Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60

Thread: Brexit triggered - The Brexit plan

  1. #21
    Super Moderator Misrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    8,398
    Thanks
    17,960
    Thanked 250,441 Times in 8,391 Posts
    Would a second referendum solve anything? At this stage, there seems to be similar support for leaving and for staying. There doesn't appear to be any solution that commands a decent majority in parliament or amongst the electorate. Maybe a good disaster will concentrate minds.... Wouldn't be on it, though.

    Don't worry, Boris will lead you out of the morass!!

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Misrule For This Useful Post:


  3. #22
    jumping on eggshells sp88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,419
    Thanks
    23,498
    Thanked 12,901 Times in 2,419 Posts
    the more this goes on, the more i can see a 2nd referendum being likely

    partly because the general mood is that the leave campaign misrepresented its case, and partly because the whole mess was david cameron's doing, after which he promptly buggered off to leave some other sap to mop up the mess - nobody strikes me as brave enough to allow brexit to go through in their own name

    even without a referendum, i think the brits as a whole could have a reasonable expectation that having a referendum would produce a vastly different result now - if it seems likely that the currently standing result would now be a minority standpoint, surely that's cause enough for a revote, even if the given reason is one of just seeking confirmation

    whatever happens, i doubt there's going to be a huge change to people's lives generally - europe likes to play the snooty moralist but they are in just as much trouble without making their deals with the uk, who are still currently the 3rd biggest influence helping europe to function

    i think europe needs brexit to run its course tho - there are a surfeit of countries waiting to see how it all plays out before having the stones to jump ship themselves .... or not
    "i know enough to know what's instantly forgettable"

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sp88 For This Useful Post:


  5. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    486
    Thanked 984 Times in 167 Posts
    I wonder if they have the audacity and contempt for their own voters to pull of the NHS red bus thing again.

  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ra5whore For This Useful Post:


  7. #24
    Super Moderator Misrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    8,398
    Thanks
    17,960
    Thanked 250,441 Times in 8,391 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ra5whore View Post
    I wonder if they have the audacity and contempt for their own voters to pull of the NHS red bus thing again.
    I know who'll be driving it - yep, Boris.

    Or, "the bicycle chap" as the Kenyan leader referred him last week.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Misrule For This Useful Post:


  9. #25
    Die Another Day BondJmsBond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,102
    Thanks
    13,825
    Thanked 11,665 Times in 2,101 Posts
    I have some questions, please bear with me.

    So, England voted to leave in June 2016 with a slim majority of 51.9%. (wikipedia)

    It seems those posting here wish to remain, is that correct? So you want there to be another vote, being justified by the belief the leave position was misrepresented, and another vote will have different results.

    Is there any British precedent in which a referendum has been re-voted like this? Is it normal voting procedure to do this, or would it be a special one-off thing?
    Is there a procedure to declare the previous vote null and void, or would May, Parliament, or someone just say so and a re-vote will happen? Would there possibly have to be a vote on re-voting?
    Won't the slim majority be angry? Cause trouble?

    Also, you guys have been nattering and kvetching about this for over 2 years, while the exit date looms in about 7 months - if you're going to re-vote you'd best hurry.

    We in the US had a vote in 2016 that a lot of people didn't like either...........hm
    Last edited by BondJmsBond; 09-03-2018 at 06:25 PM.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BondJmsBond For This Useful Post:


  11. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    486
    Thanked 984 Times in 167 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BondJmsBond View Post
    I have some questions, please bear with me.

    So, England voted to leave in June 2016 with a slim majority of 51.9%. (wikipedia)

    It seems those posting here wish to remain, is that correct? So you want there to be another vote, being justified by the belief the leave position was misrepresented, and another vote will have different results.

    Is there any British precedent in which a referendum has been re-voted like this? Is it normal voting procedure to do this, or would it be a special one-off thing?
    Is there a procedure to declare the previous vote null and void, or would May, Parliament, or someone just say so and a re-vote will happen? Would there possibly have to be a vote on re-voting?
    Won't the slim majority be angry? Cause trouble?

    Also, you guys have been nattering and kvetching about this for over 2 years, while the exit date looms in about 7 months - if you're going to re-vote you'd best hurry.

    We in the US had a vote in 2016 that a lot of people didn't like either...........hm
    It mirrors the stuff on your side the party in power still acting like the opposition without a majority even though they hold legistative power. Basically still acting like the backseat driver sandbagging the guy who's no longer driving and is now in the backseat.
    Project fear is the equivalent to the fake news spouted by your alternative fact types.
    40 years screaming about the EU but no plans on how to actually leave it without damaging the country kind of like the Repulicans screaming against Healthcare for years and offering no alternatives.

    Then theres the whole russian interference thing with actual fake news propagated on social media with the cambridge anylitica groups (the guy himself caught on camera saying facts don't matter), the money funneling / laundering to those brexit campaigners from foreign sources, same as and tied in with your FBI guy's investigation into the trump circle during the campaign.

    Ireland had a referendum about the lisbon treaty that resulted in a rejection initially then a 2nd referendum that accepted it not too long after.
    Switzerland voted to pull out of the EEA to end freedom of movement, their government chose not to pull out of the EEA as it would have ended their economy.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ra5whore For This Useful Post:


  13. #27
    jumping on eggshells sp88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,419
    Thanks
    23,498
    Thanked 12,901 Times in 2,419 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BondJmsBond View Post
    you want there to be another vote
    i think most british people would rather have not voted in the first place

    we elect politicians to do the research and the maths and work out what's best for the country - that's kind of what they're paid to do - cameron threw it open to the electorate, failed to get his expected mandate and walked away .... because he's a traitorous coward - but the whole vote was conducted with such a lack of information, and allegedly a fair amount of disinformation, as to make it hard for the average voter to really know what they were voting for

    as for the vote itself, i get the impression a lot of people voted leave to voice their dissatisfaction with being in europe safe in the knowledge that the leave campaign wouldn't get enough votes to make a difference anyway ...... except they then did

    now, the politicians are stuck between trying to make a vastly difficult and probably unwanted (if subsequent polls are taken to be true) situation happen and admitting that they got political process wrong in a big way, which is pretty much their job

    my personal view is that, either way, we're not really going to notice that much difference in our everyday lives - if the uk leaves europe, europe is going to face a hard time keeping it together and deals will be made left, right and centre which will effectively be a substitute for the uk's current deal anyway

    at the end of it all, it's worth remembering that holding the referendum was a means of gathering the view of the british electorate only - the government was under no subsequent obligation to follow that decision as law
    Last edited by sp88; 09-04-2018 at 01:48 AM.
    "i know enough to know what's instantly forgettable"

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to sp88 For This Useful Post:


  15. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Wales
    Posts
    157
    Thanks
    1,778
    Thanked 940 Times in 157 Posts
    The one comfort I took from the Brexit vote disaster was that it would be the end of the careers of the politicians that pushed for it, Boris, David Davies, Michael Gove, Liam Fox.
    Our suffering would at least be balanced by never hearing from them again, but two of the four have managed to extricate themselves from the government and Gove is in a role that he can claim has nothing to do with the Brexit outcome so will likely survive. Only trade deal Fox, who has singularly failed to secure a firm commitment to trade from anyone in two years will be burned by the flames of the Brexit disaster.

    Boris Johnson and David Davies have created a no win situation but engineered a way to claim that the reason it is all going to be a failure is that they weren't allowed to negotiate with the EU the way they wanted to; they plan to let Theresa May (who looks more like Mr Burns from the Simpsons every day) take the fall so that they can step in to be the saviours that rebuild the UK after Brexit (probably by repealing every bit of employment protection, environmental law and progressive social policy they can)

    Don't get me wrong, I think the behaviour of the EU negotiators has been equally shameful. They have been playing negotiation games and trying to win the Brexit competition instead of trying to come to a deal, the Irish border issue, the divorce bill, negotiation in stages, the constant briefings that Barnier and Junker give to the press, the leaks; all games to try to force the British government to conceed more and more. The result is that there now seems no chance of a deal and that will hurt Europe as much if not more than the UK. Key European economies are all ready struggling, Italy, Spain, Greece, even France is not doing as well as they would like everyone to think. The Euro already looks like a slow moving car crash and migration is an issue right across the continent. Take the value of trade with the UK out of those economies and take the UK payments out of the EU budget and things will look bleak over there too (I fully expect a no deal to be matched with a refusal to settle any divorce bill without a legal battle too)
    In any other circumstances, the 4th biggest economy in the world knocking on your door asking to do a trade deal and looking to align as closely as possible with your trading standards to do so would be a cause for celebration and you would move heaven and earth to make it happen. The EU seem hell bent on punishing the UK for leaving and any society that you can never leave once you join is not a trade block, it is a cult.

    I would have chosen to stay within the EU and work to reform it and reshape its political agenda, but the current situation is the worst of all worlds, we will clearly be much worse off after we leave and Europe will have possibly irreparably damaged itself just to punish the UK for leaving.

    Barnier and Junker don't care if the ship goes down as long as they make sure it flies an EU flag while it sinks beneath the waves.
    In case anyone is left wondering I despise politicians in general and the games they play with good peoples lives.

    Rant over - Sorry
    Last edited by Arbiec; 09-04-2018 at 03:50 AM.

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Arbiec For This Useful Post:


  17. #29
    Super Moderator Misrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    8,398
    Thanks
    17,960
    Thanked 250,441 Times in 8,391 Posts
    Well, Bond, you got a good selection of responses there. Here's my reading of the situation and I'm trying to be as even handed as I can.

    There is no formal provision for referendums in the UK. They are not binding, but simply advisory. Parliament is the ultimate decision making body and can ignore the referendum result. The previous Prime Minister (David Cameron) promised a referendum in order to get the Eurskeptics in his own party (Conservative) off his back. He confidently expected to win the referendum and thus, shut them up. In fact, if was generally expected (including by the Leave campaigners) that the vote would be to remain in the EU. Voters didn't play ball and voted to leave after a shamefully campaign littered with blatant untruths and false promises. As always, it was easier to campaign for change that for the status quo.
    Cameron then resigned (he had been defeated, after all) and left the sinking ship.

    Since the referendum, every shade of opinion in the UK has been parsing what the voters meant by voting "NO". Of course, there were many reasons, some had to do with the EU, some had to do with UK politics, and some for extraneous reasons. Because the referendum question was a simple Yes/No, it isn't possible to tell what people intended. As a result, the UK government has been struggling with interpreting the result in a politically coherent way that permits them to prepare a proper negotiating position. Unfortunately, the UK Cabinet is still split and doesn't agree on what it wants from the EU in the negotiations. Public opinion is also split.

    In contrast, the EU side has been splendidly prepared for the negotiation. I say that as someone with years of experience in preparing for commercial negotiations. Barnier (the chief EU negotiator) has a detailed and explicit mandate from the 27 EU governments, from which his team has prepared their position. They have been ready to negotiate for over 12 months, and have watched in some frustration as the UK side negotiates with itself. Certainly, the EU position is legalistic - one of the key issues is protecting the Internal Market (one of the EU's signature achievements) by not allowing the UK to choose which bits it wanted and which bits it didn't. Or, as buffoon Boris Johnston called it " have cake; eat cake". The Internal Market is based on 4 freedoms - capital, labour, goods and services - and all must be fulfilled for membership. The UK has known this for ever, but still wants to opt out of one of them (labour movement). This was never going to be acceptable to the EU side, but the UK seems to have misread this.
    Because the EU side has been in agreement on their position, they have had the whip hand in the negotiation. The Uk fundamentally misunderstood the leverage they had in the negotation and were somewhat lazy in preparation. Barnier and co had them for breakfast, in negotiating terms. That does not mean the result will be good for the EU - they will not, cannot, compromise on the 4 freedoms. That would be like the US compromising on free speech, or States' rights. It simply won't happen. As a result, the negotiations are somewhat stuck. Neither side wants no deal, but it isn't clear that a deal that is acceptable to both is within reach. On the EU side, they have to get agreement with 27 governments (so far, no problem there). On the UK side, Theresa May (the current Prime Minister) has to get agreement with all the political and public opinion factions in the UK. That is proving very, very difficult.

    As things stand, the UK would have been better off to stay and work for change from within; and the EU would likewise have benefited. There doesn't seem to be a deal available that could be sold in the UK, politically and to the public, that would be seen as respecting the referendum result and as a good deal. The rhetoric of the Leave campaign has rather poisoned the well on a compromise solution. They seem blithely happy to crash out of the EU on WTO terms - that would be disastrous for so many sectors of the UK. Unless and until the UK government can build momentum to support a good outcome, disaster seems quite likely.

    And while all this is going on, the changes are quietly happening. Companies are shifting parts of their operations from the UK to other EU countries e.g. financial services, pharma testing and compliance; EU agencies are leaving the UK as they have to be based in an EU country e.g. European Medicines Agency; activities that are funded by the EU are moving from the UK e.g. research funding, etc, etc. None of these is big news, but it's a steady drip. If the UK crashes out, there will be chaos in the air (UK would no longer be part of Open Skies), on trade (customs checks are not consistent with just-in-time manufacturing), on food safety, environmental regulation and a long, long list of others. Neither side is really prepared for this, but the possibility is dawning. It doesn't seem possible that all of this can be prepared for in the time available, therefore, expect at the least an EU fudge that prevents the shit hitting the fan, for a while. Maybe an extension of the 2 years? Or something.

    Hope that helps, sorry it got longer, and longer. As an interested spectator, it makes great drama; shame that so many people's lives could be ruined by it.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Misrule For This Useful Post:


  19. #30
    Die Another Day BondJmsBond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,102
    Thanks
    13,825
    Thanked 11,665 Times in 2,101 Posts
    Great explanations, Thank You. I understand better now. David Cameron really (insert British term for making a bad mistake).

    If the referendum is non-binding and just advisory, couldn't it be reasonably ignored or reasonably subject to a re-vote (especially if voters were misled by falsehoods)? Why is it being followed as if it were law?


    *Some or all of these questions could be answered (somewhat) through google (in my case DuckDuckGo), but I'd much rather hear from real people who are involved.
    Last edited by BondJmsBond; 09-04-2018 at 10:26 AM.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BondJmsBond For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •