Brexit - the next steps

[ippy]

In an advisory referendum over 3 years ago in which no deal wasn't on the ballot and wasn't remotely implied as an option by the leave campaign.

There is no mandate for a no deal brexit. Indeed it is likely that there is no mandate for any form of brexit in Sept 2019 even if there might have been years ago.

Their was no motion put forward in the referendum for granting special rights to leprechauns either as far as I can remember?

ippy

[ippy]

Sometimes 'winning' isn't everything, ippy, and especially so when what you've 'won' turns out the be the booby prize.

So it'd be in order to reverse the result of the referendum because some don't like it?

ippy 

[ippy]

Leave wouldn't have been so bitter if it had lost. As for intellect, you only have to look at the state of the remainers protesting outside parliament to know leave was superior.

I wouldn't say leave was superior in my view I never did want this kind of involvement with the EU and using my own criteria with the two columns assessment, for & against, leave has more for it in my opinion, even so I can see the other sides various points of view but I just don't agree with them, it wouldn't be right to toss a coin on this particular disagreement so from my perspective having a vote was the only way to go, luckily from my point of view.

Regards ippy   

[Stranger]

The EU is damaging because it takes decision making further away from the people...

Such as? I mean in practice, what specific decisions do you think the EU has taken that should have been done more locally? More to the point why have they made life so terrible it's worth the risks to jobs, the economy, and even people's lives to "rectify"?

I'm not trying to pretend the EU is perfect, but it has to be pretty damn terrible to risk the consequences of a no-deal to be rid of.

Rule should be as close to the people as possible.

So what - we make each county an independent state? Each town, city, or village? Where would you stop? What's wrong with devolving power as appropriate?

A deal would be preferable but the question was a simple one, do you want to leave the EU. That needs to be implemented.

As I said - the description was inaccurate - the buyer should have the right to reconsider. Why should the UK electorate, in one of the most important choice in recent history, have less rights to change their mind than somebody who buys a shirt from Amazon?

That's before we get to the fact that there is almost certainly no majority for leave now anyway, even if nobody changed their mind (source) and that the younger generations (who will have to live with this) voted to remain.

[ippy]

You certainly seem to be trying to reinforce that view by the way you ignore all the actual points and just repeat your mantras.

The majority of UK citizens didn't vote to leave the EU. What's so difficult to understand what even Gove, one of the leaders of the campaign admitted, that the vote wasn't about no-deal? The electorate were promised an easy deal.

It wasn't "free and fair" either - the law was broken.

The only reason you refer to my posts as mantra it seems to me is that you know that we're never going to agree surly that's why the only answer was a referendum.

I think your arguments for remain are a load of rubbish and I dare say you think the same about leave arguments, can you see that altering, ever, no well there you are, it wouldn't matter what I said in favour of leave or visa versa.

More than likely the Idea of remaining in the EU that makes me shudder is just the opposite to you, therefore referendum.

Regards ippy

[Gordon]

So it'd be in order to reverse the result of the referendum because some don't like it?

ippy

Yes - quite clearly those voting in 2016 had inadequate information, and there is now more information. Brexit hasn't happened yet and all those who have attained their 18th birthday since the 2016 referendum have had no opportunity to express their views, and in the interim the views of those who voted in 2016 but have died since are no longer relevant (they aren't aware of recent developments, for obvious reasons), and we now have a duplicitous lying incompetent as PM and an impasse in Westminster.

So lots of reasons to re-check the views of the electorate, where the 'the public want this done' is no more than an assertion since what the public currently thinks is untested. Given the stramash surrounding the next GE it might make sense, once the immediate risk of no-deal is removed, to have a second referendum before the next GE so that political parties and the general public are all clear on the what the current views of the electorate are, as opposed to clinging to position in 2016.

[ad_orientem]

The "younger generation" is as irrelevant as those who didn't vote for whatever reason, or should all votes consider how the younger generation might vote? Nonsense! Leave is a matter of principle, the same reason the Scotts don't want to be ruled by the English.

[Stranger]

The only reason you refer to my posts as mantra it seems to me is that you know that we're never going to agree surly that's why the only answer was a referendum.

I refer to them as a mantra because you keep repeating them and ignoring the actual points being made. Much the same reason I refer to (for example) AB's statements of faith in that way.

I think your arguments for remain are a load of rubbish and I dare say you think the same about leave arguments...

I've no idea because you won't tell me what your arguments are and you won't actually address mine.

More than likely the Idea of remaining in the EU that makes me shudder is just the opposite to you, therefore referendum.

Shuddering is rather irrelevant - what about actual, down to earth, practical reasons that you could tell somebody who faces losing their job or shortages of vital medicines, to convince them that it's worth it?

[ad_orientem]

Yes - quite clearly those voting in 2016 had inadequate information, and there is now more information. Brexit hasn't happened yet and all those who have attained their 18th birthday since the 2016 referendum have had no opportunity to express their views, and in the interim the views of those who voted in 2016 but have died since are no longer relevant (they aren't aware of recent developments, for obvious reasons), and we now have a duplicitous lying incompetent as PM and an impasse in Westminster.

So lots of reasons to re-check the views of the electorate, where the 'the public want this done' is no more than an assertion since what the public currently thinks is untested. Given the stramash surrounding the next GE it might make sense, once the immediate risk of no-deal is removed, to have a second referendum before the next GE so that political parties and the general public are all clear on the what the current views of the electorate are, as opposed to clinging to position in 2016.

Bollocks! All those who voted leave were a bunch of dimwits who didn't understand the question, except those silly mares and sixties remnants outside parliament who are throwing a wobbly because they lost.

[Robbie]

  well said ad_orientem.

[Stranger]

Bollocks! All those who voted leave were a bunch of dimwits who didn't understand the question, except those silly mares and sixties remnants outside parliament who are throwing a wobbly because they lost.

Hum - lots of bluster and no answers to the actual points. Seems to be a pattern here.

[ad_orientem]

Hum - lots of bluster and no answers to the actual points. Seems to be a pattern here.

No. I answered your question and the referendum asked a simple question. Remain is simply bitter it lost. If Brexit isn't implements I'm quite sure there'll be civil unrest, and rightly so. The final proof we do not live in a democracy.

[Gordon]

The "younger generation" is as irrelevant as those who didn't vote for whatever reason, or should all votes consider how the younger generation might vote?

Had the referendum been enacted fairly soon after the vote then any subsequent action could reasonably be said to reflect the views of the electorate - but over 3 years later the electorate has changed and there is now better information available, so sanity checking the 2016 result remains the view of the electorate seems sensible to me.

Nonsense! Leave is a matter of principle, the same reason the Scotts don't want to be ruled by the English.

I didn't realise we were being 'ruled' in a so-called United Kingdom, though it does feel like that when a substantial proportion of the electorate in England continue to act like lemmings heading for the cliff edge, and they insist on dragging us with them - if they get there in the end I think the UK is finished.

[Gordon]

Bollocks! All those who voted leave were a bunch of dimwits who didn't understand the question, except those silly mares and sixties remnants outside parliament who are throwing a wobbly because they lost.

Nobody understood anything about leave in 2016, and especially those promoting it, since if they had they might have spotted from the outset that Northern Ireland was a major potential problem - and they didn't.

To paraphrase Mencken - you don't get collective wisdom from aggregating individual ignorance, and in 2016 everyone without exception was ignorant about Brexit since nobody had bothered to do any due diligence.

[ad_orientem]

Had the referendum been enacted fairly soon after the vote then any subsequent action could reasonably be said to reflect the views of the electorate - but over 3 years later the electorate has changed and there is now better information available, so sanity checking the 2016 result remains the view of the electorate seems sensible to me.

I didn't realise we were being 'ruled' in a so-called United Kingdom, though it does feel like that when a substantial proportion of the electorate in England continue to act like lemmings heading for the cliff edge, and they insist on dragging us with them - if they get there in the end I think the UK is finished.

Patronising shite. That's all remain has.

[Gordon]

No. I answered your question and the referendum asked a simple question. Remain is simply bitter it lost. If Brexit isn't implements I'm quite sure there'll be civil unrest, and rightly so. The final proof we do not live in a democracy.

If people start rioting because policy was decided, or amended in response to circumstances and new information, via democratic processes then it would be they who were acting undemocratically.     

[Gordon]

Presumably Amber Rudd's conscience has eventually come to bear: I suppose she deserves some credit for getting there in the end - wonder if others will follow her. Hopefully this is another nail in the coffin of this government.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/07/amber-rudd-resigns-from-cabinet-and-surrenders-conservative-whip

[SteveH]

And then there were 288

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49594793

Thew PM's own brother has jumped ship.

Oh no! JoJo's "no-go" to BoJo!

[jeremyp]

They might not support a VoNC if Corbyn insisted on being interim PM, since the Lib-Dems and ex-Tories seem reluctant to see that happen - of course that could change if PM Corbyn would be the only (albeit temporary) way to get past 31st October without a GE.

Personally, I think he is utterly incompetent and unsuited to lead a piss up in a brewery, but he is the only choice to lead the interim government considering he controls the largest group of opposition MPs. I hope the other opposition parties can put their egos aside long enough to cooperate and stop, or at least delay, Brexit.

[jeremyp]

I'm aware that the following isn't an original question but what is it that's so difficult about understanding the majority of UK citizens voted to leave the EU?

What is so difficult about understanding that it is a false statement? 52% of the people who voted on 23/6/2016 voted to leave. That's not 52% of all voters and it certainly isn't 52% of citizens. It was actually only a little over a quarter of UK citizens.

The arguments of the last three and a bit years are only the remainers trying to reverse the result of the free and fair democratic referendum result; leave the EU won the day, remember?

The Leave campaign has been judged to have cheated. It wasn't a fair result.

It's also no longer democratic since it was three years ago and the situation and the voting population has changed since then.

I'm sure I've got it right it was the leavers that won the referendum?

You can't even tell us what the EU has done to make your life worse. It's clear that Brexit really is a cult. You're even using the language of cults with your talk of martyrs.

[jeremyp]

The EU is damaging because it takes decision making further away from the people,

Can you list some decisions made by the EU that have harmed you?

[jeremyp]

The "younger generation" is as irrelevant as those who didn't vote for whatever reason, or should all votes consider how the younger generation might vote? Nonsense! Leave is a matter of principle, the same reason the Scotts don't want to be ruled by the English.

It's the younger generation that will eventually have to clear up the mess. Of course they are relevant.

[Aruntraveller]

I do wish some posters would stop saying that remainers are bitter. I am not bitter. I am petrified. It is likely in my opinion that we are going to be, sooner or later, forced into a no-deal by the new Brexit Tories and a future government is going to be led by Boris Johnson and his sidekicks ReesMogg and Javid amongst others.

No deal is undesirable for all sorts of reasons. But it's fucking terrifying with these clowns in charge.

[Anchorman]

It's the younger generation that will eventually have to clear up the mess. Of course they are relevant.

           



And I'sd point out that, in the 2014 referebndum, only the over 65 age ranfe voted a majority NO. The 16-30 voted overwhelmingly YES to an independent Scotland.

[Gordon]

Seems, from what Javid is saying as reported by the Guardian's live politics blog, the Tories will obey the law (the preventing no deal bill) and that Johnson won't ask for an extension. One wonders if this is just bluster for the benefit of Tory voters or if they have some as yet unknown alternative that somehow negates this new bill.

Q: Will the government obey the law and seek an extension?

Of course the government will obey the law, Javid said. The prime minister will seek a deal but he absolutely not seek an extension, Javid said. We will not change our policy, Javid insists. We will be consistent with our policy and not breaking the law, but you’ll have to wait and see how we do that, Javid said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/08/brexit-boris-johnson-amber-rudd-resignation-live-news