Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[P.J. Denyer]

I think the bent banana thing was more a Newspaper headline to deaminase the EU rather than a real story. My bananas haven't changed.
Jaffa Cakes and takeaway food had nothing to do with the EU they were purely domestic matters.

IIRC it was something made up by Boris Johnson back before he was fired for making stuff up.

And as you say the rest were distinctions for UK tax purposes made in the UK to determine how our UK made Laws are applied.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I disagree, if we are to have another referendum all it should be is whether we go with May's deal or a no deal exit.

I used to think that would be the logical outcome but I've changed my mind. If parliament rejects May's deal then it ceases to be an option since parliament is sovereign. In that case, the government has failed to negotiate a Brexit deal for us and the question for a second referendum becomes whether to withdraw Article 50 or not.

 

[3point14]

Cite?

Cite, yes. Thank you

 

[Amazer]

I disagree, if we are to have another referendum all it should be is whether we go with May's deal or a no deal exit.

I agree

I used to think that would be the logical outcome but I've changed my mind. If parliament rejects May's deal then it ceases to be an option since parliament is sovereign. In that case, the government has failed to negotiate a Brexit deal for us and the question for a second referendum becomes whether to withdraw Article 50 or not.

I see your point... but given the level of distrust shown by the UK parliament, the UK government and the UK people about the EU; I just don't see withdrawing Art. 50 and continueing as if nothing ever happened as a viable option. It has to either an orderly withdrawl as negotiated with Mrs. May or a no deal exit. Anything short of leaving the EU will only allow this brexit-sentiment to fester and grow.

Rejoining the EU after leaving is always an option... you could have another referendum on that... or have a party have it in their manifesto and win an election on that platform...

 

[3point14]

You mean like Turkey joining the EU? Oh, wait....

"Boris Johnson has announced that Britain will support Turkey's bid to join the EU despite putting warnings about the prospect at the heart of the Brexit campaign in the run up to the referendum."

Difficult to know where to start with this one.

The man's a ****. Easy.

(the starred out word above is the worst one you can think of, just fyi. It's a word I use about once a year)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now, the legal advice....there was never a summary released? That was proposed as an option and rejected? So all the MPs acting like they did a great thing because they found X statement in the full release don't actually know if the summary would have exuded that?

There was a summary released, and it gave a much more optimistic picture than the full advice. But more importantly, Parliament directed the Cabinet to carry out a specific act and the Cabinet failed to carry it out. The supremacy of Parliament is the foundation of the British constitution, as I understand it, and May effectively challenged it. It's a good thing she failed, and failed humiliatingly.

Dave

 

[3point14]

Given the rampant lies, criminal activity, dubious contact with hostile foreign powers and utter contempt for facts during the leave campaign, acting on the result would be the worst foolishness.

Why are we all so hung up on the results of a non binding referendum where one side, the winning side, has been shown to have indulged in criminal activity during the campaigning.

That's just not democratic. Let's have another one where nobody cheats and where, and this is important, the voters are actually aware what they're voting for.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I disagree, if we are to have another referendum all it should be is whether we go with May's deal or a no deal exit.

At the very least there have to be three options, I think; May's deal, no deal, or delay Article 50 and renegotiate. Otherwise we'll be getting a choice between two options, both of which are entirely repugnant to a large majority of people and Parliament.

There seems to me to be a case for a two-question referendum: (1) Do you think Britain should leave the EU given what we've learned since the last referendum, and (2) Should the majority vote Yes" to the above, should we (a) accept May's deal, (b) negotiate a new deal or (c) leave with no deal. But I suspect that would be far too complicated a set of questions to pose, and wouldn't support enough people's interests to be politically viable.

Dave

 

[wobs]

Given the rampant lies, criminal activity, dubious contact with hostile foreign powers and utter contempt for facts during the leave campaign, acting on the result would be the worst foolishness.

Why are we all so hung up on the results of a non binding referendum where one side, the winning side, has been shown to have indulged in criminal activity during the campaigning.

That's just not democratic. Let's have another one where nobody cheats and where, and this is important, the voters are actually aware what they're voting for.

