Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 24, 2016, 09:24:13 AM
-
Dear oh dear, Mr Hammond is ,according to brexiteers, being a bit gloomy about Brexit.
But isn't it brexiteers duty to be upbeat about brexit?
What they need is a jolly looking frontman who can tell a joke or two and with a track record of being able to belt out a patriotic song with great gusto.
Who else but John Redwood?
-
Well, obviously that figure of £60 billion as a borrowing cost for Brexit, is not only too gloomy, but is probably concocted by pro-Remain mandarins who still lurk in Whitehall. What we need are some robust stats, such as the £350 million a week for the NHS, now those are stats that have that wholesome flavour that you can trust.
More austerity, eh? Still, I prefer to be poor but white.
-
There is nothing good about Brexit, and I reckon the UK will rue the day it voted to leave the EU!
-
You have to relax, and enjoy the spectacle of Brexiteers running around like headless chickens, and denying that any bad news is anything to do with Brexit.
Hammond did a particularly clever balancing act yesterday. On the one hand, Brexit would cost £60 billion in extra borrowing, but look on the bright side, petrol is going up less quickly than it might. Oh, and if you have to go to A & E, your wait there might be a bit longer, but there are shiny new TVs with ads on, for you to watch.
-
Well, obviously that figure of £60 billion as a borrowing cost for Brexit, is not only too gloomy, but is probably concocted by pro-Remain mandarins who still lurk in Whitehall. What we need are some robust stats, such as the £350 million a week for the NHS, now those are stats that have that wholesome flavour that you can trust.
Now you're talking!!! ;D
-
There is nothing good about Brexit, and I reckon the UK will rue the day it voted to leave the EU!
When the EU crashes and burns you'll be glad we got out.
-
If Hammond had any courage he would just come out and say it:
"Brexit has buggered the economy . . . and there is a lot worse to come !"
-
When the EU crashes and burns you'll be glad we got out.
No we won't. We'll be kicking ourselves that we didn't stay and help save it.
The EU can't collapse without causing major problems for the UK.
-
If Hammond had any courage he would just come out and say it:
"Brexit has buggered the economy . . . and there is a lot worse to come !"
I think that he actually has. But the constraints that Mrs May has put on the Cabinet prevent him being explicit. The next interesting developments will be the difficulties that Davis, Johnson and Fox find themselves in while being totally committed to leaving the EU.
-
If Hammond had any courage he would just come out and say it:
"Brexit has buggered the economy . . . and there is a lot worse to come !"
I thought that was what he did say, but slightly more diplomatically.
-
When the EU crashes and burns you'll be glad we got out.
But the EU will 'crash and burn' partly because the UK and some other nations won't be there to have worked to improve it beforehand. There won't be a ripple effect on the British economy - even an independent British economy - if the EU crashes and burns. It'll be nearer a tsunami effect.
-
I think that he actually has. But the constraints that Mrs May has put on the Cabinet prevent him being explicit. The next interesting developments will be the difficulties that Davis, Johnson and Fox find themselves in while being totally committed to leaving the EU.
They are in total denial aren't they? They will just blame the devastation on Brussels.
-
No we won't. We'll be kicking ourselves that we didn't stay and help save it.
The EU can't collapse without causing major problems for the UK.
It can't be saved , it's a lost cause.
-
But the EU will 'crash and burn' partly because the UK and some other nations won't be there to have worked to improve it beforehand. There won't be a ripple effect on the British economy - even an independent British economy - if the EU crashes and burns. It'll be nearer a tsunami effect.
We've been there for 40 odd years and it has sailed straight towards an iceberg, so I can't see how we could do anything especially as the people from our governments over the years have all been blindly EU-philes. The whole place, the whole project is in denial about the mess they are in.
-
Dear Lapsed,
Kenneth Clarke was on radio 2 today, some have called him the Best Prime Minister we never had, others said if he had been the Prime Minister we would not be in the mess we are in just now.
Wonder why some people think that, would he have made a better Prime Minister than Cameron, would he have totally misjudged the mood of the country and then handed the country the means to say, up yours establishment.
Funny! but I can't shake the thought that this whole mess lies at the feet of Cameron and the Tory party and I can't help but think, all those people who voted Brexit, did they have just cause, Brexit and Trump, is it just one huge protest vote.
Gonnagle.
-
Nothing wrong with a protest vote.
-
It can't be saved , it's a lost cause.
No it isn't
-
We've been there for 40 odd years and it has sailed straight towards an iceberg
No it hasn't
so I can't see
Yes
how we could do anything especially as the people from our governments over the years have all been blindly EU-philes. The whole place, the whole project is in denial about the mess they are in.
No, you are in denial about the mess we are in and it hasn't even officially started yet.
-
Nothing wrong with a protest vote.
It depends if you are protesting about the thing the vote is about. If you were protesting about the EU as Jack presumably was, then fine. If you were protesting about David Cameron, using our membership of the EU and hence our whole future just to give him a slap would have been irresponsible to put it mildly.
-
Dear oh dear, Mr Hammond is ,according to brexiteers, being a bit gloomy about Brexit.
But isn't it brexiteers duty to be upbeat about brexit?
What they need is a jolly looking frontman who can tell a joke or two and with a track record of being able to belt out a patriotic song with great gusto.
Who else but John Redwood?
Redwood is a creep. He is my age group's version of the even more loathsome Jacob Rees-Mogg (do they clone the fluckers)?
-
Because of his - supposedly - high level of intelligence, Redwood used to be known as "the Vulcan". (I lived for a while in his Wokingham constituency.)
I have never seen evidence of his intellect. I am more inclined to believe that the epithet relates to the colour of his blood - he certainly does not have long pointed ears.
-
When the EU crashes and burns you'll be glad we got out.
Tiny little Britain is much more likely to crash and burn out of the EU!
-
There was an interesting program about the positive side of Brexit a few weeks ago on Radio 4. The interview that caught my attention was with an executive of Tate and Lyle.
He made a strong case that his company could do very much better post Brexit. Tate and Lyle mainly produce sugar from cane and the EU currently place quite high tariffs on the import of sugar cane while actually subsidise sugar beet production. If Britain abolished these restrictions on the import of sugar cane, Tate and Lyle could expand and create jobs (his argument went). Of course (as the interviewer pointed out) this would not be good for other sugar producers OR the farmers who grew the beet.
A point that occurred to me (but apparently not the interviewer) was that if we are to really go down the free-trade route, the logical thing to do would be to have a whole lot more processing done overseas close to the source of the product where labour is cheaper. Much better for Tate and Lyle's profits - not so good for the rest of the UK.
-
True... but also good for sugar farmers and processors in India and the Caribbean etc where many people have been driven to poverty, despair and suicide partly because of market manipulating EU trade policies.
-
https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/11/24/09/voteleavebus.jpg
-
I bet most of you people go into a flat spin panic if your pipe and slippers are not within arms length, pathetic.
-
True... but also good for sugar farmers and processors in India and the Caribbean etc where many people have been driven to poverty, despair and suicide partly because of market manipulating EU trade policies.
That is a perfectly reasonable argument, but it's not one that the Leave Campaign presented to the UK electorate. - and I suspect not one they would have been very impressed with.
-
I notice that the Daily Heil are throwing heavy guns towards various statistics coming out, which seem to show that the most high and most wonderful Brexit, maybe ain't. Stats on low wages, low growth, massive borrowing needed, and so on - all tantrums by Remainers, you see!
-
I notice that the Daily Heil are throwing heavy guns towards various statistics coming out, which seem to show that the most high and most wonderful Brexit, maybe ain't. Stats on low wages, low growth, massive borrowing needed, and so on - all tantrums by Remainers, you see!
Wiggy, you are funny ;)
-
Tiny little Britain is much more likely to crash and burn out of the EU!
Tiny is no measure to go by. 65 million years ago the dinosaurs (big mother fuckers, like the EU) died out because they ceased to be competitive. What took their place were wee little mice like creatures and now they rule the world!!! ;D
-
There was an interesting program about the positive side of Brexit a few weeks ago on Radio 4. The interview that caught my attention was with an executive of Tate and Lyle.
He made a strong case that his company could do very much better post Brexit. Tate and Lyle mainly produce sugar from cane and the EU currently place quite high tariffs on the import of sugar cane while actually subsidise sugar beet production. If Britain abolished these restrictions on the import of sugar cane, Tate and Lyle could expand and create jobs (his argument went). Of course (as the interviewer pointed out) this would not be good for other sugar producers OR the farmers who grew the beet.
A point that occurred to me (but apparently not the interviewer) was that if we are to really go down the free-trade route, the logical thing to do would be to have a whole lot more processing done overseas close to the source of the product where labour is cheaper. Much better for Tate and Lyle's profits - not so good for the rest of the UK.
You better watch it LA else you'll be coming over to the Brexit-side. "Come, LA, it is your destiny!"
Will the EmpUre strike back?
-
died out because they ceased to be competitive.
I think you will find out that dinosaurs did not cease because of their lack of competitiveness
-
I think you will find out that dinosaurs did not cease because of their lack of competitiveness
They didn't compete too well against that blast, and the subsequent change in the environment. Blast 1 : Dinos 0
-
I think you will find out that dinosaurs did not cease because of their lack of competitiveness
Dinosaurs haven't died out! - I can see several flying around outside right now.
-
Dinosaurs haven't died out! - I can see several flying around outside right now.
It takes one to know one! ;D
-
Dinosaurs haven't died out! - I can see several flying around outside right now.
I was talking about the big ones which the word 'dinosaur' symbolically refers to.
-
I was talking about the big ones which the word 'dinosaur' symbolically refers to.
Wasn't there a film where Richard Attenborough tries to revive them by combining the DNA of Oswald Mosley, Ena Sharples and Alf Garnett
......or was that the Leave campaign?
-
Spoof
'Dinosaur' refers to the state of your lot, i.e. dying out fast.
-
Spoof
'Dinosaur' refers to the state of your lot, i.e. dying out fast.
I belong to a few groups which are supposed to be dying out fast and some actually are......which one are you referring to?
-
I belong to a few groups which are supposed to be dying out fast and some actually are......which one are you referring to?
You're pro EU and religious. That's two that are dying out.
-
You're pro EU and religious. That's two that are dying out.
Not looking at the demographics Jack.
-
Dear oh dear, Mr Hammond is ,according to brexiteers, being a bit gloomy about Brexit.
But isn't it brexiteers duty to be upbeat about brexit?
What they need is a jolly looking frontman who can tell a joke or two and with a track record of being able to belt out a patriotic song with great gusto.
Who else but John Redwood?
I think that the problem is that it is very difficult to be upbeat about Brexit when one believes that it will fundamentally undermine the British economy and also allow important developments - such as environmental regulations - to be watered down, if not removed all together.
-
Not looking at the demographics Jack.
Nor are you.
The demographics suggest that religiosity (and in particular christianity) will decline in the UK, as is has been doing for decades. The demographics also suggest, for similar reasons that the proportion brexiters in the population will decline too as both brexiters and adherents to religion in the UK tend to be disproportionately old.
-
Nor are you.
The demographics suggest that religiosity (and in particular christianity) will decline in the UK, as is has been doing for decades. The demographics also suggest, for similar reasons that the proportion brexiters in the population will decline too as both brexiters and adherents to religion in the UK tend to be disproportionately old.
When last I looked the world was not just the UK.. You got some kind of 'brexit of the intellect' or something?
-
I think you will find out that dinosaurs did not cease because of their lack of competitiveness
They did not cease and they will not die out as long as there are humans to celebrate Christmas with a massive turkey dinner.
-
This is so funny ;D.
Thanks for cheering me up!
-
This is so funny ;D.
Thanks for cheering me up!
Glad you found it funny, it was meant to be so, but there is a serious point. The two traits of being easily farmed and being tasty to humans together make a species exceptionally fit in evolutionary terms, even if most individuals have a terrible time.
-
When last I looked the world was not just the UK.. You got some kind of 'brexit of the intellect' or something?
Given that the point was comparing brexit and religiosity and that most of the world doesn't give a damn about brexit then I think there was a clear assumption that we were talking about the UK.
But nonetheless if we want to talk about the world, then fine, and you are still wrong. It is of course very difficult to assess trends in religiosity world-wide but the most respected longitudinal study - the Gallup Global Index on Religiosity and Atheism - shows that the proportion of people saying they are religious worldwide is declining - down 9% over a 7 year period to the last survey in 2012 - with balancing increases in the proportion saying they aren't religious and are atheist.
-
Dear Prof,
But nonetheless if we want to talk about the world, then fine, and you are still wrong. It is of course very difficult to assess trends in religiosity world-wide but the most respected longitudinal study - the Gallup Global Index on Religiosity and Atheism - shows that the proportion of people saying they are religious worldwide is declining - down 9% over a 7 year period to the last survey in 2012 - with balancing increases in the proportion saying they aren't religious and are atheist.
All very nice and Dandy but the question still remains ( has done for a number of years ) what are you replacing theism with?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
All very nice and Dandy but the question still remains ( has done for a number of years ) what are you replacing theism with?
Gonnagle.
Obviously it is being replaced by non religiosity, including atheism.
But why is it necessary to replace it with anything - that is rather muddled thinking I feel that somehow if people cease to be religious that there is a hole that needs filling.
-
Given that the point was comparing brexit and religiosity and that most of the world doesn't give a damn about brexit then I think there was a clear assumption that we were talking about the UK.
But nonetheless if we want to talk about the world, then fine, and you are still wrong. It is of course very difficult to assess trends in religiosity world-wide but the most respected longitudinal study - the Gallup Global Index on Religiosity and Atheism - shows that the proportion of people saying they are religious worldwide is declining - down 9% over a 7 year period to the last survey in 2012 - with balancing increases in the proportion saying they aren't religious and are atheist.
So then let me get this straight......You support Jack's argumentum ad populum regarding religion but not the one regarding Brexit.
-
Dear Prof,
All very nice and Dandy but the question still remains ( has done for a number of years ) what are you replacing theism with?
Gonnagle.
This is the so called God shaped hole that some theists think is an argument to keep theism. Why do you need to replace theism with anything? Woulds you replace a brain tumour with anything? No.
-
So then let me get this straight......You support Jack's argumentum ad populum regarding religion but not the one regarding Brexit.
Who made any comment regarding argumentum ad populum? Certainly not me.
All I was doing was to point out that with regard to demographics both brexit and religiosity are in the same boat in relation to direction of travel - both downward in terms of support as each are predominantly the position of those who are elderly, while those who are young are predominately against brexit and (in the UK) overwhelmingly non religious. And that direction of travel is the same for religion worldwide on the basis of the proportion of people self identifying as religious, non religious and atheist.
None of this provides any claim about the correctness of either position (brexit or religion), in other words an argumentum ad populum - and indeed direction of travel of opinion rather than a snap-shot of majority (or otherwise) of opinion wouldn't any how.
-
This is the so called God shaped hole that some theists think is an argument to keep theism. Why do you need to replace theism with anything? Woulds you replace a brain tumour with anything? No.
Actually there is a very close correlation (with some notable outliers) between religiosity of countries and lack of freedoms, human rights, democracy etc. So perhaps we have replaced religion with the fundamental freedoms of a democratic society.
-
Dear Jeremyp and ProfDavey,
The hole that needs filling, where do we start, what about this country and then we might look further afield.
Church of England, how would you fill that hole? And before anyone answers, please think very carefully about what that encompasses, you can start at the top and work your way down ( Her Majesty ).
The Sally Ann, how do you fill that hole?
Barnado's, how do you fill that hole, and please remember that our own government uses that charity for help and advice, actually when I think about it, this country would be in a very poor state if we didn't have the likes of the CoE, CoS, Sally Ann, Barnado's.
Remembrance day, how do you fill that hole?
Easter and Christmas, okay granted, commercialism is doing a very nice job of filling in that hole >:( :(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25465210
Is it your hope that one day all the above in the link will just be tourist attractions.
Then we need to consider our kids education, and no I am not talking about the three R's, morality, ethics, compassion, these are far more important than the three R's, and please don't say these are subjects that should be taught at home, in this disjointed country of one parent families or Mom and Dad out working all hours.
We need schools to be molding our kids to be fine up standing citizens, Love Thy Neighbour should be tattooed onto their foreheads, ( figuratively speaking ) I don't see any push in education for this, what I do see is a race to the bottom, how do we make educating our kids cheaper or the X factor I am all right society.
Gentlemen, you have a massive hole to fill and I have never ever heard any constructive comments on how you go about this on this forum.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp and ProfDavey,
The hole that needs filling, where do we start, what about this country and then we might look further afield.
Church of England, how would you fill that hole? And before anyone answers, please think very carefully about what that encompasses, you can start at the top and work your way down ( Her Majesty ).
There are plenty of people, including I gather a majority of Christians, who support disestablishment. So I don't see why this would be a problem at all - indeed it would solve a major anomaly in our equalities view of freedom of religion, in that it would allow the head of state to be of whatever religion (or of no religion) aligned with their own conscience.
The Sally Ann, how do you fill that hole?
Barnado's, how do you fill that hole, and please remember that our own government uses that charity for help and advice, actually when I think about it, this country would be in a very poor state if we didn't have the likes of the CoE, CoS, Sally Ann, Barnado's.
For every religious charity there are many more non religious ones working in the same area. Indeed the major charities in pretty well every charitable area (except religion itself) are non religious. You do understand that something like 90% of all charities in the UK are non-religious. So there isn't really a big hole to fill is there.
And on voluntary work - studies have indicated that non religious people are just as likely to be involved in formal and informal volunteering as religious people. Also charitable giving outside of direct contributions to a church are the same or greater from the non religious population than the religious population.
Remembrance day, how do you fill that hole?
Remembrance day started and has always been fundamentally a non religious commemoration, albeit religions have muscled in. You will note that the cenotaph, the site of our main remembrance event, is not in the shape of a cross and I gather was deliberately designed to avoid any overt religious symbolism to align with the primary non religious origins of the commemoration. So no hole to fill there either.
Easter and Christmas, okay granted, commercialism is doing a very nice job of filling in that hole >:( :(
Well actually for many people the prime focus of Christmas is neither religious nor commercial, but to mark mid winter and to share time with those closest to us, our family and close friends.
And, of course, both festivals have origins in paganism that pre-date the Christian festivals (in one case they never even bothered to change its name from that associated with a pagan goddess).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25465210
Is it your hope that one day all the above in the link will just be tourist attractions.
No hole here either, as effectively virtually all the examples are already fundamentally tourist attractions and markers of our cultural heritage. There is very little actual religious worship going on at most of them - and the numbers of worshipers is tiny compared to the numbers of tourists or visitors interested in the cultural history.
Then we need to consider our kids education, and no I am not talking about the three R's, morality, ethics, compassion, these are far more important than the three R's, and please don't say these are subjects that should be taught at home, in this disjointed country of one parent families or Mom and Dad out working all hours.
We need schools to be molding our kids to be fine up standing citizens, Love Thy Neighbour should be tattooed onto their foreheads, ( figuratively speaking ) I don't see any push in education for this, what I do see is a race to the bottom, how do we make educating our kids cheaper or the X factor I am all right society.
Sure the moral and ethical future of society is important, but whether this is better or worse than decades ago is debatable - certainly the young people I know are pretty well hard-wired against racism, sexism homophobia etc in a way that was unthinkable when I was a teenager when casual (and not so casual) racism, sexism and homophobia was rife.
But I don't see what this has to do with religion - you do understand that religion doesn't have a monopoly on ethics, and that non religious society including our non faith schools are as committed to developing 'fine up standing citizens' as religions and faith schools. So no hole here either.
Gentlemen, you have a massive hole to fill and I have never ever heard any constructive comments on how you go about this on this forum.
Gonnagle.
Nope every one nailed - no holes to fill.
Actually if I am honest were religion to vanish overnight, there would, of course, be a significant realignment in society simply because religion currently does exist and is important to a small minority of people in the UK. But this isn't really what I am talking about - rather I am talking about a continuation of the decline in religiosity in the UK that we have seen over the past 50 years or so. The rate of that decline means that society constantly adapts to a dwindling in the numbers of people who are actively religious and see religion as important. So society is well able to gently fill in the 'holes', as you wish to call them, as fewer people see religion as important.
-
Dear Prof,
Nope, you think you nailed it, but what I see in your post is a brush over of all the topics I mentioned, for instance, Remembrance day or another name it is called, Remembrance Sunday, why is it conducted on a day culturally linked to worship, where are the services held.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgBCT-6AoZE
Abide with me, fast falls the eventide
The darkness deepens Lord, with me abide
When other helpers fail and comforts flee
Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me
Swift to its close ebbs out life's little day
Earth's joys grow dim, its glories pass away
Change and decay in all around I see
O Thou who changest not, abide with me
I fear no foe, with Thee at hand to bless
Ills have no weight, and tears no bitterness
Where is death's sting?
Where, grave, thy victory?
I triumph still, if Thou abide with me
Hold Thou Thy cross before my closing eyes
Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies
Heaven's morning breaks, and earth's vain shadows flee
In life, in death, o Lord, abide with me
Abide with me, abide with me
Those bloody Bible thumpers sticking their oar in, and why do they end it with a prayer, but look Prof, as our Jim calls it, the butchers apron being lowered to half mast, it is bloody littered with religious symbolism.
Sorry to disappoint Prof but you have nailed nothing. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Nope, you think you nailed it, but what I see in your post is a brush over of all the topics I mentioned, for instance, Remembrance day or another name it is called, Remembrance Sunday, why is it conducted on a day culturally linked to worship, where are the services held.
Hi Gonners,
I think you need to do a little more homework on the origins of Remembrance day (and also to note that Remembrance day and Remembrance Sunday are distinct).
Remembrance day was established as a civic and state commemoration event for those that had died in WWI. It was established as a secular commemoration and this actually annoyed the churches at the time, but the government held firm. Hence the Cenotaph was designed without religious symbolism (against the desire of the church) that the commemorations then (and now) are run by secular organisations and take place in civic (non religious) space - at the cenotaph or next to a war memorial, not in a church. The event was very deliberately set up to be secular in recognition that those who had died were of all religions and none.
The events are run under the auspices of the Royal British Legion - a secular organisation and a range of civic dignitaries and uniformed organisations are invited to take part, including religious groups, but crucially it isn't their event.
The official symbol is the poppy - a non religious symbol.
At the official ceremony at the Cenotaph the same 18 pieces of music has been played since 1930 and is almost exclusively secular in nature - just two pieces could be described as hymns, but in reality one of those (O Valiant Hearts) is really a musical setting of a war poem.
You might want to read up on the history because it is interesting in that the Government explicitly rejected attempts by the CofE to make the Cenotaph and the commemoration religious rather than secular. The CofE actually tried to set up a rival commemoration in Westminster Abbey and tried (but failed) to persuade the government to shift the official commemoration from the Cenotaph to the Abbey.
-
Who made any comment regarding argumentum ad populum? Certainly not me.
All I was doing was to point out that with regard to demographics both brexit and religiosity are in the same boat in relation to direction of travel - both downward in terms of support as each are predominantly the position of those who are elderly, while those who are young are predominately against brexit and (in the UK) overwhelmingly non religious. And that direction of travel is the same for religion worldwide on the basis of the proportion of people self identifying as religious, non religious and atheist.
None of this provides any claim about the correctness of either position (brexit or religion), in other words an argumentum ad populum - and indeed direction of travel of opinion rather than a snap-shot of majority (or otherwise) of opinion wouldn't any how.
I'm glad you don't share the dinosaur analogy with the jack knave and ippys.
Christianity is not transmitted by genes and memetics is what some call bollocks. I think it is the sort of thing that could flare up and i'm afraid it is people like yourself who have to hope it doesn't.
At the moment Christianity is a pretty safe stereotype to put all of the 'bads' into but a caricature peddled can't survive time.
-
All I was doing was to point out that with regard to demographics both brexit and religiosity are in the same boat in relation to direction of travel - both downward in terms of support as each are predominantly the position of those who are elderly, while those who are young are predominately against brexit and (in the UK) overwhelmingly non religious. And that direction of travel is the same for religion worldwide on the basis of the proportion of people self identifying as religious, non religious and atheist.
Oddly enough, PD, from what I have been able to glean about the Brexit vote here, it was predominantly the early middle-aged folk (~30-50) who seemed to vote for Brexit. The younger and older folk seemed keen to stay. I accept that that was simply an unofficial poll that I took as I talked to folk in the aftermath of the vote.
-
Oddly enough, PD, from what I have been able to glean about the Brexit vote here, it was predominantly the early middle-aged folk (~30-50) who seemed to vote for Brexit. The younger and older folk seemed keen to stay. I accept that that was simply an unofficial poll that I took as I talked to folk in the aftermath of the vote.
As you say your chatting to a few folk that you know isn't a proper assessment of voting demographics by age.
All of the proper polling showed a pretty well perfect relationship between age and likelihood of voting leave.
Here is one example - there are plenty of others - the absolute numbers might change a touch but the trend doesn't.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
So leave % is:
18-24 yrs - 27%
25-34 - 38%
35-44 - 48%
45-54 - 56%
55-64 - 57%
65+ - 60%
-
God, that's a depressing table of stats. The young sacrificed on the altar of old gits' prejudices. Can't we just deport old people somewhere?
-
As you say your chatting to a few folk that you know isn't a proper assessment of voting demographics by age.
All of the proper polling showed a pretty well perfect relationship between age and likelihood of voting leave.
Here is one example - there are plenty of others - the absolute numbers might change a touch but the trend doesn't.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
So leave % is:
18-24 yrs - 27%
25-34 - 38%
35-44 - 48%
45-54 - 56%
55-64 - 57%
65+ - 60%
Interestingly, I have many friends over 60 (with political view across the spectrum) and the vast majority voted Remain. The one exception who voted Leave just hates Poles . . . and he's not the 'sharpest knife in the box'.
-
Interestingly, I have many friends over 60 (with political view across the spectrum) and the vast majority voted Remain. The one exception who voted Leave just hates Poles . . . and he's not the 'sharpest knife in the box'.
We all move in circles smaller than the overall demographics of the whole population.
-
We all move in circles smaller than the overall demographics of the whole population.
And these days anyone who can tell their arse from their elbow is classed as elitist.
-
As you say your chatting to a few folk that you know isn't a proper assessment of voting demographics by age.
All of the proper polling showed a pretty well perfect relationship between age and likelihood of voting leave.
Here is one example - there are plenty of others - the absolute numbers might change a touch but the trend doesn't.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
So leave % is:
18-24 yrs - 27%
25-34 - 38%
35-44 - 48%
45-54 - 56%
55-64 - 57%
65+ - 60%
Fuck me things don't change much round here, Hoppity still not learned what counts as good evidence, Prof spinning stats, Gonzo virtue signalling and the lefties sneering at anyone who disagrees. :)
To these stats, those who voted to remain in the 18-24 age group I would suspect are less than 50%, given the turnout.
The young, victims of 'I can't be arsed culture'.
CU in six monthes!
-
Fuck me things don't change much round here, Hoppity still not learned what counts as good evidence, Prof spinning stats, Gonzo virtue signalling and the lefties sneering at anyone who disagrees. :)
To these stats, those who voted to remain in the 18-24 age group I would suspect are less than 50%, given the turnout.
The young, victims of 'I can't be arsed culture'.
CU in six monthes!
In what way am I 'spinning stats' Jakswan.
All I did was point out the relationship between age and likelihood of voting leave - and then provided evidence to back up my point. No spinning whatsoever.
The further point is at what point in the future does the cross-over occur. Effectively at what point will the loss of the elderly predominantly leave voters and appearance of new young voters attaining 18 who predominantly support remain be such that the tiny majority in favour of leaving vanishes, even if no-one who voted in 2016 changes their mind. Will it be before we actually leave the EU?
-
There is an assumption here that people's views will remain the same as they get older. I'm unconvinced this is valid.
-
There is an assumption here that people's views will remain the same as they get older. I'm unconvinced this is valid.
Yes there is, but given that we have no idea whether they'd shift more or less favourable to the EU that is the only assumption we can use.
The only point I am making is that the loss of the elderly and the gain of the young as voting cohorts will shift the balance between leave and remain even if no-one else changes their mind.
Actually the thing that is more likely to change views isn't people getting older but people becoming clearer about the consequences of brexit. Don't forget that within days of the vote there was a small, but significant (given the tiny majority) proportion of voters regretting their choice, which more regret on the leave voting side. That isn't because they were a few days older but because they were facing the reality of what they had voted and its consequences - noting that the zeitgeist in the run up to the referendum was that it was safe to vote leave as a protest because they wouldn't actually win so they'd be no real consequences.
-
Yes there is, but given that we have no idea whether they'd shift more or less favourable to the EU that is the only assumption we can use.
The only point I am making is that the loss of the elderly and the gain of the young as voting cohorts will shift the balance between leave and remain even if no-one else changes their mind.
Actually the thing that is more likely to change views isn't people getting older but people becoming clearer about the consequences of brexit. Don't forget that within days of the vote there was a small, but significant (given the tiny majority) proportion of voters regretting their choice, which more regret on the leave voting side. That isn't because they were a few days older but because they were facing the reality of what they had voted and its consequences - noting that the zeitgeist in the run up to the referendum was that it was safe to vote leave as a protest because they wouldn't actually win so they'd be no real consequences.
. If we have no idea what will happen, then Ker's name no assumption.
-
. If we have no idea what will happen, then Ker's name no assumption.
I don't understand what you mean.
-
I don't understand what you mean.
apologies for the typoes, but if we have 'no idea' what happens to their views, then we should make no assumptions about it at all.
-
apologies for the typoes, but if we have 'no idea' what happens to their views, then we should make no assumptions about it at all.
I don't - that's the point.
All I am saying is that demographic drift (elderly dying) and 17, 16 and 15 year olds becoming eligible to vote wipes out the 1.3M headroom for leave in (I think) 4 years from the 2016 vote. The only assumptions I am making are that:
The elderly die at the rate indicated in national statistics (approx. 550k per year) and their turnout and voting patterns reflects the 65+ age voting from the referendum
That about 750k young people become eligible to vote each year and that their turnout and voting patterns reflects the 18-24 age voting from the referendum
And that everyone else votes as they did before
Those seem reasonable assumptions and mean that the leave majority would vanish due to demographics by 2020.
-
You are assuming that people won't change their vote as they get older despite saying you have no idea what will happen as time passes. This is an assumption , and one which your own posts contradict. And that's leaving aside the basic assumption that the votes don't change on the basis of changed circumstances, never mind changed ages. You can't actually make any calculation without a raft of assumptions here.
-
You are assuming that people won't change their vote as they get older despite saying you have no idea what will happen as time passes. This is an assumption , and one which your own posts contradict. And that's leaving aside the basic assumption that the votes don't change on the basis of changed circumstances, never mind changappeed ages. You can't actually make any calculation without a raft of assumptions here.
