Being upbeat about Brexit.

[Sassy]

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!

[Harrowby Hall]

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?

[Anchorman]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[jakswan]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[jakswan]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jakswan]

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.

[jakswan]

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. 

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[Sassy]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Sassy]

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?

[Sassy]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jakswan]

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.

[jakswan]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jakswan]

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.

[Brownie]

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.