Indeed. A People's Vote could be the only way out of this mess. If we just revoke A.50, it will cause more festering anti-EU feelings. If we go with a no deal, the UK is stuffed.

An extension of A.50, and renegotiation is another possibility, but an outside one.

Solving issues such as N.Ireland seems insurmountable though, so a People's Vote seems the best option.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I agree


I see your point... but given the level of distrust shown by the UK parliament, the UK government and the UK people about the EU; I just don't see withdrawing Art. 50 and continueing as if nothing ever happened as a viable option. It has to either an orderly withdrawl as negotiated with Mrs. May or a no deal exit. Anything short of leaving the EU will only allow this brexit-sentiment to fester and grow.

Rejoining the EU after leaving is always an option... you could have another referendum on that... or have a party have it in their manifesto and win an election on that platform...

Parliament overall wants to Remain (even if many MPs felt bound to follow their constituents' wishes). So parliament is probably sympathetic to getting a No Deal vs Remain referendum. If the opinion polls are correct then the public significantly favour Remain over No Deal.

The people clamouring for just walking away with no deal are a very noisy minority, but definitely a minority.

 

[Ambrosia]

Well maybe we could fix that by changing things so we had elected Members of the European Parliament ... oh wait.

Throwing more MEPs at the problem wouldn't make sense.

I got very interested in the EU back when the TPD was proposed as I ran a business that was directly affected by the proposed directive.

I campaigned against it long and hard along with many of my colleagues. It got passed. Only they used political dirty tricks to push it through. Which got me to wondering what other EU rules were also passed using such tactics, so I looked a lot closer and didn't like what I saw.

e.g. Lobbying. there are an estimated 25000 lobbyists in the EU corridors of power it's estimated they spend a combined 1.5bn euros a year on their lobbying.

It was pharma lobbyists that pushed the TPD through because they wanted to make a lot more money from ineffective and potentially harmful stop smoking treatments, and to control the vaping industry. After it got passed the barriers to entry for that market are now enormous, the innovation in it has been stifled and a lot of the smaller players, myself included, are no longer in business.

That just benefits big corporations. We, the people, elect our representatives and they get sweet talked by lobbyists and line their own pockets at the expense of the majority. That's what I am talking about when I call the EU an undemocratic gravy train. That is what needs changing.

If instead of the TPD that we have now MEPs had been allowed to properly review the science and the evidence, then we could have had reasonable proportional regulations that protected the consumers and also were attainable by small/medium businesses. There'd be more choice and more competition so the end consumer would pay less.

 

[Arcade22]

David Davis Tweets

We need to put an end to dodgy dossiers and scare stories. As I say in today's Sunday Times, it's time to seize this opportunity and grasp the fabulous future that the United Kingdom is offered.

Chlorinated chicken sure does sound delicious. Yum Yum

 

[Arcade22]

That just benefits big corporations. We, the people, elect our representatives and they get sweet talked by lobbyists and line their own pockets at the expense of the majority. That's what I am talking about when I call the EU an undemocratic gravy train. That is what needs changing.

It's undemocratic because you didn't get to have your way?

If instead of the TPD that we have now MEPs had been allowed to properly review the science and the evidence, then we could have had reasonable proportional regulations that protected the consumers and also were attainable by small/medium businesses. There'd be more choice and more competition so the end consumer would pay less.

Can you please substantiate that MEP's were not able to "properly review the science and the evidence"?

 

[3point14]

Throwing more MEPs at the problem wouldn't make sense.

I got very interested in the EU back when the TPD was proposed as I ran a business that was directly affected by the proposed directive.

I campaigned against it long and hard along with many of my colleagues. It got passed. Only they used political dirty tricks to push it through. Which got me to wondering what other EU rules were also passed using such tactics, so I looked a lot closer and didn't like what I saw.

e.g. Lobbying. there are an estimated 25000 lobbyists in the EU corridors of power it's estimated they spend a combined 1.5bn euros a year on their lobbying.

It was pharma lobbyists that pushed the TPD through because they wanted to make a lot more money from ineffective and potentially harmful stop smoking treatments, and to control the vaping industry. After it got passed the barriers to entry for that market are now enormous, the innovation in it has been stifled and a lot of the smaller players, myself included, are no longer in business.

That just benefits big corporations. We, the people, elect our representatives and they get sweet talked by lobbyists and line their own pockets at the expense of the majority. That's what I am talking about when I call the EU an undemocratic gravy train. That is what needs changing.

If instead of the TPD that we have now MEPs had been allowed to properly review the science and the evidence, then we could have had reasonable proportional regulations that protected the consumers and also were attainable by small/medium businesses. There'd be more choice and more competition so the end consumer would pay less.

I honestly think you've been misled by that sector of the British press that has lied about Europe for the last 30 years.

 

[Lothian]

My ref would be a STV

Do you want

1 May's deal
2 Leave without a deal
3 Remain.

Put number 1 by your first choice and 2 by your second choice.
In the event that no choice gains 50 % of the vote, the votes for the option with the fewest votes will be reallocated where a second preference is given.

For 'leave with out a deal' votors 'preference' means things you like. 50% means half.

 

[Matthew Best]

Cite?

Here you go:

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Remain is the sensible choice, but circumstantially constrained.

May's deal is the pragmatic choice, a bastard child of circumstance.

No deal is the ideologue's wet dream, leading to dire circumstances.


The circumstantial evidence is that neither Brexit nor Remain will do, and there can be no middle compromise. There is but one thing to do: hang David Cameron in effigy from London Tower and have fireworks. Following that, it's every man for himself... Personally, I'd go punch pimply Farage in his face, then start smoking cigars again, now unlikely to be a cause of death. Silver linings, old chap.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Throwing more MEPs at the problem wouldn't make sense.

I got very interested in the EU back when the TPD was proposed as I ran a business that was directly affected by the proposed directive.

I campaigned against it long and hard along with many of my colleagues. It got passed. Only they used political dirty tricks to push it through. Which got me to wondering what other EU rules were also passed using such tactics, so I looked a lot closer and didn't like what I saw.

e.g. Lobbying. there are an estimated 25000 lobbyists in the EU corridors of power it's estimated they spend a combined 1.5bn euros a year on their lobbying.

It was pharma lobbyists that pushed the TPD through because they wanted to make a lot more money from ineffective and potentially harmful stop smoking treatments, and to control the vaping industry. After it got passed the barriers to entry for that market are now enormous, the innovation in it has been stifled and a lot of the smaller players, myself included, are no longer in business.

That just benefits big corporations. We, the people, elect our representatives and they get sweet talked by lobbyists and line their own pockets at the expense of the majority. That's what I am talking about when I call the EU an undemocratic gravy train. That is what needs changing.

If instead of the TPD that we have now MEPs had been allowed to properly review the science and the evidence, then we could have had reasonable proportional regulations that protected the consumers and also were attainable by small/medium businesses. There'd be more choice and more competition so the end consumer would pay less.

I am missing the leap in logic that goes from this to '...and so the only thing we can do is throw the entire country under the bus, put the economy into meltdown and let the corpse be picked over by a cabal of disaster capitalists'

 

[Hellbound]

I am missing the leap in logic that goes from this to '...and so the only thing we can do is throw the entire country under the bus, put the economy into meltdown and let the corpse be picked over by a cabal of disaster capitalists'

Major shares in a company that produces cardboard boxes? That'll get you into the housing industry after the exit...

 

[Garrison]

I may be in a minority here but I am against another referendum. If a majority in Parliament believe there is no Brexit deal that will not be worse than remaining in the EU its their duty to reject Brexit. The first referendum wasn't a shining example of direct democracy, it was the product of leaders to weak to make it clear that leaving the EU was impractical and a cabal of Tory MPs, whose most outspoken members had no intention of winning and simply saw it as the best route to Number 10.

Suppose another referendum chose Remain, then what? How can you say that's the final word? Every time the EU proposes some policy that triggers the Daily Mail/Sun there will be a demand to revisit the issue. Our MP's need to grow a spine and do the job they were elected to do, make decisions on the complicated issues that the majority of the public has neither the time nor inclination to learn about beyond reading the front page of some tabloid rag.