Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 0:00:06 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 15, 2019 0:45:00 GMT 1
When I voted to leave the EU I didn't vote for any particular form of leaving because none was on the ballot paper. It was for the politicians to work out what that meant. Given the closeness of the result then a reasonable approach would be for the government to gain cross party consensus so that she could go to the EU with a negotiating position that she knew would have parliamentary support - in principle. She didn't.
I can understand people who voted for Leave taking a completely different view. In particular regarding the back stop and there being no unilateral moving out of the arrangement. If you can't live with unelected bureaucrats holding sway over membership during the transition period I can understand that. But this is a combination of the PM's redlines and the position that the EU has chosen to take in response.
A soft Brexit, so-called, satisfies me.
One thing I don't like about today's proceedings is that six Labour MPs voted against the Benn Amendment and so diminished the power of the Commons the future path over the coming weeks and months.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 7:33:07 GMT 1
I see the anti democrats are out in force tonight. Oh come on JT, snap out of it. surely you'll be celebrating the sovereignty of our parliament?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Mar 15, 2019 8:01:36 GMT 1
I see the anti democrats are out in force tonight.
Your multi-millionaire leader trying to get other EU countries to veto any extension request. True democracy in action.
Here's another one about the Honourable (sic) member for Riyadh doing the same thing.
Asking foreign governments to work against the wishes of Parliament is tantamount to treason. Not your Daily Mail type of treason where MPs looking for compromises, judges applying our actual laws or people marching for a new vote are traitors, but proper treason where these people are working with foreign powers to undermine and damage our country. Much like Aaron Banks and the Russians, but that's for another day.
*Apolgies for the link to the Express, but I didn't think JT would believe the story if it was from a Remain backing publication.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 8:50:29 GMT 1
I am utterly stunned that intelligent people who voted to leave, for whatever reasons, placed their trust in that shower of e in Parliament.
There was never going to be a cross-party consensus, our FPTP system doesn't allow for that. It's a deadly engrained political culture that makes our politics tribal.
In short our binary political system is outdated for such a complex problem. People like to trot out the 17 million people who voted to leave. Well that totally ignores the 43 million people who didn't, or where unable to vote, or whose lives maybe effected by the decision.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 15, 2019 9:21:40 GMT 1
I am utterly stunned that intelligent people who voted to leave, for whatever reasons, placed their trust in that shower of e in Parliament. There was never going to be a cross-party consensus, our FPTP system doesn't allow for that. It's a deadly engrained political culture that makes our politics tribal. In short our binary political system is outdated for such a complex problem. People like to trot out the 17 million people who voted to leave. Well that totally ignores the 43 million people who didn't, or where unable to vote, or whose lives maybe effected by the decision. Perhaps but who else could they place their trust in? What were the other options available? And to be honest, I think an awful lot of people knew that what we are now seeing was very much a possibility. Its no secret that whilst the majority of people who voted voted for leave, the majority of those who make up the Commons support and voted to remain. I very much doubt that people are surprised about what we are seeing now. This was all very predicable. It's pretty much going the way I expected it to... As for that trust, perhaps we may see some changes come about in the next election. That will be interesting to follow when it comes about, I guess sooner rather than later. As for the 43 million, how do you mean? Are you saying that any political process, to have any value, to be legitimate in any way, must see a majority of the people of the UK in favour of it? How does that work? How would that work? Not sure get you. As for those who could vote but didn't were clearly happy to allow others to make the decision, that is the choice they made. Pretty sure everyone at the time knew there was a referendum on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2019 9:36:26 GMT 1
I am utterly stunned that intelligent people who voted to leave, for whatever reasons, placed their trust in that shower of e in Parliament. There was never going to be a cross-party consensus, our FPTP system doesn't allow for that. It's a deadly engrained political culture that makes our politics tribal. In short our binary political system is outdated for such a complex problem. People like to trot out the 17 million people who voted to leave. Well that totally ignores the 43 million people who didn't, or where unable to vote, or whose lives maybe effected by the decision. Perhaps but who else could they place their trust in? What were the other options available? And to be honest, I think an awful lot of people knew that what we are now seeing was very much a possibility. Its no secret that whilst the majority of people who voted voted for leave, the majority of those who make up the Commons support and voted to remain. I very much doubt that people are surprised about what we are seeing now. This was all very predicable. It's pretty much going the way I expected it to... As for that trust, perhaps we may see some changes come about in the next election. That will be interesting to follow when it comes about, I guess sooner rather than later. As for the 43 million, how do you mean? Are you saying that any political process, to have any value, to be legitimate in any way, must see a majority of the people of the UK in favour of it? How does that work? How would that work? Not sure get you. As for those who could vote but didn't were clearly happy to allow others to make the decision, that is the choice they made. Pretty sure everyone at the time knew there was a referendum on... Not everyone was eligible to vote in a once in a life-time referendum. It's not like this type of vote can happen every 4/5 years is it? So while people parp on about 'betrayal' and 'anti-democrats' the democratic process needs to consider the disenfranchised. But, really my point was about how to achieve any sort of consensus that does actually benefit the majority of the country in a political system and culture that doesn't allow it.
|
|
|
Post by thesensationaljt on Mar 15, 2019 9:57:16 GMT 1
Bring on a general election and lets get some of these traitors out.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Mar 15, 2019 10:06:03 GMT 1
Perhaps but who else could they place their trust in? What were the other options available? And to be honest, I think an awful lot of people knew that what we are now seeing was very much a possibility. Its no secret that whilst the majority of people who voted voted for leave, the majority of those who make up the Commons support and voted to remain. I very much doubt that people are surprised about what we are seeing now. This was all very predicable. It's pretty much going the way I expected it to... As for that trust, perhaps we may see some changes come about in the next election. That will be interesting to follow when it comes about, I guess sooner rather than later. As for the 43 million, how do you mean? Are you saying that any political process, to have any value, to be legitimate in any way, must see a majority of the people of the UK in favour of it? How does that work? How would that work? Not sure get you. As for those who could vote but didn't were clearly happy to allow others to make the decision, that is the choice they made. Pretty sure everyone at the time knew there was a referendum on... Not everyone was eligible to vote in a once in a life-time referendum. It's not like this type of vote can happen every 4/5 years is it? So while people parp on about 'betrayal' and 'anti-democrats' the democratic process needs to consider the disenfranchised. But, really my point was about how to achieve any sort of consensus that does actually benefit the majority of the country in a political system and culture that doesn't allow it. Agree that people like myself should have been able to have voted, I think expats dotted about the place who had been out of the country for longer than 15 years should have been able to vote for sure. As expats, we are still UK citizens. But I doubt that is too high a number in the great scheme of things, I mean those who had not been out of the country for 15 years were able to vote. I think it was 15 years anyhow. A good portion of the 43 million would be those under the age of 18 and I think that is fair enough, you have to have that cut off someplace. Everyone else, I gather, was eligible to vote. And to be fair, with a turnout of over 70%, most took the opportunity to do so. We can only assume those that did not were OK with whatever the result was and were happy for others to make the decision. I think its perfectly understandable that those who voted to leave point to the 17 million. As to your last point, we may as a result of all this see a shake up of all that. This could bring about some huge changes to the system and culture. Whatever happens with Brexit; delayed, cancelled, whatever, I think this whole process has highlighted more than anything the detachment we now have been the people of the UK and those that are governing it. The next general election will be very interesting indeed. Might just be around the corner too...hope so.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 15, 2019 10:09:49 GMT 1
whichever way you voted this whole post referendum process has been a slow train wreck, it will either galvanise changes to our political system and motivate people to seek changes or deepen the apathy and mistrust of the establishment.
|
|
youblues
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 134
|
Post by youblues on Mar 15, 2019 10:13:48 GMT 1
Bring on a general election and lets get some of these traitors out. Would be an awful time for a general election to be announced. Would be a real chance of a new party emerging offering to deliver brexit with unrealistic claims on what they would achieve.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 15, 2019 10:23:02 GMT 1
I am utterly stunned that intelligent people who voted to leave, for whatever reasons, placed their trust in that shower of e in Parliament. There was never going to be a cross-party consensus, our FPTP system doesn't allow for that. It's a deadly engrained political culture that makes our politics tribal. In short our binary political system is outdated for such a complex problem. People like to trot out the 17 million people who voted to leave. Well that totally ignores the 43 million people who didn't, or where unable to vote, or whose lives maybe effected by the decision. "The city of Athens lived under a radically democratic government from 508 until 322 BCE. Before the earlier date there was democracy to be found here and there in the government of Athens, and democratic institutions survived long after the latter date, but for those 186 years the city of Athens was self-consciously and decidedly democratic, autonomous, aggressive, and prosperous. Democracy in Athens was not limited to giving citizens the right to vote. Athens was not a republic, nor were the People governed by a representative body of legislators. In a very real sense, the People governed themselves, debating and voting individually on issues great and small" www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=allif i have under stood your points this is as close a system to what you want, whilst i cant imagine it happening with modern technology it would not be hard to implement, no system is perfect but i liked the idea ,that if a particular issue needed resolving such as a need for new buildings the people with the expertise would be asked to speak and in the main it seemed to work. imagine any developments to our train service , with input from people who work in the industry train drivers having a say as to why an a government plan may not be practical and influencing a better way for them to work , patients , nurses and doctors telling parliament what is needed to improve health services and that actually happening !
|
|
|
Post by keithb123 on Mar 15, 2019 11:35:08 GMT 1
I don't want people on here having a go at me for this but this is a serious question. I was wondering about those Labour & Tory MP's who quit their parties to set up the "Independent Group". Were they voted into office based on them being in a particular Party or because they were "nice" and would have got voted in regardless? If they were voted in (especially in safe seats) because of their political persuasions and allegiances surely they should do the honorable thing and start a by-election process. This new "party" has no manifesto (although they all appear to be anti-Brexit) so should they really still be in office, taking their £74,000 salary if they are not really representing the voters who put them into office.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Mar 15, 2019 12:00:10 GMT 1
Question for the leavers here;
Given that the process has been comprehensively mishandled, what's wrong with putting it on ice until somebody can figure out how to do it properly? Why do you all assume a delay means cancelling brexit?
The following two statements are not mutually exclusive;
- the UK has, marginally, expressed a desire to leave the EU; and
- the people entrusted with the task of doing so have not done it correctly and therefore the process should be halted and alternative people found to carry it out.
What's wrong with that? Or does it just come to throwing your toys out of the pram because you're not immediately getting what you wanted?
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Mar 15, 2019 12:26:07 GMT 1
FrankWellshrews the referendum was on held on June 23rd 2016. To say leave voters are upset as we can't "immediately" leave now is very amusing.
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Mar 15, 2019 12:51:23 GMT 1
Define "immediately".
3 years is not a long time frame for a project of this magnitude. We've been in the EU for decades. Our legal system, economy and, arguably, our culture is pretty closely entwined with Europe.
It's going to take a lot of time and skill to unravel that relationship without causing some serious damage.
Would you rush a surgeon operating on you because you thought they were taking too long and should "just get on with it"?
I don't think we should leave but I'm also pretty lukewarm about the EU in its current format (to clarify, I like the principal behind it and think membership is a net benefit but agree with many people's concerns about corruption, waste and democratic deficit). I'd feel entirely different about brexit if we had someone vaguely sensible who was actually acting in good faith taking it on as opposed to the braying jingoists a minority of us think should running the country.
Given the current chaos and how little consensus there is among leave voters about what we should actually do I just cannot understand what the problem is with delaying until we can get a political leadership in place which can actually build a genuine consensus around what our approach should be.
I ask again; what's the problem with that?
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Mar 15, 2019 13:14:31 GMT 1
Define "immediately". 3 years is not a long time frame for a project of this magnitude. We've been in the EU for decades. Our legal system, economy and, arguably, our culture is pretty closely entwined with Europe. It's going to take a lot of time and skill to unravel that relationship without causing some serious damage. Would you rush a surgeon operating on you because you thought they were taking too long and should "just get on with it"? I don't think we should leave but I'm also pretty lukewarm about the EU in its current format (to clarify, I like the principal behind it and think membership is a net benefit but agree with many people's concerns about corruption, waste and democratic deficit). I'd feel entirely different about brexit if we had someone vaguely sensible who was actually acting in good faith taking it on as opposed to the braying jingoists a minority of us think should running the country. Given the current chaos and how little consensus there is among leave voters about what we should actually do I just cannot understand what the problem is with delaying until we can get a political leadership in place which can actually build a genuine consensus around what our approach should be. I ask again; what's the problem with that? i dont think there is any thing wrong with your suggestion especially if you look at what is unfolding in a rather chaotic way ,but i would suspect that some would see the delay as a means to undermine the vote to leave. the whole brexit process has been mishandled and is very toxic and divisive .
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Mar 16, 2019 0:17:12 GMT 1
When I voted I answered the question in front of me. With issues of trust - I trust the present government to look after its own people and deal with everyone else with viciousness. I do not for one second accept the narrative that Theresa May is incompetent - she knows her class interest.
So it's not an issue about intelligence, but one of perspective.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Mar 16, 2019 10:54:07 GMT 1
How many votes have the Parliamentarians had on varying options and permutations?
And how many votes have 'the people' been allowed?
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 16, 2019 11:13:04 GMT 1
I don't want people on here having a go at me for this but this is a serious question. I was wondering about those Labour & Tory MP's who quit their parties to set up the "Independent Group". Were they voted into office based on them being in a particular Party or because they were "nice" and would have got voted in regardless? If they were voted in (especially in safe seats) because of their political persuasions and allegiances surely they should do the honorable thing and start a by-election process. This new "party" has no manifesto (although they all appear to be anti-Brexit) so should they really still be in office, taking their £74,000 salary if they are not really representing the voters who put them into office. With you on this one - if MP's leave a party during the course of a Parliament there should automatically be a by-election triggered in that seat. The MP can obviously still stand but needs to get the support of the community they represent. Same should happen in the European Parliament. Nigel Farage resigned from UKIP late last year, but still sits as an MEP under the UKIP vote, and should have stepped down to allow the next UKP candidate to take the position instead. Its always strange how Politicians jump ship but are still keen to cling onto the wages they get
|
|
|
Post by shropshirelad42 on Mar 16, 2019 12:31:19 GMT 1
I don't want people on here having a go at me for this but this is a serious question. I was wondering about those Labour & Tory MP's who quit their parties to set up the "Independent Group". Were they voted into office based on them being in a particular Party or because they were "nice" and would have got voted in regardless? If they were voted in (especially in safe seats) because of their political persuasions and allegiances surely they should do the honorable thing and start a by-election process. This new "party" has no manifesto (although they all appear to be anti-Brexit) so should they really still be in office, taking their £74,000 salary if they are not really representing the voters who put them into office. With you on this one - if MP's leave a party during the course of a Parliament there should automatically be a by-election triggered in that seat. The MP can obviously still stand but needs to get the support of the community they represent. Same should happen in the European Parliament. Nigel Farage resigned from UKIP late last year, but still sits as an MEP under the UKIP vote, and should have stepped down to allow the next UKP candidate to take the position instead. Its always strange how Politicians jump ship but are still keen to cling onto the wages they get Mmmmmmm !! What if the MP/MEP leaves the party because the party (ie. the leaders/shadows) is not -as promised- sticking to the election Manifesto but the said MP/MEP is ?? That obviously means that the person leaving is still representing his/her party, and the constituents who voted them in, on the 'party' Manifesto that was put forward at the election. Or is a party allowed, publicly, to change it's Manifesto between elections ?? Just asking !!
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on Mar 16, 2019 13:18:05 GMT 1
When I voted I answered the question in front of me. With issues of trust - I trust the present government to look after its own people and deal with everyone else with viciousness. I do not for one second accept the narrative that Theresa May is incompetent - she knows her class interest. So it's not an issue about intelligence, but one of perspective. No time scale was mentioned so as long as we leave in say the next 5 years it’s more important to get it right than just crash out don’t you think? p.s. we’d need another vote for the EU to allow this so everyone’s happy 😃
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Mar 16, 2019 13:36:26 GMT 1
With you on this one - if MP's leave a party during the course of a Parliament there should automatically be a by-election triggered in that seat. The MP can obviously still stand but needs to get the support of the community they represent. Same should happen in the European Parliament. Nigel Farage resigned from UKIP late last year, but still sits as an MEP under the UKIP vote, and should have stepped down to allow the next UKP candidate to take the position instead. Its always strange how Politicians jump ship but are still keen to cling onto the wages they get Mmmmmmm !! What if the MP/MEP leaves the party because the party (ie. the leaders/shadows) is not -as promised- sticking to the election Manifesto but the said MP/MEP is ?? That obviously means that the person leaving is still representing his/her party, and the constituents who voted them in, on the 'party' Manifesto that was put forward at the election. Or is a party allowed, publicly, to change it's Manifesto between elections ?? Just asking !! I'd say the latter to be honest. Manifestos have no actual law or legislation behind them and parties regularly divert from them during the course of government. All MP's and MEP's benefit from being part of the Political Party process and the direct and indirect financial support they get to help them get elected. Should MP's decide they no longer want to be part of that Party - that's fine - but they can't have it both ways of still getting the support and wages associated with the Party system Odd one emerging today though with Nick Boules resigning from his local Conservative Association as they don't agree with his voting record on brexit, despite him saying he's continue to vote with the Conservative whip in the Commons
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Mar 17, 2019 11:08:53 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by shropshirelad42 on Mar 17, 2019 12:12:49 GMT 1
This has been in the news for quite a few days now. I am not 100% sure but there was an article saying that the delays were because there was a 'French' union dispute regarding their border control operators demanding more money after Brexit, and the union has cut back on staff at the border to show what would happen if they did not keep the existing staff numbers on the border posts. Sounds like a bit of 'greed' by the union reps if you ask me !!
|
|
|
Post by percy on Mar 19, 2019 12:18:31 GMT 1
When May tries to bring her deal back again the speaker is going to have to make a call on whether it is allowed. This week it is arguable that the codicil agreed with EU made the agreement sufficiently different than the first time. However if an unaltered agreement is brought back Bercow would be within his rights to disallow it. Good call - you are more on the ball than Mrs May.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Mar 19, 2019 13:33:12 GMT 1
Less than honest lemon fondler Danny K was on TV yesterday, explaining how he would now vote for May's deal, having voted against it twice.
The other side of that deal (the EU) don't believe anything substantive in it has changed since the first vote, and certainly not since the second. The Speaker recognised that a third vote would almost certainly be an unchanged rerun of the second and would therefore breach parliamentary rules.
We can only wonder what blinding insight has led Danny K to change his mind within the last few days - and why he believes the wider electorate shouldn't be afforded the same opportunity to express their opinion now, rather than it being assumed that their unchanging "will" was expressed once and forever three years ago, before this entire brexit s***show began to be revealed in its full horror.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Mar 19, 2019 15:29:05 GMT 1
Question for the leavers here; Given that the process has been comprehensively mishandled, what's wrong with putting it on ice until somebody can figure out how to do it properly? Why do you all assume a delay means cancelling brexit? The following two statements are not mutually exclusive; - the UK has, marginally, expressed a desire to leave the EU; and - the people entrusted with the task of doing so have not done it correctly and therefore the process should be halted and alternative people found to carry it out. What's wrong with that? Or does it just come to throwing your toys out of the pram because you're not immediately getting what you wanted? The EU has to agree a delay, and there has to be a reason for the delay, so "process halted" is not going to cut a good enough reason for a delay.
Get over the result, you've had two years, you're sounding desperate now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 17:24:34 GMT 1
I’m feeling desperate if anyone is . I’m desperately trying to work out who to vote for in the forthcoming European elections . Any advice would be appreciated .
|
|
|
Post by tvor on Mar 20, 2019 23:29:06 GMT 1
I do not for one second accept the narrative that Theresa May is incompetent Are you sure? What's been going on today and this evening is quite extraordinary, even by the awful standards of all that has happened over the last few months.
|
|