Brexit - the next steps

[ippy]

I can only conclude that you have no confidence in being able to rationally defend your position. Otherwise, why to you think you'd be target practice? Why wouldn't it be you using me for target practice?

And, as has been pointed out, what is on offer now is nothing like the picture painted by the leave campaign and (as prof reminded us) the demographics alone would mean that we are now a remain supporting country if nobody at all has changed their mind (source).

Like I said about target practice and all of the rest!

Best out of three, five, how many?

I have to admit I would feel very bitter as you seem to be if the vote had gone the other way.

Regards, ippy. 

[Aruntraveller]

Like I said about target practice and all of the rest!

Best out of three, five, how many?

I have to admit I would feel very bitter as you seem to be if the vote had gone the other way.

Regards, ippy.

It's not a matter of being bitter.

It's a matter of worrying about the negative impacts of Brexit.

After all, you shouldn't have to spend billions of pounds to ameliorate the effects of a supposedly good idea.

[Outrider]

Why should I be so scared for democracy should have been your question, we're never going to agree on this one Proff, console yourself listening to the BBC they're completely on your side as is most of the media.

"Most of the media"?  The BBC is trying to maintain neutrality in the face of devastatingly biased facts, but they're doing what they can.   The Mail, Express, Sun, Star and Telegraph are all pro-Brexit, against the Guardian, Mirror and (arguably) the FT which favour remain, whilst the Times tries to maintain a balanced position.  On TV the BBC is reverting to an economic focus as it's where the hard data is on estimates (after all, how does one measure 'vassal statedness') which could be construed as a pro-remain stance, whilst Sky is fairly strongly in favour of Brexit whilst ITV and Channel 4 are slightly more favourable to leave than remain.

Most academic reviews of the media landscape consider that the UK has a generally right-wing press, so the pro-Brexit lean shouldn't be a huge surprise.  Anyone with eyes could see the mere fact that the repeatedly unelected Nigel Farage's continual presence on-screen was a fairly strong indication that someone behind the cameras had an interest in making sure the Leave campaign was, and continues to be, heard out of all proportion to its actual representation.

O.

[Stranger]

Like I said about target practice and all of the rest!

You've completely ignored what I said (again).

I have to admit I would feel very bitter as you seem to be if the vote had gone the other way.

As Trent said, it's not about bitterness, it's about the real harm that is being done, and the further harm that will be done by a no-deal. You seem to be saying that you're prepared to sacrifice prosperity, jobs, and the integrity of the UK, on the alter of your ideals about the EU court and this nebulous "federal Europe" that you find so frightening.

As I asked before (and you ignored): what would you say to somebody whose job is lost or whose business is destroyed as a result of Brexit? How would you justify your position to them?

[ProfessorDavey]

Best out of three, five, how many?

Actually the 2016 referendum was already the second with an almost identical question on whether or not to remain in the EU.

But you are missing the point - this isn't about having referendums until you get the right result. It is about being confident that what is actually proposed to be implemented has a mandate at the point when it is to be implemented.

And I'm consistent on this - the kinds of decision seen in the EU referendum and the Scottish indy ref cannot, in my view, be subject to a single referendum as, by definition at that time there is nowhere near enough clarity on what the detail looks like. So there should be a 2 stage process (and I said this years back in 2014 about the indyref). The first vote should provide a mandate to negotiate an agreement, in these cases on leaving the EU and on leaving the UK. Once that deal is agreed on both sides and is implementable the deal should be put back to the people to determine whether they still want to proceed with leaving the EU/UK on the basis of the agreed deal.

This isn't having referendum after referendum but putting the people in charge at the beginning and at the end of the process.

Surely you cannot be happy with a situation where we might leave the EU, later this year in a manner that doesn't have majority support of the people.

[ippy]

You've completely ignored what I said (again).

