|
Post by shrewinjapan on May 22, 2019 6:47:05 GMT 1
David Davies is almost as dumb as David Davis. They're like the Thompson & Thomson of the Tory party. But I feel his pain there having to deal with morons like her.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on May 22, 2019 7:02:17 GMT 1
I'll set aside for now my concerns about how and why the referendum was, at odds with the public proclamation that it would be honoured, hastily set up as "advisory" and therefore with less legal & constitutional rigour than had it been of legally binding satus. I'll also temporarily forget my concerns about the findings of illegality in the behaviour of the Leave campaigns, which the courts have stated would have rendered a legally binding referendum void. Setting those issues aside, I would then agree with your point that the majority vote to leave cannot simply be forgotten or ignored. However, that gets us no further in deciding how to proceed. Hard Brexit, leave means leave, no deal WTO terms clearly wasn't what was being argued for pre-referendum and I do not see how going in that direction could be viewed as democratic. The WA as negotiated by May's government is, as far as I can see, deeply unpopular with just about everyone. A second referendum is open to accusations of being antidemocratic in that it ignores the result of the first. So what should happen? Personally, given the close result and resulting divisions, I think some realpolitik was necessary - a Norway/Switzerland model soft EFTA Brexit. It's an everybody loses, nobody gets what they want, least-bad compromise, for sure, but that is often the only practical way to proceed. However, May's arbitrary red lines rendered that outcome impossible. Which leaves us at an impasse. I am at a total loss what should be done. Spot on. And, you are right about not ignoring the 17 million. Point is though, plenty on here are happy to ignore the other 40 odd million. 24 of your fabled 40 odd million obviously don’t care either way, as they didn’t vote. So hardly being ignored are they? They had the choice to vote, and said no thanks. Ridiculous straw clutching argument
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 22, 2019 7:05:29 GMT 1
About the 17 million and less who voted to remain. That's not condescending. That's just fact. I honestly don't get it when people use that line... As for those young people who are now asking questions, it's a genuine question...what is the point you are making? As off course some are starting to question what is happening, how was this decision made, who made it, why they did. That I understand. You call it tough luck but what do you propose? In another three years more will be asking the very same questions, what then? More to the point, what if we have a second referendum and we remain and some youngsters start questioning the wisdom of that decision? Another referendum? Where do we stop? I just don't get what you are getting at. Yes when it comes to referendum it is on those who are eligible to vote at that time it is held who get to make that decision. Its not perfect, referendums aren't perfect, I suspect we won't be seeing another until remain wins and that'll be it...but that was the decision made; that a referendum was to be held and the result implemented and that is what should be adhered to. I'd be saying the exact same thing if remain would have won by the same margin. I don't want to be seen as condescending. You clearly think this is a disaster and you care greatly for those who feel they are getting a truly awful deal out of this. That I understand. But its just not those who are now starting to ask questions who need to be considered. 17 million people made the effort to get up and go out and vote in that referendum having being told that whatever they voted would be implemented. That surely isn't something that can be simply forgotten or ignored. So what should happen? Lord knows. We wait and see. It is a complete mess that's for sure and when you look around at our 'leading' politicians... You do get an inkling though that we are heading ever closer to a second referendum. And I'm sure many will be concerned as to what that might bring about. Not just in the short term but the long term too. I mean there is no guarantee that it will sort out this mess, it may muddy the waters further. The thing is though that I firmly believe that the government (and therefore remain) made a complete mess of this from the start. They never in a million years thought that leave would win the referendum. That's not the fault of the 17 million who turned out to vote and leave the EU. To suggest that the referendum result should now be ignored and rerun because they made a mess of it, after what was said at the time (that the result would be implemented). I think its perfectly understandable why so many people are against that. They did their bit. They did what was asked of them (in record numbers). Just doesn't sit right that because the establishment and the powers that be that made a complete mess of it all that their vote should now count for nothing. 'Hey, we ****ed it up. Do-over?' isn't going to sit well with 17 million people who played no part in the mess created. And understandably so.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 22, 2019 7:16:22 GMT 1
About the 17 million and less who voted to remain. That's not condescending. That's just fact. I honestly don't get it when people use that line... As for those young people who are now asking questions, it's a genuine question...what is the point you are making? As off course some are starting to question what is happening, how was this decision made, who made it, why they did. That I understand. You call it tough luck but what do you propose? In another three years more will be asking the very same questions, what then? More to the point, what if we have a second referendum and we remain and some youngsters start questioning the wisdom of that decision? Another referendum? Where do we stop? I just don't get what you are getting at. Yes when it comes to referendum it is on those who are eligible to vote at that time it is held who get to make that decision. Its not perfect, referendums aren't perfect, I suspect we won't be seeing another until remain wins and that'll be it...but that was the decision made; that a referendum was to be held and the result implemented and that is what should be adhered to. I'd be saying the exact same thing if remain would have won by the same margin. I don't want to be seen as condescending. You clearly think this is a disaster and you care greatly for those who feel they are getting a truly awful deal out of this. That I understand. But its just not those who are now starting to ask questions who need to be considered. 17 million people made the effort to get up and go out and vote in that referendum having being told that whatever they voted would be implemented. That surely isn't something that can be simply forgotten or ignored. This is condescending. "Yet it's called democracy. Unfortunately we don't always get the outcome we desire. I'm sure a great many people of all ages consider the same question after each general election held. It's good that they are asking questions, good they are engaged but I hope they appreciate that others may not see the world as they do and they may not always see the outcome they hope and expect... " People are well aware of this. Read more: blueandamber.proboards.com/thread/98361/brexit-agreement?page=67#ixzz5ocyK67doBut, anyway, you're wilfully ignoring the point I am making. I really can't be bothered. Its not condescending. How is it so? It's simply explaining that within a democracy you do not always get what you want. As far as I can see there is no point other than some aren't happy with the result of a democratic vote. Which is a given and a constant in a democracy.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on May 22, 2019 7:30:19 GMT 1
About the 17 million and less who voted to remain. That's not condescending. That's just fact. I honestly don't get it when people use that line... As for those young people who are now asking questions, it's a genuine question...what is the point you are making? As off course some are starting to question what is happening, how was this decision made, who made it, why they did. That I understand. You call it tough luck but what do you propose? In another three years more will be asking the very same questions, what then? More to the point, what if we have a second referendum and we remain and some youngsters start questioning the wisdom of that decision? Another referendum? Where do we stop? I just don't get what you are getting at. Yes when it comes to referendum it is on those who are eligible to vote at that time it is held who get to make that decision. Its not perfect, referendums aren't perfect, I suspect we won't be seeing another until remain wins and that'll be it...but that was the decision made; that a referendum was to be held and the result implemented and that is what should be adhered to. I'd be saying the exact same thing if remain would have won by the same margin. I don't want to be seen as condescending. You clearly think this is a disaster and you care greatly for those who feel they are getting a truly awful deal out of this. That I understand. But its just not those who are now starting to ask questions who need to be considered. 17 million people made the effort to get up and go out and vote in that referendum having being told that whatever they voted would be implemented. That surely isn't something that can be simply forgotten or ignored. I'll set aside for now my concerns about how and why the referendum was, at odds with the public proclamation that it would be honoured, hastily set up as "advisory" and therefore with less legal & constitutional rigour than had it been of legally binding satus. I'll also temporarily forget my concerns about the findings of illegality in the behaviour of the Leave campaigns, which the courts have stated would have rendered a legally binding referendum void. Setting those issues aside, I would then agree with your point that the majority vote to leave cannot simply be forgotten or ignored. However, that gets us no further in deciding how to proceed. Hard Brexit, leave means leave, no deal WTO terms clearly wasn't what was being argued for pre-referendum and I do not see how going in that direction could be viewed as democratic. The WA as negotiated by May's government is, as far as I can see, deeply unpopular with just about everyone. A second referendum is open to accusations of being antidemocratic in that it ignores the result of the first. So what should happen? Personally, given the close result and resulting divisions, I think some realpolitik was necessary - a Norway/Switzerland model soft EFTA Brexit. It's an everybody loses, nobody gets what they want, least-bad compromise, for sure, but that is often the only practical way to proceed. However, May's arbitrary red lines rendered that outcome impossible. Which leaves us at an impasse. I am at a total loss what should be done. Which court and judge stated that the referendum would have been void if legally binding please?
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 22, 2019 7:30:26 GMT 1
It’s kind of brexit summed up in a two minute clip. Both passionately want brexit but think the brexit the other is advocating is the wrong brexit so shout over each other, achieve nothing and end up very grumpy and fed up at the end of it Mean while everyone else looks on aghast whilst slowly backing away and hoping they don’t get drawn into the argument
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 22, 2019 7:31:30 GMT 1
Spot on. And, you are right about not ignoring the 17 million. Point is though, plenty on here are happy to ignore the other 40 odd million. 24 of your fabled 40 odd million obviously don’t care either way, as they didn’t vote. So hardly being ignored are they? They had the choice to vote, and said no thanks. Ridiculous straw clutching argument It is and more to the point its suggesting that those who voted one way and not the other did so on purely selfish reasons with no care or regard for anyone else. A decision made with no regard for family, friends, for others, for the wider population. That remain spoke for the 40 million, leave did not. Maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here but that's how it looks. That doesn't come across too well at all...
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on May 22, 2019 7:37:06 GMT 1
I'll set aside for now my concerns about how and why the referendum was, at odds with the public proclamation that it would be honoured, hastily set up as "advisory" and therefore with less legal & constitutional rigour than had it been of legally binding satus. I'll also temporarily forget my concerns about the findings of illegality in the behaviour of the Leave campaigns, which the courts have stated would have rendered a legally binding referendum void. Setting those issues aside, I would then agree with your point that the majority vote to leave cannot simply be forgotten or ignored. However, that gets us no further in deciding how to proceed. Hard Brexit, leave means leave, no deal WTO terms clearly wasn't what was being argued for pre-referendum and I do not see how going in that direction could be viewed as democratic. The WA as negotiated by May's government is, as far as I can see, deeply unpopular with just about everyone. A second referendum is open to accusations of being antidemocratic in that it ignores the result of the first. So what should happen? Personally, given the close result and resulting divisions, I think some realpolitik was necessary - a Norway/Switzerland model soft EFTA Brexit. It's an everybody loses, nobody gets what they want, least-bad compromise, for sure, but that is often the only practical way to proceed. However, May's arbitrary red lines rendered that outcome impossible. Which leaves us at an impasse. I am at a total loss what should be done. Which court and judge stated that the referendum would have been void if legally binding please? Wasn’t a judge or court, but the electoral commission which is the independent body that oversees elections in the U.K. They indicated that both leave and remain campaigns broke election law and spending However the referendum didn’t include primary legislation and was only advisory so has no legal outcome. Legally it’s no more than a big opinion poll It’s been parliamentary legislation that has triggered article 50 and the current Withdrawl bill going through parliament. Only Parliamentary process can change that position Link below goes into a bit more detail www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44856992
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 22, 2019 7:41:27 GMT 1
Loving the BBC chap just shuffling off to the side with a cheeky smile knowing he's on a winner... Geez, what a mess. What a farce.
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on May 22, 2019 7:53:59 GMT 1
Nothing condescending about what he said. Where do you draw the line? If I'm unhappy that I wasn't old enough to vote when warmongering Blair got in, shall I complain about it, not respect those who did vote for him? I understand you get the chance for vote every 4 or 5 years and rightly so, but the EU membership is a whole different ball game. I'm genuinely unsure what will happen in terms of a future EU referendum, although it's likely the result of this one will be overturned somehow, just like the Irish with the Lisbon Treaty. Vote, vote and vote again until we get the answer we want! Again, missing the point. You're avoiding the point.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on May 22, 2019 8:04:37 GMT 1
I'll set aside for now my concerns about how and why the referendum was, at odds with the public proclamation that it would be honoured, hastily set up as "advisory" and therefore with less legal & constitutional rigour than had it been of legally binding satus. I'll also temporarily forget my concerns about the findings of illegality in the behaviour of the Leave campaigns, which the courts have stated would have rendered a legally binding referendum void. Setting those issues aside, I would then agree with your point that the majority vote to leave cannot simply be forgotten or ignored. However, that gets us no further in deciding how to proceed. Hard Brexit, leave means leave, no deal WTO terms clearly wasn't what was being argued for pre-referendum and I do not see how going in that direction could be viewed as democratic. The WA as negotiated by May's government is, as far as I can see, deeply unpopular with just about everyone. A second referendum is open to accusations of being antidemocratic in that it ignores the result of the first. So what should happen? Personally, given the close result and resulting divisions, I think some realpolitik was necessary - a Norway/Switzerland model soft EFTA Brexit. It's an everybody loses, nobody gets what they want, least-bad compromise, for sure, but that is often the only practical way to proceed. However, May's arbitrary red lines rendered that outcome impossible. Which leaves us at an impasse. I am at a total loss what should be done. Which court and judge stated that the referendum would have been void if legally binding please? Apologies, I misspoke. It wasn't stated by courts, but is a legal opinion based on electoral/referendum codes of conduct set by the Venice Commission and adopted in English common law.
|
|
|
Post by simianbenzoate on May 22, 2019 8:35:18 GMT 1
ye the eu have previous in this sort of stuff, ireland rejected the lisbon treaty in 2008, the eu were having non of it so it went again untill it was accepted, im sure the same cunning plan is in operation again with us,the eu will reject everything we ask untill we get fed up and say ok sod it we will stay and have done with it. No. They didn't vote on the same thing again. the EU addressed concerns that fed the No vote and after review the public found, with those assurances legally in place, that on balance it was now better to vote yes. “What do you want for dinner?” “I dunno. What are you getting?” “I reckon I might order a pizza. You up for it?” “What toppings?” “Pineapple and pepperoni.” “Ugh, no thanks. I don’t like pineapple.” “OK, will we just get a pizza with pepperoni on it then? Without the pineapple?” “I said no.” “What?” “I already said no.” “You said that you didn’t want pineapple?” “Yea, so why are you asking me again?” “You’re not really making any sense here, mate. I’m asking if you want a pizza without pineapple on it?” “How many times do I have to say no?” The above conversation makes about as much sense as the claim that Ireland was forced to vote twice on the Lisbon Treaty.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on May 22, 2019 9:31:44 GMT 1
Meanwhile today’s poll for tomorrow’s vote, has the Brexit Party at a whopping 37%!!
Labour and Tories can only muster 20% combined. Fantastic stuff. Ignore the will of the people at your peril
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on May 22, 2019 9:46:56 GMT 1
ye the eu have previous in this sort of stuff, ireland rejected the lisbon treaty in 2008, the eu were having non of it so it went again untill it was accepted, im sure the same cunning plan is in operation again with us,the eu will reject everything we ask untill we get fed up and say ok sod it we will stay and have done with it. No. They didn't vote on the same thing again. the EU addressed concerns that fed the No vote and after review the public found, with those assurances legally in place, that on balance it was now better to vote yes. “What do you want for dinner?” “I dunno. What are you getting?” “I reckon I might order a pizza. You up for it?” “What toppings?” “Pineapple and pepperoni.” “Ugh, no thanks. I don’t like pineapple.” “OK, will we just get a pizza with pepperoni on it then? Without the pineapple?” “I said no.” “What?” “I already said no.” “You said that you didn’t want pineapple?” “Yea, so why are you asking me again?” “You’re not really making any sense here, mate. I’m asking if you want a pizza without pineapple on it?” “How many times do I have to say no?” The above conversation makes about as much sense as the claim that Ireland was forced to vote twice on the Lisbon Treaty. Think you would just have to re-run from the "What do you want for dinner" question.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on May 22, 2019 10:18:25 GMT 1
Is it the 1 minute argument or the full 5 minutes...............
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 22, 2019 10:19:22 GMT 1
For those who want to watch the political version of bear baiting, then PMQs at 12 today should be well worth watching.
|
|
|
Post by albionshrew on May 22, 2019 11:15:32 GMT 1
When you think someone can't make a situation any worse May comes out today and does just that. I'd be amazed if anyone votes Conservative on Thursday. Labour are going to get spanked as well. They're a remain party dressed in leavers clothes and their brexit supporting voters have had enough.The Brexit Party could make a serious run at a general election. If they promise as much free stuff as Corbyn does they could end up being the biggest party on a hung parliament. Plenty of Remain supporters have had enough of Labour too. I am one of them.
|
|
|
Post by davycrockett on May 22, 2019 11:18:16 GMT 1
Meanwhile today’s poll for tomorrow’s vote, has the Brexit Party at a whopping 37%!! Labour and Tories can only muster 20% combined. Fantastic stuff. Ignore the will of the people at your peril Or maybe 37% vote for Brexit and the rest spread over the against parties 😉 Long live Nigel the Brexiteers hero, make him PM he’ll sort out this mess!
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on May 22, 2019 11:19:55 GMT 1
Think just about everybody has had enough of Labour's "remain on the fence" stance on Brexit. Roll on Sunday, it looks as though the two main parties are going to get an absolute kicking, potentially less than 20% between them if the polls are anything to go by.
Put simply in my opinion we cannot sign up for this pathetic deal, it's not Brexit we're still tied to the EU.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 11:22:25 GMT 1
Had the misfortunate to listen to Andrea Jenkins on the Politics Show yesterday. She who shouted loudest. Insisted on being allowed to finish what she was saying and then constantly shouted over everyone else with a conflicting view.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on May 22, 2019 11:32:34 GMT 1
Is it the 1 minute argument or the full 5 minutes............... I already told you!
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on May 22, 2019 11:38:28 GMT 1
Meanwhile today’s poll for tomorrow’s vote, has the Brexit Party at a whopping 37%!! Labour and Tories can only muster 20% combined. Fantastic stuff. Ignore the will of the people at your peril Makes me start thinking that The Brexit Party could win a general election. They're the only electable pro brexit party currently. They'd hoover up leave voters leaving the remain vote split. As the above poll shows.
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on May 22, 2019 11:46:35 GMT 1
Meanwhile today’s poll for tomorrow’s vote, has the Brexit Party at a whopping 37%!! Labour and Tories can only muster 20% combined. Fantastic stuff. Ignore the will of the people at your peril Makes me start thinking that The Brexit Party could win a general election. They're the only electable pro brexit party currently. They'd hoover up leave voters leaving the remain vote split. As the above poll shows. One can hope. The 2 party system serves nothing but itself
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on May 22, 2019 11:49:27 GMT 1
Had the misfortunate to listen to Andrea Jenkins on the Politics Show yesterday. She who shouted loudest. Insisted on being allowed to finish what she was saying and then constantly shouted over everyone else with a conflicting view. Couldn't answer when pressed on her WTO views and then started squawking about how long the EU/Canada trade deal had taken. Yes, exactly dear - trade deals take a long time to agree, even when you have the negotiating advantage of being a large trading bloc, so why on earth would you want to tear up the 60+ deals we already have as an EU member and start from scratch?
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on May 22, 2019 12:00:09 GMT 1
Meanwhile today’s poll for tomorrow’s vote, has the Brexit Party at a whopping 37%!! Labour and Tories can only muster 20% combined. Fantastic stuff. Ignore the will of the people at your peril Makes me start thinking that The Brexit Party could win a general election. They're the only electable pro brexit party currently. They'd hoover up leave voters leaving the remain vote split. As the above poll shows. You're confusing Euro election voting intentions with GE voting intentions. Euro elections are always vulnerable to protest votes.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/18/opinium-poll-conservatives-trounced-by-brexit-party-remainers-abandon-labour
As it stands, Labour would be the biggest party in a General Election although the Brexit Party are closing the gap.
Labour are pretty unlikely to do a deal with Farage, the Lib Dems (who are also making up a lot of ground by being a single issue Remain party pretty much) being the more likely Kingmakers which suggests a second referendum at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on May 22, 2019 12:14:10 GMT 1
Farage and Cable having a discussion this morning if anyone is interested...
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on May 22, 2019 12:24:33 GMT 1
Is it the 1 minute argument or the full 5 minutes............... I already told you! No you didn't.....................
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on May 22, 2019 12:56:51 GMT 1
FrankWellshrews, I'm not confusing the two. When the brexit party formed I thought that would be a good vote for the euro elections but not a general election. After seeing the momentum they've gained, in such a short time period, I now think they'd seriously challenge at a general election.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 22, 2019 13:24:26 GMT 1
David Davies is almost as dumb as David Davis. They're like the Thompson & Thomson of the Tory party. But I feel his pain there having to deal with morons like her. What strikes me about this little set-to is that both Davies and the brextremist woman are supposedly on the same side of the brexit debate, yet their differences are so great that she calls him a "traitor" and he is clearly (and understandably) exasperated at "people like her". How many times have we been told by leavers that 17.4 million people were and are fully informed of what brexit entails and are of the same opinion? I've never felt inclined to shout "traitor" at someone on the same side of the argument as me. This clip should be played to everyone who ever claims such nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 22, 2019 13:53:35 GMT 1
Meanwhile today’s poll for tomorrow’s vote, has the Brexit Party at a whopping 37%!! Labour and Tories can only muster 20% combined. Fantastic stuff. Ignore the will of the people at your peril Makes me start thinking that The Brexit Party could win a general election. They're the only electable pro brexit party currently. They'd hoover up leave voters leaving the remain vote split. As the above poll shows. Now then, calm down, a bit of perspective is needed here. Ukip achieved 27.5% and 24 MEPs in the last Euro elections (2014), a third of the UK's MEPs. In the 2015 general election (pre-referendum remember) they got 12.6% and 1 MP. In 2017, they got 1.8% of the vote and no MPs. I accept that people, however naively, may have thought Europe was done and dusted as an issue in 2017, but the central point remains that the Euro elections are seen as a protest vote opportunity and general elections are very different. If brexit ltd wins 37% of the vote on Thursday, that will be a good result, although the level of turnout needs to be taken into account. However, a 9.5% gain on Ukip's last performance wouldn't be anything like the debate-changing shift that brexiteers proclaim. Polls on brexit have consistently shown a similar level of support for months, if not years. We've been told throughout that the proportion of people who have switched from one side to the other is relatively low. Such a result will simply confirm that there's still a sizeable hard core support for no deal brexit. It will also confirm that it's still a minority. A general election will feature new Tory and Lib Dem leaders, much more active campaigning by the main parties and a great widening of the debate away from brexit. Turnout will be higher, so that the effect of a high turnout from hard core brexiteers, which skews the Euro election results, will be diluted. And of course, in the unlikely event that there appeared to be any chance of brexit ltd winning, it's unlikely that the remain vote would split the way it will on Thursday. I recall some on here saying the Tories would hold power for a generation after the 2015 election. That prediction fell apart within 2 years. It's amusing that brexiteers get so excited about the prospect of winning elections to what they claim to be such an "undemocratic" institution though.
|
|