|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 26, 2019 0:23:52 GMT 1
Caroline Lucas on TV on Wednesday saying that she wouldn't accept a referendum result that confirmed Leave. She's in favour of a referendum because she thinks 1) Remain will win and 2)That will be the end of the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Jul 26, 2019 8:20:46 GMT 1
Just got off a conf call with an amazing bit of gossip (true or not I do not know). Farage has done a deal with Boris - he will back the Tories in a general election in return for a seat in the Lords. Boris feels that this will enable him to win a clear majority in a general election and give him a mandate to do what he wants. For Farage it avoids a second referendum between revoke and no deal and gets him a job for life. Farage already has a job for life as an MEP. It’s similar to the House of Lords in that you get paid for doing nothing, but you get more travel. Can you be in the Lords and an MEP at the same time? Ideal for Farage if so as he loves a gravy train. |
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 26, 2019 9:00:35 GMT 1
Caroline Lucas on TV on Wednesday saying that she wouldn't accept a referendum result that confirmed Leave. She's in favour of a referendum because she thinks 1) Remain will win and 2)That will be the end of the matter. I think the new Lib Dem leader pretty much said the same thing when pushed. So there you have it, for these two at least, is was never about "its been 3 years, people change their minds, we now know more about what Brexit means, lets have an another referendum and let the people make an informed choice". It really is and has always been about "let's vote and vote and vote again until we get the result that we want". That's some idea of democracy they have there. They really ought to stop talking about a second referendum if they are simply unwilling to accept and implement the result until they get the result they want. They really should just keep to talking about revoking Article 50. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 9:48:41 GMT 1
Caroline Lucas on TV on Wednesday saying that she wouldn't accept a referendum result that confirmed Leave. She's in favour of a referendum because she thinks 1) Remain will win and 2)That will be the end of the matter. I think the new Lib Dem leader pretty much said the same thing when pushed. So there you have it, for these two at least, is was never about "its been 3 years, people change their minds, we now know more about what Brexit means, lets have an another referendum and let the people make an informed choice". It really is and has always been about "let's vote and vote and vote again until we get the result that we want". That's some idea of democracy they have there. They really ought to stop talking about a second referendum if they are simply unwilling to accept and implement the result until they get the result they want. They really should just keep to talking about revoking Article 50. Rather similar to what Farage was saying if the leavers lost the referendum |
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Jul 26, 2019 10:21:59 GMT 1
I think the new Lib Dem leader pretty much said the same thing when pushed. So there you have it, for these two at least, is was never about "its been 3 years, people change their minds, we now know more about what Brexit means, lets have an another referendum and let the people make an informed choice". It really is and has always been about "let's vote and vote and vote again until we get the result that we want". That's some idea of democracy they have there. They really ought to stop talking about a second referendum if they are simply unwilling to accept and implement the result until they get the result they want. They really should just keep to talking about revoking Article 50. Rather similar to what Farage was saying if the leavers lost the referendum But they didn't did they............lose it  |
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 26, 2019 11:18:11 GMT 1
I think the new Lib Dem leader pretty much said the same thing when pushed. So there you have it, for these two at least, is was never about "its been 3 years, people change their minds, we now know more about what Brexit means, lets have an another referendum and let the people make an informed choice". It really is and has always been about "let's vote and vote and vote again until we get the result that we want". That's some idea of democracy they have there. They really ought to stop talking about a second referendum if they are simply unwilling to accept and implement the result until they get the result they want. They really should just keep to talking about revoking Article 50. Rather similar to what Farage was saying if the leavers lost the referendum Similar in that they would want a rerun until they get what they want? Then yeah, I guess so. 👍 |
|
|
|
Post by highlandshrew on Jul 26, 2019 11:43:51 GMT 1
Rather similar to what Farage was saying if the leavers lost the referendum Similar in that they would want a rerun until they get what they want? Then yeah, I guess so. 👍 For me the only way forward is for all 'sides' to accept the outcome of a second, binding referendum on a substantive question (not the vague concept we voted on last time). Furthermore, the UK government (we) should take control of the timeline and give the EU a deadline to reach the best possible withdrawal agreement. This agreement would then form part of the referendum:- 1. Do you think we should leave the EU? Yes/No? 2. If the majority is Yes to the above, do you think we should leave on the terms agreed with the EU, or should we reject the EU agreement and revert to WTO rules? This way everyone knows (or should know) exactly what they are voting for. If the will of the people is to leave and the majority prefer doing so under WTO rules then so be it. Likewise, if the will of the people has changed in light of the events of the last 3 years and the majority is now to remain, then so be it. Immediately after the referendum there should be a General Election fought on the policies each party puts forward to deliver the outcome decided by the electorate. Then, maybe our politicians can get back to concentrating on the things which materially affect the people of this country (wherever they were born) - education, jobs, health, housing, law & order and fighting poverty - rather than the current posturing and making promises which cannot be kept (e.g. suggesting there is time to renegotiate a deal with the EU before 31/10 when both parliaments are now in recess and the EU don't reconvene until mid October). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 13:55:34 GMT 1
Rather similar to what Farage was saying if the leavers lost the referendum But they didn't did they............lose it He has no room to criticise those that want it rerun. All the main Brexiteers have been full of double speak all the way through except probably Bill Cash. Boris and JRM have in the past said there should be a re-affirmation vote. I could go on. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 26, 2019 15:02:43 GMT 1
I would liken it to buying a house, a major financial event for a family, just like Brexit is to the country. You decide to buy, the sign changes, saying "Sold-subject to contract". Then, before you sign the contract and complete the deal you ensure your major financial descision is the right thing to do. That's what a confirming referendum is, can't see why that isn't the right thing to do?