As Trent said, it's not about bitterness, it's about the real harm that is being done, and the further harm that will be done by a no-deal. You seem to be saying that you're prepared to sacrifice prosperity, jobs, and the integrity of the UK, on the alter of your ideals about the EU court and this nebulous "federal Europe" that you find so frightening.

As I asked before (and you ignored): what would you say to somebody whose job is lost or whose business is destroyed as a result of Brexit? How would you justify your position to them?

What's so difficult about the point I keep on making that we're never likely to agree and that was why we had a referendum.

Apart from the UK's arrangements changing when we leave of course there'll be a loss and some gains here and there, other than that I think that overall the UK will be far better off in the long run and of course even when I have said only that much I'll put my tin hat on ready for any response.

We're never going to agree various people were aware of this golf of a divide here in the UK so guess what; A REFERENDUM!! 

Regards, ippy.

[ippy]

Actually the 2016 referendum was already the second with an almost identical question on whether or not to remain in the EU.

But you are missing the point - this isn't about having referendums until you get the right result. It is about being confident that what is actually proposed to be implemented has a mandate at the point when it is to be implemented.

And I'm consistent on this - the kinds of decision seen in the EU referendum and the Scottish indy ref cannot, in my view, be subject to a single referendum as, by definition at that time there is nowhere near enough clarity on what the detail looks like. So there should be a 2 stage process (and I said this years back in 2014 about the indyref). The first vote should provide a mandate to negotiate an agreement, in these cases on leaving the EU and on leaving the UK. Once that deal is agreed on both sides and is implementable the deal should be put back to the people to determine whether they still want to proceed with leaving the EU/UK on the basis of the agreed deal.

This isn't having referendum after referendum but putting the people in charge at the beginning and at the end of the process.

Surely you cannot be happy with a situation where we might leave the EU, later this year in a manner that doesn't have majority support of the people.

I'm sure the first referendum was about the EEC? I voted against that as well as voting leave at the recent referendum.

As it happens the EEC had it been stuck to was quite benign compared to the ever closer union with the EU that we had imposed on us without a choice.

It's not personal to you as an individual but we're never likely to agree with each other as long as you're on the remain side.

Regards, ippy.

[Gordon]

What's so difficult about the point I keep on making that we're never likely to agree and that was why we had a referendum.

Apart from the UK's arrangements changing when we leave of course there'll be a loss and some gains here and there, other than that I think that overall the UK will be far better off in the long run and of course even when I have said only that much I'll put my tin hat on ready for any response.

We're never going to agree various people were aware of this golf of a divide here in the UK so guess what; A REFERENDUM!! 

Regards, ippy.

ippy

The referendum occurred for Tory-party management purposes: at that time there was no pressing public demand to exit the UK.

As regards 'the UK will be far better off in the long run' I'm afraid that the facts contradict you, and if Brexit does happen it may well be the end of the UK anyway. I think that if MPs manage to spike the 31st October trap the electorate will subsequently take the opportunity to bin Brexit (be it via a referendum or a GE).

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not personal to you as an individual but we're never likely to agree with each other as long as you're on the remain side.

Regards, ippy.

Surely you can agree that the most important political decision in generations should be based on a clear mandate from the people on the basis of the actual implementation deal at the time it is implemented. Would you really be happy with leaving in Oct 2019 in a manner that does not have the support of the people in Oct 2019?

[Stranger]

What's so difficult about the point I keep on making that we're never likely to agree and that was why we had a referendum.

Nothing, it's just beside the point - it appears to be your excuse for not engaging in a rational defence of your position. When you post challenges to the theists here, do you expect to be able to agree?

Apart from the UK's arrangements changing when we leave of course there'll be a loss and some gains here and there, other than that I think that overall the UK will be far better off in the long run...

Since pretty much all the relevant experts disagree, what makes you think they are all wrong? The is doubly the case for a no deal, which most experts think will be catastrophic. Even Boris the Liar is spending billions of pounds bribing the public to mitigate the effects.

Even Brexit's most enthusiastic cheerleaders are tacitly admitting that we face a serious economic problem.

So what would you say to one of the people your stance is going to put out of work, as to why being in the EU was so utterly dreadful as to make the price worth paying?

[Stranger]

As it happens the EEC had it been stuck to was quite benign compared to the ever closer union with the EU that we had imposed on us without a choice.

The people we elected to government had a choice - that's how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

In any case, the "ever closer union" has been in the relevant treaties since 1957, so was there when we first joined (source) and Cameron negotiated a statement that recognised that the UK was not committed to "further political integration into the European Union" and a commitment to revise the treaties accordingly (source).

And again, you still haven't given a single practical example of how the EU has negatively impacted you or the country, or a single practical example of how things will be better if we leave.

[ad_orientem]

I'm sure the first referendum was about the EEC? I voted against that as well as voting leave at the recent referendum.

As it happens the EEC had it been stuck to was quite benign compared to the ever closer union with the EU that we had imposed on us without a choice.

It's not personal to you as an individual but we're never likely to agree with each other as long as you're on the remain side.

Regards, ippy.

Agreed. The history of the EU is filled with going against the will of the people. Federalism by stealth. Or not even steath. Just blatant going against the people. The Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland all voted against EU treaties.

[ippy]

ippy

The referendum occurred for Tory-party management purposes: at that time there was no pressing public demand to exit the UK.

As regards 'the UK will be far better off in the long run' I'm afraid that the facts contradict you, and if Brexit does happen it may well be the end of the UK anyway. I think that if MPs manage to spike the 31st October trap the electorate will subsequently take the opportunity to bin Brexit (be it via a referendum or a GE).

I've never wanted to be any part of a EU federation of states or however you might wish to describe this EU link so whatever the reason for having a vote to leave was the equivalent of manner from heaven to me, the reason we Why Why we were given the choice of leave or remain is of no interest to me, we got the choice and I like the majority of the UK population want to leave and the sooner the better.

Pull that lot into as many pieces you like I can't see I'l be changing my mind about Brexit in the same way I suspect you won't be either.

Regards, ippy.

[ippy]

Surely you can agree that the most important political decision in generations should be based on a clear mandate from the people on the basis of the actual implementation deal at the time it is implemented. Would you really be happy with leaving in Oct 2019 in a manner that does not have the support of the people in Oct 2019?

   

I do agree with you and that's what you have already.

Regards, ippy.

[ippy]

Nothing, it's just beside the point - it appears to be your excuse for not engaging in a rational defence of your position. When you post challenges to the theists here, do you expect to be able to agree?

Since pretty much all the relevant experts disagree, what makes you think they are all wrong? The is doubly the case for a no deal, which most experts think will be catastrophic. Even Boris the Liar is spending billions of pounds bribing the public to mitigate the effects.

Even Brexit's most enthusiastic cheerleaders are tacitly admitting that we face a serious economic problem.

So what would you say to one of the people your stance is going to put out of work, as to why being in the EU was so utterly dreadful as to make the price worth paying?

I'm not making excuses and it's as plain as a pikestaff we'll never agree on this one and it's not as though I was the only person in the whole of the UK that voted out.

Regards, ippy.

[ippy]

The people we elected to government had a choice - that's how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work.

In any case, the "ever closer union" has been in the relevant treaties since 1957, so was there when we first joined (source) and Cameron negotiated a statement that recognised that the UK was not committed to "further political integration into the European Union" and a commitment to revise the treaties accordingly (source).

And again, you still haven't given a single practical example of how the EU has negatively impacted you or the country, or a single practical example of how things will be better if we leave.

'And again, you still haven't given a single practical example of how the EU has negatively impacted you or the country, or a single practical example of how things will be better if we leave'.

Yes you're right about that and again for the umpteenth time we're never going to agree it wouldn't matter whatever I was to write here, it's an impasse, that's why imv there was a need for a referendum, (we won't even agree on that I'm sure), I just hope leave gets through on Halloween in just the same way I'm sure you wish for the opposite.

Regards, ippy.

[Aruntraveller]

So Ippy

Simple question.

Are you happy to leave with a no deal Brexit?

By that I mean no agreement is reached on the terms of any arrangement with the EU, in the way that BOJO is proposing.

[ippy]

So Ippy

Simple question.

Are you happy to leave with a no deal Brexit?

By that I mean no agreement is reached on the terms of any arrangement with the EU, in the way that BOJO is proposing.

I would love that to happen it'd be the equivalent of an English salute to Brussels, but at the same time I've no problem with a good business deal with our close neighbours, a deal that doesn't include that backstop, I can't think of any particular justifiable reason when after we have left why we shouldn't be a good independent country and cooperate in a friendly independent manner with the rest of Europe.

Regards, ippy.

[Gordon]

I would love that to happen it'd be the equivalent of an English salute to Brussels

I've always thought that Brexit was, primarily, an English disease - this seems to confirm it.

[Aruntraveller]

I would love that to happen it'd be the equivalent of an English salute to Brussels, but at the same time I've no problem with a good business deal with our close neighbours, a deal that doesn't include that backstop, I can't think of any particular justifiable reason when after we have left why we shouldn't be a good independent country and cooperate in a friendly independent manner with the rest of Europe.

Regards, ippy.

So you would love the consequent negative effects on our people and our economy, particularly the effects on the delicate N Ireland situation.

Just what sort of patriot are you?

[wigginhall]

Next stop fascism.

[Stranger]

'And again, you still haven't given a single practical example of how the EU has negatively impacted you or the country, or a single practical example of how things will be better if we leave'.

Yes you're right about that and again for the umpteenth time we're never going to agree it wouldn't matter whatever I was to write here...

This seems to be no more than a religious mantra that you use to hide your inability to defend your view rationally. Why would you not give a practical negative impact if you could think of one - even if it's just to get people to stop asking?

...I just hope leave gets through on Halloween in just the same way I'm sure you wish for the opposite.

I would love that to happen it'd be the equivalent of an English salute to Brussels...

So it's all about blind faith and tribalism. Ho hum.

[Spud]

It only became contentious, ippy, because a hapless Tory PM (Cameron) decided he could paint the lunatic Eurosceptic fringe of his own party into a corner: he failed, and never planned for the possibility that some sections of the electorate would be hoodwinked by a bunch of self-serving liars. There was no pressing public demand for Brexit prior to the 2015 GE.

In fact only the year before that GE, in the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, this same Tory PM told us Scots that to stay in the EU we needed to stay in the UK - Brexit wasn't supposed to happen you see, and the electorate were supposed to tell the ERG nutters to go away and stop annoying everybody.

Now we seen what is, in effect, a political coup by right-wing politicians who seem, according to some reports, determined to get their way by fair means or foul: hopefully they can yet be stopped.

Hi Gordon. Just out of interest, do you know what the EU's position was at the time of the 2014 Indyref on whether an independent Scotland could have joined the EU? Was this discussed? If actually Scotland could have rejoined, and I can't think why it could not have, doesn't that mean the vote against independence was for different reasons than staying in the EU?

[ippy]

So you would love the consequent negative effects on our people and our economy, particularly the effects on the delicate N Ireland situation.

Just what sort of patriot are you?

Yes, I'm sure that's the way you see it Trent, we obviously are unlikely to ever agree on this one.

Regards, ippy.

[SteveH]

I'm not making excuses and it's as plain as a pikestaff we'll never agree on this one and it's not as though I was the only person in the whole of the UK that voted out.

Regards, ippy.

No, you're not - but neither dd a majority of the UK population, or even of the electorate, vote out, as you said in a previous post. It was slightly more than a quarter of the total population, and well under half of the electorate.