Yep - should there be, perhaps for legal reasons, a re-run (probably unlikely I know) I wouldn't be surprised if some Leave voters didn't change their minds given the apparent absence of there being any credible plans and the nauseating characters who are, allegedly, driving the Brexit bus.
-
Yep - should there be, perhaps for legal reasons, a re-run (probably unlikely I know) I wouldn't be surprised if some Leave voters didn't change their minds given the apparent absence of there being any credible plans and the nauseating characters who are, allegedly, driving the Brexit bus.
and vice versa, those who don't see any real leadership on the Remain side in England, and those who think it 's just another nightmare if we vote against any deal because there isn't a let's forget about the negotiation choice coming from the EU.
-
You are assuming that people won't change their vote as they get older despite saying you have no idea what will happen as time passes. This is an assumption , and one which your own posts contradict. And that's leaving aside the basic assumption that the votes don't change on the basis of changed circumstances, never mind changed ages. You can't actually make any calculation without a raft of assumptions here.
The point, in a way, is about whether the vote was clearly the sure and settled view of the British people. For so many reasons it is unsafe to think it is. And demographics is just one of the reasons - there are certain circumstances where you can be pretty confident that demographics will shift perhaps a wafer thin majority into a more and more secure majority over time. This isn't one of those situations - demographics turns an already wafer thin majority into an even more marginal one and thence to a thin majority in the other direction.
And that's before you add in any assumptions about people changing their minds.
-
The point, in a way, is about whether the vote was clearly the sure and settled view of the British people. For so many reasons it is unsafe to think it is. And demographics is just one of the reasons - there are certain circumstances where you can be pretty confident that demographics will shift perhaps a wafer thin majority into a more and more secure majority over time. This isn't one of those situations - demographics turns an already wafer thin majority into an even more marginal one and thence to a thin majority in the other direction.
And that's before you add in any assumptions about people changing their minds.
Oh you can be 'pretty sure' with 'no idea' of what will happen while making 'no assumptions'? How does that work then?
-
Oh you can be 'pretty sure' with 'no idea' of what will happen while making 'no assumptions'? How does that work then?
That's how demographic predictions of all sorts work my friend.
You make a couple of assumptions neither of which I think are controversial - first that over time people die, and those that tend to die the most are those that are the oldest.
Secondly that youngsters get older and every so often one of them (or many) has their 18th birthday and becomes eligible to vote.
The only other assumption is that the old people who die are like the other old people in their voting patterns, and the young people who become eligible to vote are like other young people in their voting patterns.
Why is that such a challenge to you NS.
-
In what way am I 'spinning stats' Jakswan.
All I did was point out the relationship between age and likelihood of voting leave - and then provided evidence to back up my point. No spinning whatsoever.
The further point is at what point in the future does the cross-over occur. Effectively at what point will the loss of the elderly predominantly leave voters and appearance of new young voters attaining 18 who predominantly support remain be such that the tiny majority in favour of leaving vanishes, even if no-one who voted in 2016 changes their mind. Will it be before we actually leave the EU?
What % of the 18-24 age group actually voted remain. I can infer from your stats that 63% of those that voted went remain, however if the turnout in that age group is less than 50% then we could spin it to say only 31% voted remain.
I have heard of people, as they get older, have a tendency to become more conservative, no idea if this would translate to views with regard to Brexit.
Your assumptions (both unsafe):-
1) Turnout remains the same regardless of age
2) Voting intention remains the regardless of age
-
What % of the 18-24 age group actually voted remain. I can infer from your stats that 63% of those that voted went remain, however if the turnout in that age group is less than 50% then we could spin it to say only 31% voted remain.
Wrong the turnout for 18-24 years olds was 64%, for the over 65s it was 90% - those are the assumptions I've used.
I have heard of people, as they get older, have a tendency to become more conservative, no idea if this would translate to views with regard to Brexit.
You need to prove that with regard to Brexit - this is an assumption people (wrongly) assume for religion - i.e. that individuals get more religious as they get older. But there is no evidence for this, indeed the reverse seems to be slightly the case. The reason why churches are full of old people is because people born in the 1930s and 1940s always had a way higher level of religiosity than those born in the 1960s or 70s.
And I'm only talking about time-spans of a couple of years - most assumptions about people getting more conservative as they get older is based changes over decades.
Your assumptions (both unsafe):-
1) Turnout remains the same regardless of age
Nope I've factored in differential turnout with age
2) Voting intention remains the regardless of age
Which is of course the safe assumption unless you can prove otherwise. But you are actually rather shooting yourself in the foot, as the demographic shift is on the basis of people dying (and those are most likely to be predominantly the very oldest) and people attaining 18 (who are definitely the youngest voters) - so using your 'get more conservative (i.e.g Brexit) as you get older view would suggest that those dying (and therefore no longer voting) would be biased towards the most Brexit end of the 65+ voting profile, while those attaining 18 would be at the extreme remain end of the 18-24 profile.
-
That's how demographic predictions of all sorts work my friend.
You make a couple of assumptions neither of which I think are controversial - first that over time people die, and those that tend to die the most are those that are the oldest.
Secondly that youngsters get older and every so often one of them (or many) has their 18th birthday and becomes eligible to vote.
The only other assumption is that the old people who die are like the other old people in their voting patterns, and the young people who become eligible to vote are like other young people in their voting patterns.
Why is that such a challenge to you NS.
it isn't a challenge to me, I only used words from your own posts which you seem confused by.
-
Dear Jeremyp and ProfDavey,
The hole that needs filling, where do we start, what about this country and then we might look further afield.
Church of England, how would you fill that hole? And before anyone answers, please think very carefully about what that encompasses, you can start at the top and work your way down ( Her Majesty ).
The Sally Ann, how do you fill that hole?
Barnado's, how do you fill that hole, and please remember that our own government uses that charity for help and advice, actually when I think about it, this country would be in a very poor state if we didn't have the likes of the CoE, CoS, Sally Ann, Barnado's.
Wouldn't all the people in those organisations still be doing charitable work?
Remembrance day, how do you fill that hole?
There's no reason to treat Remembrance Day as a religious event. We can still have it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25465210
Is it your hope that one day all the above in the link will just be tourist attractions.
Nine out of ten of those already are tourist attractions and even Canterbury probably has more tourist visitors than Christians.
In fact, in seven cases, the religions that set up the sites (if they were religions) are already long gone. Their holes don't seem to stop us from appreciating the sites.
Then we need to consider our kids education, and no I am not talking about the three R's, morality, ethics, compassion, these are far more important than the three R's, and please don't say these are subjects that should be taught at home, in this disjointed country of one parent families or Mom and Dad out working all hours.
But you don't need religion to teach morality, ethics or compassion either at home or at school. In fact, I find it quite offensive that you must believe me to be lacking in all three.
Gentlemen, you have a massive hole to fill
If you have excised a tumour, you don't fill the hole with another tumour.
-
Interestingly, I have many friends over 60 (with political view across the spectrum) and the vast majority voted Remain. The one exception who voted Leave just hates Poles . . . and he's not the 'sharpest knife in the box'.
Of my circle of friends and acquaintances, only four voted to leave (unfortunately, two of them were my parents) which means that if my experience is a good indication of demographics, Remain absolutely crushed Leave by more than 90%.
Anecdotes are not evidence.
-
You are assuming that people won't change their vote as they get older despite saying you have no idea what will happen as time passes. This is an assumption , and one which your own posts contradict. And that's leaving aside the basic assumption that the votes don't change on the basis of changed circumstances, never mind changed ages. You can't actually make any calculation without a raft of assumptions here.
We don't know what individuals will do, but we are talking about large cohorts of the populace here. It's a reasonable assumption that on average their views will remain the same unless there is some systematic influence at work.
-
and vice versa, those who don't see any real leadership on the Remain side in England,
The Remain side lost. They have no obligation to lead Britain anywhere.
-
The Remain side lost. They have no obligation to lead Britain anywhere.
Strawman,but in a new vote you need something to vote for
-
We don't know what individuals will do, but we are talking about large cohorts of the populace here. It's a reasonable assumption that on average their views will remain the same unless there is some systematic influence at work.
I think that is correct, hence my quite reasonable assumptions, which were actually focussed on demographic effects.
Now you talk about systematic influences at work and there is one that is relevant - that being that there are a block of people who are resistant to change and therefore will tend to opt for the status quo. So they might have been against a Scottish parliament, preferring the status quo, at the time of that referendum. But once the parliament is established and is the 'norm' then they'd be in favour as it is now the status quo and would resist change aimed at abolishing it.
Now you might say that this will mean that a block of remain voters will jump ship to leave, but the difference with brexit compared to the changes enacted via other referendums is that we will be in a state of flux for years and years and a brexit settlement will perhaps take a decade or more before we return to stability and that situation seems 'normal'. So I'd argue that for all that time rather than wanting to retain the new status quo (because there won't be a status quo, only flux) the 'let's not change' brigade will hark back to the earlier stability and status quo of being in the EU.
-
Strawman,but in a new vote you need something to vote for
So are you suggesting we should have a second referendum - presumably on the terms of the agreed brexit settlement?
-
So are you suggesting we should have a second referendum - presumably on the terms of the agreed brexit settlement?
no
-
Wouldn't all the people in those organisations still be doing charitable work?
Indeed.
Actually it would be an appalling indictment of the motivations of people who work for religious charities to suggest that they'd cease to help others and engage in charitable work if the charity they were supporting didn't say 'Christian' on the tin.
Sadly I do know some people like this, whose motivation to do charitable work seems to be merely to make their religion look good and to make themselves feel more worthy in a religious context. Fortunately those people are in a very small minority in my experience.
-
no
Then why did you say that in a new vote you need something to vote for.
But to answer your question, presumably any second referendum would stack up an agreed brexit settlement against remaining (given that you couldn't simply reject the settlement and be left in complete limbo) so we would have something to vote for.
-
Then why did you say that in a new vote you need something to vote for.
But to answer your question, presumably any second referendum would stack up an agreed brexit settlement against remaining (given that you couldn't simply reject the settlement and be left in complete limbo) so we would have something to vote for.
Because I was talking about the need for a clear view of what you vote for, not a specific justification of a second vote. There is no option for just remaining unless you say that currently the EU spokespeople are just lying.
-
Wrong the turnout for 18-24 years olds was 64%, for the over 65s it was 90% - those are the assumptions I've used.
So we have 62 remain, 37 leave and 34 abstain. So 18-24s 46% voted remain.
You need to prove that with regard to Brexit - this is an assumption people (wrongly) assume for religion - i.e. that individuals get more religious as they get older. But there is no evidence for this, indeed the reverse seems to be slightly the case. The reason why churches are full of old people is because people born in the 1930s and 1940s always had a way higher level of religiosity than those born in the 1960s or 70s.
First you are making the claim you have the burden of proof. I made no such assumption there is evidence.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/03/do-we-become-more-conservative-with-age-young-old-politics
And I'm only talking about time-spans of a couple of years - most assumptions about people getting more conservative as they get older is based changes over decades.
Read the link.
Nope I've factored in differential turnout with age
I don't think your link that you based your claim on does.
Which is of course the safe assumption unless you can prove otherwise. But you are actually rather shooting yourself in the foot, as the demographic shift is on the basis of people dying (and those are most likely to be predominantly the very oldest) and people attaining 18 (who are definitely the youngest voters) - so using your 'get more conservative (i.e.g Brexit) as you get older view would suggest that those dying (and therefore no longer voting) would be biased towards the most Brexit end of the 65+ voting profile, while those attaining 18 would be at the extreme remain end of the 18-24 profile.
Eh? First if you are making a claim based on assumptions its up to you to prove them safe or not. Secondly its not simply a case of next year the population will change to be proportionally more 18-24s than over 65s, we have an ageing population.
-
We don't know what individuals will do, but we are talking about large cohorts of the populace here. It's a reasonable assumption that on average their views will remain the same unless there is some systematic influence at work.
Except Prof D said he had 'no idea' about what would happen
-
So we have 62 remain, 37 leave and 34 abstain. So 18-24s 46% voted remain.
Not the way I worked it out.
We have about 750k new voters added to the electoral roll each year as the become 18. Of these 64% vote - in other words 480k - of those 73% or 350k vote remain, the remainder or 130k vote leave - so that is a net gain for remain of 220k per year.
You can do the same at the other end for the 600k over 65's dying. Overall it gives a net gain per year for remain of between 350-400k, which wipes out the 1.3m majority in less than 4 years.
-
Not the way I worked it out.
We have about 750k new voters added to the electoral roll each year as the become 18. Of these 64% vote - in other words 480k - of those 73% or 350k vote remain, the remainder or 130k vote leave - so that is a net gain for remain of 220k per year.
You can do the same at the other end for the 600k over 65's dying. Overall it gives a net gain per year for remain of between 350-400k, which wipes out the 1.3m majority in less than 4 years.
Please link where you posted that before.
According to ONS deaths 2015 was just over 600k.
-
Strawman,but in a new vote you need something to vote for
What do you mean by "straw man"? I made a statement of fact. There is currently no obligation for the remainers to lead us anywhere since the referendum voted against the direction in which they want to go.
I do agree that, in a rerun of the referendum that the remainders won, they would have to lead us out of this mess.
-
There is no option for just remaining unless you say that currently the EU spokespeople are just lying.
Why not? Were we to change our minds at the end of the process, it would be in everybody's interest to let us stay.
-
Please link where you posted that before.
According to ONS deaths 2015 was just over 600k.
I didn't but no-one asked.
Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65, hence using that figure.
-
I didn't but no-one asked.
Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65, hence using that figure.
Source of data please?
Your initial post I responded seemed to be factually inaccurate (you have evaded expanding), one of your assumptions which you asserted were safe are no such thing, with the main point you are making is that the vote in four years the vote would have been different. So what? We voted in 2015 not sometime in the future.
-
Source of data please?
Your initial post I responded seemed to be factually inaccurate (you have evaded expanding), one of your assumptions which you asserted were safe are no such thing, with the main point you are making is that the vote in four years the vote would have been different. So what? We voted in 2015 not sometime in the future.
Actually we voted in 2016.
But of course changes over time are hugely relevant - why, because we won't actually enact brexit until 2019 at the very earliest - I'd suggest more likely 2020 or later. So it is very important to be certain that their is a mandate for brexit when it actually happens 3 plus years into the future.
Are you really suggesting that we would be on democratically safe grounds if (for sake of argument) we leave the EU in 2021, but by that time there has been a shift in opinion (or merely a shift in demographics) so that there isn't a majority in favour of leaving anymore. Sounds deeply unsafe to me.
And of course the way to close off this problem of time lag and demographic/opinion shift is to have a referendum at the point when we are ready to leave, on the basis of the actual negotiated settlement. If there is a majority to leave, then we leave immediately and there is no democratic problem. If there is a majority to remain (because of demographic shift, change in opinion or simply because people liked brexit 'in theory' but have recognised we can't have our cake and eat it and therefore don't like the real brexit settlement), then we remain. Why is that such a problem to you. Seems entirely sensible and democratic to me.
-
Source of data please?
Which data?
-
Actually we voted in 2016.
But of course changes over time are hugely relevant - why, because we won't actually enact brexit until 2019 at the very earliest - I'd suggest more likely 2020 or later. So it is very important to be certain that their is a mandate for brexit when it actually happens 3 plus years into the future.
Are you really suggesting that we would be on democratically safe grounds if (for sake of argument) we leave the EU in 2021, but by that time there has been a shift in opinion (or merely a shift in demographics) so that there isn't a majority in favour of leaving anymore. Sounds deeply unsafe to me.
And of course the way to close off this problem of time lag and demographic/opinion shift is to have a referendum at the point when we are ready to leave, on the basis of the actual negotiated settlement. If there is a majority to leave, then we leave immediately and there is no democratic problem. If there is a majority to remain (because of demographic shift, change in opinion or simply because people liked brexit 'in theory' but have recognised we can't have our cake and eat it and therefore don't like the real brexit settlement), then we remain. Why is that such a problem to you. Seems entirely sensible and democratic to me.
Yes an elected Parliament voted in favour of 6 to 1 to offer a referendum to the public and the public voted to leave. I'm open to the idea of another vote if its found that public opinion changes hugely or Parliament votes through another Referendum Bill.
I'm not in favour of offering based on your changes in demographics back of fag packet / factually incorrect / dodgy assumptions argument.
-
Which data?
The post
"I didn't but no-one asked.
Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65, hence using that figure."
In bold.
-
The post
"I didn't but no-one asked.
Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65, hence using that figure."
In bold.
ONS statistics - which demonstrate that well over 90% of deaths in the UK are people over 60 or 65 depending on which stats you look at.
And given that we are talking about deaths of previous voters one of the other largish demographics for deaths, infants, is not relevant. The death rates for people aged between 18 and 65 is tiny.
The most recent data indicates that 95% of deaths occurs at ages over 60, with 70% of deaths over the age of 80. Only about 1% of deaths are in the remain voting 18-44 category.
-
ONS statistics - which demonstrate that well over 90% of deaths in the UK are people over 60 or 65 depending on which stats you look at.
And given that we are talking about deaths of previous voters one of the other largish demographics for deaths, infants, is not relevant. The death rates for people aged between 18 and 65 is tiny.
The most recent data indicates that 95% of deaths occurs at ages over 60, with 70% of deaths over the age of 80. Only about 1% of deaths are in the remain voting 18-44 category.
Got a link?
-
Got a link?
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2015-09-23
Head down to the figures and click on the xl tab for the data.
But I find it a bit bizarre your continual probing on this - what is so hard to believe - old people die, young people tend not to die, they grow old and then die. Given that average life expectancy is now 79.1 and 82.3 for men and women respectively, and the most common age for death is 86 for men and 89 for women, why is it so hard for you to accept my comment that:
'Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65'
-
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2015-09-23
Head down to the figures and click on the xl tab for the data.
But I find it a bit bizarre your continual probing on this - what is so hard to believe - old people die, young people tend not to die, they grow old and then die. Given that average life expectancy is now 79.1 and 82.3 for men and women respectively, and the most common age for death is 86 for men and 89 for women, why is it so hard for you to accept my comment that:
'Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65'
I must be looking at different data:-
2012-2014 80+ 57.5% 60-79 33.5% 35-59 7.3% 15-34 1.1% Under 15 0.6%
The most recent data indicates that 95% of deaths occurs at ages over 60, with 70% of deaths over the age of 80. Only about 1% of deaths are in the remain voting 18-44 category.
No 90% age over 60.
Ok...
-
Not the way I worked it out.
We have about 750k new voters added to the electoral roll each year as the become 18. Of these 64% vote - in other words 480k - of those 73% or 350k vote remain, the remainder or 130k vote leave - so that is a net gain for remain of 220k per year.
Ok.
[/quote]
You can do the same at the other end for the 600k over 65's dying. Overall it gives a net gain per year for remain of between 350-400k, which wipes out the 1.3m majority in less than 4 years.
[/quote]
Actually its 90% so that is 540k of those 90% voted 486k of those 60% voted leave (291k) 40% voted remain (194k). A loss of 97k of leave.
So you would actually only gain 100k votes per year and that is assuming that voters don't become more conservative with age, and you seem to evade when challenged on that.
-
I must be looking at different data:-
2012-2014 80+ 57.5% 60-79 33.5% 35-59 7.3% 15-34 1.1% Under 15 0.6%
No 90% age over 60.
Ok...
That's just for men - remember have the population are female.
But whether it is 90% of deaths are for people over 60, or 95% or 97% is pretty irrelevant - all these figures are consistent with 'Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65', noting that there will be a rather small proportion of the 60-79 age deaths occurring between 60 and 65.
-
Ok.
You can do the same at the other end for the 600k over 65's dying. Overall it gives a net gain per year for remain of between 350-400k, which wipes out the 1.3m majority in less than 4 years.
Actually its 90% so that is 540k of those 90% voted 486k of those 60% voted leave (291k) 40% voted remain (194k). A loss of 97k of leave.
So you would actually only gain 100k votes per year and that is assuming that voters don't become more conservative with age, and you seem to evade when challenged on that.
Women exist and vote, my friend.
-
That's just for men - remember have the population are female.
But whether it is 90% of deaths are for people over 60, or 95% or 97% is pretty irrelevant - all these figures are consistent with 'Yes 600k deaths in 2015 - the vast, vast majority are over 65', noting that there will be a rather small proportion of the 60-79 age deaths occurring between 60 and 65.
But not consistent with your earlier position that vote leave will be overturned in four years it seems.
-
Ok.
You can do the same at the other end for the 600k over 65's dying. Overall it gives a net gain per year for remain of between 350-400k, which wipes out the 1.3m majority in less than 4 years.
Actually its 90% so that is 540k of those 90% voted 486k of those 60% voted leave (291k) 40% voted remain (194k). A loss of 97k of leave.
So you would actually only gain 100k votes per year and that is assuming that voters don't become more conservative with age, and you seem to evade when challenged on that.
You estimates of net loss of brexit votes due to death is conservative, due to:
1. You've used % age of death only for men, who tend to die younger - when you add in women your proportion dying at age 60+ is more like 95%.
2. And actually you can go lower, given that the 55-64 category (and even the 45-54) are also disproportionately leave voting (57% and 56% respectively) - that further adds to the net loss of leave voters due to death. There are tiny numbers of deaths in the remain majority age categories of 18-44.
And you also have to add in the net gain to remain at the other end - currently there are 780k 17 year olds who will turn 18 and be eligible to vote - using the same approach - 64% of those would vote (just as the brexit turnout figures indicate) - in other words 500k and of those 73% would vote remain, meaning net gain to remain of 220-230k per year.
I haven't ignored your notion of people getting more conservative with age, and I read your link with interest - but I hardly see this as relevant to the current discussions on brexit and demographic shifts not over coming decades but over the coming few years - perhaps to 2021. There are a number of points to make:
First this is about identifying with the conservative party, not about brexit - you cannot extrapolate one to the other.
Secondly, as the author points out a perceived shift with age, may in fact be merely that it’s not a person’s age that is important, but rather which generation they belong to. So you have to actually track the cohort. And the article (or rather it's data) allows you to do this.
So from the graph - in 1979 41% of 30 year olds identified as conservative. In 2010 those same people are now 70 - and now 39% identify as conservative. So there has been a reduction in their 'conservatism', defined in the manner of the study, in that 40 year period. Likewise elsewhere - in 1987 44% of 40 year olds identified as conservative, fast forward with the same cohort, and in 1997 just 31% of 50 year olds identified as conservative - those are the same people remember.
So there is very limited evidence for this effect (as the author concludes) over a period of decades - much less so over a period of just a few years.
-
But not consistent with your earlier position that vote leave will be overturned in four years it seems.
Absolutely it is.
Net gain to remain of 220-230k per year due to people turning 18.
Net loss to leave of 100-120k per year due to disproportion numbers of leave voters being lost due to death.
Add the 2 together net shift of approx. 320-350k votes per year in favour of remain. 2016 leave majority is 1.3M, that is wiped out in 4 years.
What is so hard to understand
-
Absolutely it is.
Net gain to remain of 220-230k per year due to people turning 18.
Net loss to leave of 100-120k per year due to disproportion numbers of leave voters being lost due to death.
Add the 2 together net shift of approx. 320-350k votes per year in favour of remain. 2016 leave majority is 1.3M, that is wiped out in 4 years.
What is so hard to understand
I think you are ignoring shift in voting intention with age and not getting these figures exactly right but lets leave that aside. So what?
-
Source of data please?
There were 529,655 in England and Wales according to the ONS. Add about another 10% for Scotland and you are close to 600k.
-
So you would actually only gain 100k votes per year and that is assuming that voters don't become more conservative with age, and you seem to evade when challenged on that.
Plenty of conservatives are Remainers and plenty of socialists are Leavers. What evidence do you have that the tendency to become more conservative also implies a tendency to become more likely to vote Leave?
Anyway, this is somewhat moot because you are correct that nobody is going to order a new referendum based only on demographics. A new referendum will only occur if there is a demonstrable swing to the Remainers. Demographics tells us that this is likely to happen, everything else being equal.
Everything else, of course will probably not be equal because the economy might tank, companies might leave for the EU, or the economy might thrive - or do better than expectations, at least. Another factor is, if the EU plays hardball, the Dunkirk spirit might set in.
-
There were 529,655 in England and Wales according to the ONS. Add about another 10% for Scotland and you are close to 600k.
When you add in Scotland and Northern Ireland, using their actual figures the overall number of deaths was 601k.
-
I think you are ignoring shift in voting intention with age
But you have failed to provide any evidence that this exists. Certainly your linked article provides no support for the view that their is a systematic shift toward the conservatives (the measure used) with age. Indeed a number of the cohorts followed in that study showed small, or not so small shifts, away from the conservatives.
And as Jeremy P points out even if there were a shift towards the tories with age this couldn't be interpreted as indicating a shift toward brexit with age. I think you are falling into the trap that many do with religion - thinking that people get more religious as they get older, when they don't change at all, but there is a difference in base religiosity with generations. I think there is perhaps the same effect with brexit, and indeed the evidence we do have from 1975 and 2016 suggest this to be true.
-
But you have failed to provide any evidence that this exists. Certainly your linked article provides no support for the view that their is a systematic shift toward the conservatives (the measure used) with age. Indeed a number of the cohorts followed in that study showed small, or not so small shifts, away from the conservatives.
And as Jeremy P points out even if there were a shift towards the tories with age this couldn't be interpreted as indicating a shift toward brexit with age. I think you are falling into the trap that many do with religion - thinking that people get more religious as they get older, when they don't change at all, but there is a difference in base religiosity with generations. I think there is perhaps the same effect with brexit, and indeed the evidence we do have from 1975 and 2016 suggest this to be true.
Getting bored suspect you are wrong but don't care enough to debate so will concede all your points.... So what?
-
Getting bored
Which translates to:
'I've lost the argument'
... suspect you are wrong
Which translates to:
'I have no evidence to back up my hand waving assertons'
but don't care enough to debate so will concede all your points
Which translates to:
'Darn it, you are so clearly right, but can't really be seen to properly admit it, hence the 'whatever'-type response'
.... So what?
Ah finally something worth properly commenting on.
'So what' - do you really think it is of no importance that even if no-one actually changes their view the electoral mandate for the most important change we have made in decades will have vanished due to demographic shift by the time we actually realise brexit. I think that is pretty darned important, as it makes the mandate deeply unsafe.
-
Been doing a bit of delving with regard to the discussions on demographic shift and suggestion that people get more conservative (in this case more-brexity) as they get older.
Interestingly 60+ is the only group where genuine voting comparisons as they get older can be made as they are the only ones who have actually had the opportunity to vote twice on membership of EEC/EU.
It is without doubt that in 2016 the most elderly voters were the most likely to vote for brexit. I think there is a kind of default assumption that this is always the case, and therefore that the 60+ voters in 2016 fighting their way to the polling station to make sure they voted leave were once bright eyed idealistic young adults in thrall to the common market, EEC etc and presumably strongly supportive of the EEC last time there was a vote in 1975.
But it isn't true.
I have dug out data from the British Election Panel studies, which actually looked at voting in the 1975 EEC referendum and in that referendum the voting profile with age was exactly the reverse of the 2016 one - namely that the oldest groups were much more likely to vote to remain in the EEC and the youngest groups of voters were disproportionately in favour of leaving.
So rather than moving from pro-remain as youngsters to pro-leave as oldies, the youngest age group in 1975 were the most grumpy about the EEC, wanting to get out - track forward 41 years and what do find (these people are now at least 59) and guess what - they are grumpy about the EU and want to leave. But the point is that they haven't 'become' grumpy over those 41 years, they were grumpy back in 1975.
So we often here someone old enough to have voted in 1975 come out with the rather glib 'but this isn't what we voted for' cliche, implying that they voted in favour of EEC membership in 75 but have become disillusioned. But the analysis suggests that they were likely not to have supported EEC membership back in 75 at all, as they were part of the most hostile group to membership them amongst the electorate. So they haven't become disillusioned, they always were.
And this might explain something about that currently elderly cohort - in general they were the most anti Europe in 75 - they lost then - have they been bearing a grudge all those years desperate for an opportunity to 'right a wrong' they perceived happened all those years ago when they voted to leave, but lost, in 75.
-
That's a fascinating piece of digging, Prof D, but the idea that people were bearing a grudge for 41 years seems fanciful.
-
That's a fascinating piece of digging, Prof D, but the idea that people were bearing a grudge for 41 years seems fanciful.
You are perhaps correct, although my father seemed to (and blamed Ted Heath) - he didn't live to vote in the 2016 referendum but would certainly have voted out, as I suspect he did in 1975.
I think the most interesting aspect of this is that it was the youngest voters in 1975 most against membership - this is counter to a perception that (as in 2016) young people loved the EEC and old ones hated it. The reverse was true.
We can speculate as to why, but here is a thought.
The younger voters in 1975 would have been those born in the mid 1930s, 40s and 50s (the youngest born in 1957). Their formative years would have been pre-EEC and perhaps their perception of Europe was rather stylised - the kind of Eagle comic view. Critically while some might have lived through the war they wouldn't have experienced its horrors as an adult - certainly not served. So while their parents (who would have genuinely experienced the horrors of war as adults) were strongly supportive of the EEC, perhaps from the perspective of keeping peace in Europe, that wasn't so much of an issue to them.
Fast forward 40 years and that group retains its grumpiness towards europe, but are now the oldest voters - their children and grandchildren whose formative years were with the UK firmly part of the EU are comfortable with membership, while that older group remains skeptical.
Further point is that this doesn't provide any ammunition for Jakswan's view of people becoming more brevity as they get older - rather it suggests a generation (those born in late 30s to perhaps mid 60s) who don't like europe (and have remained so throughout their voting lives) sandwiched between older generations (born from 1900-mid 30s) who voted in favour of EEC membership is very large numbers, and younger generations (born 1970 onward) who are also more balanced or very favourable toward europe.
-
An alternative view is that they saw it as a form of capitalism that they were opposed to, we are talking about a generation revolting against the idea of globalisation from a then leftist viewpoint but have moved across the spectrum to the same vote from the right?
-
An alternative view is that they saw it as a form of capitalism that they were opposed to, we are talking about a generation revolting against the idea of globalisation from a then leftist viewpoint but have moved across the spectrum to the same vote from the right?
Except from the Guardian link Jakswan provided they don't seem to make moved across the political spectrum
31% of 30-year olds identified with the tories in the 1979 election - fast forward 31 years to 2010 and 31% of 60 year olds (these are the same people) identified with the tories.
-
Except from the Guardian link Jakswan provided they don't seem to make moved across the political spectrum
31% of 30-year olds identified with the tories in the 1979 election - fast forward 31 years to 2010 and 31% of 60 year olds (these are the same people) identified with the tories.
Except 31% isn't enough to give the Brexit vote, though there was a much more obvious Labour anti EEC vote as opposed to apathy
-
I must have voted in 1975, since I'd have been 23 back then and I've always considered voting to be an obligation, but I can't remember how I voted then or how the issues were portrayed at the time; maybe this is just me, but I wonder how many others who voted then do clearly remember the details from 1975 and took these into account back in June.
-
I must have voted in 1975, since I'd have been 23 back then and I've always considered voting to be an obligation, but I can't remember how I voted then or how the issues were portrayed at the time; maybe this is just me, but I wonder how many others who voted then do clearly remember the details from 1975 and took these into account back in June.
The trade unions were anti EEC iirc.
I voted yes then.
-
I must have voted in 1975, since I'd have been 23 back then and I've always considered voting to be an obligation, but I can't remember how I voted then or how the issues were portrayed at the time; maybe this is just me, but I wonder how many others who voted then do clearly remember the details from 1975 and took these into account back in June.
My parents do. My Dad falls into the camp of voting for the EEC but against the EU. He's one of the people who thinks integration has gone too far.
-
Except 31% isn't enough to give the Brexit vote, though there was a much more obvious Labour anti EEC vote as opposed to apathy
Nobody has claimed that the Tories were the ones voting against the EEC/EU.
The 31% thing was put forward to refute the claim that people get more Conservative as they get older (the one that your alternative view relies on).
The point is that the group of people who were most anti-EEC in 1975 is the same group that is most anti-EU now. This is evidence against Jakswan's hypothesis that people get more anti-EU as they get older which was put forward to refute the assertion that, everything else being equal, the population will get more pro Brexit as the next few years go by.
-
Here is an interesting article with graphs, about trends in some European countries like Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands......which are going to polls soon.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/03/europe/populism-in-europe-visual-guide/index.html
-
Which translates to:
'I've lost the argument'
Which translates to:
'I have no evidence to back up my hand waving assertons'
Which translates to:
'Darn it, you are so clearly right, but can't really be seen to properly admit it, hence the 'whatever'-type response'
Ah finally something worth properly commenting on.
'So what' - do you really think it is of no importance that even if no-one actually changes their view the electoral mandate for the most important change we have made in decades will have vanished due to demographic shift by the time we actually realise brexit. I think that is pretty darned important, as it makes the mandate deeply unsafe.
So in future referendums should check in with you to make sure the mandate is safe?
-
So in future referendums should check in with you to make sure the mandate is safe?
So you are comfortable that in, say 2020 we enact a soft brexit without knowing whether there is a majority in support of that action. Or we enact a hard brexit without knowing whether there is a majority in support of that action. I want to be sure that at the point of being abel to enact an actual deal that there is a mandate for that deal at that point in time.
There is no mandate for any particular flavour of brexit, and it will be years before we actually have an agreed deal ready to be enacted - the 2016 vote will not provide a mandate at that point, as it will so far too far in the future to be safe to conclude that the 2016 views remain the same. And besides the 2016 vote doesn't provide a mandate for any specific brexit agreement.
Why are you so scared of democracy Jakswan.
-
So you are comfortable that in, say 2020 we enact a soft brexit without knowing whether there is a majority in support of that action. Or we enact a hard brexit without knowing whether there is a majority in support of that action. I want to be sure that at the point of being abel to enact an actual deal that there is a mandate for that deal at that point in time.
Not sure they will have to check in with Dave to make sure its ok, after all it might not be ok in 10 years time.
There is no mandate for any particular flavour of brexit, and it will be years before we actually have an agreed deal ready to be enacted - the 2016 vote will not provide a mandate at that point, as it will so far too far in the future to be safe to conclude that the 2016 views remain the same. And besides the 2016 vote doesn't provide a mandate for any specific brexit agreement.
So if the majority are in favor of remaining but Davey's back of fag packet calcs are against we can just ignore the whole thing.
Why are you so scared of democracy Jakswan.
Not your kind where you decide if there is a mandate to do anything.
-
Democracy is a principle, Jakswan, not a straitjacket. It is also a process which adjusts to circumstances.
Mrs May will be ill-advised to rely on an event in 2016 to determine a decision she may take some years later. Her predecessor already seems fated to be considered the most incompetent prime minister since Eden (the politician or the garden - take your choice). She may well overtake him in this contest if she is not careful.
-
So if the majority are in favor of remaining but Davey's back of fag packet calcs are against we can just ignore the whole thing.
But we have no idea whether there will be a majority in favour of the agreed brexit deal in 2020 because it is in the future and there has never been a referendum on any actual brexit deal.
Not your kind where you decide if there is a mandate to do anything.
Quite the reverse - there should be a mandate from the british people on the actual brexit deal at the point when it can be enacted. Currently there is absolutely no mandate for a hard brexit, a soft brexit or a red, a white and blue brexit or any other possible brext deal. Do you really think we should make the most important decision this country will have taken in decades without a mandate (noting too that in the General Election there was only a mandate for a referendum, and the government which was voted in favoured remaining in the EU).
-
Democracy is a principle, Jakswan, not a straitjacket. It is also a process which adjusts to circumstances.
Quite - Jakswan's view is a bit like saying after 2015 - you voted Tory, get over it and cancelling any further general election because 'the people have spoken' and therefore they have a mandate to govern in perpetuity. We typically accept that a democratic mandate lasts no more than 4 or 5 years (hence why we have regular elections) and given that it will probably be 2020 before we leave (in other words 4 years after the 2016 vote, then that mandate under normal circumstances would already be seen to be out of date. And that is in circumstance where we actually voted in 2016 on a real deal, not a hypothetical, all things to all people, brexit. So actually there isn't a mandate for any actual deal, whether a bit long in the tooth or otherwise.
-
But we have no idea whether there will be a majority in favour of the agreed brexit deal in 2020 because it is in the future and there has never been a referendum on any actual brexit deal.
Quite the reverse - there should be a mandate from the british people on the actual brexit deal at the point when it can be enacted. Currently there is absolutely no mandate for a hard brexit, a soft brexit or a red, a white and blue brexit or any other possible brext deal. Do you really think we should make the most important decision this country will have taken in decades without a mandate (noting too that in the General Election there was only a mandate for a referendum, and the government which was voted in favoured remaining in the EU).
oic this is about another vote on the exit deal. Blimey just argue for that then, jeez no wonder you lost!
Joined libdems yet?
-
Quite - Jakswan's view is a bit like saying after 2015 - you voted Tory, get over it and cancelling any further general election because 'the people have spoken' and therefore they have a mandate to govern in perpetuity. We typically accept that a democratic mandate lasts no more than 4 or 5 years (hence why we have regular elections) and given that it will probably be 2020 before we leave (in other words 4 years after the 2016 vote, then that mandate under normal circumstances would already be seen to be out of date. And that is in circumstance where we actually voted in 2016 on a real deal, not a hypothetical, all things to all people, brexit. So actually there isn't a mandate for any actual deal, whether a bit long in the tooth or otherwise.
No strawman, the mandate to leave comes from act of parliament, if you want a vote on the deal then comfortable with the democratic process that will get you one.
If the libdems start gaining traction then the government will be unable to ignore them. Actually think we will see a GE before then.
-
No strawman, the mandate to leave comes from act of parliament, if you want a vote on the deal then comfortable with the democratic process that will get you one.
You brexiters do seem to be a tad confused - I could have sworn that the brexit brigade and the government were fighting tooth and nail, all the way to the Supreme Court, to prevent Parliament triggering brexit via an act of parliament. Now you seem to be saying they should.
And if there is an act of parliament, and parliament is of course sovereign, MPs and peers cannot be forced to vote in a particular manner - their discretion cannot be fettered and certainly not by an advisory referendum. So you need to consider where those MPs gain their mandate - well from the vote in 2015 based on the manifesto of the parties they stood for. And in virtually ever case those elected MPs were elected on the basis of a party manifesto based on staying in the EU - indeed I think of the 650 MPs only the one UKIP MP, and perhaps the handful of NI unionists campaigned on a platform of leaving the EU.
-
You brexiters do seem to be a tad confused - I could have sworn that the brexit brigade and the government were fighting tooth and nail, all the way to the Supreme Court, to prevent Parliament triggering brexit via an act of parliament. Now you seem to be saying they should.
The divisive nature of this debate is wearing, labeling people as the "other" is not going to help. So I'm not going to consider anyone who voted differently as having a label and all think and act the same way, instead I'll ask what someones thoughts are.
So with regard to article 50 I'm no legal expert but glad is going through the courts for clarity, from a political POV my opinion is that when Parliament voted 6 to 1 for the referendum act the Parliament gave that decision to the electorate. I would think this allows the government to invoke article 50.
And if there is an act of parliament, and parliament is of course sovereign, MPs and peers cannot be forced to vote in a particular manner - their discretion cannot be fettered and certainly not by an advisory referendum. So you need to consider where those MPs gain their mandate - well from the vote in 2015 based on the manifesto of the parties they stood for. And in virtually ever case those elected MPs were elected on the basis of a party manifesto based on staying in the EU - indeed I think of the 650 MPs only the one UKIP MP, and perhaps the handful of NI unionists campaigned on a platform of leaving the EU.
Where did I suggest that MPs should be forced to do anything? I think the vast majority of MPs will vote for Article 50, apart from the SNP and LibDems, maybe Green MP.
If you can convince a lot more people to support the LibDems we may well see another vote on the Brexit deal, I'm quite open to that idea. What is Labours position on this the most important political topic in a generation?
Would strongly suggest you give yourself a talking to, tell yourself that poor arguments, hysteria, strawmen, name-calling, demonisation of those that have a different opinion will ultimately end with the same result, a loss for you.
-
The divisive nature of this debate is wearing, labeling people as the "other" is not going to help. So I'm not going to consider anyone who voted differently as having a label and all think and act the same way, instead I'll ask what someones thoughts are.
Agreed - which is, of course one of the major arguments in favour of a second referendum - that the 52% only agreed on what they were against, not what they were for. They are a massively broad church from the out and out xenophobes, through to those who favour much more free market 'freedom', including of course freedom for companies to recruit who they want from wherever.
And if we leave the EU we need to be clear that there is a mandate as to what we are for (i.e. the actual brexit deal).
So with regard to article 50 I'm no legal expert but glad is going through the courts for clarity, from a political POV my opinion is that when Parliament voted 6 to 1 for the referendum act the Parliament gave that decision to the electorate. I would think this allows the government to invoke article 50.
I can't see how this is a tenable argument when Parliament agreed to an advisory referendum. If they believed they had fettered their own discretion after the referendum they would have enacted a binding referendum - they didn't.
All parliament voted for was for a referendum to take place, nothing more, nothing less - the remit of the bill and act have been finalised - a referendum has taken place. Note the following form the official research brief for the bill:
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'
That's what MPs voted for.
Would strongly suggest you give yourself a talking to, tell yourself that poor arguments, hysteria, strawmen, name-calling, demonisation of those that have a different opinion will ultimately end with the same result, a loss for you.
I think you are confusing me for some other poster - perhaps you are putting all remainers in the same box (see above).
I have engaged in argument - I'm not in the business of throwing insults around, I'll let the arguments do the talking. Rather than accusing me of 'name calling' (I haven't) of 'demonisation' (I haven't), of 'hysteria' (eh - have you read my posts), you might be better trying to address the actual points I am raising.
-
Agreed - which is, of course one of the major arguments in favour of a second referendum - that the 52% only agreed on what they were against, not what they were for. They are a massively broad church from the out and out xenophobes, through to those who favour much more free market 'freedom', including of course freedom for companies to recruit who they want from wherever.
And other reasons as well, still glad to see you take advice.
And if we leave the EU we need to be clear that there is a mandate as to what we are for (i.e. the actual brexit deal).
Sure you can argue for another vote if you like, not convinced personally, but that will be upto politicians to decide. The only political party that agrees with you on this it seems are the LibDems, joined them yet?
I can't see how this is a tenable argument when Parliament agreed to an advisory referendum. If they believed they had fettered their own discretion after the referendum they would have enacted a binding referendum - they didn't.
All parliament voted for was for a referendum to take place, nothing more, nothing less - the remit of the bill and act have been finalised - a referendum has taken place. Note the following form the official research brief for the bill:
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'
It is tenable to me and many others, democracy gotta love it! Although I'm actually quite open to a vote on the deal, I'd be quite happy with Norway type deal personally.
As to the Act I don't think it would have been possible to have made it binding since it was pre-legislative.
From Wiki
"pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."
I think any political party would have to change their policy given the electorate voted that way.
That's what MPs voted for.
Think it depends on the MP, clearly Tories, as a party voted to change policy in accordance with the electorate.
I think you are confusing me for some other poster - perhaps you are putting all remainers in the same box (see above).
You are effectively saying 'I know you are but what am I' dear me, grow-up.
I have engaged in argument - I'm not in the business of throwing insults around, I'll let the arguments do the talking. Rather than accusing me of 'name calling' (I haven't) of 'demonisation' (I haven't), of 'hysteria' (eh - have you read my posts), you might be better trying to address the actual points I am raising.
I always address your points, we simply don't agree on some issues.
-
Sure you can argue for another vote if you like, not convinced personally, but that will be upto politicians to decide. The only political party that agrees with you on this it seems are the LibDems, joined them yet?
Nope.
We are in a phoney war phase, where brexit still means all things to all men (and women) - but that won't last - over the next 18 months or so brexit will be nailed down as soft, or hard, or red, white and blue, or sky blue pink etc with the other options no longer available. That will drive divisions in the brexit camp.
So for example if it becomes clear that the direction of travel is for super-soft Norway style brexit, do you really think the hard core UKIPers will shrug their shoulders and mutter, 'sure, fine, whatever'. Nope, as we have already seen with at least one poster here, they will be fuming, claiming that the deal isn't what they voted for and that there is no mandate - quite possible they'll see a second referendum as necessary.
On the contrary, from the Dan Hannon wing (which includes many pro-ish EU tories) if brexit is careering down a hard non-single market route, with massive restrictions on migration (that those people think are essential for economic prosperity), don't you think they will be claiming 'this isn't what I voted for and it isn't in britain's interests - we have no mandate for this (easy to argue given that 48% wanted no brexit at all), we must have a mandate so a second referendum is essential.
It is tenable to me and many others, democracy gotta love it! Although I'm actually quite open to a vote on the deal, I'd be quite happy with Norway type deal personally.
And you have demonstrated my point ably - the settlement you'd be quite 'happy with' is completely unacceptable to another brexit poster here, with initials JK.
As to the Act I don't think it would have been possible to have made it binding since it was pre-legislative.
From Wiki
"pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."
Nope it was perfectly possible, parliament chose not to. In the previous UK-wide referendum (on AV vs FPTP) parliament enacted a binding referendum - in this case they didn't.
I think any political party would have to change their policy given the electorate voted that way.
Why? By inference your line of argument means that when a government wins an election (on a manifesto) the opposition would have to change their policy to align with that of the new government, because they had lost the vote. That is non-sense - an opposition is quite within its rights to continue to consider that a policy is wrong even when it has lost a vote, and to continue to oppose that policy. Remember that MPs (and by inference their parties) aren't delegates (i.e. expected to align their position to reflect that of their electorate) - no they are representatives, voted in to represent all their constituents in parliament, but under no obligation to follow a popular opinion. And of course if constituents don't like the line their MP has taken, they can throw them our at the next election.
-
Nope.
We are in a phoney war phase, where brexit still means all things to all men (and women) - but that won't last - over the next 18 months or so brexit will be nailed down as soft, or hard, or red, white and blue, or sky blue pink etc with the other options no longer available. That will drive divisions in the brexit camp.
So for example if it becomes clear that the direction of travel is for super-soft Norway style brexit, do you really think the hard core UKIPers will shrug their shoulders and mutter, 'sure, fine, whatever'. Nope, as we have already seen with at least one poster here, they will be fuming, claiming that the deal isn't what they voted for and that there is no mandate - quite possible they'll see a second referendum as necessary.
On the contrary, from the Dan Hannon wing (which includes many pro-ish EU tories) if brexit is careering down a hard non-single market route, with massive restrictions on migration (that those people think are essential for economic prosperity), don't you think they will be claiming 'this isn't what I voted for and it isn't in britain's interests - we have no mandate for this (easy to argue given that 48% wanted no brexit at all), we must have a mandate so a second referendum is essential.
A 2nd referendum would need to get through parliament, quite clear there is going to be support for more softer Brexit and doubt it will go any further.
And you have demonstrated my point ably - the settlement you'd be quite 'happy with' is completely unacceptable to another brexit poster here, with initials JK.
I have demonstrated nothing, in a democracy the majority prevails.
Nope it was perfectly possible, parliament chose not to. In the previous UK-wide referendum (on AV vs FPTP) parliament enacted a binding referendum - in this case they didn't.
Not sure that is correct but its a moot point.
Why? By inference your line of argument means that when a government wins an election (on a manifesto) the opposition would have to change their policy to align with that of the new government, because they had lost the vote. That is non-sense - an opposition is quite within its rights to continue to consider that a policy is wrong even when it has lost a vote, and to continue to oppose that policy. Remember that MPs (and by inference their parties) aren't delegates (i.e. expected to align their position to reflect that of their electorate) - no they are representatives, voted in to represent all their constituents in parliament, but under no obligation to follow a popular opinion. And of course if constituents don't like the line their MP has taken, they can throw them our at the next election.
An election and an advisory referendum are not the same thing. Perhaps poorly worded on my part, I enter into evidence:-
MPs back government's Brexit timetable 448 v 75
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38243500
I'll edit most political parties will switch
-
I have demonstrated nothing, in a democracy the majority prevails.
Think carefully: how do you define majority?
-
No we won't. We'll be kicking ourselves that we didn't stay and help save it.
The EU can't collapse without causing major problems for the UK.
There is no major problems with the UK, just the people who were running it.
-
I have demonstrated nothing, in a democracy the majority prevails.
So can you tell me please which type of brexit (e.g. hard, soft, red white blue) has a majority in favour of it.
-
Not sure that is correct but its a moot point.
You can not be sure all you like, but you are wrong. Parliament can (and has) enacted both advisory and binding referendums - indeed the last 2 all UK referendums have been one of each. Had parliament chosen they could have enacted a binding referendum on brexit - they chose not to, rather they enacted an advisory referendum, which by definition mustn't fetter the discretion of parliament to decide or not to implement the results of the referendum. So once again the exact wording from the official briefing notes on the bill.
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'
And the point as to whether is was advisory or binding, or whether it could have been the latter, isn't moot - indeed constitutionally it is critical. Either parliament os sovereign or it isn't - it you try to make a referendum that parliament has chosen to be advisory effectively binding (by trying to require them to implement the result) then you have curtailed parliamentary sovereignty.
-
So can you tell me please which type of brexit (e.g. hard, soft, red white blue) has a majority in favour of it.
You claimed people will be unhappy with lack of and all forms of Bexit which would ultimately result in another vote.
-
You can not be sure all you like, but you are wrong. Parliament can (and has) enacted both advisory and binding referendums - indeed the last 2 all UK referendums have been one of each. Had parliament chosen they could have enacted a binding referendum on brexit - they chose not to, rather they enacted an advisory referendum, which by definition mustn't fetter the discretion of parliament to decide or not to implement the results of the referendum. So once again the exact wording from the official briefing notes on the bill.
'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'
And the point as to whether is was advisory or binding, or whether it could have been the latter, isn't moot - indeed constitutionally it is critical. Either parliament os sovereign or it isn't - it you try to make a referendum that parliament has chosen to be advisory effectively binding (by trying to require them to implement the result) then you have curtailed parliamentary sovereignty.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than point scoring. MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.
-
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than point scoring. MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.
Is the point not just exactly that? They had the option to and voted on it. It was not imposed on them by the result of the referendum.
-
Is the point not just exactly that? They had the option to and voted on it. It was not imposed on them by the result of the referendum.
Never claimed it was all I'm saying is that the majority of mps will respect the result.
-
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than point scoring. MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.
No they didn't - all they voted on was a timescale to initiate brexit negotiations in a non binding vote, (with a very important caveat - see below) - MPs were not asked to, nor did they, vote on brexit.
The caveat being that by a larger majority MPs voted to require the government to provide detailed plans of approach to brexit prior to triggering article 50 and that parliament must be given the responsibility to properly scrutinise those plans. The timescale vote is dependent on the vote on the plan and scrutiny - so no plan, no allowance for proper scrutiny, no alignment with timescale.
I suggest you don't trust what is written in the Daily Mail about this week's vote but actually to find out what PMs actually voted on.
Oh and of course important to note that the votes (both of them) aren't binding on either government or MPs.
-
A danger now of Labour being squeezed between Remain people, who may vote LibDem, and Leave voters, who may swing to Tory or UKIP. I can see that they are trying to do a nuanced position, but it may well be construed as just confused, and voters may pass them by.
-
A danger now of Labour being squeezed between Remain people, who may vote LibDem, and Leave voters, who may swing to Tory or UKIP. I can see that they are trying to do a nuanced position, but it may well be construed as just confused, and voters may pass them by.
I know it's a big 'if' but . . .
IF
people who voted Remain, voted for the most Europhile party, while the those who voted Leave split their votes between, Labour Tory and UKIP - we would see a Lib Dem government at the next election :)
Now, I would be the first to concede that is probably unlikely - but even on a small scale this effect might produce some unexpected results.
-
I think May is home free in 2020, barring odd events. As to the other parties, unpredictable. At the moment, Labour's stance looks like the worst of all worlds, but this may change, depending on how Brexit fares, or how much hood-winking goes on.
-
I think May is home free in 2020, barring odd events. As to the other parties, unpredictable. At the moment, Labour's stance looks like the worst of all worlds, but this may change, depending on how Brexit fares, or how much hood-winking goes on.
I think one think that we can be absolutely certain of is that the next few years will produce many 'odd events'
-
I think May is home free in 2020, barring odd events. As to the other parties, unpredictable. At the moment, Labour's stance looks like the worst of all worlds, but this may change, depending on how Brexit fares, or how much hood-winking goes on.
2020 is an awful long way away, with unprecedented changes between now and then, so I wouldn't want to make any predictions. If brexit goes tits up big time, with the economy hitting the buffers in say 2018/19 and when the current uneasy truce is broken, which will be the case as soon as it is clear which type of brexit the government favours her position will be very difficult.
It won't be helped that she won't be able to say either - 'hey but I won an election on a mandate to do this' - nor actually even to say that someone else won an election on a mandate to do this. Remember that the Tories in 2015 campaigned on the basis of staying in the EU, and of steering the economy toward a balanced budget by 2020. Both those key campaigning elements have gone up in smoke.
-
I know it's a big 'if' but . . .
IF
people who voted Remain, voted for the most Europhile party, while the those who voted Leave split their votes between, Labour Tory and UKIP - we would see a Lib Dem government at the next election :)
Now, I would be the first to concede that is probably unlikely - but even on a small scale this effect might produce some unexpected results.
I think that's right. Brexit is the key defining issue now, and I think will be for many, many years. Add to that that the country is pretty well split in two - deeply divided with absolutely no sign whatsoever of unity of reconciliation of the 52 and the 48. So there is massive opportunity for a party who appeals strongly to the 48%, regardless of how they are considered by the 52% if the 52% are carved up between a range of true brexiteers, and bandwagon jumping brexiteers.
Think about Scotland - the SNP favoured independence, the tories, labour and libdems opposed. The SNP lost, they only got 45% in their referendum (compared to 48% for remain) - yet what has happened in the two elections since. Well the SNP have held onto that 45% (give or take) while the 55% are split three ways - result in FPTP elections (and even Scottish parliament hybrid system) - result SNP wipes the floor with everyone else.
Just a point to note for those suggesting that continuing to pander to the losing side in a referendum is electorally crazy.
-
Add to that that the country is pretty well split in two - deeply divided with absolutely no sign whatsoever of unity of reconciliation of the 52 and the 48. So there is massive opportunity for a party who appeals strongly to the 48%, regardless of how they are considered by the 52% if the 52% are carved up between a range of true brexiteers, and bandwagon jumping brexiteers.
But isn't the big opportunity for a party or interest group the prospect of getting some result from the 37% who did not take part in the referendum?
Now a fair proportion of them will certainly be disconnected from politics, or apathetic (or both) but there will be some who are genuinely concerned about the referendum result and may be motivated to take an active interest in the developing situation.
-
But isn't the big opportunity for a party or interest group the prospect of getting some result from the 37% who did not take part in the referendum?
Now a fair proportion of them will certainly be disconnected from politics, or apathetic (or both) but there will be some who are genuinely concerned about the referendum result and may be motivated to take an active interest in the developing situation.
Actually it was only 28% who didn't vote rather than 37%.
Of that 28% there will be a fair number who never vote and will never vote. The opportunity to engage non voters I think is in the 18-24 age group, where 36% didn't vote, but many probably now regret that decision given the very widespread view amongst the young that the older generations have stolen the future of the young with the brexit vote. That demographic should be ripe pickings, particularly using social media techniques.
-
No they didn't - all they voted on was a timescale to initiate brexit negotiations in a non binding vote, (with a very important caveat - see below) - MPs were not asked to, nor did they, vote on brexit.
The caveat being that by a larger majority MPs voted to require the government to provide detailed plans of approach to brexit prior to triggering article 50 and that parliament must be given the responsibility to properly scrutinise those plans. The timescale vote is dependent on the vote on the plan and scrutiny - so no plan, no allowance for proper scrutiny, no alignment with timescale.
I suggest you don't trust what is written in the Daily Mail about this week's vote but actually to find out what PMs actually voted on.
Oh and of course important to note that the votes (both of them) aren't binding on either government or MPs.
I wouldn't trust the daily mail to tell me what was on TV, thought you didn't do insults, sigh.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/keir-starmer-calls-for-detailed-brexit-plan-after-mps-vote-to-trigger-article-50
MPs vote to trigger article 50
What point are you trying to make? Article 50 will be triggered if it needs a vote in Parliament, Labour will not vote against regardless.
-
Just a point to note for those suggesting that continuing to pander to the losing side in a referendum is electorally crazy.
Who is doing that? I think the LibDems are doing the right thing for the LibDems.
-
Who is doing that? I think the LibDems are doing the right thing for the LibDems.
My point being that there are people suggesting that it would be electoral suicide for Labour to overtly campaign to (democratically) overturn brexit. I don't think it would be electoral suicide at all given that there are 16 million hacked off remain voters looking for a home.
Worked very nicely for the SNP, although sadly Labour were so incoherent and lukewarm in their support for remain in the referendum campaign I think they now struggle to be seen as credible by either the remain or the leave side.
-
I wouldn't trust the daily mail to tell me what was on TV, thought you didn't do insults, sigh.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/keir-starmer-calls-for-detailed-brexit-plan-after-mps-vote-to-trigger-article-50
MPs vote to trigger article 50
What point are you trying to make? Article 50 will be triggered if it needs a vote in Parliament, Labour will not vote against regardless.
You will note that the article makes it clear (as I did) that the vote was non binding - so MPs didn't vote for brexit, merely for a potential timetable on the basis that the government provides detailed plans.
But as it was non binding, it binds neither the government to provide those details, nor MPs to agree to the timetable if they are required to trigger article 50, which will be the case if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court.
So frankly the vote means nothing except a bit of political posturing.
The government claim victory, so do the opposition, but actually neither are the most important show in town current - that is the 11 Supreme Court Judges, who you will note took not one iota of notice in the votes (which were clearly timetabled for their benefit) as they are smart enough to know that the votes have no relevance in law.
-
You will note that the article makes it clear (as I did) that the vote was non binding - so MPs didn't vote for brexit, merely for a potential timetable on the basis that the government provides detailed plans.
But as it was non binding, it binds neither the government to provide those details, nor MPs to agree to the timetable if they are required to trigger article 50, which will be the case if the Supreme Court upholds the decision of the High Court.
So frankly the vote means nothing except a bit of political posturing.
The government claim victory, so do the opposition, but actually neither are the most important show in town current - that is the 11 Supreme Court Judges, who you will note took not one iota of notice in the votes (which were clearly timetabled for their benefit) as they are smart enough to know that the votes have no relevance in law.
So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.
If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes.
-
So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.
If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes.
Wrong - if the Supreme Court rules that only parliament can trigger article 50 then a non binding vote a few months before will be completely irrelevant. Firstly because the votes will be entirely different - the first being on a timetable, but not actually triggering article 50, the second being actually on triggering article 50 at the appropriate point. Secondly because the first vote means absolutely nothing - has no legal or constitutional relevance. If the Supreme Court rules that parliament only can trigger article 50, that will be for real and also, be aware that both the commons and lords will need to vote - in last week's non binding vote only the commons voted.
Point to note - over 100 MPs didn't even bother to vote in last week's vote. Do you really think such a large number of MPs would fail t vote in a real vote on brexit, if one happens in due course. Given that it would be the most significant vote in recent times ... somehow I doubt that 100 MPs would be too busy 'washing their hair'.
-
Wrong - if the Supreme Court rules that only parliament can trigger article 50 then a non binding vote a few months before will be completely irrelevant.
I said it was an indicator, that is not "wrong".
Firstly because the votes will be entirely different - the first being on a timetable, but not actually triggering article 50, the second being actually on triggering article 50 at the appropriate point.
Its still to do with Brexit so its not "entirely different".
Secondly because the first vote means absolutely nothing - has no legal or constitutional relevance. If the Supreme Court rules that parliament only can trigger article 50, that will be for real and also, be aware that both the commons and lords will need to vote - in last week's non binding vote only the commons voted.
Your second point concedes your first point.
Point to note - over 100 MPs didn't even bother to vote in last week's vote. Do you really think such a large number of MPs would fail t vote in a real vote on brexit, if one happens in due course. Given that it would be the most significant vote in recent times ... somehow I doubt that 100 MPs would be too busy 'washing their hair'.
Your 3rd point concedes your 1st point, and 75 + 100 is not greater than 448.
You go down rabbit holes, in my opinion Article 50 will be triggered by the end of March, I think the chance of that happening is pretty high.
You disagree, fine go make yourself some money:-
https://betslip.ladbrokes.com/RemoteBetslip/bets/betslip.html?selections=455967851&locale=en-GB
I bet on Brexit and Trump (dickhead) and this isn't good value.
-
So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.
If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes.
There's no doubt the Bill for Brexit will get through (if the Supreme court decides we need one). The problem is how long is it going to take and what amendments will get attached to it. The Lib Dems in the HoL have already decided to amend it to insist on a soft Brexit and the government will have to spend time undoing it - or accept soft Brexit.
-
There's no doubt the Bill for Brexit will get through (if the Supreme court decides we need one). The problem is how long is it going to take and what amendments will get attached to it. The Lib Dems in the HoL have already decided to amend it to insist on a soft Brexit and the government will have to spend time undoing it - or accept soft Brexit.
I suppose, it is possible that 'well aimed' amendments could split the Tories, and if that happened it's all bets off. Could even force and early election.
-
I said it was an indicator, that is not "wrong".
You said they voted for brexit - they didn't - you were wrong.
Its still to do with Brexit so its not "entirely different".
Voting on a timetable on something is 'entirely different' from voting on the thing that the timetable relates to.
Your second point concedes your first point.
Your 3rd point concedes your 1st point,
No they don't.
and 75 + 100 is not greater than 448.
I never said it was - my point was that were this actually an important vote, rather than a non binding one whose only purpose was political posturing, that you wouldn't have 100 MPs not even bothering to turn up.
-
in my opinion Article 50 will be triggered by the end of March, I think the chance of that happening is pretty high.
It's possible, but whether it happens or not by the end of March is entirely dependent on the outcome of the Supreme Court - if they uphold the earlier decision then I think that timescale is totally out of the window.
Which once again confirms my earlier point that the non-binding vote last week is a sideshow, an irrelevance. The key is the outcome of the Supreme Court.
-
You said they voted for brexit - they didn't - you were wrong.
Not in the post you were replying to please try and be clearer. If I did say that (I think it was the headline of the Guardian page) let me be clearer, I think the recent Brexit vote on the timetable is an indicator of the outcome on a vote on article 50 should that be needed.
Voting on a timetable on something is 'entirely different' from voting on the thing that the timetable relates to.
Can't be arsed arguing semantics, tell yourself you won again if it helps.
I never said it was - my point was that were this actually an important vote, rather than a non binding one whose only purpose was political posturing, that you wouldn't have 100 MPs not even bothering to turn up.
So important votes are only the binding ones? I think what is important is largely subjective but since this made headlines across most media you would be in a minority to think its not important.
-
It's possible, but whether it happens or not by the end of March is entirely dependent on the outcome of the Supreme Court - if they uphold the earlier decision then I think that timescale is totally out of the window.
Which once again confirms my earlier point that the non-binding vote last week is a sideshow, an irrelevance. The key is the outcome of the Supreme Court.
I think the Supreme court decision is irrelevant since Parliament will likely vote through a bill on triggering Article 50 anyway. Basing that view on what MP's have said in interviews and how they have voted recently.
-
Seems I'm not alone. Charles Goerens
“Yesterday evening, the House of Commons decided by a majority of almost 400 to support Theresa Mays plan to trigger Article 50 by the end of March 2017. Hence the prospect that this Article 50 will be invoked has become very real indeed."
-
I think the Supreme court decision is irrelevant since Parliament will likely vote through a bill on triggering Article 50 anyway. Basing that view on what MP's have said in interviews and how they have voted recently.
But the bill would likely get amended by the HofL, and if enough Tory Remain MP's felt strongly enough, the government could suffer a defeat.
Then things would really get interesting.
-
But the bill would likely get amended by the HofL, and if enough Tory Remain MP's felt strongly enough, the government could suffer a defeat.
Then things would really get interesting.
Exactly - if the Supreme Court rule that parliament must not just trigger article 50 but also must have a significant say in the manner in which it is triggered, e.g. be required to approve, not approve amend the governments plan for the of brexit then all bets are off.
Will they - quite likely as if they rule that parliament must be trigger then parliament must be the ultimate arbiters of the government policy, as is the case for any government bill - which can only be enacted through approved via both houses.
And that point on both houses is important - this won't be a case where the government can you the Parliament Act to over-rule the Lords, as leaving the EU (and triggering article 50) wasn't a manifesto pledge of the government - the only manifesto pledge was to hold a referendum, and they've done that.
-
But the bill would likely get amended by the HofL, and if enough Tory Remain MP's felt strongly enough, the government could suffer a defeat.
Then things would really get interesting.
Not a lot of evidence I know but Daily Politics this week a Lord suggested they would not vote it down.
All of this is conjecture maybe wishful thinking. The bookies are offering odds on by March, put your money where your mouth is!
-
Not in the post you were replying to please try and be clearer. If I did say that (I think it was the headline of the Guardian page) let me be clearer, I think the recent Brexit vote on the timetable is an indicator of the outcome on a vote on article 50 should that be needed.
In reply #152 you said unambiguously that the MPs voted for Brexit.
-
In reply #152 you said unambiguously that the MPs voted for Brexit.
Indeed he did - and he was wrong.
-
In reply #152 you said unambiguously that the MPs voted for Brexit.
Wrong but I'm not talking about your post above but another of yours.
Since clarified.
-
Wrong but I'm not talking about your post above but another of yours.
Since clarified.
Nope - right.
The very quote, in all its glory:
'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.'
They didn't - you were wrong - pure and simply, no clarification required, simply flat out wrong. MPs did not vote for brexit, indeed they didn't even vote on brexit.
-
Polls show an overwhelming support for a Brexit which costs them nothing.
-
Nope - right.
The very quote, in all its glory:
'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit.'
They didn't - you were wrong - pure and simply, no clarification required, simply flat out wrong. MPs did not vote for brexit, indeed they didn't even vote on brexit.
Yes if you quote my post and say it is wrong, if you quote something else then claim its wrong then you are wrong.
So to recap
Me "So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.
If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes."
You "wrong".
Now what is wrong "the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through" (which I can't see how it could be wrong since its my opinion), or "Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes." (which could indeed be wrong).
Neither apparently, Davey, despite quoting me and replying wrong was actually talking about another post a few pages back.
The actual post you quoted was in fact technically wrong but suggest semantics especially as these are quotes from, what I would consider reputable news sites:-
Guardian "Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for 'detailed' plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50"
Independent "MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year"
Huffington Post "A Commons vote saw Theresa May’s amendment to a Labour motion - agreeing that the Government must trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year - sail through by 461 votes to 89."
Telegraph "The result saw 461 MPs side with the Prime Minister and vote to commit the Government to triggering Article 50 by the end of March next year."
BBC "Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent."
indeed they didn't even vote on brexit.
They voted on the Brexit issue and your side lost.
-
Yes if you quote my post and say it is wrong, if you quote something else then claim its wrong then you are wrong.
So to recap
Me "So the vote means nothing but the Supreme Court is most important show in town.
If the Supreme Court says that Article 50 needs a bill in which case the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through. Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes."
You "wrong".
Now what is wrong "the vote was relevant since its an indicator of that Bill getting through" (which I can't see how it could be wrong since its my opinion), or "Also some Labour politicians when asked if they don't get their caveats will they still vote for article 50 say, essentially, yes." (which could indeed be wrong).
Neither apparently, Davey, despite quoting me and replying wrong was actually talking about another post a few pages back.
The actual post you quoted was in fact technically wrong but suggest semantics especially as these are quotes from, what I would consider reputable news sites:-
Guardian "Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for 'detailed' plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50"
Independent "MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year"
Huffington Post "A Commons vote saw Theresa May’s amendment to a Labour motion - agreeing that the Government must trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year - sail through by 461 votes to 89."
Telegraph "The result saw 461 MPs side with the Prime Minister and vote to commit the Government to triggering Article 50 by the end of March next year."
BBC "Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent."
Epic quote mining Jakswan.
Let's not forget that newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers, and therefore need a 'killer headline' even if the truth is rather less impressive.
So let's actually cut to the truth - last week the commons (note just the commons, not both houses of parliament) voted in a non binding vote, driven by the opposition. Those kinds of vote are largely irrelevant, except for political posturing as the vote achieves exactly nothing. So what did they vote one:
1. They voted that the government should produce a detailed plan on its brexit strategy prior to the triggering of article 50. Does that mean the government has to produce a plan - nope cos it is non binding. If they want to the government can simply refuse to provide a plan.
2. They agreed to respect the government's timeline to trigger article 50 by end March (due to a government amendment to the opposition motion) - Does that require them to ensure article 50 by end March if they are involve - nope, cos it's non binding. If they want to parliament (which will of course include the Lords who didn't even vote last Wednesday) can block, delay, prevaricate, amend, etc to their hearts content.
They voted on the Brexit issue and your side lost.
Nope - no-one lost or won - it was the equivalent of the posturing at the weigh-in in a boxing match - entertaining, but irrelevant in terms of who loses or wins the actual boxing match.
-
Epic quote mining Jakswan.
No in many cases those were the headlines.
Quote mining Definition
The practice of quoting out of context
So lets start with you backing up that with evidence, what quote is given out of context?
-
I am not really clear on how this Supreme Court decision works.
But I do believe in honestly that we will still Brexit Europe and the Courts will uphold the democratic vote of the nation to do so.
We cannot lose our identity as a nation, and I believe the EU would have eventually cost us our monarchy and the treatment of our poorest is why we are out of the EU.
Our Country was failing it's own people and I believe committing treason in a democratic way.
Our Government was not acting in the best interest of the Queen or the Nation as people.
We are no the USA and we do not want their rules, their laws or their oppression of the poorest people in our society.
How can any nation stand when divided by lies setting one against another. The rich verses the poor. Of course the rich removing even the little the poor have to ensure they are crushed.
The EU exit vote shows the people are fed up of being told what they want and how anyone poor, disabled or sick are just scroungers. This Government thought they could turn people against people and then walk into Europe and anyone who could not work can die on the street whilst someone took their home and their place who was not a British citizen.
As human beings we have a duty to home the homeless, treat the sick, help the disabled and look after our poorest in society and maintaining there welfare. Not treat them like lepers and kick them to the kerb.
Make no bones about it... Comfortable as you may be now... if these things above had happened to you in the scheme of things then you would would have found yourself in the same position without help or hope of receiving proper help and care.
-
I am not really clear on how this Supreme Court decision works.
And judging from the content of the rest of the post, you are not clear on anything else.
-
And judging from the content of the rest of the post, you are not clear on anything else.
But ten out of ten for entertainment content :)
-
No in many cases those were the headlines.
Quote mining Definition
The practice of quoting out of context
So lets start with you backing up that with evidence, what quote is given out of context?
I shall assume Davey is withdrawing his accusation.
-
I shall assume Davey is withdrawing his accusation.
Not at all.
Quote mining is taking quotes out of context to bolster one's own point when they actually do the opposite when placed in context. Your post was classic quote mining.
Now let's actually remember the argument between us. You stated that 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit'. I argued that you were wrong as firstly they didn't actual vote on brexit, merely on a potential timetable for triggering article 50 which initiates negotiations, and also on the need for a plan from the government. I also made the point that the vote was non binding they they haven't actually voted on anything that requires anyone to do anything.
So let's look at the evidence of quote mining shall we. Firstly I'd argue that quoting a headline, without the full article or a link to the full article is by definition 'quote mining' as it takes a single statement out of the context of the full article. And, of course in many cases a newspaper headline is sensationalised and doesn't fully stack up with the reality of what was in the article.
So let's look at your examples one by one, on whether they support:
1. You - i.e. 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit' or
2. Me - MPs voted in non binding votes on timetable for brexit and on requesting government provides plans for brexit.
So:
1. Guardian "Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for 'detailed' plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/keir-starmer-calls-for-detailed-brexit-plan-after-mps-vote-to-trigger-article-50
In the actual article we have: 'The Commons passed Labour’s motion calling for 'the prime minister to commit to publishing the government’s plan for leaving the EU before article 50 is invoked' and 'The vote is non-binding but was a highly symbolic moment as it marked the first time MPs had endorsed the government’s Brexit timetable'
2. Independent "MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-article-50-vote-labour-motion-parliament-theresa-may-plan-a7462546.html
In the actual article we have: 'MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year as Labour attempts to force Theresa May to reveal her plan for Brexit.' and 'The vote was part of an Opposition day debate meaning it was not binding but it has been viewed as a symbolic victory for those who believe the Government should be more transparent about their plans for Brexit.'
3. Huffington Post "A Commons vote saw Theresa May’s amendment to a Labour motion - agreeing that the Government must trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year - sail through by 461 votes to 89."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-vote-89-mps-government-wins-article-50_uk_58485e1be4b07fd553cf1c56
In the actual article we have: 'A second vote, on a Labour motion calling on the Government to set out a Brexit “plan” before triggering Article 50, won by 448 votes to 75. While non-binding ...'
4. Telegraph "The result saw 461 MPs side with the Prime Minister and vote to commit the Government to triggering Article 50 by the end of March next year."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/brexit-article-50-mps-vote-supreme-court-pmqs-live/
Sadly the actual article seems to be behind a pay-wall, but link to the related article on 'what the vote means and you get: 'Theresa May tabled an amendment which forced a non-binding Commons vote on whether Parliament agrees that the Government must trigger Article 50, which begins formal Brexit talks, by the end of March next year.'
5. BBC "Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38243500
In the actual article we have: 'The House of Commons' decisions are not binding on ministers.'
So in fact every one of the articles (when you consider the whole article in context and not just the headline) supports my view and not yours.
Not one of the articles, when considered in full and in context supports your view that 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit'. Every one of them, when considered in full and in context supports my view that there were non binding votes and that MPs didn't vote for brexit, indeed they didn't even vote on brexit, they merely voted on a potential timetable to initiate negotiation and on the view that the government should bring forward their plans for brexit prior to triggering article 50.
So there we go - classic quote mining from Jakswan on the basis that the quotes you have taken out of context do not support your view when seen in context but support mine.
And before you accuse me of the same for only quoting small sections of the articles - that's partly because otherwise the post would be far too long, might infringe copyright, but there is no attempt by me to conceal the full context as I have linked to all the articles where anyone reading this can, if they so wish, go and read the full articles (except perhaps the Telegraph one as it is behind a pay wall, but I can't really do anything about that.
-
Not at all.
Quote mining is taking quotes out of context to bolster one's own point when they actually do the opposite when placed in context. Your post was classic quote mining.
Yes agreed and I quoted from a range of news articles.
Now let's actually remember the argument between us. You stated that 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit'. I argued that you were wrong as firstly they didn't actual vote on brexit, merely on a potential timetable for triggering article 50 which initiates negotiations, and also on the need for a plan from the government.
Yes agreed i was wrong and clarified my position for you. The argument is was this vote significant in that it would indicate the likely way the house would vote on Brexit.
I also made the point that the vote was non binding they they haven't actually voted on anything that requires anyone to do anything.
I don't disagree.
So let's look at the evidence of quote mining shall we. Firstly I'd argue that quoting a headline, without the full article or a link to the full article is by definition 'quote mining' as it takes a single statement out of the context of the full article. And, of course in many cases a newspaper headline is sensationalised and doesn't fully stack up with the reality of what was in the article.
I think it depends on the headline and the article.
So let's look at your examples one by one, on whether they support:
1. You - i.e. 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit' or
2. Me - MPs voted in non binding votes on timetable for brexit and on requesting government provides plans for brexit.
Eh? Don't see how that is relevant, I agree with you that is not the disagreement.
So:
1. Guardian "Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for 'detailed' plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/07/keir-starmer-calls-for-detailed-brexit-plan-after-mps-vote-to-trigger-article-50
In the actual article we have: 'The Commons passed Labour’s motion calling for 'the prime minister to commit to publishing the government’s plan for leaving the EU before article 50 is invoked' and 'The vote is non-binding but was a highly symbolic moment as it marked the first time MPs had endorsed the government’s Brexit timetable'
2. Independent "MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-article-50-vote-labour-motion-parliament-theresa-may-plan-a7462546.html
In the actual article we have: 'MPs have voted to trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year as Labour attempts to force Theresa May to reveal her plan for Brexit.' and 'The vote was part of an Opposition day debate meaning it was not binding but it has been viewed as a symbolic victory for those who believe the Government should be more transparent about their plans for Brexit.'
3. Huffington Post "A Commons vote saw Theresa May’s amendment to a Labour motion - agreeing that the Government must trigger Article 50 by the end of March next year - sail through by 461 votes to 89."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-vote-89-mps-government-wins-article-50_uk_58485e1be4b07fd553cf1c56
In the actual article we have: 'A second vote, on a Labour motion calling on the Government to set out a Brexit “plan” before triggering Article 50, won by 448 votes to 75. While non-binding ...'
4. Telegraph "The result saw 461 MPs side with the Prime Minister and vote to commit the Government to triggering Article 50 by the end of March next year."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/07/brexit-article-50-mps-vote-supreme-court-pmqs-live/
Sadly the actual article seems to be behind a pay-wall, but link to the related article on 'what the vote means and you get: 'Theresa May tabled an amendment which forced a non-binding Commons vote on whether Parliament agrees that the Government must trigger Article 50, which begins formal Brexit talks, by the end of March next year.'
5. BBC "Technically MPs have only backed the government's plan to start the process of leaving by the end of March next year. Nonetheless it is a statement of Parliament's intent."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38243500
In the actual article we have: 'The House of Commons' decisions are not binding on ministers.'
So in fact every one of the articles (when you consider the whole article in context and not just the headline) supports my view and not yours.
That might be true you accused me of quote mining, so for me to guilty of this I would be quoting someone and taking the quote out of context.
In order for your accusation to be true you would have to show where I have done that.
So a classic would be "No Vote for Brexit" and me quoting "Vote for Brexit".
All you have done is taken a position and then found bits that have agreed with you, that isn't quote mining its just quoting.
Not one of the articles, when considered in full and in context supports your view that 'MPs just voted in a huge majority for brexit'.
Its possible that the articles thought it was non-binding, was a vote for Brexit, and was significant, these are not mutually exclusive claims.
At no point did I "quote mine".
Every one of them, when considered in full and in context supports my view that there were non binding votes
Agreed.
and that MPs didn't vote for brexit,
The would need to explicitly state that if it were true, they don't.
indeed they didn't even vote on brexit, they merely voted on a potential timetable to initiate negotiation and on the view that the government should bring forward their plans for brexit prior to triggering article 50.
If them voting on a motion with an amendment on it that says “call on the government to invoke article 50 by 31 March 2017” isn't a vote at least about Brexit I don't know what is.
So there we go - classic quote mining from Jakswan on the basis that the quotes you have taken out of context do not support your view when seen in context but support mine.
Nope classic Davey delusion.
And before you accuse me of the same for only quoting small sections of the articles - that's partly because otherwise the post would be far too long, might infringe copyright, but there is no attempt by me to conceal the full context as I have linked to all the articles where anyone reading this can, if they so wish, go and read the full articles (except perhaps the Telegraph one as it is behind a pay wall, but I can't really do anything about that.
I don't think even understand what quote mining is.
-
And Jakswan, if you really want context, perhaps go straight to the horse's mouth. In this case the actual record of the debate in Hansard:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-07/debates/CA09D9B2-9634-41C8-8979-8B9CD82DBB8F/TheGovernmentSPlanForBrexit
Jakswan claims that because MPs voted on the government amendment in this non binding debate, that it suggests they would do so in a real debate on triggering article 50 if one arises. Now Keir Starmer, whose debate it was (as Shadow Secretary of State for brexit, this being an opposition day debate), was asked that very question by Julian Lewis, a conservative MP. He asked:
'Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that, if the Opposition support, or at least do not oppose, the Government’s amendment, it would be completely unacceptable and totally inconsistent for them to do anything in the new year to delay the triggering of article 50 beyond 31 March?'
Starmer replied: 'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it. I am astonished that some Members are willing to pass up the opportunity to have a vote in the first place and to restrict our ability to debate amendments.'
Which translates to 'no, chum, this debate means nothing - we can (and will if we see fit) vote for changes, amendments, vote against etc, delay triggering article 50 etc etc.' Nothing in this debate has any effect whatsoever on those later decisions (if we get them in a parliamentary debate and vote on triggering article 50).
-
Yes agreed i was wrong and clarified my position for you. The argument is was this vote significant in that it would indicate the likely way the house would vote on Brexit.
Not according to Keir Starmer, whose debate it was (see post above)
If them voting on a motion with an amendment on it that says “call on the government to invoke article 50 by 31 March 2017” isn't a vote at least about Brexit I don't know what is.
Just what it was - a non binding opposition day vote on their request for government to publish its plans and on an government amendment on the timetable for triggering article 50. And as Starmer has clearly indicated were the house to be asked to actually vote on triggering article 50 in a binding vote (which would really be about the timetable) then there is no guarantee that the opposition would vote in a similar manner, nor that they might table amendments that might result in delays etc.
The rest of your response is, frankly, flannel. Jakswan - a tip for you, when in a hole best to stop digging.
I actually don't think you understand parliamentary procedure and, in particular, opposition day motions. These are nothing more than political posturing. Usually the opposition tables a motion critical of government, and then the government tables an amendment saying how great they are (or suggesting their agenda). In plenty of cases (as in this one on plans) the opposition wins, but it binds the government to nothing. Often the government amendment is also carried, but it provide the government with no parliamentary mandate to do anything.
-
And Jakswan, if you really want context, perhaps go straight to the horse's mouth. In this case the actual record of the debate in Hansard:
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-07/debates/CA09D9B2-9634-41C8-8979-8B9CD82DBB8F/TheGovernmentSPlanForBrexit
Jakswan claims that because MPs voted on the government amendment in this non binding debate, that it suggests they would do so in a real debate on triggering article 50 if one arises. Now Keir Starmer, whose debate it was (as Shadow Secretary of State for brexit, this being an opposition day debate), was asked that very question by Julian Lewis, a conservative MP. He asked:
Its an indicator, I think its likely to happen an opinion. You are free to disagree I would suggest you once again go and put your money where your mouth is:-
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125398889
How much are you betting?
-
Not according to Keir Starmer, whose debate it was (see post above)
He is not precluding changing his vote in future.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/labour-will-block-article-50-unless-theresa-may-agrees-to-jeremy/
A source close to Mr Corbyn told the Telegraph: "We won't be seeking to block Article 50, only amend or influence the government's negotiating terms if they do not meet our red lines.
"Our support for invoking article 50 is unconditional, but we would seek to amend or influence the government's negotiating terms."
Just what it was - a non binding opposition day vote on their request for government to publish its plans and on an government amendment on the timetable for triggering article 50. And as Starmer has clearly indicated were the house to be asked to actually vote on triggering article 50 in a binding vote (which would really be about the timetable) then there is no guarantee that the opposition would vote in a similar manner, nor that they might table amendments that might result in delays etc.
Never claimed there was a guarantee, refer you to Corbyn source above.
The rest of your response is, frankly, flannel. Jakswan - a tip for you, when in a hole best to stop digging.
You accused me of something and when unable to substantiate the accusation now resort to rhetoric.
I actually don't think you understand parliamentary procedure and, in particular, opposition day motions. These are nothing more than political posturing. Usually the opposition tables a motion critical of government, and then the government tables an amendment saying how great they are (or suggesting their agenda). In plenty of cases (as in this one on plans) the opposition wins, but it binds the government to nothing. Often the government amendment is also carried, but it provide the government with no parliamentary mandate to do anything.
You don't think I understand something then go on to explain something I have already with. What I strongly suggest you do is pay attention to what where we are disagreeing about and not what you think we are disagreeing about.
I'd also advise you to not make spurious accusations, undermines your position quite considerably.
-
Its an indicator, I think its likely to happen an opinion. You are free to disagree I would suggest you once again go and put your where your mouth is:-
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.125398889
How much are you betting?
I'm not a betting man.
But you keep changing your line.
First it was MPs voted for brexit (they didn't).
Then MPs voted on brexit (they didn't)
Then MPs voted on a brexit issue (perhaps so, but what on earth does that mean)
The that the vote was hugely significant (it wasn't, as Starmer makes absolutely clear)
Now finally all you are left with is that it might happen, perhaps more likely than not. And here again all you are doing is moving your position to agree with me - way back I said that the March timetable might be met, but the most significant factor in whether it is or not is the Supreme Court ruling. So while we are on betting - do you not think that the Supreme Court ruling will move the odds significantly one way or another depending on its outcome? Worth noting that since the vote last week the odds have drifted back toward a later trigger date.
Also your betting odds don't actually align with the government plan (which is by end March), but your odds are for either Jan-Jun 2016 or from July 2017. So if article 50 is triggered in April, May or June that would be a delay against the government plan.
So thanks very much for agreeing with me.
-
He is not precluding changing his vote in future.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/06/labour-will-block-article-50-unless-theresa-may-agrees-to-jeremy/
A source close to Mr Corbyn told the Telegraph: "We won't be seeking to block Article 50, only amend or influence the government's negotiating terms if they do not meet our red lines.
"Our support for invoking article 50 is unconditional, but we would seek to amend or influence the government's negotiating terms."
Never claimed there was a guarantee, refer you to Corbyn source above.
That article is over a month ago - all sorts of things have moved on since then - including the debate where Starmer was clear:
'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it. I am astonished that some Members are willing to pass up the opportunity to have a vote in the first place and to restrict our ability to debate amendments.'
Just this afternoon Starmer has made further statements to the effect that Labour would look to block any attempt at a hard brexit.
-
I'm not a betting man.
Not surprised, you seem very certain about things, on anything my degree of certainty is never very high. If it is at odds with a betting market its interesting. :)
But you keep changing your line.
First it was MPs voted for brexit (they didn't).
Then MPs voted on brexit (they didn't)
Then MPs voted on a brexit issue (perhaps so, but what on earth does that mean)
The that the vote was hugely significant (it wasn't, as Starmer makes absolutely clear)
For about the last few pages my position is, in my opinion, that this vote was significant. In my opinion several reputable news outlets also reported on this as being significant. If it was about Brexit issue, on brexit, is semantics I think, but feel free to tell yourself you won.
You have a different view and have found a quote that should change my opinion but doesn't, mainly because I haven't seen him being pressed on the issue and the vote was a majority of 373, so it'll pass with a majority of 372.
You have different views from me, the Guardian, Telegraph, Huffington Post etc is fine we will agree to disagree.
Now finally all you are left with is that it might happen, perhaps more likely than not. And here again all you are doing is moving your position to agree with me - way back I said that the March timetable might be met, but the most significant factor in whether it is or not is the Supreme Court ruling. So while we are on betting - do you not think that the Supreme Court ruling will move the odds significantly one way or another depending on its outcome? Worth noting that since the vote last week the odds have drifted back toward a later trigger date.
Well the fact we agree on something is surely a cause for celebration. No I would not subscribe to the view that the Supreme Court ruling is the "most significant factor", for that to be true I'd have to know a little more about proceedings, my impression from afar is that it didn't go well for the government. If this were true and the betting market agreed that it was the "most significant factor" then the odds would have changed a lot not "drifted back".
But hey ho don't get upset that I don't agree, life is like that.
Also your betting odds don't actually align with the government plan (which is by end March), but your odds are for either Jan-Jun 2016 or from July 2017. So if article 50 is triggered in April, May or June that would be a delay against the government plan.
So thanks very much for agreeing with me.
Yes I would agree again, blimey this is great, the actual odds for March will be lower. (Not really sure we actually agree but you seem to get a little upset if I do and you sound like you need to calm down.)
-
That article is over a month ago - all sorts of things have moved on since then - including the debate where Starmer was clear:
'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it. I am astonished that some Members are willing to pass up the opportunity to have a vote in the first place and to restrict our ability to debate amendments.'
Just this afternoon Starmer has made further statements to the effect that Labour would look to block any attempt at a hard brexit.
Corbyn is the leader, as I recall Diane Abbot was on pretty much the same page as Corbyn on Sunday. I seem to recall John McDonnell saying the same thing on Pienaar on Sunday as well, hey does it really matter. We await more news with interest.
-
For about the last few pages my position is, in my opinion, that this vote was significant. In my opinion several reputable news outlets also reported on this as being significant. If it was about Brexit issue, on brexit, is semantics I think, but feel free to tell yourself you won.
You have a different view and have found a quote that should change my opinion but doesn't, mainly because I haven't seen him being pressed on the issue and the vote was a majority of 373, so it'll pass with a majority of 372.
I have a different view from you. I don't have a different view from the Guardian, Telegraph, Huffington Post etc when you actually bother to read beyond the headline. Sure each of the papers needs to 'spin' their editorial line (e.g. the Guardian sees this as a huge victory for the anti brexit brigade, the telegraph a huge victory for the pro brexit brigade). But actually once you get behind the headlines, what each article tells you is very similar - there were non binding votes on whether the government should provide a plan and on the government's proposed timetable.
On the significance of the vote I'm less interested in the newspaper spin than the view of the person who actually lead the debate, and he was clear that the vote was of no significance:
'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it.'
-
No I would not subscribe to the view that the Supreme Court ruling is the "most significant factor" ...
Here is a question for you.
If the Supreme Court case isn't so significant why are the government throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it to try to avoid losing.
If it was largely irrelevant (as you claimed previously) and that the whole process would go through fine whatever the result of the ruling, why wouldn't the government have simply accepted the verdict in the High Court and ploughed on regardless.
The reality is that the government is terrified of letting parliament have any meaningful say in the brexit process and deal and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it.
-
Corbyn is the leader, as I recall Diane Abbot was on pretty much the same page as Corbyn on Sunday. I seem to recall John McDonnell saying the same thing on Pienaar on Sunday as well, hey does it really matter. We await more news with interest.
Actually I don't think it is the opposition who are the ones putting the brakes on full implementation of brexit. It now seems that the second most senior figure in the government - the chancellor - is clear that full implementation should be delayed.
-
I have a different view from you. I don't have a different view from the Guardian, Telegraph, Huffington Post etc when you actually bother to read beyond the headline. Sure each of the papers needs to 'spin' their editorial line (e.g. the Guardian sees this as a huge victory for the anti brexit brigade, the telegraph a huge victory for the pro brexit brigade). But actually once you get behind the headlines, what each article tells you is very similar - there were non binding votes on whether the government should provide a plan and on the government's proposed timetable.
On the significance of the vote I'm less interested in the newspaper spin than the view of the person who actually lead the debate, and he was clear that the vote was of no significance:
'I have made it absolutely clear that nothing in today’s motion precludes any party, including my own, from tabling an amendment to proposed legislation, if there is proposed legislation, and voting on it.'
You think that what he means is that vote is of no significance, I think he means that it doesn't preclude him from voting differently or basically what he actually said.
-
Here is a question for you.
If the Supreme Court case isn't so significant why are the government throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it to try to avoid losing.
It will be a pain to have to get it through Parliment, they will get it through, I'm not claiming its of no significance, think that is a daft position to hold to.
If it was largely irrelevant (as you claimed previously) and that the whole process would go through fine whatever the result of the ruling, why wouldn't the government have simply accepted the verdict in the High Court and ploughed on regardless.
Largely irrelevant to Article 50 being triggered, I think it might highly relevant for setting a precedent.
The reality is that the government is terrified of letting parliament have any meaningful say in the brexit process and deal and is fighting tooth and nail to prevent it.
Supreme court ruling is about article 50, other issues to do with Brexit, Great repeal act, final deal, etc there is little question it needs to go through Parliament.
-
Actually I don't think it is the opposition who are the ones putting the brakes on full implementation of brexit. It now seems that the second most senior figure in the government - the chancellor - is clear that full implementation should be delayed.
Seem to be moving around a bit here, have we finished the article 50 discussion? Yes interim deal sounds sensible, I've no great objection to it in principle.
-
You think that what he means is that vote is of no significance, I think he means that it doesn't preclude him from voting differently or basically what he actually said.
So let's get this right.
The vote didn't make anyone do anything.
The vote is irrelevant in the outcome of future votes as the vote doesn't preclude parties voting in a completely different manner on similar votes (if they happen) in the future.
I think that means it is of no significance as it has no bearing on what will actually happen. But don't take my word for that, take the word of the person who lead the debate.
-
Seem to be moving around a bit here, have we finished the article 50 discussion? Yes interim deal sounds sensible, I've no great objection to it in principle.
Strange how brexity-type people seem obsession with the point at which the process starts, but completely relaxed about the point at which the process ends. I'd have thought that if you were a brexiter when it started would be less important than the date of full implementation, given that during that period we will remain members of the EU.
And of course there are plenty of examples of 'transitional' arrangements becoming 'permanent'.
-
So let's get this right.
The vote didn't make anyone do anything.
The vote is irrelevant in the outcome of future votes as the vote doesn't preclude parties voting in a completely different manner on similar votes (if they happen) in the future.
Yes to all of those.
I think that means it is of no significance as it has no bearing on what will actually happen. But don't take my word for that, take the word of the person who lead the debate.
No we have been talking about the chances of something happening. You seemed to agree that Article 50 would be triggered early (in line with BetFair market which possibly pre-dates T. May March 2017 statement). What has a bearing on what will happen are a number of things, Govt position that it should before the end of March 17, loss of case in high court, the way each political parties will vote.
In every interview when pushed every Labour politician gets a question like this 'If you don't get any conditions, amendments through on Article 50 bill would you vote against' everyone has replied (paraphrasing) 'I will not vote against 50'.
Which leads me to think that actually the Labour party position is consistent with Corbyn spokesperson statement given earlier. The LibDems on the other hand say their support is conditional.
So prior to this vote, it seems to me that the chances are high that an Article 50 vote in Parliament would get through. I would expect the LibDems to be against and Labour to be for, Cons for, naturally some rebels.
However Labour are a bit all over the place so a vote on the motion with an amendment to trigger Article 50 by March, (Guardian "as MPs overwhelmingly backed a government amendment endorsing the prime minister’s self-imposed March deadline for triggering article 50"), and it being consistent broadly with each parties position, is significant in my opinion.
I don't think Kier's statement is any different from anything I have heard from Labour before and doesn't change Labour position that essentially their support for Article 50 is unconditional.
-
I read an article the other day that puts a different perspective on all these votes and the posturing about Brexit and what kind of deal we want. Apologies, by the way, that I can't link the article because I forgot where I read it.
The article claimed that Theresa May is going to get her arse handed to her by the EU. They have already made their position clear: it's either hard Brexit or (effectively) no Brexit. Britain is negotiating from a fundamentally weak position. Apart from the disparity in size, if the negotiations fail, the default position is WTO rules, which is the hardest of hard Brexits and that is far worse for us than the EU. As the Italian minister put it when Boris crassly threatened his Prosecco industry, there are twenty seven other countries where Italy can sell it.
All the other EU governments are probably pissing themselves about all this to and fro with respect to what kind of Brexit we want. When it comes to negotiating, they will lay down the terms and that will be that.
-
Strange how brevity-type people seem obsession with the point at which the process starts, but completely relaxed about the point at which the process ends. I'd have thought that if you were a brexiter when it started would be less important than the date of full implementation, given that during that period we will remain members of the EU.
And of course there are plenty of examples of 'transitional' arrangements becoming 'permanent'.
Who is obsessed with anything. I'm interested in the process and the timings but if it takes 3/4/5 years not that bothered.
-
I read an article the other day that puts a different perspective on all these votes and the posturing about Brexit and what kind of deal we want. Apologies, by the way, that I can't link the article because I forgot where I read it.
The article claimed that Theresa May is going to get her arse handed to her by the EU. They have already made their position clear: it's either hard Brexit or (effectively) no Brexit. Britain is negotiating from a fundamentally weak position. Apart from the disparity in size, if the negotiations fail, the default position is WTO rules, which is the hardest of hard Brexits and that is far worse for us than the EU. As the Italian minister put it when Boris crassly threatened his Prosecco industry, there are twenty seven other countries where Italy can sell it.
All the other EU governments are probably pissing themselves about all this to and fro with respect to what kind of Brexit we want. When it comes to negotiating, they will lay down the terms and that will be that.
Yep there is a school of thought that we should just leave and go to WTO rules immediately, we will make a profit from the tariffs and as the currency is 20% cheaper the tariffs are wiped out for our exports.
-
Who is obsessed with anything. I'm interested in the process and the timings but if it takes 3/4/5 years not that bothered.
For a person not obsessed you do seem unusually fixed on May's timetable of triggering article 50 by end of March.
-
For a person not obsessed you do seem unusually fixed on May's timetable of triggering article 50 by end of March.
No you first suggest the vote wasn't valid due to demographics, then this vote meant nothing, the supreme court was most important, accused me of quote mining, accused me of being obsessed with timing, then claimed the new opposition was the chancellor.
My position is that this vote was significant for reasons I've explained, not really about the timing but about article 50 getting triggered.
-
No you first suggest the vote wasn't valid due to demographics,
No I didn't - I suggested that demographic shift would likely result in the current majority for brexit amongst the electorate disappearing within 4-5 years of the 2016 vote, in other words at the point at which the full settlement is likely to be enacted. I provided robust evidence for this, that you were unable to counter. And having failed to be able to provide any evidence in response declared yourself uninterested.
then this vote meant nothing
Actually I said it was of no significance to the likelihood of article 50 being triggered by parliament and the timing of that act. I continue to consider to be the case. The vote wasn't binding, and were the votes not to have taken place at all I fail to see why it would make parliament more or less likely to vote for article 50 (which is of course dependent on them being given the option so to do by the Supreme Court). Similarly had there been no vote I fail to see how the timing on triggering article 50 would be brought forward or drifted back. The key issue on trigger date is the Supreme court judgement. If they rule that parliament doesn't need to have a say an early trigger (from the government) becomes much more likely. If on the other hand the Supreme Court rule that parliament must have a say and that they must actually trigger articled 50 then early trigger likelihood diminishes massively and a much later date become far more likely.
But the point is that neither the likelihood of parliament voting in favour of triggering article 50, nor the likely time when it is triggered is affected by the vote last week, or indeed had their not been a vote at all.
the supreme court was most important
See above - I stand by this view, and frankly so do virtually all knowledgeable commentators. If it wasn't exceptionally important why do you think that (for the first time ever) all justices sat, and also the whole proceeding were broadcast live (again unprecedented).
accused me of quote mining
Which you were as I demonstrated, on the basis of selectively picking headlines out of context of the entire articles they related to. Where by picking the headline you tried to give the impression that your view was correct, but when taking that quote in the context of the whole article it was clear that they actually pretty well perfectly aligned with my stated view.
accused me of being obsessed with timing
Perhaps obsessed is too strong a term, so I'll retract and apologise - I suggest instead overly interested in, noting that you were even quoting betting odds at the rest of us on this.
then claimed the new opposition was the chancellor.
No I didn't - read what I actually said and get your facts straight please. I said that is was the chancellor who was most likely to be putting the brakes on full brexit implementation - actual quote:
'Actually I don't think it is the opposition who are the ones putting the brakes on full implementation of brexit. It now seems that the second most senior figure in the government - the chancellor - is clear that full implementation should be delayed.'
He was widely reported as saying that full implementation of brexit should be delayed, calling for a transitional period on the basis that it wouldn't be possible to complete the arrangements set out within article 50 without causing serious damage to Britain.
Given that Hammond is the second most senior member of the government I think his views are far more likely to come to fruition than those of opposition politicians because he is part of the top table team making those decisions.
My position is that this vote was significant for reasons I've explained, not really about the timing but about article 50 getting triggered.
You've failed to provide any evidence to back this up. While I have demonstrated that:
1. The vote didn't make anyone do anything
2. The vote was non binding
3. The person whose debate it was clearly indicated that the vote would have absolutely no bearing on the future approach of his or other parties.
4. That the is no evidence that had the vote not taken place at all that parliament would be more or less likely to be given a say, be more or less likely to vote in favour if given a say. Or that had the vote not taken place that there was a greater or lesser likelihood of article 50 being triggered earlier or later.
So if a vote changes nothing now, and has no bearing on what happens in the future - yup sounds like it is of no significance.
-
No I didn't - I suggested that demographic shift would likely result in the current majority for brexit amongst the electorate disappearing within 4-5 years of the 2016 vote, in other words at the point at which the full settlement is likely to be enacted. I provided robust evidence for this, that you were unable to counter. And having failed to be able to provide any evidence in response declared yourself uninterested.
I'm not going over that again. Actually I will, you started of by claiming X% of Y demographic voted to remain which was factually incorrect, so I thought you might not be across your numbers. Some way into this debate I thought 'hang on this is madness what a daft argument, there are far better arguments for another referendum than this even if Davey is accurate with his demographics'. I'm not sure you were actually accurate but I don't care because that argument wouldn't convince me even if you were.
This is what baffles me is you clutch at different arguments pedantically trying to score points in attempt to convince yourself that you have in some way "won" when in fact your side lost the battle. You can still win the war but the path to winning isn't to "win" a debate but to convince me and others that your path is the right one.
Actually I said it was of no significance to the likelihood of article 50 being triggered by parliament and the timing of that act. I continue to consider to be the case. The vote wasn't binding, and were the votes not to have taken place at all I fail to see why it would make parliament more or less likely to vote for article 50 (which is of course dependent on them being given the option so to do by the Supreme Court). Similarly had there been no vote I fail to see how the timing on triggering article 50 would be brought forward or drifted back. The key issue on trigger date is the Supreme court judgement. If they rule that parliament doesn't need to have a say an early trigger (from the government) becomes much more likely. If on the other hand the Supreme Court rule that parliament must have a say and that they must actually trigger articled 50 then early trigger likelihood diminishes massively and a much later date become far more likely.
But the point is that neither the likelihood of parliament voting in favour of triggering article 50, nor the likely time when it is triggered is affected by the vote last week, or indeed had their not been a vote at all.
Which we have discussed and disagreed, you actually said "the vote means nothing except a bit of political posturing."
See above - I stand by this view, and frankly so do virtually all knowledgeable commentators. If it wasn't exceptionally important why do you think that (for the first time ever) all justices sat, and also the whole proceeding were broadcast live (again unprecedented).
The most important with regard to article triggered early next year? Again we disagree you will have cite "virtually all knowledgeable commentators" in order for that to be anything other than a wild assertion.
Which you were as I demonstrated, on the basis of selectively picking headlines out of context of the entire articles they related to. Where by picking the headline you tried to give the impression that your view was correct, but when taking that quote in the context of the whole article it was clear that they actually pretty well perfectly aligned with my stated view.
You demonstrated that you didn't know what quote mining was.
Perhaps obsessed is too strong a term, so I'll retract and apologise - I suggest instead overly interested in, noting that you were even quoting betting odds at the rest of us on this.
Thanks for the apology, we were discussing the chances of something happening, the betting market directly relates to this.
No I didn't - read what I actually said and get your facts straight please. I said that is was the chancellor who was most likely to be putting the brakes on full brexit implementation - actual quote:
'Actually I don't think it is the opposition who are the ones putting the brakes on full implementation of brexit. It now seems that the second most senior figure in the government - the chancellor - is clear that full implementation should be delayed.'
He was widely reported as saying that full implementation of brexit should be delayed, calling for a transitional period on the basis that it wouldn't be possible to complete the arrangements set out within article 50 without causing serious damage to Britain.
Given that Hammond is the second most senior member of the government I think his views are far more likely to come to fruition than those of opposition politicians because he is part of the top table team making those decisions.
My turn I apologise my statement should read:-
No you first suggest the vote wasn't valid due to demographics, then this vote meant nothing, the supreme court was most important, accused me of quote mining, accused me of being obsessed with timing, then claimed the new person putting the brakes on full brexit is the chancellor.
You've failed to provide any evidence to back this up. While I have demonstrated that:
1. The vote didn't make anyone do anything
2. The vote was non binding
3. The person whose debate it was clearly indicated that the vote would have absolutely no bearing on the future approach of his or other parties.
4. That the is no evidence that had the vote not taken place at all that parliament would be more or less likely to be given a say, be more or less likely to vote in favour if given a say. Or that had the vote not taken place that there was a greater or lesser likelihood of article 50 being triggered earlier or later.
So if a vote changes nothing now, and has no bearing on what happens in the future - yup sounds like it is of no significance.
Jeez we are going round in circles, my position, I think, my opinion is that it was significant, I have given my reasons, you are free to disagree for your reasons. All the evidence you need for my position - my opinion is the words you are reading.
-
And judging from the content of the rest of the post, you are not clear on anything else.
You obviously know far less than I, seeing as you were unable to add anything useful to the thread or really make a comment on it's actual subject.
So what do you know about how the system works in the court? No copying and paste, please. :)
-
Could be Sass knows how courts works as she has been up before the beak a few times! ;D ;D ;D
-
we will make a profit from the tariffs
No we won't. The tariffs will have a depressing effect on trade. People won't buy the goods which means that the government loses not only the tariff, but also the VAT.
If tariffs were profitable, there would be no country in the World that does not apply them.
and as the currency is 20% cheaper the tariffs are wiped out for our exports.
So the imports are 20% more expensive and there's an extra tariff on top. Goodbye to the BMW/Fiat/Renault dealer networks employing thousands of people.
-
No we won't. The tariffs will have a depressing effect on trade. People won't buy the goods which means that the government loses not only the tariff, but also the VAT.
And the corporation tax for the companies whose profitability has been seriously dented.
And the income tax and NI contributions for people made unemployed when those companies need to lose staff due to the downturn in their financial position.
As Jeremy pointed out, if tariffs were a successful way to increase the wealth of a country everyone would be doing it - but they aren't - indeed quite the reverse, countries realise getting rid of tariffs increases trade and economic prosperity in the countries that do it. And it isn't a zero sum game.
-
we will make a profit from the tariffs
That is just a ridiculous statement, once you get into a tariff war everybody loses. It's the kind of stupidity that could bring about a world recession.
-
And the corporation tax for the companies whose profitability has been seriously dented.
And the income tax and NI contributions for people made unemployed when those companies need to lose staff due to the downturn in their financial position.
As Jeremy pointed out, if tariffs were a successful way to increase the wealth of a country everyone would be doing it - but they aren't - indeed quite the reverse, countries realise getting rid of tariffs increases trade and economic prosperity in the countries that do it. And it isn't a zero sum game.
So having a free trade deal is in everyone's interests, I agree. Most likely outcome is out of common market, free trade deal, free movement of labour, and more free trade deals for UK with rest of world.
-
So having a free trade deal is in everyone's interests, I agree. Most likely outcome is out of common market, free trade deal, free movement of labour, and more free trade deals for UK with rest of world.
In the absence staying in the EU single market, I hope that is the case, but, unfortunately, many Brexiteers draw the line at free movement of labour, so there might be a political issue with that version of Brexit.
-
In the absence staying in the EU single market, I hope that is the case, but, unfortunately, many Brexiteers draw the line at free movement of labour, so there might be a political issue with that version of Brexit.
Some but not all, most remainers would be quite supportive though. Another referendum:-
Brexit Deal - free movement labour and tariff free access to EU market
Hard Brexit - tariffs etc
I would think that type of deal would be the one that easily wins.
-
Some but not all, most remainers would be quite supportive though. Another referendum:-
Brexit Deal - free movement labour and tariff free access to EU market
Hard Brexit - tariffs etc
I would think that type of deal would be the one that easily wins.
No point in having a referendum on two brexit choice, because the government isn't able to deliver both as alternatives. There will be only one negotiated brexit deal. So the only sensible second referendum would be on the agreed brexit deal vs staying in the EU (provided the EU agrees that article 50 is revokable) as that is the only choice that is actually deliverable.
-
No point in having a referendum on two brexit choice, because the government isn't able to deliver both as alternatives. There will be only one negotiated brexit deal. So the only sensible second referendum would be on the agreed brexit deal vs staying in the EU (provided the EU agrees that article 50 is revokable) as that is the only choice that is actually deliverable.
No it can deliver a hard brexit since it doesn't rely on other eu countries to agree. We have already voted on leaving, the only unanswered question is what terms we leave with.
-
No it can deliver a hard brexit since it doesn't rely on other eu countries to agree. We have already voted on leaving, the only unanswered question is what terms we leave with.
Depends what you mean by hard brexit - most people arguing for hard brexit want control of immigration, but still want a variety of protections, e.g. on british nationals living in other EU countries, plus preferential trade agreements, which of course aren't in the UK government's power to deliver unilaterally or even, in some cases, at all.
And there is the rather thorny issue of the land border between the UK and the remaining EU, which cannot remain an open border without bilateral agreement. The UK can't simply wish it to be the case that there shouldn't be passport control between NI and the republic.
-
Depends what you mean by hard brexit - most people arguing for hard brexit want control of immigration, but still want a variety of protections, e.g. on british nationals living in other EU countries, plus preferential trade agreements, which of course aren't in the UK government's power to deliver unilaterally or even, in some cases, at all.
And there is the rather thorny issue of the land border between the UK and the remaining EU, which cannot remain an open border without bilateral agreement. The UK can't simply wish it to be the case that there shouldn't be passport control between NI and the republic.
That is what they want but it won't be on that ballot paper.
-
Some but not all, most remainers would be quite supportive though. Another referendum:-
Brexit Deal - free movement labour and tariff free access to EU market
Hard Brexit - tariffs etc
I would think that type of deal would be the one that easily wins.
Of those two choices I would certainly go for the top one, but I would add a third choice:
Stay in the EU
and the voters would rank them in order of preferences so we could choose on the basis of STV.
Anyway, the political problem I mentioned was more to do with the negotiation phase than any hypothetical referendum. I get the impression that a lot of the Brexiteers regard immigration controls as non negotiable. Conceding that could be career ending for the people that did it.
-
No point in having a referendum on two brexit choice, because the government isn't able to deliver both as alternatives. There will be only one negotiated brexit deal. So the only sensible second referendum would be on the agreed brexit deal vs staying in the EU (provided the EU agrees that article 50 is revokable) as that is the only choice that is actually deliverable.
Hard Brexit according to WTO rules will always be an option, in fact, if we trigger article 50, it is the default option. Two years from triggering, if we do nothing, WTO rules will be what we get.
-
Hard Brexit according to WTO rules will always be an option, in fact, if we trigger article 50, it is the default option. Two years from triggering, if we do nothing, WTO rules will be what we get.
Brexit isn't just about trade rules. So I understand that the default for brexit on trade is WTO if nothing else is agreed.
But what about all kinds of other things - just as an example what it the default for a person living or working in France who is there under the freedom of movement rules of the EU. Is the default that they are allowed to continue to be there and work, or that they aren't, as the rules under which they are there no longer exist, so instantly becomes an illegal migrant 2 years after triggering of article 50. I don't think it is at all clear and there isn't an obvious 'default' position - therefore there has to be a negotiated settlement agreed on both sides. The outcome isn't under the control of the british government.
There are no doubt hundreds of other such issues.
-
But what about all kinds of other things - just as an example what it the default for a person living or working in France who is there under the freedom of movement rules of the EU.
If no new agreement is in place, it'll be French immigration rules.
Is the default that they are allowed to continue to be there and work, or that they aren't, as the rules under which they are there no longer exist, so instantly becomes an illegal migrant 2 years after triggering of article 50.
That's probably about the size of it.
I don't think it is at all clear and there isn't an obvious 'default' position
I think I disagree. The default position will be the default rules that each country in the EU has for other countries not in the EU.
- therefore there has to be a negotiated settlement agreed on both sides.
I admire your optimism
-
Of those two choices I would certainly go for the top one, but I would add a third choice:
Stay in the EU
and the voters would rank them in order of preferences so we could choose on the basis of STV.
We have already voted to leave, why have a complicated vote for three options when one of those options has already been decided.
Anyway, the political problem I mentioned was more to do with the negotiation phase than any hypothetical referendum. I get the impression that a lot of the Brexiteers regard immigration controls as non negotiable. Conceding that could be career ending for the people that did it.
Which politicians have said freedom of movement of labour is off the table?
-
We have already voted to leave
Because you voted to leave without any clear understanding of what the options were.
What are you afraid of? That enough people might change their minds to overturn the second referendum? If they do, that's democracy.
, why have a complicated vote for three options when one of those options has already been decided.
We are asking people to make a decision on the political and economic future of the UK. If they're too stupid to understand how to rank three options in the order they would prefer, Dog help us.
Which politicians have said freedom of movement of labour is off the table?
With 10 seconds of Googling I found Theresa May (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/02/may-on-collision-course-with-backbenchers-seeking-soft-brexit).
-
Because you voted to leave without any clear understanding of what the options were.
No we voted to leave knowing that there were various options, so next we can vote on those options.
What are you afraid of? That enough people might change their minds to overturn the second referendum? If they do, that's democracy.
No having a three way vote complicates it, I don't think you have thought it through.
We are asking people to make a decision on the political and economic future of the UK. If they're too stupid to understand how to rank three options in the order they would prefer, Dog help us.
I'm sure people are not so stupid as to be unable to rank three options. Clearly some of us are too short sighted to see why this might have issues.
1st issue - if you opt for the first option only you most likely won't get a majority (assume you have thought of this, hence the rank)
2nd issue - how do you decide the winner, that is easily understood
With 10 seconds of Googling I found Theresa May (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/02/may-on-collision-course-with-backbenchers-seeking-soft-brexit).
Try again; Where does she say freedom of movement of labour is off the table?
I have heard her say categorically that we are leaving and, as far as I'm aware none of the mainstream political parties are campaigning for another in/out vote only on the terms. I think that ship has sailed.
-
No having a three way vote complicates it, I don't think you have thought it through.
I have thought it through. Read my post. Everybody ranks the options in their preferred order. After the first round of counting, the least popular option is eliminated and its votes transferred to the second choices.
I'm sure people are not so stupid as to be unable to rank three options.
And yet, just above you say it is too complicated.
1st issue - if you opt for the first option only you most likely won't get a majority (assume you have thought of this, hence the rank)
2nd issue - how do you decide the winner, that is easily understood
As I said in the original post: single transferable vote.
Try again; Where does she say freedom of movement of labour is off the table?
FTA
But let me be clear, we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again
-
I have thought it through. Read my post. Everybody ranks the options in their preferred order. After the first round of counting, the least popular option is eliminated and its votes transferred to the second choices.
That is guaranteed to give No Brexit a win, assuming everyone votes the same way. So all Brexiters vote for either Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit as their first option whereas all remainers vote for No Brexit. Assuming everyone would have Soft Brexit as the 2nd option.
This system works for proportional representation but on an issue like Brexit its not suitable for purpose.
And yet, just above you say it is too complicated.
I said it complicates the issue not that it was too complicated. You would have three campaigns, each campaign would be advocating a different voting strategy. In / Out is in the past, its done. If I were you I'd get in touch with the LibDems to advocate for your system first because currently, as far as I'm aware, they are advocating for a vote on the deal.
If no political party is going to buy into your system its a pipe-dream.
But let me be clear, we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again
Again that does not rule out freedom of movement of Labour.
-
That is guaranteed to give No Brexit a win, assuming everyone votes the same way. So all Brexiters vote for either Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit as their first option whereas all remainers vote for No Brexit. Assuming everyone would have Soft Brexit as the 2nd option.
And you have ably indicated why last June's vote isn't necessarily consistent with their being a majority in favour of any specific flavour of brexit. And therefore the June vote cannot be argued as providing a mandate for any specific actual future brexit agreement.
-
And you have ably indicated why last June's vote isn't necessarily consistent with their being a majority in favour of any specific flavour of brexit. And therefore the June vote cannot be argued as providing a mandate for any specific actual future brexit agreement.
Yes that is the argument for having another vote on the deal. It will up to Parliament first, if the Govt secures a soft Brexit deal and public opinion is comfortable with it I think it will get through without needing another referendum.
-
Yes that is the argument for having another vote on the deal. It will up to Parliament first, if the Govt secures a soft Brexit deal and public opinion is comfortable with it I think it will get through without needing another referendum.
Possibly, although I think it unlikely that the public will be clear in their support.
There was a poll last week indicating that by 41% to 35% the overall public supported soft rather than hard brexit (no brexit wasn't a choice), but that leave voters from last June supported hard brexit by 60% to 15%. There is your problem if the government goes for soft brexit - by a 4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost' if they end up with soft brexit, the preference by 70% to 12% of those that voted remain (and therefore lost in June).
-
Possibly, although I think it unlikely that the public will be clear in their support.
There was a poll last week indicating that by 41% to 31% the overall public supported soft rather than hard brexit (no brexit wasn't a choice), but that leave voters from last June supported hard brexit by 60% to 15%. There is your problem if the government goes for soft brexit - by a 4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost' if they end up with soft brexit, the preference by 70% to 12% of those that voted remain (and therefore lost in June).
Not sure what it is my problem, if a group wants a hard brexit then they can campaign for it. Got a link to the poll I'm not making sense of those numbers.
-
Not sure what it is my problem, if a group wants a hard brexit then they can campaign for it. Got a link to the poll I'm not making sense of those numbers.
struggling why the numbers don't make sense?
-
struggling why the numbers don't make sense?
52% are Brexit (from the vote), 60% of them support hard brexit, that is just over half, but then Davey says
"4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost'"
Maybe its me being thick but I'd be interested to see the poll anyway.
-
52% are Brexit (from the vote), 60% of them support hard brexit, that is just over half, but then Davey says
"4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost'"
Maybe its me being thick but I'd be interested to see the poll anyway.
Still don't see the problem here, and not sure why you select part of the post which then denudes it of context.
Vote was 52/48, but of the 52% 60% want hard, 15% want soft. Of the the 48, 70% want soft, 12% want hard - so those wanting stay are in a far greater proportion in favour of soft comparatively. Assuming some non voters spill more to Soft what do you not understand about a 41% soft, 31% hard split?
-
52% are Brexit (from the vote), 60% of them support hard brexit, that is just over half, but then Davey says
"4 to 1 margin the voters who thought they'd 'won' back in June will consider they will have actually 'lost'"
Maybe its me being thick but I'd be interested to see the poll anyway.
(52% x 0.6) + (48% x 0.12) = hard brexit %
(52% x 0.15) + (48% x 0.7) = soft brexit %
I pretty well (but not quite) aligns with 41% for soft brexit in total and 35% for hard brexit.
Oops - realised my error up thread - should be 35% for hard, not 31% as I implied due to typo - apologies. Now corrected in the original post.
-
I cannot see anything changing about the Brexit,. it was voted for by the people for the people and democratically we have to come out of the EU.
It isn't like the general elections. We don't get to change our minds the people have spoken and the moaning will not change.
Not relating the moaning to this discussion.
But the fact is any recession in Britain will not be due to the brexit.
Try the cuts in benefits to disabled people and the fact they have put our own on the streets since they allowed all the immigrants and asylum seekers to take their homes.
Even our own service men were put on the streets because the Government kindly gave their homes to asylum seekers and immigrants.
As a Nation and as a Country we would have ceased to exist. Eventually our monarchy and our Government would not longer be as it was before the EU.
There is absolutely NO good reason for us being in the EU. Our Government thought they would be a ruling body. But the truth is if you read Hitlers Book and what he sought to do, then what is happening with the EU is just another way of acheiving it.
You look at the tower bable there is a lesson for all, whether you realise it or not.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
Can you imagine a world where you as an individual no longer count or even your views as on this thread? Where those who lead make your everyday decisions. As unacceptable as that may be to actually visualise, a vote for the EU is a vote to lose your right to choose.
Where a body of men decide the fate of every country and every man powerless to do anything about it.
There was no good reason to remain in the EU and those who do face a dangerous and even uncertain future.
None of you have thought this through. It is clear from our exiting that no one who formed the EU thought anyone would exit. Even more clear there was not an exit package prepared.
Like a prison cell without a key to open it.
In Germany the book Mein Kampf written by Hitler sold a lot of copies as the copyright ran
out
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/222708
Our Country would have been swallowed up, our history and our identity. No longer our country but given to a union which personally seeks only for the power it will wield as leaders.
You should be thankful for the Brexit, this way what you think and say matters as a British Citizen. Once in the EU you will be governed by the leaders of the EU.
-
Weel, there's one thing to be said for the last post. The chap who ordered the biased translation was a Scot - even if he rejected tchurch in which he was raised.
-
Weel, there's one thing to be said for the last post. The chap who ordered the biased translation was a Scot - even if he rejected tchurch in which he was raised.
There is only one corner stone in Gods Church his name is Jesus Christ.
Does the definition change from Country to Country or Man to Man?
Your post clearly a waste of time in Gods great scheme of things, then!
-
I don't suppose that it has occurred to you, Sassy, that when they fled to Egypt, in order to avoid the massacre of the innocents, that Jesus and his family were asylum seekers?
-
There is only one corner stone in Gods Church his name is Jesus Christ.
Does the definition change from Country to Country or Man to Man?
Your post clearly a waste of time in Gods great scheme of things, then!
Jamie the saxt tried to create a union - by forcing the crowns together, Sass.
He also tried to force his translation on the kirk - a translation in which he had interefered to skew it toward his absurd notion of divine kingship.
His incompetent son tried to change the church in Scotland to suit his father's ideas - and lost his head as a result.
Try to keep up.
-
I cannot see anything changing about the Brexit,. it was voted for by the people for the people and democratically we have to come out of the EU.
It isn't like the general elections. We don't get to change our minds the people have spoken and the moaning will not change.
You are correct, Sass. It isn't like general elections. The British people may have voted - by an extremely fine margin - to exit the EU, but unlike General Elections, there is a completely different context and constituency that has to be dealt with. Following General Elections, one generally doesn't have to negotiate one's position with one or more more powerful bodies. May, Farage, Gove et al can put their intentions and hopes on the table, but they don't have to be accepted or honoured by EU leaders. Instead, EU leaders can impose just about whatever conditions they choose.
-
You are correct, Sass. It isn't like general elections. The British people may have voted - by an extremely fine margin - to exit the EU, but unlike General Elections, there is a completely different context and constituency that has to be dealt with. Following General Elections, one generally doesn't have to negotiate one's position with one or more more powerful bodies. May, Farage, Gove et al can put their intentions and hopes on the table, but they don't have to be accepted or honoured by EU leaders. Instead, EU leaders can impose just about whatever conditions they choose.
Factually incorrect, the EU can state conditions and the UK can accept or reject them. It does not follow that a larger party gets to dictate terms in any negotiation.
-
Factually incorrect, the EU can state conditions and the UK can accept or reject them. It does not follow that a larger party gets to dictate terms in any negotiation.
In practical terms, though, the UK faces having no terms or treatise of its own - with anyone at all - if there is no agreement, and there's a 2 year timeframe imposed on the negotiations.
That gives the EU the whip-hand, as they'll retain all their current treaties with everyone except the UK.
O.
-
In practical terms, though, the UK faces having no terms or treatise of its own - with anyone at all - if there is no agreement, and there's a 2 year timeframe imposed on the negotiations.
That gives the EU the whip-hand, as they'll retain all their current treaties with everyone except the UK.
Plenty of time to get treaties in place.
In practical terms I think the EU once they get over UK leaving will do what is their own interests, that is free trade deal with freedom of movement of labour. UK out of customs union and EU market.
Which will piss Sturgeon off so good news all round.
-
That is guaranteed to give No Brexit a win, assuming everyone votes the same way. So all Brexiters vote for either Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit as their first option whereas all remainers vote for No Brexit. Assuming everyone would have Soft Brexit as the 2nd option.
So what you are saying is more people would be happyish with No Brexit than either of the other two options. You don't want a possible second referendum to be structured fairly because you don't think you'd like the result.
I don't agree with your analysis, by the way. I think the remainders would all put remain followed by soft Brexit. The first round Brexit vote would be split between hard and soft. One of either hard or soft would be eliminated and the votes redistributed amongst Remain and the other option. I don't expect that many people would vote one of the Brexits first and Remain second, but we won't know for sure unless we have the vote.
This system works for proportional representation but on an issue like Brexit its not suitable for purpose.
No, it's perfectly suitable for purpose.
I said it complicates the issue not that it was too complicated. You would have three campaigns, each campaign would be advocating a different voting strategy. In / Out is in the past, its done. If I were you I'd get in touch with the LibDems to advocate for your system first because currently, as far as I'm aware, they are advocating for a vote on the deal.
If it's too complicated, then the people should not be voting at all.
In/out is not necessarily in the past. It was in the past in 1975 but that didn't stop us from having another referendum in 2016. Circumstances change. They can change again.
-
Factually incorrect, the EU can state conditions and the UK can accept or reject them. It does not follow that a larger party gets to dictate terms in any negotiation.
In this case, the EU is in the stronger position. Sorry, but it's true. We'll get the deal the EU wants us to have or we'll be on WTO terms which will be bad for us and the EU but far worse for us.
-
So what you are saying is more people would be happyish with No Brexit than either of the other two options. You don't want a possible second referendum to be structured fairly because you don't think you'd like the result.
No I suspect the referendum is unfairly structured. A fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.
I don't agree with your analysis, by the way. I think the remainders would all put remain followed by soft Brexit. The first round Brexit vote would be split between hard and soft. One of either hard or soft would be eliminated and the votes redistributed amongst Remain and the other option. I don't expect that many people would vote one of the Brexits first and Remain second, but we won't know for sure unless we have the vote.
Also entirely hypothetical since no political party is campaigning for it.
No, it's perfectly suitable for purpose.
We disagree.
If it's too complicated, then the people should not be voting at all.
Again I didn't say it was too complicated.
In/out is not necessarily in the past. It was in the past in 1975 but that didn't stop us from having another referendum in 2016. Circumstances change. They can change again.
Sure once we have left you can carry on campaigning for us to return.
-
In this case, the EU is in the stronger position. Sorry, but it's true. We'll get the deal the EU wants us to have or we'll be on WTO terms which will be bad for us and the EU but far worse for us.
Never claimed that the EU were not in the stronger position, its a negotiation, the deal that the EU wants is for the Uk remain but that ain't happening.
-
No I suspect the referendum is unfairly structured. A fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.
But if the terms are unacceptable there is more than one possible course of action: WTO rules or stay in the EU. There's no reason why both options cannot be put to the electorate.
Here's another way of structuring it: there would be two questions
1. Should we accept the deal the British government has made
2. If the electorate rejects the deal, should we remain in the EU or leave under WTO rules.
Also entirely hypothetical since no political party is campaigning for it.
We spend much of our time debating hypotheticals here. Why are you against it on this one topic? Anyway, if things go badly over the next couple of years, there will be calls for a new referendum.
Again I didn't say it was too complicated.
Oh good, so you'll be withdrawing your argument that it is too complex.
Sure once we have left you can carry on campaigning for us to return.
It would be much better not to leave at all.
-
No I suspect the referendum is unfairly structured. A fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.
You seem to have had a complete turn-around of views.
I thought you were against a second referendum - now you seem to be suggesting this should happen. Well done for coming round to my way of thinking. We've had the in/out referendum (without understandably any detail on what Brexit would look like). Once negotiations are complete we should have another referendum on the negotiated deal.
-
I don't suppose that it has occurred to you, Sassy, that when they fled to Egypt, in order to avoid the massacre of the innocents, that Jesus and his family were asylum seekers?
Doesn't God own the earth and you think he has no right to place his people where they will survive. The Israelites were never Asylum seekers and as for Jesus, his parents had gone to register in Bethlehem as the Law commanded them too. I think you are rather confused. Though the territory was under occupation by the Romans the Land still belonged to the Israelites the Jews because God had given it to them.
You need to read the bible to know why your post is so wrong.They didn't have passports then and there were no bombs or guns etc. People moved freely. It was like a holiday really not asylum seeking.They never intended to stay in Egypt just visit till the danger had passed. Which we see did happen.
-
Jamie the saxt tried to create a union - by forcing the crowns together, Sass.
He also tried to force his translation on the kirk - a translation in which he had interefered to skew it toward his absurd notion of divine kingship.
His incompetent son tried to change the church in Scotland to suit his father's ideas - and lost his head as a result.
Try to keep up.
Weel, there's one thing to be said for the last post.
You said this as you made your comment. As my post was about the true Church and whom it was built on your post either insults Christ who unites all people in God or you can admit your comment about my post was totally a load of jargon which did nothing in the great scheme of things as comments go. Either way you end up showing you lack...
To make it plainer...
Gods and his Kingdom of heaven already established. Christ came to bring people back not unite the kingdoms of the earth.
He came to establish the eternal Kingdom of God in man not amongst them.
But you appear to lack the basics in a comment which has no basis in the truth of God.
-
The Israelites were never Asylum seekers
No, being refugees from Egypt, they simply took the land they wanted in a bloodbath. Think yourself lucky that the vast majority of Muslims leaving Syria etc do not have the same attitude as "God's chosen people".
and as for Jesus, his parents had gone to register in Bethlehem as the Law commanded them too. I think you are rather confused. Though the territory was under occupation by the Romans the Land still belonged to the Israelites the Jews because God had given it to them.
You need to read the bible to know why your post is so wrong.They didn't have passports then and there were no bombs or guns etc. People moved freely. It was like a holiday really not asylum seeking.They never intended to stay in Egypt just visit till the danger had passed. Which we see did happen.
So they were refugees from oppression by Herod.
Anyway, you have got your Nativity stories mixed up.
-
You are correct, Sass. It isn't like general elections. The British people may have voted - by an extremely fine margin - to exit the EU, but unlike General Elections, there is a completely different context and constituency that has to be dealt with. Following General Elections, one generally doesn't have to negotiate one's position with one or more more powerful bodies. May, Farage, Gove et al can put their intentions and hopes on the table, but they don't have to be accepted or honoured by EU leaders. Instead, EU leaders can impose just about whatever conditions they choose.
We don't belong to the EU anymore technically. And they would be blooming stupid to try and make life difficult for anyone who exited because it would lead to the EU splitting up. Many other Countries in fear would Brexit, too. If no Union who is going to impose anything? The facts are... if there was anything in agreement to impose then they would not be having all the negotiations. As America and China are two of the biggest export and import the EU would be stupid to make any problems for the UK given our relations with the USA.
America wanted us in, because when everything fell apart they would have stepped into the breach.
You have to look at the bigger picture. When the British Empire existed it was the largest ever. It had dwindled away but the fact is Great Britain having held an empire knows best what is and what is not good for any country in any union ruled by one
We need to be out. We will survive but will the EU?
-
I believe all this dilly dallying and excuses is to try and keep us in.
But we shall not be staying in the EU because we are coming out.
All the scare tactics don't frighten anyone.
It is time our Government made it clear we are exiting however long it takes.
And no amount of trying to stop us will change it.
The EU cannot hit us with things NEVER agreed to.
-
I believe all this dilly dallying and excuses is to try and keep us in.
But we shall not be staying in the EU because we are coming out.
Yes you leavers keep repeating this mantra for some reason. It's almost like you are frightened you have made the wrong decision.
All the scare tactics don't frighten anyone.
The scare tactics about the EU employed by the media for decades frightened enough people.
It is time our Government made it clear we are exiting however long it takes.
They have made it clear on several occasions.
And no amount of trying to stop us will change it.
This is not true. There is an amount of trying that can change it.
It's also very foolish to set a course of action now for the next two years without acknowledging that things can change and we might have to alter our plans.
-
But if the terms are unacceptable there is more than one possible course of action: WTO rules or stay in the EU. There's no reason why both options cannot be put to the electorate.
Here's another way of structuring it: there would be two questions
1. Should we accept the deal the British government has made
2. If the electorate rejects the deal, should we remain in the EU or leave under WTO rules.
There are many courses of action should all of them be on the ballot?
We spend much of our time debating hypotheticals here. Why are you against it on this one topic? Anyway, if things go badly over the next couple of years, there will be calls for a new referendum.
Because there is a stronger possibility of another referendum on a binary question.
Oh good, so you'll be withdrawing your argument that it is too complex.
Since its an argument I never made, no.
It would be much better not to leave at all.
In your opinion, we had that debate, you lost.
-
You seem to have had a complete turn-around of views.
That or your perception of my views is wrong.
I thought you were against a second referendum - now you seem to be suggesting this should happen. Well done for coming round to my way of thinking. We've had the in/out referendum (without understandably any detail on what Brexit would look like). Once negotiations are complete we should have another referendum on the negotiated deal.
I'm open to the idea, not advocating it happens.
-
Doesn't God own the earth and you think he has no right to place his people where they will survive. The Israelites were never Asylum seekers and as for Jesus, his parents had gone to register in Bethlehem as the Law commanded them too. I think you are rather confused. Though the territory was under occupation by the Romans the Land still belonged to the Israelites the Jews because God had given it to them.
You need to read the bible to know why your post is so wrong.They didn't have passports then and there were no bombs or guns etc. People moved freely. It was like a holiday really not asylum seeking.They never intended to stay in Egypt just visit till the danger had passed. Which we see did happen.
I don't think that I have ever before seen such a clueless pile of rubbish written even by you, Sass. You do not even understand the obvious meanings of your own fairy stories. Read Matthew 2, 13 - 23.
This nothing to with going to Bethlehem and everything to do with fleeing from a despot, Herod, who plans to kill all children under the age of 2. Joseph and Mary were refugees - people seeking refuge or safety. Another word for safety and refuge is asylum. They were seeking asylum in Egypt. They wanted refuge in a place not controlled by Herod.
What the hell have passports got to do with anything?
-
I'm open to the idea, not advocating it happens.
So let me get this right, and I quote:
You say that:
'the referendum is unfairly structured' - by the way I agree
And that:
'A fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.'
And then claim that you aren't advocating a second referendum. I'm struggling to see who your claim of what would be fair isn't advocating a second referendum - I think it clearly is.
And again I agree with you.
I suspect you are coming to your senses on this one but feel unable to accept that my view that we should have a second referendum on the agreed brexit deal is actually right - and indeed you clearly indicate it to be in your view too by quite rightly indicating that a fair way to do it would be to have a second referendum on the agreed terms.
-
So let me get this right, and I quote:
You say that:
'the referendum is unfairly structured' - by the way I agree
And that:
'A fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.'
And then claim that you aren't advocating a second referendum. I'm struggling to see who your claim of what would be fair isn't advocating a second referendum - I think it clearly is.
Dear me lectures me on quote mining and then repeatedly does exactly that.
'the referendum (that Jeremy proposed) is unfairly structured'
'A fair way of doing it (if we do it) would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.'
And again I agree with you.
I don't think you actually understand what you agree with.
I suspect you are coming to your senses on this one but feel unable to accept that my view that we should have a second referendum on the agreed brexit deal is actually right
Oh dear do you understand the first thing about persuasion, I was always in my senses thanks. If you can provide a good argument for another vote on terms I'm open to the idea. I don't like the three way vote proposed ,don't think I can be persuaded on that, but, maybe a vote:- should we reject deal or go to WTO rules.
- and indeed you clearly indicate it to be in your view too by quite rightly indicating that a fair way to do it would be to have a second referendum on the agreed terms.
See above.
-
Harrowby Hall is right, Jesus, Mary and Joseph were refugees, along with many others.
We don't know precisely how long they stayed in Egypt but it was quite a while (I have heard it could have been from two to eight years). The Israelites were welcomed in Egypt. They worked and built a community there.
-
Dear me lectures me on quote mining and then repeatedly does exactly that.
'the referendum (that Jeremy proposed) is unfairly structured'
'A fair way of doing it (if we do it) would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.'
What on earth are you on about.
How can I be quote mining when I am using your exact words and the context is there for all to see merely by following the links back up the thread.
You very clearly indicated that the fair thing to do 'would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Well we've had the first part, the in/out referendum so you are clearly suggesting that the fair thing to do now is to have a second referendum on the actual negotiated deal.
I agree.
-
What on earth are you on about.
How can I be quote mining when I am using your exact words and the context is there for all to see merely by following the links back up the thread.
Do I have to explain this to you, really?
You very clearly indicated that the fair thing to do 'would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Well we've had the first part, the in/out referendum so you are clearly suggesting that the fair thing to do now is to have a second referendum on the actual negotiated deal.
If you read my response in context it should say 'A fairer way from the one you propose would be', of course you have ignored the context and you can now claim ya boo sucks victory.
You lost the vote might be time to change tact.
-
Do I have to explain this to you, really?
Yes - because you are making completely unsubstantiated claims.
If you read my response in context ...
I did and my conclusion is the obvious one.
... it should say 'A fairer way from the one you propose would be',
But you didn't - my comment was made on the basis of what you actually wrote, rather than what you claimed you might have said when you original comment was challenged. Stop moving the goalposts - and also accept that I can't be accused of quote mining when I was using your exact words and in context, rather than words you actually didn't say but claim now, in retrospect that you could have.
of course you have ignored the context and you can now claim ya boo sucks victory.
No I haven't - the discussion was on the fairest way to deal with the issue that no-one has actually voted for any specific brexit deal. You said that the '[a] fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Given that we have already had the in/out referendum, then the clear inference is that you think we should now have a second referendum (or rather should have when there is a deal on the table) on the negotiated deal. Or do you think we shouldn't do something fair? That seems to be the only other explanation - that you think a second referendum is fair but you have no interest in doing the fair thing.
You lost the vote might be time to change tact.
Oh dear - lose the argument and resort to a slightly more polite version of the 'yah, boo, you lost, get over it - remoaner, remoaner' chant of the more unreconstructed brexiters.
Indeed the 2016 vote is now in the past, we now the result - the advisory referendum gives a mandate to negotiate a brexit deal. It provides no mandate whatsoever to implement any specific brexit deal, because no one has voted on it. Nor can we be sure that in 2018, 2019 or 2020 or whenever the deal would actually be implemented that the negotiated deal would have a greater mandate than remaining in the EU.
Hence in 2018, 2019 or 2020, when the deal is negotiated and clear (i.e. can be implemented) and at the point when implementation is imminent (say 3 months before implementation) there should be a second referendum with two clear, unambiguous and deliverable options - brexit on the basis of the negotiated deal, or remain in the EU. I'd be happy for that second referendum to be binding, given that it would involve two options that were completely clear and implementable.
-
No I haven't - the discussion was on the fairest way to deal with the issue that no-one has actually voted for any specific brexit deal. You said that the '[a] fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Given that we have already had the in/out referendum, then the clear inference is that you think we should now have a second referendum (or rather should have when there is a deal on the table) on the negotiated deal. Or do you think we shouldn't do something fair? That seems to be the only other explanation - that you think a second referendum is fair but you have no interest in doing the fair thing.
The context you are ignoring is that this was in a hypothetical discussion with Jeremy about a fair way of handling a second vote.
In order have that discussion I had to have hypothetically presumed to have accepted that a second vote was needed, this is the context you are ignoring and why it a classic example of quote mining.
Oh dear - lose the argument and resort to a slightly more polite version of the 'yah, boo, you lost, get over it - remoaner, remoaner' chant of the more unreconstructed brexiters.
No you lost, the reason you lost may be because you can't stop yourself from quote mining, name calling and accept some criticism.
Indeed the 2016 vote is now in the past, we now the result - the advisory referendum gives a mandate to negotiate a brexit deal. It provides no mandate whatsoever to implement any specific brexit deal, because no one has voted on it. Nor can we be sure that in 2018, 2019 or 2020 or whenever the deal would actually be implemented that the negotiated deal would have a greater mandate than remaining in the EU.
That is an argument you could also argue the 2015 election gave the government & parliament a mandate to lead us out of the EU with best deal possible.
Hence in 2018, 2019 or 2020, when the deal is negotiated and clear (i.e. can be implemented) and at the point when implementation is imminent (say 3 months before implementation) there should be a second referendum with two clear, unambiguous and deliverable options
Not convinced but don't strongly disagree, I'm open to this as an option.
- brexit on the basis of the negotiated deal, or remain in the EU.
There would be three options, accept EU deal, leave EU go to WTO rules, remain in EU.
We have already voted to leave so that would not need to be an option on the ballot paper.
I'd be happy for that second referendum to be binding, given that it would involve two options that were completely clear and implementable.
Now I'm not sure but for it to be binding all legalisation has to have been made and ready to go, is that feasible given the many complexities?
Its a genuine question.
-
There are many courses of action should all of them be on the ballot?
What other courses of action are there than accepting the deal, leaving under WTO rules and staying in?
Since its an argument I never made, no.
Why did you even bring up the idea that it complicates things then?
In your opinion, we had that debate, you lost.
No. We lost a vote by quite a small margin. If it turns out to have been a mistake, which was always the probability and is looking more and more likely, we will all have lost, including the Leave voters. Well, except for Nigel Farage MEP who is paid in Euros and therefore got a quite healthy pay rise after the pound dipped against the Euro.
-
You very clearly indicated that the fair thing to do 'would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Well we've had the first part, the in/out referendum so you are clearly suggesting that the fair thing to do now is to have a second referendum on the actual negotiated deal.
I agree.
Yes, but where I disagree with Jackswan and, it appears, you is in what should happen if we don't accept the terms of the deal. If we say no to the deal, there are two choices open to us: stay in or leave under WTO terms and I think we should get to vote on that bit too.
And being fair to Jackswan, his comment about a referendum was in response to my idea of a three way one, not the one we already had.
-
There would be three options, accept EU deal, leave EU go to WTO rules, remain in EU.
We have already voted to leave so that would not need to be an option on the ballot paper.
So that would leave: accept EU deal, remain in EU
On the assumption that you really meant accept the deal or go to WTO rules, you seem to be ignoring the fact that people change their minds when they get new information and there is nothing wrong with that. Why not accommodate the eventuality that the terms might be so unattractive that people would rather stick with what they have got now?
If I said you can have a prize which might be £0 or might be £20 or you can keep the £10 you already have, you might go for the prize. If I then said, the prize is £5, you can have it or you can have £0 but you can't keep the $10 you already have because you rejected it, you might be a bit pissed off. If I said the prize is £5, you can have it or you can have £0 or you can keep the $10 you already have, you might not be happy, but you would be a bit relieved.
Now I'm not sure but for it to be binding all legalisation has to have been made and ready to go, is that feasible given the many complexities?
Its a genuine question.
We have to have legislation no matter what if there if going to be a second referendum, but it presumably would be a bit more complex if it were binding. However, nothing about this whole thing isn't complex. Let's not avoid doing the Right Thing just because it's more complex than doing the wrong thing.
-
On the assumption that you really meant accept the deal or go to WTO rules, you seem to be ignoring the fact that people change their minds when they get new information and there is nothing wrong with that.
Not ignoring anything or claiming there is anything wrong with people changing their minds.
Why not accommodate the eventuality that the terms might be so unattractive that people would rather stick with what they have got now?
If that remains an option the EU will offer the worst deal possible in an attempt to keep us in, it makes the vote more complex (note: not too complex) than it needs to be, it is an issue that we have already voted on.
If I said you can have a prize which might be £0 or might be £20 or you can keep the £10 you already have, you might go for the prize. If I then said, the prize is £5, you can have it or you can have £0 but you can't keep the $10 you already have because you rejected it, you might be a bit pissed off. If I said the prize is £5, you can have it or you can have £0 or you can keep the $10 you already have, you might not be happy, but you would be a bit relieved.
Tortured analogy.
We have to have legislation no matter what if there if going to be a second referendum, but it presumably would be a bit more complex if it were binding. However, nothing about this whole thing isn't complex. Let's not avoid doing the Right Thing just because it's more complex than doing the wrong thing.
I'm not sure lets hypothetically say we have your vote, the EU offered a duff deal and the country votes to go to WTO rules, the EU then offers a better deal but the vote was binding so we now have to move to WTO rules.
If having a binding vote is the "right thing" then I assume you wish the July 16 vote was binding as well?
-
Yes you leavers keep repeating this mantra for some reason.
It's almost like you are frightened you have made the wrong decision.
Some of us grew up understanding more than what the Government allow us to see.#
Never was I more sure of the decision being right and never waivered.
The scare tactics about the EU employed by the media for decades frightened enough people.
Nothing of a sort.The people fed up of all the influx of people from the EU and our own people including our soldiers
being forced to live on the streets. The EU was not good for Britian it is Hitlers ideas being enforced by a method of control
without war. If you cannot see that, then you are blinder than you think.
They have made it clear on several occasions.
But you cannot accept it, can you?
This is not true. There is an amount of trying that can change it.
It's also very foolish to set a course of action now for the next two years without acknowledging that things can change
and we might have to alter our plans.
No we won't be altering plans the Brexit will happen because we are democracy not a laughing stock as remaining in the EU would
make us. You need to get use to the fact we are leaving the EU and it is what is needed for this country.
-
I don't think that I have ever before seen such a clueless pile of rubbish written even by you, Sass. You do not even understand the obvious meanings of your own fairy stories. Read Matthew 2, 13 - 23.
No! your clueless.
"1In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. 3 And all went to be registered, each to his own town. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child."
This nothing to with going to Bethlehem and everything to do with fleeing from a despot, Herod, who plans to kill all children under the age of 2. Joseph and Mary were refugees - people seeking refuge or safety. Another word for safety and refuge is asylum. They were seeking asylum in Egypt. They wanted refuge in a place not controlled by Herod.
Again your ignorant Gods Son has a right to go anywhere his Father owns the earth.
He cannot be an asylum seeker if he is son of God. Joseph was told to go to Egypt.
After the wise men had gone, an angel from the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up! Hurry and take the child and his mother to Egypt! Stay there until I tell you to return, because Herod is looking for the child and wants to kill him.' That night, Joseph got up and took his wife and the child to Egypt, where they stayed until Herod died. So the Lord's promise came true, just as the prophet had said, 'I called my son out of Egypt.'
You are clueless when it comes to prophecy being fulfilled.
What the hell have passports got to do with anything?
You cannot be a refugee in a place where anyone can go.
And as the bible clearly shows.. The world belongs to God and all that is contained within.
Jesus Christ is the Son of the owner of the world. Do you and others who claim to be Christian not see why Christ could not be a refugee in his Fathers world?
And certainly NOTHING like being an actual refugee today.
-
If that remains an option the EU will offer the worst deal possible in an attempt to keep us in
They are going to offer us the worst deals possible in an attempt to keep us in - or stop others from considering leaving.
it makes the vote more complex (note: not too complex) than it needs to be, it is an issue that we have already voted on.
If it's not too complex then complexity is not a problem.
Tortured analogy.
By which you mean good analogy that you can't address.
I'm not sure lets hypothetically say we have your vote, the EU offered a duff deal and the country votes to go to WTO rules, the EU then offers a better deal but the vote was binding so we now have to move to WTO rules.
If having a binding vote is the "right thing" then I assume you wish the July 16 vote was binding as well?
The right thing would have been not to have the Brexit referendum at all.
-
They are going to offer us the worst deals possible in an attempt to keep us in - or stop others from considering leaving.
Phew good job we are leaving such a hostile organisation, trying to keep members with threats is not something I want to be part of.
If it's not too complex then complexity is not a problem.
In your opinion, others are available.
By which you mean good analogy that you can't address.
No, it is a bad analogy, you think staying in the EU is worth X and I think its worth Y.
The right thing would have been not to have the Brexit referendum at all.
I thought you wanted another Brexit referendum? Perhaps you want democracy when it gives you the results you like otherwise the dummy gets thrown out of the pram?
-
Why is no one discussing May's speech of today? Here are some reactions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-38635035
-
Why is no one discussing May's speech of today? Here are some reactions.
http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-38635035
I think its things we already knew and the Bremaniacs are maybe sulking? :)
-
Perhaps because while it isn't a surprise it's also haunted by entirely unclear rhetoric like this:
" I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the EU's Customs Union. And it is true that full Customs Union membership prevents us from negotiating our own comprehensive trade deals. Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible. That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU. Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it."
This is far from as significant a step as first might appear, and it's much less important then it might seem.
-
Yes, I agree with that. It's being sold as hard Brexit, yet she states that she wants to keep the same trading arrangements for cars and for financial services, as 'it makes no sense to start again from scratch'.
That sounds like the single market a la carte, which she is not likely to get, I think.
Starmer seems to have cottoned on anyway.
-
Perhaps because while it isn't a surprise it's also haunted by entirely unclear rhetoric like this:
" I know my emphasis on striking trade agreements with countries outside Europe has led to questions about whether Britain seeks to remain a member of the EU's Customs Union. And it is true that full Customs Union membership prevents us from negotiating our own comprehensive trade deals. Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible. That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU. Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it."
This is far from as significant a step as first might appear, and it's much less important then it might seem.
What is unclear about it? She wants out of customs union and a free trade deal with EU, leaving options on the table for how this is achieved.
-
Yes, I agree with that. It's being sold as hard Brexit, yet she states that she wants to keep the same trading arrangements for cars and for financial services, as 'it makes no sense to start again from scratch'.
That sounds like the single market a la carte, which she is not likely to get, I think.
Starmer seems to have cottoned on anyway.
She wants not to be a member of the club yet still have access to all the benefits of being a member of the club. Problem is that it isn't her decision, and the members of the club will, quite reasonably, say no.
We are in really treacherous waters now - committing to leave the single market while keeping our fingers crossed that the rest of the EU will give us back preferential access. I simply don't think that is going to happen and, let's not forget, it wont be us driving the decision, but the remaining EU.
Looks like tariffs galore are on the horizon.
-
My judgement is that she has fallen into the same trap that destroyed her predecessor: she is putting Conservative Party interests before national interests. Hidden within the verbiage are assurances (of a type) to each of the interest groups in the party.
There are "assurances" that the UK will leave the EU - so Fox, Redwood, Davis, Johnson (if that is the side of the bed he got out of this morning) will be satisfied. But there are also "aspirations" - become an associate member of the Customs Union etc to give hope to the majority who do not want to leave.
I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it.
This is a politician speaking, not a stateswoman.
-
She wants not to be a member of the club yet still have access to all the benefits of being a member of the club. Problem is that it isn't her decision, and the members of the club will, quite reasonably, say no.
Not quite a fair analogy, a fairer one would be a highly skilled employee saying to an employer that they are leaving to work freelance. The employer still wants the employee to work for them on a freelance basis. You think it would be reasonable for the employer to boycott them?
We are in really treacherous waters now - committing to leave the single market while keeping our fingers crossed that the rest of the EU will give us back preferential access. I simply don't think that is going to happen and, let's not forget, it wont be us driving the decision, but the remaining EU.
How is it preferential? We want access to the EU market, the EU wants access to the UK market, a deal something like Canada, Turkey, S Korea, etc. It will be the EU putting trade barriers up in order to punish the UK for wanting independence, that is unreasonable.
-
Not quite a fair analogy, a fairer one would be a highly skilled employee saying to an employer that they are leaving to work freelance. The employer still wants the employee to work for them on a freelance basis. You think it would be reasonable for the employer to boycott them?
Sure you can run with your analogy if you wish - but let's do it properly. The equivalent would be an employee deciding to go freelance and expecting to retain all the perks that the company provides to its employees, so sick pay, paid holidays, pension package, being able to access their preferential childcare voucher scheme etc etc. Sure the person can become a freelancer, but that comes with downsides, i.e. the loss of the benefits of being an employee and also the loss of certainty, in other words the company can simply stop using you if they wish in a manner that wouldn't be possible as an employee.
How is it preferential? We want access to the EU market, the EU wants access to the UK market, a deal something like Canada, Turkey, S Korea, etc. It will be the EU putting trade barriers up in order to punish the UK for wanting independence, that is unreasonable.
Because none of the countries you mention have anything like the benefits that are attached to being a member of the single market - what May was effectively saying yesterday was that we will leave the single market and customs union and then negotiate a deal which is effectively just as beneficial as being in the single market and customs union - that is still 'have your cake and eat it' and remains just as much a fantasy as it ever was.
And on the countries you mention, do you actually understand firstly the nature of those deals, and secondly the time taken for those deals to be negotiated - if, for example, Canada is the model then we are in deep, deep trouble - looking at only securing a deal in about 2028 and even then one that doesn't cover services.
-
a deal something like ... Turkey
Turkey isn't a useful example, because Turkey is a declare accession state, in other words has formally requested to join the EU. For a country in that category the EU provides some preferential status and in return expect the counties to agree to work toward the requirements it set for full membership.
Clearly the UK wont be an accession state so cannot expect to gain any of the benefits linked to states who have formally applied to join the EU.
Also worth noting that last time I took the family to Turkey (less than a year ago) we all required visas which added about £100 to the cost of our trip. Turkey still one of your gold standard models? Do you want to need a visa to travel to France or even across the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland?
-
Sure you can run with your analogy if you wish - but let's do it properly. The equivalent would be an employee deciding to go freelance and expecting to retain all the perks that the company provides to its employees, so sick pay, paid holidays, pension package, being able to access their preferential childcare voucher scheme etc etc. Sure the person can become a freelancer, but that comes with downsides, i.e. the loss of the benefits of being an employee and also the loss of certainty, in other words the company can simply stop using you if they wish in a manner that wouldn't be possible as an employee.
Because none of the countries you mention have anything like the benefits that are attached to being a member of the single market - what May was effectively saying yesterday was that we will leave the single market and customs union and then negotiate a deal which is effectively just as beneficial as being in the single market and customs union - that is still 'have your cake and eat it' and remains just as much a fantasy as it ever was.
We accept that we will lose some benefits but gain independence & the ability to do trade deals with others. We need to move on find the best deal possible you just want to re-run the referendum, you lost let it go.
And on the countries you mention, do you actually understand firstly the nature of those deals, and secondly the time taken for those deals to be negotiated - if, for example, Canada is the model then we are in deep, deep trouble - looking at only securing a deal in about 2028 and even then one that doesn't cover services.
Yes it takes time to negotiate a new deal retaining a free trade deal is pretty much the status quo and much easier to achieve.
-
Turkey isn't a useful example, because Turkey is a declare accession state, in other words has formally requested to join the EU. For a country in that category the EU provides some preferential status and in return expect the counties to agree to work toward the requirements it set for full membership.
Clearly the UK wont be an accession state so cannot expect to gain any of the benefits linked to states who have formally applied to join the EU.
Also worth noting that last time I took the family to Turkey (less than a year ago) we all required visas which added about £100 to the cost of our trip. Turkey still one of your gold standard models? Do you want to need a visa to travel to France or even across the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland?
Stop making shit up never claimed it was a gold standard.
-
We accept that we will lose some benefits but gain independence & the ability to do trade deals with others. We need to move on find the best deal possible
And you need to be realistic that:
1. We don't hold the cards, the EU do. They don't have the cliff edge of WTO for a massive proportion of their exports, we do.
2. We wont get anything like the same kind of benefits as we now enjoy in the single market unless we sign up to the obligations that come with those benefits.
3. We cannot have our cake and eat it.
you just want to re-run the referendum, you lost let it go.
Where have I ever said that the 2016 referendum should be re-run? Never. What I have said is that the final negotiated deal should be put to a referendum to demonstrate that there is a democratic mandate for the actual brexit deal at the point when it is could be enacted. That is an entirely different thing. You, on the other hand seem to be running away from the principle that there should be a clear mandate for the actual way in which we leave the referendum.
Let's not forget that there is exactly zero mandate for leaving the single market, firstly because that question wasn't on the ballot paper and because Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU.
Yes it takes time to negotiate a new deal retaining a free trade deal is pretty much the status quo and much easier to achieve.
The status quo isn't on the table, because in order to maintain the status quo you have to remain in the EU. We won't be 'retaining' a free trade deal because that deal will cease to apply to us by default 2 years after triggering article 50, which given previous experience might be some 5-9 years before we actually get a free trade deal in place (of that is even possible).
-
Stop making shit up never claimed it was a gold standard.
I will retract the term 'gold standard' - however your statement:
'We want access to the EU market, the EU wants access to the UK market, a deal something like Canada, Turkey, S Korea, etc.'
Clearly implies these examples to be the sort of thing wee should be aiming for. My point is that in every case the deals are extremely poor in comparison to what we have now. Remember there are non tariff barriers to trade as well as tariffs, and that given our reliance on services deals that focus predominantly (or exclusively) on goods aren't really going to work well for us. Finally mentioning Turkey is completely inappropriate as the deal Turkey gets (which isn't anything like as good as our current deal) is only as good as it is because they are an accession country who have formally applied to join the EU.
-
Phew good job we are leaving such a hostile organisation, trying to keep members with threats is not something I want to be part of.
Actually we were the ones that started with the threats and they called our bluff. What they do back to us is just political expediency.
In your opinion, others are available.
So you don't have an answer to the point. Since, "too complex" and "the complexity is a problem" mean essentially exactly the same thing, we can safely assume that "other opinions" are wrong in this instance.
No, it is a bad analogy, you think staying in the EU is worth X and I think its worth Y.
You think staying in the EU is worth Y at the moment. Something may happen in the next two years to cause you to revise your opinion so that you come to believe staying in the EU is worth Z where Z is significantly larger than Y. If that were to occur, would you not like the opportunity of another say?
I thought you wanted another Brexit referendum? Perhaps you want democracy when it gives you the results you like otherwise the dummy gets thrown out of the pram?
I do want another referendum now but only because the Leavers insist that the referendum we have had is somehow magically set in stone and can't be reversed because of some mythical thing called the "Will of the People" and they are not going to accept any kind of rational argument about not leaving even if the evidence piles up against them unless they are also shown that the "Will of the People" has changed.
Britain is meant to be a representative democracy. We elect a government that makes the decisions and stands or falls by those decisions. Cameron ran away from an important decision and he's probably destroyed the UK and damaged the lives of many people in it as a result.
-
As a reminder of what is at stake, as a result of May's speech yesterday, one of our biggest customers (a large multinational) will now almost certainly be relocating elsewhere in the EU with the loss of thousands of British jobs. If you voted Leave: you did this.
-
And you need to be realistic that:
1. We don't hold the cards, the EU do. They don't have the cliff edge of WTO for a massive proportion of their exports, we do.
We hold some cards they hold some cards, the Eu sells a huge amount into the UK.
2. We wont get anything like the same kind of benefits as we now enjoy in the single market unless we sign up to the obligations that come with those benefits.
Like Canada?
3. We cannot have our cake and eat it.
#rhetoric if I have a cake I'm going to want to eat it. :)
Where have I ever said that the 2016 referendum should be re-run?
You want a vote on the deal where the other option(s) include remain.
Never. What I have said is that the final negotiated deal should be put to a referendum to demonstrate that there is a democratic mandate for the actual brexit deal at the point when it is could be enacted. That is an entirely different thing. You, on the other hand seem to be running away from the principle that there should be a clear mandate for the actual way in which we leave the referendum.
Nope, quite open about another vote as i have stated to you, what seems to be, ten times. I can only assume you are wilfully misrepresenting me now, what can you expect from a quoteminer. :)
Let's not forget that there is exactly zero mandate for leaving the single market, firstly because that question wasn't on the ballot paper and because Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU.
Lying or just ill informed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dghdvVbtowM
Goto 1 minute 41
The status quo isn't on the table, because in order to maintain the status quo you have to remain in the EU. We won't be 'retaining' a free trade deal because that deal will cease to apply to us by default 2 years after triggering article 50, which given previous experience might be some 5-9 years before we actually get a free trade deal in place (of that is even possible).
The status quo with regard to tariffs is on the table it will be the Eu that takes it off the table.
-
Actually we were the ones that started with the threats and they called our bluff. What they do back to us is just political expediency.
It wasn't a threat it is going to happen.
So you don't have an answer to the point. Since, "too complex" and "the complexity is a problem" mean essentially exactly the same thing, we can safely assume that "other opinions" are wrong in this instance.
I'm not going to bother to explain why they are different, if you can't understand the difference you are either too stupid or being obtuse.
You think staying in the EU is worth Y at the moment. Something may happen in the next two years to cause you to revise your opinion so that you come to believe staying in the EU is worth Z where Z is significantly larger than Y. If that were to occur, would you not like the opportunity of another say?
If, yes, "if" many things currently no need for another vote.
I do want another referendum now but only because the Leavers insist that the referendum we have had is somehow magically set in stone and can't be reversed because of some mythical thing called the "Will of the People" and they are not going to accept any kind of rational argument about not leaving even if the evidence piles up against them unless they are also shown that the "Will of the People" has changed.
Want away. I don't think this is "magically set in stone" quite open to another vote so you are refuted,
Britain is meant to be a representative democracy. We elect a government that makes the decisions and stands or falls by those decisions. Cameron ran away from an important decision and he's probably destroyed the UK and damaged the lives of many people in it as a result.
Fine so we will leave May get on with it then.
-
As a reminder of what is at stake, as a result of May's speech yesterday, one of our biggest customers (a large multinational) will now almost certainly be relocating elsewhere in the EU with the loss of thousands of British jobs. If you voted Leave: you did this.
Next you will be calling for people to be arrested. I could claim that Brexit saved the jobs of 000s in Port Talbot Steelworks and those that voted remain didn't care about their jobs but that would stupid and childish.
-
I will retract the term 'gold standard' - however your statement:
'We want access to the EU market, the EU wants access to the UK market, a deal something like Canada, Turkey, S Korea, etc.'
Clearly implies these examples to be the sort of thing wee should be aiming for. My point is that in every case the deals are extremely poor in comparison to what we have now. Remember there are non tariff barriers to trade as well as tariffs, and that given our reliance on services deals that focus predominantly (or exclusively) on goods aren't really going to work well for us. Finally mentioning Turkey is completely inappropriate as the deal Turkey gets (which isn't anything like as good as our current deal) is only as good as it is because they are an accession country who have formally applied to join the EU.
In your opinion "poor in comparison", this is the price we pay for being able to trade with many more countries.
-
Talking about threats, the Times front page is a hoot this morning. Their paraphrase of May is: 'Give us a fair deal or you'll be crushed'. I'm not sure that's what May was saying, although some people are interpreting the Singapore suggestion as that. I suppose it means that if the UK went for very low business tax and so on, it would hollow out the EU economically?
I wonder who that line comes from? Showing the iron fist in the iron glove?
-
It wasn't a threat it is going to happen.
You mean it wasn't a bluff which is a fair point. I think Cameron fully intended it to be a bluff.
It was however, definitely a threat.
I'm not going to bother to explain why they are different, if you can't understand the difference you are either too stupid or being obtuse.
You mean you can't explain the difference.
If, yes, "if" many things currently no need for another vote.
So by use of the term "currently" you accept that circumstances could change such that another vote is needed.
Fine so we will leave May get on with it then.
Ands if she gets a deal that damages the UK, what then? Will you let her say "we can't accept this, it would be a disaster, so we are staying in" without another referendum?
-
Next you will be calling for people to be arrested.
No, I'm calling for people to understand and accept the consequences of their actions.
I could claim that Brexit saved the jobs of 000s in Port Talbot Steelworks
In what way has it done that?
I should remind you that the EU wanted to impose tariffs on cheap Chinese steel to protect the EU's steel industry but the measure was vetoed by.... the UK. Yay!
Port Talbot steel works was never in trouble because ofd the EU.
-
I was reading today about what the cost to farming is going be, and by extension the countryside. Some are worried about not having enough staff at harvest time as they haven't been able to recruit British workers. Small producers - those who have their cattle on grass and who replant meadows and hedgerows - can't manage without subsidies. Leaving the EU *could* mean more environmental protection, more preservation schemes and better targeted subsidies, but realistically with the money saved from the EU being used to build a new hospital every week or whatever shit Gove came out with and a Tory government keen on deregulation and maximum profit the likelihood is going to be large scale agribusiness at the expense of family farms and the landscape.
-
We hold some cards they hold some cards, the Eu sells a huge amount into the UK.
We hold very few cards:
Around 45% of everything we sell overseas goes to the EU. 53% of our imports come from the rest of the EU.
The reverse figure, i.e. the proportion of what the rest of the EU sells to the UK as a proportion of exports is just 7% and less than 5% of rest of EU imports come from the EU. And don't forget that the situation isn't the same for every country, but all member states need to agree with the deal. The most affected (Ireland) is still massively lower on impact of change than the UK (15% rather that 45-50% for the UK). But there are countries in the EU (e.g. Romania) for whom trade with the UK is in the noise, pretty well irrelevant to their economic prospects, and who (of course) have an effective veto on any deal. Note too that freedom of movement is going to be much, much more important to Romania.
Therefore, although creating additional costs for these imports and exports would be inconvenient for the rest of the EU, it is pretty easy to absorb. The same isn't the case for the EU.
At the end of the 2 year period following article 50 the vast, vast majority of trade done in the EU, either within country, between EU countries or with the rest of the world will be completely unaffected. By contrast virtually all of our trade will be affected, noting that we cannot actually ratify any trade deal (if agreed) until we have actually left the EU. So likely we will end up on the least preferable WTO terms not just with the EU but with other countries where our existing deal (because we are members of the EU) ceases to apply the moment we leave.
So as we get nearer to that cliff edge there is increasing risk for the UK, but actually the risk for the EU is small and largely unchanging.
Sure you can live in the fantasy world that everyone will dance to our tune, cos they must, cos were Britain and everyone must bow down to our greatness. But the reality is rather different and I prefer to live in the real world than a fiction.
-
In your opinion "poor in comparison", this is the price we pay for being able to trade with many more countries.
We already can trade with all the countries we want. And as a member of the EU we have more trade deals with more countries worldwide than (I gather) any other country in the world (except of course all the other EU member states).
And who are always at the front of the queue when countries are considering who they want to do trade deals with - well the largest markets, and what is the largest market on the planet - the EU.
-
We already can trade with all the countries we want. And as a member of the EU we have more trade deals with more countries worldwide than (I gather) any other country in the world (except of course all the other EU member states).
And who are always at the front of the queue when countries are considering who they want to do trade deals with - well the largest markets, and what is the largest market on the planet - the EU.
Just to give some context.
The UK currently benefits from free trade deals with 50 non EU countries (that's taking the EU as a single block, alternatively you would add in the other 27 members of the EU too).
For comparison (using the same approach that the EU is one):
USA - has trade deals with 20 countries
Switzerland 38 countries
Canada 15
Australia 15
And what will be the situation on the day we leave the EU - well the UK will likely have gone from having free trade arrangement with 77 countries in the world, quite possibly to 0. There is not a hope in hell's chance that 2 years from triggering article 50 that we end up with agreements with anything close to the 77 countries we currently enjoy.
-
Ands if she gets a deal that damages the UK, what then? Will you let her say "we can't accept this, it would be a disaster, so we are staying in" without another referendum?
If she gets a deal that i think damages the UK I will advocate for a vote on that deal. Its not in my power to "let her" do anything only to campaign for what I think should happen.
-
No, I'm calling for people to understand and accept the consequences of their actions.
"You did this" is what you wrote.
In what way has it done that?
I should remind you that the EU wanted to impose tariffs on cheap Chinese steel to protect the EU's steel industry but the measure was vetoed by.... the UK. Yay!
Port Talbot steel works was never in trouble because ofd the EU.
Every £ of steel exported is worth 20% more to Tata since the vote.
-
We hold very few cards:
Around 45% of everything we sell overseas goes to the EU. 53% of our imports come from the rest of the EU.
The reverse figure, i.e. the proportion of what the rest of the EU sells to the UK as a proportion of exports is just 7% and less than 5% of rest of EU imports come from the EU. And don't forget that the situation isn't the same for every country, but all member states need to agree with the deal. The most affected (Ireland) is still massively lower on impact of change than the UK (15% rather that 45-50% for the UK). But there are countries in the EU (e.g. Romania) for whom trade with the UK is in the noise, pretty well irrelevant to their economic prospects, and who (of course) have an effective veto on any deal. Note too that freedom of movement is going to be much, much more important to Romania.
Therefore, although creating additional costs for these imports and exports would be inconvenient for the rest of the EU, it is pretty easy to absorb. The same isn't the case for the EU.
So what is their motive for introducing this inconvenience?
At the end of the 2 year period following article 50 the vast, vast majority of trade done in the EU, either within country, between EU countries or with the rest of the world will be completely unaffected. By contrast virtually all of our trade will be affected, noting that we cannot actually ratify any trade deal (if agreed) until we have actually left the EU. So likely we will end up on the least preferable WTO terms not just with the EU but with other countries where our existing deal (because we are members of the EU) ceases to apply the moment we leave.
There is talk of transitional deal.
Sure you can live in the fantasy world that everyone will dance to our tune, cos they must, cos were Britain and everyone must bow down to our greatness. But the reality is rather different and I prefer to live in the real world than a fiction.
Can you actually try to have a proper grown up debate, I know its tricky for you my quote-mining chum but it will help you cause no end honestly.
-
Like Canada?
Do you actually understand the details of the EU Canada deal, and therefore understand it is nowhere close to being as good a trade deal as we currently enjoy with the rest of the EU.
So some details:
1. The starting point of the negotiations were at a summit in May 2004 - the deal wasn't actually signed until October 2016, over 12 years later.
2. Although the deal has been signed it isn't actually in force - it is unlikely to be actually operational until late 2017 at the earliest - so probably more than 13 years after negotiations were initiated.
3. The deal really only covers good, not services. There is very little liberalisation of trade in services which are, of course, critical to the UK.
4. There are a huge number of non-tarrif barriers that will remain even with the deal - which aren't the case for our current trading with other EU countries. Examples include regulations on agriculture and a whole raft of issues over intellectual property rights including copyrights.
So feel free to hanker after a deal massively inferior to the one we currently enjoy that (using the timeframe of that deal) might be signed sometime in 2029, but not actually in force until later. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that isn't a good deal from where I am sitting, and I'm already looking at an exceptionally good deal, which we benefit from as a member of the EU.
-
We already can trade with all the countries we want. And as a member of the EU we have more trade deals with more countries worldwide than (I gather) any other country in the world (except of course all the other EU member states).
Being in the customs union means that the EU does our trade deals on our behalf, citation required on the other fact please.
And who are always at the front of the queue when countries are considering who they want to do trade deals with - well the largest markets, and what is the largest market on the planet - the EU.
Yeah like Iceland - China free trade deal.
-
Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU.
Are you withdrawing this?
-
Yeah like Iceland - China free trade deal.
China is one of the largest economies on the planet, so of course Iceland might want a deal with them.
The reason why China was interested in reciprocating is that Iceland has something rather unique that China wants - i.e. a key role in granting China access to arctic resources.
Sadly I don't think there is anything equivalent that the UK could be offering.
-
Are you withdrawing this?
Don't see why he should.
Just a few here courtesy of Another Angry Voice's blog:
"Only a madman would actually leave the market" - Owen Paterson, Tory Vote Leave campaigner
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" - Daniel Hannan, Tory Vote Leave campaigner
"There's a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and Britain will still be part of it after we vote leave." - Chris Grayling, Tory Brexit campaigner and current member of Theresa May's own cabinet!
"There is no question about it, Britain will still have access to the single market after we vote leave" - Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign
"Britain will stay in the single market whatever happens" - Pete North, pro-Brexit blogger
-
Are you withdrawing this?
No because it is true:
"Only a madman would actually leave the market" - Owen Paterson
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" - Daniel Hannan
"There's a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and Britain will still be part of it after we vote leave." - Chris Grayling
"There is no question about it, Britain will still have access to the single market after we vote leave" - Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign
“there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market”, Boris Johnson
“We say: yes to the single market”, Conservative Party manifesto on which they were elected in 2015
Plus others who clearly implied before the vote that we'd end up like countries who are members of the single market:
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" - Arron Bank
"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing" - Nigel Farage
Norway, Switzerland, all of these countries have complete free trade with the EU, and by the way, I can't help noticing that they're doing pretty well." - Daniel Hannan
-
"You did this" is what you wrote.
Yes I did write that. In no way was I calling for the arrest of the people who voted for Brexit. I just want them to understand and take moral responsibility for the consequences of their choice.
Here are some more:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38663537
Here is Boris behaving like a twat again. He still seems to think it is some kind of a joke.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38658998
One German newspaper had a headline "Little England" and they are correct.
Every £ of steel exported is worth 20% more to Tata since the vote.
No it isn't. The World steel price was unmoved by the vote. What you meant to say is that Tata is paying its British workers 20% less relatively speaking.
-
No because it is true:
"Only a madman would actually leave the market" - Owen Paterson
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market" - Daniel Hannan
"There's a free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and Britain will still be part of it after we vote leave." - Chris Grayling
"There is no question about it, Britain will still have access to the single market after we vote leave" - Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign
“there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market”, Boris Johnson
“We say: yes to the single market”, Conservative Party manifesto on which they were elected in 2015
Plus others who clearly implied before the vote that we'd end up like countries who are members of the single market:
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" - Arron Bank
"Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing" - Nigel Farage
Norway, Switzerland, all of these countries have complete free trade with the EU, and by the way, I can't help noticing that they're doing pretty well." - Daniel Hannan
Davey claims he doesn't quote-mine then delivers the mother-load.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA
-
It's too premature to try and decide possible trade deals/options. None of those arrangements can be finalised without agreeing on the "divorce settlement". I suspect the all the toys will be out of the pram by then, and everyone will be in a big stand-off and huff.
-
New film about Brexit, bit naff:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/download/file.php?id=14810
-
Yes I did write that. In no way was I calling for the arrest of the people who voted for Brexit. I just want them to understand and take moral responsibility for the consequences of their choice.
Leavers made a choice based on the arguments forwarded by each side. If your own arguments were not convincing then you, by your own measure, must take "moral responsibility".
-
Leavers made a choice based on the arguments forwarded by each side. If your own arguments were not convincing then you, by your own measure, must take "moral responsibility".
So now you want to blame me for Leavers making a choice that could lead to lots of job losses.
-
So now you want to blame me for Leavers making a choice that could lead to lots of job losses.
Blimey no I assume most leavers made their votes on the basis of the arguments in front of them. So society is collectively responsible.
I think we ultimately get the politicians we deserve and when the standard of the debate is 'Boris behaving like a twat again' I would encourage you to look in the mirror.
-
So as ever when leavers apportion any blame for the mess we find ourselves in - it's the remainers fault.
I note you accused people of quote mining even though it rebutted your argument. Which basically means you had no response. Perhaps we do get the politicians that reflect society - but the politicians sound a lot more like you than they sound like ProfD.
The new world order Jackis or is it Boriswan?
-
So as ever when leavers apportion any blame for the mess we find ourselves in - it's the remainers fault.
No I think its stupid to think of blaming voters on any side of a debate in a democracy since both sides have the chance to convince the other they are right.
I note you accused people of quote mining even though it rebutted your argument. Which basically means you had no response.
I suggest you watch the clip which I posted which refuted many of your and Davey's quotes and were quote mines.
Perhaps we do get the politicians that reflect society - but the politicians sound a lot more like you than they sound like ProfD. The new world order Jackis or is it Boriswan?
I propose a new world order were we discuss the issues and points being made and refrain from insult, catchphrases, gotcha moments, quote mining, an ambition to end misrepresentation, to not demonise those which we disagree (make might an exception for Trump).
In this new world order I see you have nothing to say. :)
On a more serious note I wasn't 10/10 for Brexit, a 7 maybe and could have been persuaded to change my mind. I found the arguments for remaining unconvincing and the more rabid the remainers became the more unconvinced I became.
-
I suggest you watch the clip which I posted which refuted many of your and Davey's quotes and were quote mines.
Yes I have watched the video and I disagree entirely with your conclusion.
Of course Andrew Neil does his usual bullish, slightly bullying hatchet job - it is after all his opus operandi and he's good at it. But let's actually look at what I claimed.
My point was that prior to the referendum there were loads of Leave campaigners (obviously including some of the most prominent) saying that we would remain in the single market (perhaps like Norway), and certainly not indicating that we would leave the single market. Nothing in the Andrew Neil video changes that view.
I never said all did and you'll note no quotes from Leadsom or Gove - but the point remains that the Leave campaign never gave a clear impression prior to the referendum that voting to leave the EU meant voting to leave the single market - quite the reverse, the clear mood music was 'have cake and eat it' i.e. still be in single market but have control over immigration. That is the clear message put across by the vote leave campaign.
So rather than pick up on individual quotes, perhaps we should look at the official documents of the official leave campaign:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html
Is there any thing anywhere in this document (effectively their manifesto) indicating we would leave the single market - nope.
Is there anything in that manifesto clearly indicating we would remain in the single market - absolutely. Scroll through to the 11th slide and you get the following:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
Note please "we will be part of it" not "we will have access to it".
That "free trade zone" is, of course, the single market. How can that official quote in the official manifesto of the official leave campaign released during the referendum campaign be construed in any other way that the UK will remain in the single market. That's what the official leave campaign campaigned on - but like so many of the other 'promises' in their manifesto it was a lie.
-
On a more serious note I wasn't 10/10 for Brexit, a 7 maybe and could have been persuaded to change my mind. I found the arguments for remaining unconvincing and the more rabid the remainers became the more unconvinced I became
Funnily enough my experience was the same but in the opposite direction. What finally tipped it was a 'discussion' I got involved in on Facebook. Clearly the Brexiteers had been primed to pick on anything they could and use it as a way of dismissing the arguments of remainers. They were quick enough to pick up on the fact that I was gay (not from anything I said in the course of the discussion - but simply from my FB page where I do not hide my sexuality) and that therefore I was in favour of the EU. A completely erroneous assumption on their part and one that I have no doubt they had been primed to use. Other friends who were Doctors and members of ethnic communities had similar experiences - I am convinced this was not a random example but a concerted effort by some behind leave to use emotive subjects to further their cause. My conclusion is that no matter how unwittingly, people who voted leave voted to enable hatred.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh - but it feels true to me and to many people I know.
I'm not going to post about this subject again - because it is done really. We will be leaving - I have no input into that. May has made it clear that she has taken the referendum result as being the British rejecting free movement. Nothing else rates as highly. Her list of rather petulantly expressed demands makes her the Queen of Wishful Thinking - nothing good is going to come of this.
-
They were quick enough to pick up on the fact that I was gay (not from anything I said in the course of the discussion - but simply from my FB page where I do not hide my sexuality) and that therefore I was in favour of the EU.
What an astonishingly bizarre view.
I freely admit that I move in demographically narrow circles with respect to Brexit position - being an academic, working in London and living in one of the most pro-remain parts of the country means that overwhelmingly the people I know are remain supporters.
However it is interesting that the two most pro-brexit people of my Facebook friends are both gay. Not in any way suggesting that being gay means greater likelihood of being pro-brexit, but that the notion that gay people are necessarily pro-remain is naive, and actually rather offensive in its generalisation.
-
My conclusion is that no matter how unwittingly, people who voted leave voted to enable hatred.
I'm sorry if that sounds harsh - but it feels true to me and to many people I know.
What a hateful thing to say, I've been for equality law all my life (apart from my teenage years where I was taught in a homophobic all male school). I have been on gay pride marches and have rejoiced as backwards looking laws have been repealed and gay marriage become legal across the world, I reject being in any way associated with this sort of discrimination.
To attempt to categorise people in this way is highly prejudiced and very hateful, its sad to see see someone like yourself to stoop to this level. Remember "when they go low we go high".
-
Yes I have watched the video and I disagree entirely with your conclusion.
Of course Andrew Neil does his usual bullish, slightly bullying hatchet job - it is after all his opus operandi and he's good at it. But let's actually look at what I claimed.
My point was that prior to the referendum there were loads of Leave campaigners (obviously including some of the most prominent) saying that we would remain in the single market (perhaps like Norway), and certainly not indicating that we would leave the single market. Nothing in the Andrew Neil video changes that view.
No lets go back to the start. You said:-
Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU.
I then posted this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dghdvVbtowM
Skip to 1min 41.
I never said all did and you'll note no quotes from Leadsom or Gove - but the point remains that the Leave campaign never gave a clear impression prior to the referendum that voting to leave the EU meant voting to leave the single market - quite the reverse, the clear mood music was 'have cake and eat it' i.e. still be in single market but have control over immigration. That is the clear message put across by the vote leave campaign.
Find me a quote of someone from the leave campaign who said we should stay in the single market, I'll find five who said we shouldn't. Cameron made it clear if we voted to leave we leave the single market, as did Osborne.
So rather than pick up on individual quotes, perhaps we should look at the official documents of the official leave campaign:
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html
Is there any thing anywhere in this document (effectively their manifesto) indicating we would leave the single market - nope.
Is there anything in that manifesto clearly indicating we would remain in the single market - absolutely. Scroll through to the 11th slide and you get the following:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
Note please "we will be part of it" not "we will have access to it".
Sigh maybe stop digging now, it then goes on to say "we don't need to accept the control of EU court to trade with it".. so out then.
That "free trade zone" is, of course, the single market.
Really maybe you better tell Turkey that I don't think they know.
How can that official quote in the official manifesto of the official leave campaign released during the referendum campaign be construed in any other way that the UK will remain in the single market. That's what the official leave campaign campaigned on - but like so many of the other 'promises' in their manifesto it was a lie.
You took them to be promises? LOL the remain and leave campaigns had to come up with a case for remain or leave, clearly any promises should have been ignored as they wouldn't have the power to enact them.
-
Find me a quote of someone from the leave campaign who said we should stay in the single market
The official Leave campaign's official manifesto document:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
Would you like to explain to me exactly what this free trade zone is, that we will remain part of, except the single market (or perhaps the customs zone).
It is there in black and white in their manifesto - we will remain part of the free trade zone. How can that be construed in any other way than we will be remaining in the single market.
Actually to be completely accurate, given the description of the zone extending from Iceland to Turkey the only interpretation is that we will remain part of both the single market and the custom's union, as only that combination meets the Iceland to Turkey free trade zone description.
Or perhaps you know of some other 'secret' free trade zone that covers that geographical range.
The manifesto clearly stated we would be part of the free trade zone (not just have access, but be part of) - that was a lie.
-
Blimey no I assume most leavers made their votes on the basis of the arguments in front of them. So society is collectively responsible.
No, society is not collectively responsible. This is down to the people who voted Leave.
Don't worry, in the event that leaving the EU is actually a success, I won't be throwing your collective responsibility back in your face.
I think we ultimately get the politicians we deserve and when the standard of the debate is 'Boris behaving like a twat again' I would encourage you to look in the mirror.
Don't you think that the British foreign secretary making stupid inflammatory remarks ahead of a delicate negotiation process is important?
Furthermore, characterising the entire debate based on one sentence in one post does nothing to raise the standard.
-
Here's a perspective written byt a Frenchman
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/18/europe-loser-brexit-britain
This paragraph is particularly brutal
Above all, May says nothing about services. How, for instance, can banks retain guaranteed access to the continent, a necessity as soon as the City is no longer a financial centre for the euro? What does Theresa May envisage offering in exchange? Because with all due respect to UK national sentiment, the reality is brutal: we are talking about a mid-ranking power of 65 million people, most of whose industry is owned by foreign capital, negotiating with one of the world’s principal trading, economic and monetary powers – a power that comes with a market of 450 million people. Which countries does Britain export to, and where does a good part of its foreign investment come from? Where is the power? Who has the most to lose in all this? Threatening that Britain will become a tax haven if it doesn’t get what it wants amounts to childishness: such a solution might be possible for a micro-state without its own industry, but not for a country like Britain.
It hurts more because it is true.
-
So just to clarify:
There are two recent votes which we should look at to determine whether there is a democratic mandate to leave the Single market and/or the customs union. To determine whether there is we need to look at the manifesto's of the winners in each of those elections.
The first is, of course, the referendum, in which the manifesto of the official Leave campaign stated:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
Secondly there is the 2015 general election on which the democratic mandate of the government rests. The 2015 Conservative manifesto stated:
“We say: yes to the single market”
There is no democratic mandate, from either the referendum or the 2015 general election for leaving the single market.
-
The official Leave campaign's official manifesto document:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
Would you like to explain to me exactly what this free trade zone is, that we will remain part of, except the single market (or perhaps the customs zone).
There is the single market, if you are in it then you are bound by EU Court, Customs Union then there is a free trade zone where you tariff free access to the single market.
Every mainstream politician that I can think of wants to be part of the free trade zone. Almost every leader of BOTH remain and leave campaigns clearly stated during the campaign that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market. I've shown a video with the leaders being very clear, even those on your own side, but you don't think they were?
The manifesto clearly stated we would be part of the free trade zone (not just have access, but be part of) - that was a lie.
Being part of the free trade zone is not the same as being in the single market, the fact that you don't know this makes you come across as ill-informed, I don't think you are kidding anyone other than yourself.
-
There is the single market, if you are in it then you are bound by EU Court, Customs Union then there is a free trade zone where you tariff free access to the single market.
Stop waffling.
Simple question - please explain to me what the 'free trade zone' which the official Leave manifesto clearly stated we would be 'part of' is, if not the Single Market, EEA/EFTA or Customs Union or combinations thereof.
The manifesto doesn't talk of 'access to' this free trade zone, but being 'part of' - so don't obfuscate by trying to translate this to access. That is not what the manifesto said.
-
No, society is not collectively responsible. This is down to the people who voted Leave.
Don't worry, in the event that leaving the EU is actually a success, I won't be throwing your collective responsibility back in your face.
Don't you think that the British foreign secretary making stupid inflammatory remarks ahead of a delicate negotiation process is important?
Oh I don't worry what you throw in my face pal, water off a ducks back.
Furthermore, characterising the entire debate based on one sentence in one post does nothing to raise the standard.
I was not characterising the entire debate but you, in fairness Davey despite his quote mines, crazy spins and misrepresentations has actually raised issues and made coherent points. You on the other hand always go low.
-
Every mainstream politician that I can think of wants to be part of the free trade zone.
Except the Prime Minister who clearly stated this week that we would leave this free trade zone (the single market) and also by inference also the Custom Union - as you cannot negotiate your own trade deals while remaining in the customs union.
But glad you now agree that before the referendum most (but not all) politicians said they were in favour of being part of that free trade zone - but there has been a complete u-turn, as May's speech this week is very clearly not consistent with being part of the free trade zone.
-
Stop waffling.
In what way was that waffle.
Simple question - please explain to me what the 'free trade zone' which the official Leave manifesto clearly stated we would be 'part of' is, if not the Single Market, EEA/EFTA or Customs Union or combinations thereof.
The manifesto doesn't talk of 'access to' this free trade zone, but being 'part of' - so don't obfuscate by trying to translate this to access. That is not what the manifesto said.
Wow you really didn't know. Let the BBC help you out:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36083664
-
Wow you really didn't know. Let the BBC help you out:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36083664
Which tells me nothing I didn't already know, or have stated above (see reply 342)
May's speech isn't consistent with being part of the single market, EEA, EFTA or Custom's Union.
So if not the single market, EEA, EFTA, Custom's Union (or combinations thereof) exactly which 'free trade zone' extending from Iceland to Turkey is it that we will be part of as the official Leave campaign's official manifesto so clearly stated.
-
Which tells me nothing I didn't already know, or have stated above (see reply 342)
May's speech isn't consistent with being part of the single market, EEA, EFTA or Custom's Union.
So if not the single market, EEA, EFTA, Custom's Union (or combinations thereof) exactly which 'free trade zone' extending from Iceland to Turkey is it that we will be part of as the official Leave campaign's official manifesto so clearly stated.
Turkey and Ukraine are in the free trade zone they are not in the single market.I haven't read May's speech but as far as I'm aware she wants a free trade deal with EU and will then become part of the free trade zone but not in the single market, customs union.
From BBC
"The EU is therefore not a free trade area - it is a single market."
Lets not forgot you started this part of the debate with:-
"Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU."
I have linked to leaders of both campaigns expressly stating during the campaign if we voted to leave we leave the single market, it was not unclear in any way.
-
Turkey and Ukraine are in the free trade zone they are not in the single market.I haven't read May's speech but as far as I'm aware she wants a free trade deal with EU and will then become part of the free trade zone but not in the single market, customs union.
Still no answer - the official Leave campaign's official manifesto clearly state that there was already in existence a 'free trade zone' that we would remain part of even if we left that EU.
Please tell me what that 'free trade zone' is if not the single market, EEA, EFTA or Custom's Union (or combinations thereof).
A deal with a free trade zone doesn't make you part of that free trade zone Jaksan - there is a trade deal with Canada just signed by the EU - does that make Canada part of a 'free trade zone' with the EU - no it doesn't. Being part of necessarily implies membership.
You can obfuscate all you like but the clear message from the official Leave campaign was that we would remain part of (i.e. be a member of) an existing free trade zone that ranged from Iceland to Turkey if we voted to leave the EU. That isn't consistent with May's speech.
-
From BBC
"The EU is therefore not a free trade area - it is a single market."
I know - I never said it was - the "free trade zone" is defined by membership of one (or a combination of) the EU, EAA, EFTA and Customs Union - no other country regardless of whether they have a deal for preferential access to the free trade zone is part of it.
Lets not forgot you started this part of the debate with:-
"Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU."
I have linked to leaders of both campaigns expressly stating during the campaign if we voted to leave we leave the single market, it was not unclear in any way.
Of course the remain campaigners warned that living the EU might also mean leaving the single market, EAA, EFTA and Customs Union but their concerns were dismissed as 'project fear' by the Leave campaign whose official manifesto clearly stated that:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
And many of the Leave campaigners made the same basis statement (albeit in varying types of language) - Chris Grayling being the most 'on message' with the official manifesto pledge.
-
Still no answer - the official Leave campaign's official manifesto clearly state that there was already in existence a 'free trade zone' that we would remain part of even if we left that EU.
Please tell me what that 'free trade zone' is if not the single market, EEA, EFTA or Custom's Union (or combinations thereof).
It is a term coined by them to describe those countries that can trade without tariffs with each other, it includes members of the EU, EEA, EFTA, plus Turkey and Ukraine.
A deal with a free trade zone doesn't make you part of that free trade zone Jaksan - there is a trade deal with Canada just signed by the EU - does that make Canada part of a 'free trade zone' with the EU - no it doesn't. Being part of necessarily implies membership.
Not if its term I made up, there will be a free trade zone stretching from Canada to the western borders of Russia.
You can obfuscate all you like but the clear message from the official Leave campaign was that we would remain part of (i.e. be a member of) an existing free trade zone that ranged from Iceland to Turkey if we voted to leave the EU. That isn't consistent with May's speech.
I'm not obfuscating you said:-
"Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU."
That has been utterly refuted by the video I posted, you've spent the last two pages conflating the single market with a free trade zone, so its you who obfuscate either that or you just don't understand. I've tried to explain it to you countless time, linked to the BBC which specifically refutes you and still you are digging.
Again the BBC
"The EU is therefore not a free trade area - it is a single market."
Can you quote May speech where she says she wants to impose tariffs on the EU?
-
Oh I don't worry what you throw in my face pal, water off a ducks back.
I was not characterising the entire debate but you, in fairness Davey despite his quote mines, crazy spins and misrepresentations has actually raised issues and made coherent points. You on the other hand always go low.
In what way have I gone low? Pointing out that the foreign secretary has been deeply insulting to the people he will soon be engaging in negotiation with is not going low, it's the truth.
-
Just coming back here today to ask for opinions on a question phoned in last night after QT. A woman said that Theresa May talks of trade, but, she asked, what do we have to trade? I thought that was spot on. There was someone this morning with an engineering firm, but what principal industries and goods do countries in the rest of the world want that only the UK can provide?
-
It is a term coined by them to describe those countries that can trade without tariffs with each other, it includes members of the EU, EEA, EFTA, plus Turkey and Ukraine.
I would agree that it covers membership of (including in combination) the single market, EU, EEA, EFTA and the customs union.
This is helpful - see particularly the pair of maps with countries largely indicated in blue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe
I am frankly bemused at the mention of Ukraine (think this is probably sloppy BBC journalism) and the Leave manifesto made no indication that they thought Ukraine to be part of their stated 'free trade zone' that exists. There is no free trade zone including Ukraine in any way equivalent to the single market, EU, EEA, EFTA and the customs union.
So just to be clear - build a car in the UK export it to the Ukraine - you have to pay a 12.5% tariff - same on pretty well all other goods. Plus equivalent barriers to trade in services and non tariff barriers. None of these exist in what we all recognise as the free trade zone we are currently part of as a member of the EU.
The point is that May's speech ruled out being a member of the single market, but her speech is completely inconsistent with being a member of EEA, EFTA or the customs union - in which case we will not be part of the free trade zone that extends from Iceland to Turkey and the border of Russia, as the official Leave campaign's official manifesto clearly stated we would.
-
Again the BBC
"The EU is therefore not a free trade area - it is a single market."
Where did I ever say it was - I am well aware that there are countries in the free trade zone that aren't in the EU (e.g. Norway). What I am struggling to understand is how you would define this free trade zone other than by membership of one or more of EU, EEA, EFTA or Customs zone.
Can you quote May speech where she says she wants to impose tariffs on the EU?
Firstly tariffs are two way things Jakswan.
Secondly May's speech specifically ruled out being in the single market, so we cannot be members of the EU (obviously) nor EEA nor EFTA. And she wants to have the ability to develop independent trade deals, which rules our being in the customs union, so by inference we cannot be in this free trade zone.
So a little question for you - name me a country on this planet (other than those in the single market, EU, EEA, ETFA or customs union) where there aren't tariffs applied to some goods on import/export with the UK - noting that there are none currently within that zone.
Finally tariffs aren't the only barriers to trade and indeed as we are a service driven economy non tariff barriers to services are probably more important. We currently enjoy free trade within the free trade zone without non tariff barriers, for example in services.
So another little question for you - name me a country on this planet (other than those in the single market, EU, EEA, ETFA or customs union) where there aren't non-tariff barriers applied to to 'import/export' or services with the UK - noting that there are none currently within that zone.
-
Just coming back here today to ask for opinions on a question phoned in last night after QT. A woman said that Theresa May talks of trade, but, she asked, what do we have to trade? I thought that was spot on. There was someone this morning with an engineering firm, but what principal industries and goods do countries in the rest of the world want that only the UK can provide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_the_United_Kingdom
The values are from 2012 and does not include services*. Lists vary depending on how different goods are grouped together as well as on market values. For detailed, up to date, information you can download spreadsheets from the ONS.
It is not really goods that "only the UK can provide" but competition on costs, quality and reliability of supply. All the types of goods and services exported by the UK are available from other sources. Note that the UK runs a trade deficit, ie we normally import more than we export - currently the deficit is about £4.5b.
* Services exports currently are over £100b.
-
I would agree that it covers membership of (including in combination) the single market, EU, EEA, EFTA and the customs union.
This is helpful - see particularly the pair of maps with countries largely indicated in blue:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe
I am frankly bemused at the mention of Ukraine (think this is probably sloppy BBC journalism) and the Leave manifesto made no indication that they thought Ukraine to be part of their stated 'free trade zone' that exists. There is no free trade zone including Ukraine in any way equivalent to the single market, EU, EEA, EFTA and the customs union.
So just to be clear - build a car in the UK export it to the Ukraine - you have to pay a 12.5% tariff - same on pretty well all other goods. Plus equivalent barriers to trade in services and non tariff barriers. None of these exist in what we all recognise as the free trade zone we are currently part of as a member of the EU.
The point is that May's speech ruled out being a member of the single market, but her speech is completely inconsistent with being a member of EEA, EFTA or the customs union - in which case we will not be part of the free trade zone that extends from Iceland to Turkey and the border of Russia, as the official Leave campaign's official manifesto clearly stated we would.
Turkey?
-
Turkey?
Is in the customs union and is an EU accession state.
So Nope - try again.
-
The point is that May's speech ruled out being a member of the single market, but her speech is completely inconsistent with being a member of EEA, EFTA or the customs union - in which case we will not be part of the free trade zone that extends from Iceland to Turkey and the border of Russia, as the official Leave campaign's official manifesto clearly stated we would.
She wants to negotiate a deal where she has free trade with the EU and therefore would be part of the land mass from Iceland to Russia that you can call a free trade zone.
Are you now withdrawing?
"Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU."
-
She wants to negotiate a deal where she has free trade with the EU and therefore would be part of the land mass from Iceland to Russia that you can call a free trade zone.
Slip, sliding away, slip, sliding away-ahay.
Prior to the referendum the official Leave manifesto stated very clearly that:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
Unless May changes her mind that will not happen, as the only countries that are in that 'free trade zone" are in it either as members of the single market (via EU, EEA or EFTA membership) and/or are members of the Customs Union. May has stated that we will leave the single market and if we want to develop our own trade deals we cannot be part of the Customs Union, so we will no longer be part of the free trade zone, contrary to the Leave manifesto's official pledge.
Are you now withdrawing?
"Leave supporter after Leave supporter prior to the referendum clearly indicated that there was no chance of us leaving the single market even if we left the EU."
No - why would I, because it is true.
And indeed the comments went on after the referendum too:
So here is Daniel Hannan - often described as the intellectual heavyweight of the Leave side the very day after the referendum clearly stating that we should stay in the single market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5jTRoySFfo
-
Slip, sliding away, slip, sliding away-ahay.
Prior to the referendum the official Leave manifesto stated very clearly that:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
Yet leaders of the campaigns of both sides clearly stated if we voted to leave we leave the single market.
Unless May changes her mind that will not happen,
If the Eu gives the UK a free trade deal, which is what May wants, there will still exist a "free trade zone" of which we will be part.
as currently the only countries that are in that 'free trade zone" are in it either as members of the single market (via EU, EEA or EFTA membership) and/or are members of the Customs Union.
fify.
May has stated that we will leave the single market and if we want to develop our own trade deals we cannot be part of the Customs Union, so we will no longer be part of the free trade zone, contrary to the Leave manifesto's official pledge.
No see above.
No - why would I, because it is true.
Well not really your position is that people who voted for leave did not understand that would mean leaving the single market yet leaders of both leave and remain clearly stated that was exactly what it meant.
And indeed the comments went on after the referendum too:
So here is Daniel Hannan - often described as the intellectual heavyweight of the Leave side the very day after the referendum clearly stating that we should stay in the single market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5jTRoySFfo
Give me the time "it may well mean...." isn't "clearly stating".
-
Udayana
Thank you for the information and the link, much appreciated.
-
If the Eu gives the UK a free trade deal, which is what May wants, there will still exist a "free trade zone" of which we will be part.
No we won't.
Any more than South Korea, or Canada or any of the other 50 or so countries that have deals with the EU on trade. Having a deal with the EU does not make you a part of their free trade zone. The only way you can be part of that free trade zone is to be a member of either the single market or the Customs Union - hence "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border ..."
Not:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and fifty other random bits of the globe."
If we choose not to be a member of the single market or the customs union we will not be part of that free trade zone. That is what May clearly implied in her speech directly contradicting the official Leave campaign's manifesto pledge.
-
Yet leaders of the campaigns of both sides clearly stated if we voted to leave we leave the single market.
Sure plenty of remain campaigners warned that the consequence of brexit would be to no longer be part of the single market and the customs unions (collectively described by the Leave campaign as the 'free trade zone"), but they were routinely dismissed by the leave campaign, and many leave campaigners as 'project fear' when it was, of course 'project reality'. And the official Leave campaign officially repeated the lie in their official manifesto (which of course all leading members of the official Leave sign up to out of collective responsibility) when they stated that:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
We can only be part of that free trade zone by being in the single market, the customs union or both. Membership of one or both of those two entities defines whether you are part of the free trade zone.
-
The other platitude from the leavers that needs to be completely flattened, jumped on and ground into the ground until dust is phrases of the following nature:
We will have access to the single market - indicating some kind of equivalence to being in the single market.
So let's call that one out:
The notion of "access to the single market" is totally meaningless - it is a non-sense statement. I think virtually every country on the planet has "access to the single market", i.e. they are able to trade with countries in the single market, sell and buy stuff. I suspect the only countries that don't have "access to the single market" are countries with complete trade sanction regime in place from the EU - perhaps North Korea. But every other country already has "access to the single market" - Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, the Solomon Islands etc etc.
It is a completely meaningless statement and I have no doubt deliberately used to mislead - somehow equating "access to the single market" with lack of tariffs and non tariff barriers to trade, which are, of course, part and parcel to the vast majority of countries that have "access to the single market".
So it is of course true that we will have "access to the single market" once we leave (unless we do something so appealing that trade sanctions are applied) - so what. What we have now is the ability to trade completely free from tariffs and non tariff barriers to trade. Will we get that - almost certainly not, as the 'price' for that access is signing up to the other freedoms embedded in the single market including movement of people. And before you claim that the EU wouldn't dare to stand up to the UK if it wasn't going to accept freedom of movement, just look at Switzerland. Recently it looked as if they were going to impose controls on immigration contrary to the single market principles - quick as a flash the EU made it absolutely clear that the freedoms were indivisible and they were entiteld to change their immigration policy but a automatic consequence would be that they would no longer the ability to trade completely free from tariffs and non tariff barriers.
-
The other platitude from the leavers that needs to be completely flattened, jumped on and ground into the ground until dust is phrases of the following nature
Or as elsewhere expressed 'Kill them, kill them all!'
-
No we won't.
Any more than South Korea, or Canada or any of the other 50 or so countries that have deals with the EU on trade. Having a deal with the EU does not make you a part of their free trade zone.
I would say a free trade zone is an area where no tariffs are applied across country borders in that zone, if May gets a free trade deal the UK will reside in the this free trade zone.
-
Sure plenty of remain campaigners warned that the consequence of brexit would be to no longer be part of the single market and the customs unions
And plenty of leavers remember the clip I posted.
(collectively described by the Leave campaign as the 'free trade zone"),
No because in the sentence after that the do explain we will not be under the jurisdiction of Eu court.
but they were routinely dismissed by the leave campaign,
Those claims were dismissed by leavers, link please?
and many leave campaigners as 'project fear' when it was, of course 'project reality'.
No project fear was not about single market but what would happen if we voted leave. Remember the recession that didn't happen that you went on and on and on about.
And the official Leave campaign officially repeated the lie in their official manifesto (which of course all leading members of the official Leave sign up to out of collective responsibility) when they stated that:
"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it"
I don't think that is a lie but we can agree to disagree.
We can only be part of that free trade zone by being in the single market, the customs union or both. Membership of one or both of those two entities defines whether you are part of the free trade zone.
So you assert I disagree.
-
The other platitude from the leavers that needs to be completely flattened, jumped on and ground into the ground until dust is phrases of the following nature:
You are not very persuasive you know, maybe if that was your aim instead of ranting you might have succeeded in changing my mind.
We will have access to the single market - indicating some kind of equivalence to being in the single market.
If we have tariff free access to the single market then there is equivalence to being in the single market because in both cases no tariffs are applied. I accept the full phrase should be used, if anyone says that.
We seem to be going over old ground now, Labour will vote for article 50 given May's aims, so we are leaving. Clearly you wish for the Uk to stay in the single market surely the next best thing is get a free trade deal isn't it?
-
...
We seem to be going over old ground now, Labour will vote for article 50 given May's aims, so we are leaving. Clearly you wish for the Uk to stay in the single market surely the next best thing is get a free trade deal isn't it?
What makes you think we will get a free trade deal? Do you have any arguments to persuade the remaining EU to agree one for the UK that does not include freedom of movement?
Soon after the UK notifies the EU of withdrawal, May will be presented with a bill for £50-£60b. Is she going to pay up? EU leaders have insisted that it will have to be properly settled before any discussion of further deals.
-
If we have tariff free access to the single market then there is equivalence to being in the single market because in both cases no tariffs are applied.
No it wont - not by a long way. The benefits of being in the single market are that there are no tariffs or non-tariff barriers to trading within that single market. As a service driven economy those non tariff barriers are arguably more important than tariffs to our economic wellbeing. So just a lack of tariffs would place us in a position way inferior to being in the single market.
-
What makes you think we will get a free trade deal? Do you have any arguments to persuade the remaining EU to agree one for the UK that does not include freedom of movement?
Soon after the UK notifies the EU of withdrawal, May will be presented with a bill for £50-£60b. Is she going to pay up? EU leaders have insisted that it will have to be properly settled before any discussion of further deals.
Besides the point.
-
No it wont - not by a long way. The benefits of being in the single market are that there are no tariffs or non-tariff barriers to trading within that single market. As a service driven economy those non tariff barriers are arguably more important than tariffs to our economic wellbeing. So just a lack of tariffs would place us in a position way inferior to being in the single market.
Not claiming they are the same, again this is old ground the debate is over. Labour are voting for article 50 after May's speech, once that is invoked two years and we are out.
-
Besides the point.
Quite possible. Honestly, I'm struggling to understand what point you are trying to make.
-
Not claiming they are the same ...
Yes you were.
Just a few posts ago you stated that:
'If we have tariff free access to the single market then there is equivalence to being in the single market ...' (my emphasis).
Last time I looked equivalence was defined as equal in value, same in value, sameness.
So you were claiming they were the same.
Glad you now recognise that any deal post brexit wont be the same or equivalent to our current deal but will be inferior.
-
Quite possible. Honestly, I'm struggling to understand what point you are trying to make.
Davey is claiming that no one knew we would leave single market, despite leaders of remain and leave explicity stating it meant exactly that. In order to defend his claim he has found a leave document that mentioned a free trade area.
I think May's aims in her negotiation are consistent with being in a free trade area.
-
Labour are voting for article 50 after May's speech, once that is invoked two years and we are out.
You are making a whole raft of assumptions there:
1. This timetable is likely to be very dependent on the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing. Firstly on the basis of whether the court rules on the nature of the Parliamentary involvement, and secondly if the Government loses whether they will chose to appeal again.
2. That Labour MPs do vote in the manner you indicate (and that Tories all vote in favour of Article 50) - there will undoubtedly be rebels and on the Labour benches it remains unclear (not really news as it is Corbyn we are dealing with) whether Labour MPs will be whipped or given a free vote.
3. Any Parliamentary process will involve the Lords and then all bets are off.
4. That a deal can be agreed within the 2 year timetable, which looking at negotiating time for other deals of similar complexity (actually most are less complex) seems very, very optimistic.
5. If a deal isn't concluded by 2 years I suspect it will be in everyones interests to extend the negotiating period, which is allowed, which would necessarily delay the actual point at which we leave the EU.
6. That a potential transitional deal could actually involve an extended period as a member of the EU, or perhaps more likely as a member of EEA.
7. That this period doesn't extend to a point when there is a general election and therefore the most recent mandate will be that of the new government and not the referendum vote.
8. That the pressure for a second referendum isn't successful - if there is a second referendum then we have no idea on outcome, nor timetable.
But hey you can chose to live in your naive, simplistic world if you want. I chose to live in the real world.
-
Davey is claiming that no one knew we would leave single market
No I didn't - I said that many Leave campaigners (and their official manifesto) indicated we would remain.
What I am saying is that is was very, very far from clear leading up to the referendum that brexit meant leaving the single market (and it is my opinion that that lack of clarity on the Leave side was deliberate). And had it been clear that brexit meant out of the single market then it may well have persuaded sufficient voters to opt for remain rather than leave to change the outcome.
-
Yes you were.
Just a few posts ago you stated that:
'If we have tariff free access to the single market then there is equivalence to being in the single market ...' (my emphasis).
Last time I looked equivalence was defined as equal in value, same in value, sameness.
So you were claiming they were the same.
Glad you now recognise that any deal post brexit wont be the same or equivalent to our current deal but will be inferior.
Quote mine much?
This is semantics anyway lets move on.
I still think we'll end up with free trade deal and freedom of movement of labour, you?
-
But hey you can chose to live in your naive, simplistic world if you want. I chose to live in the real world.
I don't mind debating and discussing but I'm done with you. Sorry Davey I like being challenged but you continually going to this level has meant I have to end this.
-
I don't mind debating and discussing but I'm done with you. Sorry Davey I like being challenged but you continually going to this level has meant I have to end this.
Oh dear argument goes against you so you run away.
I'm sorry that you feel my comment was strong, but I make no apology for making the comment because it was absolutely reasonable. Let's focus on your claim - as a matter of certainty, not possibility:
'... once that is invoked [i.e. article 50] two years and we are out.'
You were implying that it is an absolute certainty that 2 years after a trigger of article 50 we will be out of the EU.
That is (as I have indicated) naive and simplistic. Sure it is possible that the UK will leave the EU 2 years (or less) after the trigger of article 50. But there are many, many other scenarios, which may mean a delay - allowed within the article 50 wording (due to protracted negotiations, all the way through to not leave as it hasn't actually been challenged legally yet to determine whether article 50 is irrevocable.
So it is naive and simplistic to ignore all those other plausible (indeed quite likely) issues which might mean trigger article 50, 2 years later out is very much not a certainty. And it is perfectly reasonable to call someone out as simplistic and naive who makes (as you did) a claim of such certainty when in the real world there is massive uncertainty - not least because there is no prior experience to fall back on, as no other country has left the EU.
-
Quote mine much?
How many times are you going to throw the accusation of quote mining at me, when it is entirely unjustified.
You made a claim of equivalence, you then claimed that you didn't suggest they would be the same - I simply made the point (perfectly in context) that you seemed to be arguing in different directions. You can't make a claim of equivalence and then deny claiming them to be the same.[/quote]
I still think we'll end up with free trade deal and freedom of movement of labour, you?
I wouldn't want to proffer a detailed view on the outcome, save to suggest that any deal we might strike will be inferior to the deal we already enjoy.
-
Oh dear argument goes against you so you run away.
No I don't really care about winning an argument I enjoy checking facts and learning new things, e.g. you were right about Ukraine, but I'm not really sure what we are debating anymore. Your last comment was I bit too much for me so I'm going wish you well and leave you to it.
-
No I don't really care about winning an argument I enjoy checking facts and learning new things, e.g. you were right about Ukraine, but I'm not really sure what we are debating anymore. Your last comment was I bit too much for me so I'm going wish you well and leave you to it.
In what way was it too much to accuse you of being naive and simplistic when you were claiming as certainty that the UK will have left the EU 2 years after triggering article 50, when it is completely clear that there are many other possible outcomes which might mean a delay beyond 2 years through to revoking the decision to leave. There is no certainty and therefore to suggest there is demonstrates naivety and simplicity of thought. Hence my comment.
-
On our current course, we are not going to be part of any Free Trade Zone in Europe. We know what the EU's conditions are: free movement of labour. Without that, we are out in the cold.
The pledge in the Leave campaign's manifesto was either a lie (like the £350 million bus) or hopelessly naive.
-
Government loses in the Supreme Court
-
GOOD!
-
Is it likely to change anything? I doubt it.
Anyway, Brexiters should be delighted - the sovereign rule of the land is being upheld.
-
Is it likely to change anything? I doubt it.
Anyway, Brexiters should be delighted - the sovereign rule of the land is being upheld.
It will, of course, strengthen the hand of MPs and (crucially) Peers. Having said that Parliament must not only have a say but must be the ones who trigger article 50 it is going to be difficult to argue that they cannot have a role in shaping the nature of those negotiating positions post trigger.
-
It will, of course, strengthen the hand of MPs and (crucially) Peers. Having said that Parliament must not only have a say but must be the ones who trigger article 50 it is going to be difficult to argue that they cannot have a role in shaping the nature of those negotiating positions post trigger.
Yes, but it won't stop the trigger from happening and I think a few Remainers wished for that. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if a kind of Brexit Light is the result.
I only realised recently how sad I am that we are leaving the EU.
-
Yes, but it won't stop the trigger from happening and I think a few Remainers wished for that. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if a kind of Brexit Light is the result.
I only realised recently how sad I am that we are leaving the EU.
No it is unlikely to stop the trigger, but it may be delayed - getting an Act through Parliament in just a few weeks with proper scrutiny is tricky. And if it becomes apparent that parliament is being used merely as a rubber stamping process, then I think plenty of MPs, and particularly peers, will consider that the government is holding the judgement of the Supreme Court in contempt. So I wouldn't be surprised if Parliament expects to give very serious consideration to the bill, and in particular, through amendments, may look to impose safeguards on the negotiating position, which could come back to haunt if they aren't achieved in the negotiated deal when it comes back to parliament for final ratification.
-
Yes, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
-
I can't say that I am sad, Rhi, I am angry.
I can conceive that a decision might have been made to withdraw from the EU that was made on rational, carefully argued grounds. But it wasn't. The decision was on the basis of distortions and emotion, and what might now be known as "alternative facts".
Many people I know voted to leave. When I ask why they voted to leave the reply I get is either related to immigrants taking jobs or being able to "make our own laws". But none of these people is able to give me the name of anyone who lost his or her job to an "immigrant" and no-one is able to give me details of any law that has been imposed on us.
-
HH, a friend of mine lives in the north of England and works as a truck driver. He works for an agency doing shit hours for shit pay. He had to take a pay cut when the agency started using Polish workers and both the Brits and Poles found their wages went down when the Romanians arrived. I've no doubt he's telling it as it is when he said that the agency boss told them that if they didn't like the new pay and conditions they could take a jump as there were plenty of migrant drivers to take their place.
I voted Remain but I can see why there was and is a group of people who felt that EU membership gave the green light for them to be shafted. The Remain campaign did nothing to explain the benefits of EU membership and focussed on a negative campaign of fear mongering.
-
I am sure that there are people who have lost their jobs to immigrants, but they will be far fewer than in the popular imagination. In the example you provide, Rhi, this is more a case of an unscrupulous employer than opportunist foreigners.
-
I am sure that there are people who have lost their jobs to immigrants, but they will be far fewer than in the popular imagination. In the example you provide, Rhi, this is more a case of an unscrupulous employer than opportunist foreigners.
I think it would be ridiculous to blame migrant workers. There's a piece of research that shows that few jobs have been taken by migrant workers but that where there are high numbers wages for certain jobs are lower. That's born out where I live as I know barwork used to pay around £9-£10 per hour and now pays the minimum wage.
Employers will often want the cheapest labour and the highest margins. It's nice to think that they'll keep paying old rates but with a cheap, hard working workforce they aren't going to.