You don't just continue to complete the deal because you said you would, it has to still be right for you to continue. It's too important to just continue with whatever deal you are being offered.
|
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jul 26, 2019 16:54:29 GMT 1
I would liken it to buying a house, a major financial event for a family, just like Brexit is to the country. You decide to buy, the sign changes, saying "Sold-subject to contract". Then, before you sign the contract and complete the deal you ensure your major financial descision is the right thing to do. That's what a confirming referendum is, can't see why that isn't the right thing to do? You don't just continue to complete the deal because you said you would, it has to still be right for you to continue. It's too important to just continue with whatever deal you are being offered. Absolutely, particularly when people's jobs can be lost. |
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Jul 26, 2019 18:26:50 GMT 1
More great byelection results for Farage and the bats**t party in heavily leave backing Gloucester to add to their epic victory in Peterborough. Busted flush?
|
|
|
|
Post by frankwellshrews on Jul 26, 2019 18:29:17 GMT 1
I would liken it to buying a house, a major financial event for a family, just like Brexit is to the country. You decide to buy, the sign changes, saying "Sold-subject to contract". Then, before you sign the contract and complete the deal you ensure your major financial descision is the right thing to do. That's what a confirming referendum is, can't see why that isn't the right thing to do? You don't just continue to complete the deal because you said you would, it has to still be right for you to continue. It's too important to just continue with whatever deal you are being offered. House purchase is actually a really good analogy. Most people get a survey done and will back out if there's a problem even if they love the house and the area not plough on regardless because of one decision they made. The other interesting part of that analigy is that the bank will also often back out on the basis of a dodgy survey whether you like it or not.... |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 26, 2019 19:03:59 GMT 1
Unfortunately Boris has other ideas, he has to keep the ERG happy.
If it benefits the EU, I can see them providing a last minute get out clause expiring after the next election to cancel the whole thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 22:18:35 GMT 1
Caroline Lucas on TV on Wednesday saying that she wouldn't accept a referendum result that confirmed Leave. She's in favour of a referendum because she thinks 1) Remain will win and 2)That will be the end of the matter. What she said was that she would vote against a Brexit deal if another referendum came out in favour of leave. She happens to think that a majority would do so. That remains to be seen of course. What she's really saying is that she will stick with her principles. Something that should, of course, be admired. I have a lot of time for your views and respect your opinion, but with this post, you're just feeding trolls. What we have here in a politician who has remained steadfastly remain, and has had a clear message since 2016. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 22:23:55 GMT 1
Just got off a conf call with an amazing bit of gossip (true or not I do not know). Farage has done a deal with Boris - he will back the Tories in a general election in return for a seat in the Lords. Boris feels that this will enable him to win a clear majority in a general election and give him a mandate to do what he wants. For Farage it avoids a second referendum between revoke and no deal and gets him a job for life. Farage already has a job for life as an MEP. It’s similar to the House of Lords in that you get paid for doing nothing, but you get more travel. Can you be in the Lords and an MEP at the same time? Ideal for Farage if so as he loves a gravy train. Fancy the ant-establishment man of the people being in the Lords. I would imagine he would stick to his principles and refuse the honour. |
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 26, 2019 22:55:47 GMT 1
Obviously none of the parties who don't form a government after a general election pack up and go home because their manifestos have been rejected,but the issue of a second referendum is different on EU membership is a different matter because it is paralysing government and politics. Caroline Lucas' position does give the lie to the idea that a second referendum is a solution.
It's helpful that people are pointing out that Farage's view was that there would be another referendum if the first one narrowly rejected. This does draw the correct parallel with Caroline Lucas' position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 23:18:19 GMT 1
Obviously none of the parties who don't form a government after a general election pack up and go home because their manifestos have been rejected,but the issue of a second referendum is different on EU membership is a different matter because it is paralysing government and politics. Caroline Lucas' position does give the lie to the idea that a second referendum is a solution. It's helpful that people are pointing out that Farage's view was that there would be another referendum if the first one narrowly rejected. This does draw the correct parallel with Caroline Lucas' position. The difference is though, while the Labour and Tory parties have been tearing themselves apart, and Farage put his feet up, Lucas has been out and about these past couple of years finding out the mood of the people and reaching out to leavers who are having second thoughts. Her position is informed by that. |
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Jul 26, 2019 23:33:08 GMT 1
Her position is informed by her principles or by her listening to people who now agree with her?
It was this year that she went about the country. She has decried "winner takes all right wing populism". She also represents a winner takes all position on the other side of the argument.
The immediate issue remains the arithmetic in the House of Commons: there is not a majority for any one way forward.
The other issue is what caused so many people to vote against continued membership of an institution that the UK has been part of since the mid-70s. If you take the view that the answer to that is "Russia" then you will believe that a second referendum against Leave will resolve the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2019 23:57:18 GMT 1
Johnson has no intention of negotiating.
His first tactic is to destroy potential negotiations with the eu. He's done that within a day.
His next is to force parliament to block no deal. Which seems obvious they will.
Then we will have a GE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 6:02:42 GMT 1
Her position is informed by her principles or by her listening to people who now agree with her? It was this year that she went about the country. She has decried "winner takes all right wing populism". She also represents a winner takes all position on the other side of the argument. The immediate issue remains the arithmetic in the House of Commons: there is not a majority for any one way forward. The other issue is what caused so many people to vote against continued membership of an institution that the UK has been part of since the mid-70s. If you take the view that the answer to that is "Russia" then you will believe that a second referendum against Leave will resolve the matter. Her position is informed by many things. Not least of course, the fact that Brighton and Hove voted overwhelmingly to remain. So, even if people think her position is nonrsense, voting against a deal is representing the views of the vast majority (68%) of her constituency. And, I don't if you find the time to actually watch any of her video's or anything she actually says, but she has met people who have changed their minds. It happens. |
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 27, 2019 6:29:06 GMT 1
When it comes to Swinson, its clear that this is not about getting the people to go back and make an "informed" decision and then implementing whatever outcome. Because they will simply ignore the result again if its not the result they want. Even if leave won again, they would do all they can to block it. So with that, what exactly is the point of the second referendum? They just want vote after vote after vote until they get the result they want.
I don't think anyone would expect her to endorse it. I don't think anyone would expect her to positive about it. But I think people would expect her to honour and implement the result considering they are so much in favour of holding a second referendum. She wouldn't though, if its not the result she wanted to she would continue to fight against it and stop it.
Swinson and the Lib Dems really should drop talk of a second referendum now. Its pretty clear they have no intention of implementing the result if its not the result they want. Its dishonest to demand a second referendum if you have no intention of implementing whatever outcome.
And if you view the clip of Lucas on the BBC's Politics Live, that would go for Lucas too. They want a second referendum because they believe they would win it hands down (yet we've been there before). If that wan't the case however, its pretty clear they would continue to do all that they could do to stop the UK leaving the EU. Again, dishonest to press for a second referendum if you have absolutely no intention of honoring the result (unless of course its the result you want).
They have both made that clear. They really ought to stop talking about a second referendum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 7:15:16 GMT 1
*Sighs*
If people actually watched the whole 2 minute plus exchange with Jo Coburn, Caroline Lucas says she would probably respect the result, but vote against a deal for the reasons I explained up thread.
Parliamentary democracy. I think it's still allowed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 7:27:39 GMT 1
Just in case anyone was unsure whether the reason for poverty in this country was down to the £350m we send to the EU every week or the incompetence and uncaring nature of our own government.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 27, 2019 7:40:27 GMT 1
Lucas would vote against a deal. That no doubt would be against any deal put forward. Which would no doubt need to be passed in order for the UK to leave the EU. So pretty much where things are now. So is possible nothing would change. More so if everyone else thinks like Lucas in that "someone else will vote for it so I won't need to".
If anyone puts a second referendum to a leave voter now they would be well within their right to turn around and ask "why?". When its clear that there are those who support remain would continue to do all they can to stop the UK leaving the EU if leave were to win again. They would not vote for any deal needed to leave, they would no doubt continue to do all they could to stop no-deal. So in effect, nothing would change. It would be right back to where we are now.
They should stop talking about a second referendum if it means they would still do all you can to stop the result from being implemented if it were to result in leave (and in voting against any deal put forward in order to leave, is exactly what they would be doing). This is dishonest from Swinson and Lucas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 8:14:15 GMT 1
It's hardly dishonest to accept the result of a losing a second ref, and then vote against a deal, when 68% of your constituents voted remain. It's what representative parliamentary democracy is all about.
I find hilarious that people are calling her out for actually do her job.
|
|
Drew
Midland League Division One
Posts: 416
|
Post by Drew on Jul 27, 2019 8:43:59 GMT 1
It's hardly dishonest to accept the result of a losing a second ref, and then vote against a deal, when 68% of your constituents voted remain. It's what representative parliamentary democracy is all about. I find hilarious that people are calling her out for actually do her job. But on that basis parliament should be overwhelmingly pro leave as the constituency count in the referendum was: “By constituency 406 | Leave 242 Remain” |
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jul 27, 2019 8:48:46 GMT 1
Voting against a deal, any deal, is what is happening now. Couple that with making sure no-deal is not going to happen, where does that leave things? In limbo, at an impasse? And apparently a second referendum was the way to get past this. But that doesn't really sit right now they have been honest enough to come out and say that it wouldn't change a thing if leave were to win again. All they will do, if leave were to win again, is again do all that they can to make sure the UK does not leave the EU.
We have heard it so many times that the second referendum is now needed so that the people can go back and make an informed choice. Well now we know that's not the case (certainly for Lucas and Swinson). Because if that informed choice were to result in another win for leave, it would be ignored by the Greens and the Lib Dems (at the very least). Its just a means to vote again until they get the decision they want. It's quite conceivable that another vote for leave would not change a thing, we'd be right back to where we are now. So how can that now be packaged as a means to get past this impasse? It can't.
The second referendum was supposed to be about getting past this current mess. That is not the case at all if another vote to leave could simply result in the exact same situation we now find ourselves (if more people who support remain think the same way as Lucas and Swinson). We'd be here again, right back in the same mess.
The issue here is not their stance against Brexit. Its their call for a second referendum and the clear reasoning behind it that people will take issue with. And rightly so. They really ought to just fight for revoking article 50 directly as that is clearly what they want (it has nothing to do with giving the people of the UK another chance to make an informed decision, they're simply not interested unless its the result they want).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2019 9:01:27 GMT 1
It's hardly dishonest to accept the result of a losing a second ref, and then vote against a deal, when 68% of your constituents voted remain. It's what representative parliamentary democracy is all about. I find hilarious that people are calling her out for actually do her job. But on that basis parliament should be overwhelmingly pro leave as the constituency count in the referendum was: “By constituency 406 | Leave 242 Remain” Sure. But, May had her deals voted down. You go figure.... It's obvious that leavers can't decide the best way to go. Left wing, right wing, centrists all have different ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 28, 2019 16:28:42 GMT 1
Similar in that they would want a rerun until they get what they want? Then yeah, I guess so. 👍 For me the only way forward is for all 'sides' to accept the outcome of a second, binding referendum on a substantive question (not the vague concept we voted on last time). Furthermore, the UK government (we) should take control of the timeline and give the EU a deadline to reach the best possible withdrawal agreement. This agreement would then form part of the referendum:- 1. Do you think we should leave the EU? Yes/No? 2. If the majority is Yes to the above, do you think we should leave on the terms agreed with the EU, or should we reject the EU agreement and revert to WTO rules? This way everyone knows (or should know) exactly what they are voting for. If the will of the people is to leave and the majority prefer doing so under WTO rules then so be it. Likewise, if the will of the people has changed in light of the events of the last 3 years and the majority is now to remain, then so be it. Immediately after the referendum there should be a General Election fought on the policies each party puts forward to deliver the outcome decided by the electorate. Then, maybe our politicians can get back to concentrating on the things which materially affect the people of this country (wherever they were born) - education, jobs, health, housing, law & order and fighting poverty - rather than the current posturing and making promises which cannot be kept (e.g. suggesting there is time to renegotiate a deal with the EU before 31/10 when both parliaments are now in recess and the EU don't reconvene until mid October). I think that anybody genuinely wishing to fulfil the will of ‘the people’ would do this. |
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Jul 29, 2019 22:55:09 GMT 1
Excuse me, can I ask a question of the leavers? Seems loads of money will need to be spent on new systems and software to facilitate Brexit, which will as usual be late and cost twice as much as the estimate, what will all this achieve? For a start, another thousand on the dole at Vauxhall, Ellesmere Port.
Where's the soddin' savings?
And, to sneak in another question: when we went into europe we were the "sick man of Europe", been quite prosperous in the years since. Can you gaurantee we won't be heading into being the sick man of Europe again and on what basis?
|
|
