Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Shelga

Inquitus wrote: »

I do think most rational remainers understand the only practical way to revoke A50 is to have a referendum to legitimise it.

I agree, I don’t think you can unilaterally revoke without consulting the people again. I voted Remain in 2016 and refused to sign the petition that was going around a few days later as it really seemed like sore losers stamping their feet. I assumed the government would get on with it and reach an agreement that would move things forward and gain majority support.

However, having witnessed the complete and utter **** show of the last 33 months, I now think there is a strong argument to be made that it’s just too late and article 50 must be revoked. This was Brexiters’ one chance to get Brexit right and they have completely and utterly blown it. I now see no other deal would ever have been possible. It’s gone worse than anyone ever could have possibly imagined.

They either need a long extension with the express purpose of holding a second referendum on May’s deal vs Remain, or if that doesn’t work, revoke article 50 at the last minute. Time for people to be honest and admit they completely blew their one chance.

dresden8

Grieve impressive on Sky. Is he the only adult in the room.

BobbyBobberson

dresden8 wrote: »

Grieve impressive on Sky. Is he the only adult in the room.

He always comes across very well doesnt he? I have seen him on Newsnight before and he was very good.

bilston

theguzman wrote: »

Amazingly 17,410,742 people voted to leave the European Union, a simple petition with millions of non British citizens voting in it will not over-rule the democratic mandate of the Referendum to leave the EU in 2016. It is a really pathetic attempt by the hard-left to derail the democratic process at all costs.

Millions of non British citizens?

You see posts like this are dangerous. The more naive out there might actually believe you...but I'm sure you knew that already.

Inquitus

devnull wrote: »

So basically Theresa May is saying that if you vote for a No Deal, which goes against the Tory manifesto, then May will accept it and that will be the end of it because she agrees with it, but if you vote for something I don't like that is against the manifesto then I'm not going to allow that and am going to threaten you with an election? And she calls that democracy?

As usual with Theresa May it's one rule for one thing and one for another, even in her letter which outlined four options last week she said that she would be against a long delay and withdrawing article 50, which left two options, her deal and no deal. It was noticeable she said nothing negative about no deal, just that the parliament ruled it out.

The time has come for removal of the whip, indicative votes in parliament and an agreement that whatever is voted for will be implemented. Saying that certain votes have to be abided by and implemented if they are won if they suit your agenda and saying other votes which don't which are won will not be respected and used for the basis of threatening an election is not democracy.

I am not an expert in the ways of Parliament, but Indicative votes are non binding and the Government would have to choose whether to bring those results to a binding legal vote, an Act of Parliament. Something she seems to be indicating she won't do as any likely consensus outcome will violate the Tory Manifesto, her red lines yada yada. So its within her power at that point to try and call a GE with a 2/3 vote of Parliament pursuant to the fixed term Parliament act. Only the Government can bring an Act of Parliament to the table, so in essence she does still hold the power while she is in power, and Parliament cannot do much, though it is not constitutionally acceptable for her to go against the will of Parliament.

That said she still does need to pass a number of Acts of Parliament ahead of Brexit day and these could be amended, so while the HoC cannot get what they want to vote on on the table, they can wreck Acts the Government need to pass ahead of Brexit.

Clear as mud eh?

PokeHerKing

bilston wrote:

You see posts like this are dangerous. The more naive out there might actually believe you...but I'm sure you knew that already.

I have signed the petition, I am not a British citizen nor am I living in Britain. I couldn't care to put a figure on it but the fact I can do this proves the petition is susceptible to some unscrupulous behaviour.

Personally the numbers imo are low, considering 2 years there was a guaranteed 17 million against Brexit. We've since had 2 years of a **** show and to date the petition hasn't even racked up the original 17 million.

ancapailldorcha

Shelga wrote: »

I agree, I don’t think you can unilaterally revoke without consulting the people again. I voted Remain in 2016 and refused to sign the petition that was going around a few days later as it really seemed like sore losers stamping their feet. I assumed the government would get on with it and reach an agreement that would move things forward and gain majority support.

However, having witnessed the complete and utter **** show of the last 33 months, I now think there is a strong argument to be made that it’s just too late and article 50 must be revoked. This was Brexiters’ one chance to get Brexit right and they have completely and utterly blown it. I now see no other deal would ever have been possible. It’s gone worse than anyone ever could have possibly imagined.

They either need a long extension with the express purpose of holding a second referendum on May’s deal vs Remain, or if that doesn’t work, revoke article 50 at the last minute. Time for people to be honest and admit they completely blew their one chance.

I didn't wake up on the 24 June 2016 thinking that we needed a rerun. I accepted the result and hoped that the government would get on with things. The common sense policy was to reassure EU migrants residing in the UK as well as UK citizens in the EU of their rights and status, settle the "divorce bill" ASAP and begin negotiating as soon as consensus could be found.

Instead, Cameron ran off to his garden shed and we got a quasi-election in the Conservative party which fell apart when one Andrea Leadsom reckoned producing a child made her superior to her rival. May then dithered with invoking Article 50 (devised by Lord Kerr) while EU citizens such as myself got to spend years in limbo. It took the EU insisting on sorting out the final payment, EU citizens' rights and the backstop for Northern Ireland.

The May called an election which weakened her further and placed her in thrall to the DUP, a party many on the mainland consider reprehensible, at least in my experience. After dumping so much of the precious two years of the Article 50 notice period, we end up with this pathetic Withdrawal Agreement that pleases nobody.

Norwegians have twice voted against full EU membership so successive governments did the only logical thing which was to align as closely as possible with Brussels while eschewing full membership. It's worked out quite nicely for them as far as I can tell. May should have requested an extension ages ago with membership of both the single market and customs union until consensus could be forged with regards to Northern Ireland. This would have protected Britain's services-based economy from damage until a way forward could be discerned.

Instead, it looks like we're heading for no deal on Friday while the Brexiters demand the destruction of Institution after Institution because they hold May in check. Meanwhile the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg cash in by betting on a crash-out Brexit. Men of the people indeed.

bilston

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The question is, what is the point of this?
We know already that there are 16m Remainers.

With these indicative votes possibly on the horizon I feel it is all to play for again. As a remainer I don't see how it can hurt signing it.

If nothing else it made me feel better about the whole mess for a few minutes!

ancapailldorcha

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I have signed the petition, I am not a British citizen nor am I living in Britain. I couldn't care to put a figure on it but the fact I can do this proves the petition is susceptible to some unscrupulous behaviour.

Personally the numbers imo are low, considering 2 years there was a guaranteed 17 million against Brexit. We've since had 2 years of a **** show and to date the petition hasn't even racked up the original 17 million.

Just to be clear, changing the law or making policy solely based on petitions is as bad an idea as using a referendum to settle a complex issue.

Even if 20 million people signed it, it wouldn't justify revoking Article 50. It's a helpful measure of public opinion but we have Parliament which is supposed to legislate for the nation. Government by petition is just mob rule.

Irishmale0399

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Where are you getting that 10-15% figure from exactly?

When did we elect the PM? I recall her being elected as MP for Maidenhead. We don't elect our head of state, the membership of the governing party do.

Why should we welcome a terrible deal that neither remainers or leavers want? It's despised by both for a reason.

My 10-15% came from a quick look at the map...maybe read what I write instead of what you wish to read. In simple terms...run a mouse over the map and you will see the averages...which in many if not the majority of cases are 6-8% of consituents.



The government/MPs are elected by the people, they then put a PM in place. If you have a problem with the process off you go down to your local MPs office and have it out with him or her......the majority in the HoC elected her...youself and your fellow UK citizens voted the parties and MPs into power so you have to live with what she does and she agreed to the WA in its current form on behalf of the UK people.



If she was creating 1 million new high paid jobs, increasing benifits or pumping millions into the NHS would you be complaining about her???



Your government and PM have spent or better said wasted 2 years negotiating the deal with the EU, accepted it and accepted the fact that it was not open for change. The deal is on the table.....the majority of voters wanted out...thats what TM wants to deliver.



Either lobby your local MPs to revoke or accept it, prepare for life outside the EU and stop adopting the childish attitude of many MPs who are throwing their toys out of the pram as they realise they were sold a dud and EU membership aint as bad as it was made out.

bilston

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I have signed the petition, I am not a British citizen nor am I living in Britain. I couldn't care to put a figure on it but the fact I can do this proves the petition is susceptible to some unscrupulous behaviour.

Personally the numbers imo are low, considering 2 years there was a guaranteed 17 million against Brexit. We've since had 2 years of a **** show and to date the petition hasn't even racked up the original 17 million.

You don't seem very supportive of the petition...so why did you sign it?

ancapailldorcha

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

My 10-15% came from a quick look at the map...maybe read what I write instead of what you wish to read. In simple terms...run a mouse over the map and you will see the averages...which in many if not the majority of cases are 6-8% of consituents.

The government/MPs are elected by the people, they then put a PM in place. If you have a problem with the process off you go down to your local MPs office and have it out with him or her......the majority in the HoC elected her...youself and your fellow UK citizens voted the parties and MPs into power so you have to live with what she does and she agreed to the WA in its current form on behalf of the UK people.

If she was creating 1 million new high paid jobs, increasing benifits or pumping millions into the NHS would you be complaining about her???

Your government and PM have spent or better said wasted 2 years negotiating the deal with the EU, accepted it and accepted the fact that it was not open for change. The deal is on the table.....the majority of voters wanted out...thats what TM wants to deliver.

Either lobby your local MPs to revoke or accept it, prepare for life outside the EU and stop adopting the childish attitude of many MPs who are throwing their toys out of the pram as they realise they were sold a dud and EU membership aint as bad as it was made out.

I did read what you wrote. The petition isn't suitable for saying how many constituencies would be interested in a People's Vote. Not everyone who wants one signed it.

Why would anyone complain about a functioning government? What an odd question.

Wait a minute. It's childish to sign the petition or march for a People's Vote but turning up to an MP's office is ok? Why is that?

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Just to be clear, changing the law or making policy solely based on petitions is as bad an idea as using a referendum to settle a complex issue.

Even if 20 million people signed it, it wouldn't justify revoking Article 50. It's a helpful measure of public opinion but we have Parliament which is supposed to legislate for the nation. Government by petition is just mob rule.

Correct, but if we're however many days away from a potential no-deal Brexit, it's probably worthwhile for the UK government to take into consideration that Remain is getting a petition with millions of signatures and a march with somewhere around a million people showing up, while Leave is doing a small march from Sunderland to London.

The UK government could choose to ignore all of this, but it's going to give them absolutely nothing to say at the next UK GE. But maybe the plan is to take the lumps in the hope that their electoral opponents will take even bigger ones.

Impetus

Is BREXIT not a war between largely Normans ('remainers' - eg more Irish or more Spanish or Italian than the Irish/Spanish/N Italians etc) (ie Norman remainers are largely in S England) and Saxons (Exiters are in E and N England)? The biggest demonstrations against immigration in Germany were in Saxony (eg Leipzig). And one suspects that their Saxon cousins in GB have similar attitudes/DNA. Polychronic (Frankish) German states such as Bavaria and Baden Württemberg do not have similar problems and manage to create great food, beer and cars and one of the highest standards of living in the world (eg Porsche, Mercedes Benz, BMW, Audi etc).

The Weekend Financial Times (a Japanese owned newspaper) has an interesting story "Who governs Britain".

Google search: who governs britain site:ft.com

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Just to be clear, changing the law or making policy solely based on petitions is as bad an idea as using a referendum to settle a complex issue.

Even if 20 million people signed it, it wouldn't justify revoking Article 50. It's a helpful measure of public opinion but we have Parliament which is supposed to legislate for the nation. Government by petition is just mob rule.

As is ruling by opinion poll.

MPs are looking at their seats, particularly if they are in a constituency that voted leave, and are covering themselves by not breaking cover. The petition can give cover to vote for a second vote, now that the options are clear.

It is clear that there is a strong media bias in favour of leave, particularly by the BBC. Obviously, the right-wing press is in favour of leave and are prepared to print any lie that might get believed, and even ones that could not be believed.

PokeHerKing

bilston wrote:

You don't seem very supportive of the petition...so why did you sign it?

Im certainly supportive of revoking A50 through a second referendum.

What I'm not supportive of is the idea that this petition carries more weight than the referendum result.

Im also far from convinced that British public opinion has swung decidedly to a remain position.

Sam Russell

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Im certainly supportive of revoking A50 through a second referendum.

What I'm not supportive of is the idea that this petition carries more weight than the referendum result.

Im also far from convinced that British public opinion has swung decidedly to a remain position.

Well a second vote will sort that out.

ancapailldorcha

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Im certainly supportive of revoking A50 through a second referendum.

What I'm not supportive of is the idea that this petition carries more weight than the referendum result.

Im also far from convinced that British public opinion has swung decidedly to a remain position.

Nobody here has argued that the petition itself should override the referendum result. That can only be done with another plebiscite.

The march and the petition just give an insight to the scale of the opposition to Brexit, at least in its current form. At least it should be delayed until a solution to the Northern Irish question can be devised.

Irishmale0399

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

1All a petition like this does is show that there is a lot of people who want a People's Vote or a revocation of Article 50.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I did read what you wrote. 1+3The petition isn't suitable for saying how many constituencies would be interested in a People's Vote. Not everyone who wants one signed it.

2Why would anyone complain about a functioning government? What an odd question.

Wait a minute. 3It's childish to sign the petition or march for a People's Vote but turning up to an MP's office is ok? Why is that?

1. It shows a small percentage of the population want something. The referendum showed something totally different, a majority who wanted to leave.



2. If the government is functioning why havent they passed/accepted the WA or put an alternative on the table......in my humble opinion...its far from functioning. If anything its a case of the UK wanting everything their way...problem is they dont know what they want.



1+3. Again if no one lobbies an MP directly why should he or she change their path??? Childish is signing a petition which is clearly open to manipulation as it is open to people who were not in a position to legally vote in the original referendum (same goes for marching) and then claiming it is a bases for a "a People's Vote or a revocation of Article 50"


Enough said on the matter, as I said yesterday in my pm I am not going to argue with you on the matter as we clearly have 2 very different opinions on it.....however I would tend to question your neutrality here in the thead as a mod. The topic seems to be one you are very passionate about.....

cml387

Michael Howard was on the World This Weekend.

He said that the best option is to vote for the WA while holding the nose (he of course is now in the Lords so won't be voting).

When the issue of the possible soft Brexit was mentioned, he said that such an outcome was contrary to what people had voted for in 2016.

So there I was shouting at the radio begging the interviewer to ask "And is the WA what people voted for?"

Alas that wasn't asked.

PokeHerKing

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Nobody here has argued that the petition itself should override the referendum result. That can only be done with another plebiscite.

Plenty have insinuated as much.

ancapailldorcha

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

1. It shows a small percentage of the population want something. The referendum showed something totally different, a majority who wanted to leave.

Showed. Past tense. If they thought there'd be another leave result, we'd have had another referendum by now. Just as Jacob Rees-Mogg proposed when it was assumed that remain would win.

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

2. If the government is functioning why havent they passed/accepted the WA or put an alternative on the table......in my humble opinion...its far from functioning. If anything its a case of the UK wanting everything their way...problem is they dont know what they want.

I didn't say it was functioning. My point was that if it was, there'd be much fewer complaints.

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

1+3. Again if no one lobbies an MP directly why should he or she change their path??? Childish is signing a petition which is clearly open to manipulation as it is open to people who were not in a position to legally vote in the original referendum (same goes for marching) and then claiming it is a bases for a "a People's Vote or a revocation of Article 50"

Where did I claim that the petition was a sound basis for another referendum? Quote me please.

BobbyBobberson

cml387 wrote: »

Michael Howard was on the World This Weekend.

He said that the best option is to vote for the WA while holding the nose (he of course is now in the Lords so won't be voting).

When the issue of the possible soft Brexit was mentioned, he said that such an outcome was contrary to what people had voted for in 2016.

So there I was shouting at the radio begging the interviewer to ask "And is the WA what people voted for?"

Alas that wasn't asked.

Overall I have found the media to poor when holding people to account. Brexiteers have made statements which have been lies but because of their lack of knowledge on the issue the presenter cannot pull them up on it.

ancapailldorcha

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Plenty have insinuated as much.

Quote them please.

PokeHerKing

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Quote them please.

Scroll back and read unbiasedly. There's plenty.

Spanish Eyes

dresden8 wrote: »

Grieve impressive on Sky. Is he the only adult in the room.

I didn't see the Sky clip, but believe it or not, I made a note on my phone about 18months ago to keep an eye on him. He is quite impressive alright, and I knew he was worth watching.

Pity of it is, he is no longer a member of the Cabinet, so no chance of him taking over as "caretaker" PM if there is a coup.

Or is there?

Professor Moriarty

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I didn't see the Sky clip, but believe it or not, I made a note on my phone about 18months ago to keep an eye on him. He is quite impressive alright, and I knew he was worth watching.

Pity of it is, he is no longer a member of the Cabinet, so no chance of him taking over as "caretaker" PM if there is a coup.

Or is there?

Zero chance. He's too Remain and doesn't have clout in the party.

Irishmale0399

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

1. Showed. Past tense. If they thought there'd be another leave result, we'd have had another referendum by now. Just as Jacob Rees-Mogg proposed when it was assumed that remain would win.



2. I didn't say it was functioning. My point was that if it was, there'd be much fewer complaints.



1. Where did I claim that the petition was a sound basis for another referendum? Quote me please.

1. Did you or did you not say the following in #3000 "All a petition like this does is show that there is a lot of people who want a People's Vote or a revocation of Article 50. It doesn't force the government to do anything but it's better than doing nothing"


A lot of people....is 5million of the population a lot??? What percentage is a lot...for me personally it would have to be close to or above 50%



The petition is still open...so it cannot be past tense....if anything its a present tense.....granted you didnt say sound basis but your post does give the belief using the words a lot of people...better than doing nothing.



2. Wires crossed.....

ancapailldorcha

Irishmale0399 wrote: »

1. Did you or did you not say the following in #3000 "All a petition like this does is show that there is a lot of people who want a People's Vote or a revocation of Article 50. It doesn't force the government to do anything but it's better than doing nothing"

A lot of people....is 5million of the population a lot??? What percentage is a lot...for me personally it would have to be close to or above 50%

The petition is still open...so it cannot be past tense....if anything its a present tense.....granted you didnt say sound basis but your post does give the belief using the words a lot of people...better than doing nothing.

Of course I did. I never said we should have a referendum on that basis though. I made that quite clear.

Rain Ascending

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Instead, it looks like we're heading for no deal on Friday while the Brexiters demand the destruction of Institution after Institution because they hold May in check. Meanwhile the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg cash in by betting on a crash-out Brexit. Men of the people indeed.

One bit of good news for you, it seems that the Brexit departure date has already been pushed out to the April 11th date. Have a read of this twitter thread:

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1109795073460441088

Bottom line is that EU law supersedes UK law and the extension is already a done deal in EU law. Were the House of Commons refuse to bring UK law into line with that, sticking with the March 29th date, the relevant secondary UK legislation would be eventually be ruled to be invalid. Until such a ruling is made, there would be a lot of situations with two sets of regulations, EU and UK, and (legal) chaos would ensue where there is a conflict between the two.

Only a body politic heavily infected with populism and a strong disregard for legal realities would consider such a situation desirable. So it should be safe to say that this won't even be consider... oh ... wait. :cool: