been clear that the Brexiters can't decide on that.
Click to expand...
I think what ceptimus means is that the parliamentarians representing the 62.5% of the electorate who didn't vote to leave should have abandoned the majority of the population and their beliefs and should have supported the brexit vote that was thwarted by other brexit supporting MPs.
What he is not clear on is which group of brexit supporting MPs reflect democracy and have over 50% support of the public.
 
Well, both Labour and Tory party policy was to respect the result of the referendum and leave, even though most MPs thought it was a bad idea.

Consequently both parties voted to trigger Article 50. Although Vote Leave had won the referendum promising us a deal before Art 50, no negotiating mechanism existed to do so.

The government promised us they'd get a great deal - the easiest deal in history - before we left but somehow that has evade them, not least because hard Brexiteers insist May's deal is anathema to them.

Now we're tumbling out of control toward the exit with no deal in place and little reason to believe the same people will suddenly become super-competent negotiators the moment we fall out of the plane without a parachute.

Since this is so very, very far away from anything we were promised when asked to vote, I think a referendum asking "is this shambles the sort of thing you wanted?" is entirely warranted. (And I say that as someone who's always felt a re-run of the 2016 vote would be anti-democratic, stupid and pointless.)
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
Wasn't part of the brexit lies that there would be a business upsurge once the UK would leave?
Click to expand...
Indeed.
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want".
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market".
"The idea that our trade will suffer... is silly" .
"Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’" .
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Well, both Labour and Tory party policy was to respect the result of the referendum and leave, even though most MPs thought it was a bad idea.

Consequently both parties voted to trigger Article 50. Although Vote Leave had won the referendum promising us a deal before Art 50, no negotiating mechanism existed to do so.

The government promised us they'd get a great deal - the easiest deal in history - before we left but somehow that has evade them, not least because hard Brexiteers insist May's deal is anathema to them.
Click to expand...

And what they were saying was more or less impossible because they refused to agree the exit arrangements and therefore a new trade deal couldn't be agreed.

Now we're tumbling out of control toward the exit with no deal in place and little reason to believe the same people will suddenly become super-competent negotiators the moment we fall out of the plane without a parachute.

Since this is so very, very far away from anything we were promised when asked to vote, I think a referendum asking "is this shambles the sort of thing you wanted?" is entirely warranted. (And I say that as someone who's always felt a re-run of the 2016 vote would be anti-democratic, stupid and pointless.)
Click to expand...

We were promised everything, anything and nothing. So whatever results someone will say that's what we were promised. And it's OK to just lie now so everything will be fine.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Leave got 52% by not having a plan.



There was never, and could never have been, a version of leaving which could have got a majority.



That's where we got stuck: at Leave vs Leave, not Leave vs Remain.
Click to expand...
The Australian PM who was a Monarchist had to put up a referendum for a Republic. So put up three options.

1. Stay a monarchy.
2. Vote for a president in the republic.
3. Make the president appointed by parliament in the republic.

He split the Republican vote and stay a monarchy won easily. Cynical but effective.
 
catsmate said:
Indeed.

"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want".

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market".

"The idea that our trade will suffer... is silly" .

"Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’" .
Click to expand...
It will be used for the NHS.
 
I was leafing through the latest edition of Private Eye this morning on my seat of ease and there was a brief article about the changes to the UK Ship Register post-Brexit.

Until now, to be registered a ship had to have EU based owners. Post-Brexit the plans are to significantly liberalise this to include ownership in all Commonwealth countries and another 20 countries including Liberia and other "flags of convenience".

http://www.seatrade-maritime.com/ne...ns-its-horizons-as-brexit-takes-its-toll.html

This is in response to ship owners changing their registration as a result of Brexit. The concern among employees and unions is that UK owners will now register their ownership in one of these "new" countries and as a result lower standards for UK-registered ships and the seamen on those ships.

I guess it's another indication that the UK is planning to engage in a "race to the bottom" as far as regulation and safety is concerned. :(
 
You don't understand English. 'Best available terms' means the best available terms agreed between the UK and the EU. If the EU are too stubborn about their red lines, then 'best available terms' could mean anything - including down to the worst case of 'no deal'.

There's no sensible reason for a 'no deal' though. The EU ought to be able to offer us a trade deal at least as good as the one they've done with Canada, given that the UK is nearer, does a lot more trade with them, and starts out 100% compliant with current EU regulations.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom