The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (53 Viewers)

[martcov]

there is no evidence of any MP on the take, you're correct, though A, CD didn't say there was as he explained to you and B, there is evidence linking it to a tory donor.

So putting that to one side, don't you think the whole thing is still very suspicious?

Two of their directors are involved with Albany Shipping, a company with a net worth of £8,00. seaborne net worth £66,00. contract £14,000,000. One director is 81 years old, another is classified as retired according to the file on Albany.

 

---

[Sick Boy]

I take it you are on about me and saying against MP's supposedly on the take?

So which MP is on the take?

No evidence so far. But Mart will agree with you as usual.

Yes it looks like a shite way of putting it forward. But no money has gone to them so far it has been said.

The only person who has ever suggested an MP is on the take is you.

No one else. Only you.

There is evidence which suggests a link to others connected to the party though.

 

[skybluetony176]

No-deal Brexit 'biggest threat' to unis

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Real reason for Brexit? Have you not been following it at all?

The real reason for Brexit was for the Tories to get their votes back from UKIP. And it worked. The problem is that they didn't think the plebs would vote leave. They thought the vote was a foregone conclusion. Just shows how out of touch with the population that the Tories are.

Which you can tell from them awarding a contract to a British company, no matter how ill equipped it is, just to say 'we're backing British businesses'. Ignore they have backed foreign companies with 85% of the funding for it.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

No-deal Brexit 'biggest threat' to unis

Most of the people I worked with weren't British and my supervisor was Dutch who came to the UK with EU research grants. Still this is the anti-intellectual age so don't expect most people to give a fuck about this news.

 

[Astute]

there is no evidence of any MP on the take, you're correct, though A, CD didn't say there was as he explained to you and B, there is evidence linking it to a tory donor.

So putting that to one side, don't you think the whole thing is still very suspicious?

It doesn't look good.

Tory donor? It was supposed to be an MP on the take. And me saying that there is no evidence of an MP on the take becomes SB saying that I have said things I haven't. Usual day on SBT.

We have limited details on this. The take away details make it look like a joke gone wrong. The fiasco of Brexit brings up more fiascos as we go along.

And all this at a time where another worldwide recession looks a possibility.

 

[Astute]

The only person who has ever suggested an MP is on the take is you.

No one else. Only you.

There is evidence which suggests a link to others connected to the party though.

Why do you have to lie again?

Last week you seemed incapable of reading what I was saying. You then eventually blamed it on the Guinness you drank the day previously. Now you say it was me who said the MP's are on the take when the truth is the total opposite.

What do you get from telling lies constantly?

 

[Astute]

Which you can tell from them awarding a contract to a British company, no matter how ill equipped it is, just to say 'we're backing British businesses'. Ignore they have backed foreign companies with 85% of the funding for it.

More like it is a time for the Tories to.panic. They are getting everything they deserve. The problem is that it is us that will suffer as usual.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Will of the people rhetoric and the scaremongering that going against it will cause all sorts of riots, really winds me up.

17.4m (51.9% of those that turned out)

There were 46.5m registered to vote, a c70% turnout is very high...but 17.4m means that only 37% of those registered to vote voted it for brexit.

There are c66m people in the UK, not Everyone is eligible to vote however the 'will of the people' only 26% voted for Brexit.

Of the 4 nations that make up thr United Kingdom only England voted for Brexit.

Not saying we should go back on the vote, but can May et al overstating the will of the people.


Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Wales, unbelievably, also voted to Leave. Agreed with the rest.

This rhetoric that a second referendum is somehow a 'betrayal' of British democracy is Orwellian doublespeak. A referendum is a public vote and by definition cannot be considered 'undemocratic'. If the public is committed to Brexit at any cost, they'll vote to Leave again, if they don't like the Brexit on offer, or have changed their minds, they'll vote Remain. It really is the best and fairest solution to this mess.

The only people who seem to argue against a second referendum are people who clearly are committed to Brexit at all costs. That's fair enough, but to hide behind the veil of 'the democratic will of the people' is disingenuous and dishonest.

 

[Grendel]

Wales, unbelievably, also voted to Leave. Agreed with the rest.

This rhetoric that a second referendum is somehow a 'betrayal' of British democracy is Orwellian doublespeak. A referendum is a public vote and by definition cannot be considered 'undemocratic'. If the public is committed to Brexit at any cost, they'll vote to Leave again, if they don't like the Brexit on offer, or have changed their minds, they'll vote Remain. It really is the best and fairest solution to this mess.

The only people who seem to argue against a second referendum are people who clearly are committed to Brexit at all costs. That's fair enough, but to hide behind the veil of 'the democratic will of the people' is disingenuous and dishonest.

The clear democratic process for such an occurance is for a party to fight a general election on the mandate of a second referendum - not just offer one

 

[martcov]

Why do you have to lie again?

Last week you seemed incapable of reading what I was saying. You then eventually blamed it on the Guinness you drank the day previously. Now you say it was me who said the MP's are on the take when the truth is the total opposite.

What do you get from telling lies constantly?

Who did say MPs were on the take?

 

[Sick Boy]

Who did say MPs were on the take?

I think Dave may have alluded to it, my apologies @Astute

 

[Astute]

I think Dave may have alluded to it, my apologies @Astute

I suppose we can all make mistakes as so much shite goes.on here all the time. But thanks for holding your hand up and admitting to your mistake. I get wound up easily when accused of something I haven't done and then it turns into a shitfest.

 

[Astute]

Wales, unbelievably, also voted to Leave. Agreed with the rest.

This rhetoric that a second referendum is somehow a 'betrayal' of British democracy is Orwellian doublespeak. A referendum is a public vote and by definition cannot be considered 'undemocratic'. If the public is committed to Brexit at any cost, they'll vote to Leave again, if they don't like the Brexit on offer, or have changed their minds, they'll vote Remain. It really is the best and fairest solution to this mess.

The only people who seem to argue against a second referendum are people who clearly are committed to Brexit at all costs. That's fair enough, but to hide behind the veil of 'the democratic will of the people' is disingenuous and dishonest.

Many who voted remain and want to remain are against another referendum. You even see some on here state so.

You could look at it another way. This so called people's vote. Didn't people vote last time?

Many are of the thought that the vote should stand as it was what was voted for.

What would happen next if the vote was 52% against 48% again but this time for remain? Would it become best of 3? Would it be the result to keep as it is what you want? Should we keep voting until there is a large majority in favour of one side? If it was 52% v 48% in favour of leave again should we have yet another one as only about 2m more wanted leave over remain still?

And as you have said a referendum is democratic. Are you happy to go against a democratic vote?

To me another referendum would cause more problems than it would solve.

 

[Sick Boy]

Many who voted remain and want to remain are against another referendum. You even see some on here state so.

You could look at it another way. This so called people's vote. Didn't people vote last time?

Many are of the thought that the vote should stand as it was what was voted for.

What would happen next if the vote was 52% against 48% again but this time for remain? Would it become best of 3? Would it be the result to keep as it is what you want? Should we keep voting until there is a large majority in favour of one side? If it was 52% v 48% in favour of leave again should we have yet another one as only about 2m more wanted leave over remain still?

And as you have said a referendum is democratic. Are you happy to go against a democratic vote?

To me another referendum would cause more problems than it would solve.

This is why for me the EEA would be the most sensible compromise - I believe another referendum which reversed the decision could cause far greater problems. However, I also believe that a 'no deal' Brexit would also have the potential for problems, such as civil unrest.

However, it is hard to see anything other than May's deal or remaining, I can't see parliament allowing a no deal scenario to actually happen.

 

[martcov]

Many who voted remain and want to remain are against another referendum. You even see some on here state so.

You could look at it another way. This so called people's vote. Didn't people vote last time?

Many are of the thought that the vote should stand as it was what was voted for.

What would happen next if the vote was 52% against 48% again but this time for remain? Would it become best of 3? Would it be the result to keep as it is what you want? Should we keep voting until there is a large majority in favour of one side? If it was 52% v 48% in favour of leave again should we have yet another one as only about 2m more wanted leave over remain still?

To me another referendum would cause more problems than it would solve.

Many people think that the remaining leave options of May’s and no deal are bad for the country. Leave was sold as being good for the country. It obviously isn’t.

So, ask the people if they still want to go ahead with it. If they do, then what would be the argument for another referendum?

I cannot see one. That would be it for me. I would still criticise leave though. Unless by some miracle it worked.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The clear democratic process for such an occurance is for a party to fight a general election on the mandate of a second referendum - not just offer one

Nope. MPs are elected to represent their constituents, they've been elected to serve a term of 5 years and since the mandate for Brexit is unclear hence opposition to May's bill from Eurosceptics and Europhiles in the Commons. All that is needed to justify the legal basis of a second referendum is a majority in Parliament for a new Referendum Bill. It takes months to organise an election and the issue of a second referendum and Brexit itself is a cross-party issue: Brexit, nor the issue of a second referendum transcends party politics.

How could a second Brexit referendum be triggered?

Here's an excerpt:

'What are the possible routes to a second referendum?

As discussed in a previous blogpost, primary legislation is required to provide the legal basis for a referendum. One possibility is clearly that the government could change its mind, perhaps as a result of a large shift in public opinion, and introduce a referendum bill. At present, this looks unlikely: Theresa May has firmly ruled out a second referendum. Theoretically, it would also be possible for a referendum to be mandated by a Private Member’s Bill, but this even less likely given the timescale and that few such bills ever succeed.

Most likely, if a majority in parliament favoured a second referendum, would be for parliament to force the government’s hand. There is a precedent for parliamentarians to impose a referendum as a condition for passing a government bill: the 1979 devolution referendums came about in this way. As outlined above, parliament will have multiple opportunities to vote on the withdrawal agreement. These could be used to require a referendum, either by defeating the government directly, or by extracting concessions. The potential flashpoints where a referendum might be called are outlined in the diagram below.'

 

[Grendel]

Nope. MPs are elected to represent their constituents, they've been elected to serve a term of 5 years and since the mandate for Brexit is unclear hence opposition to May's bill from Eurosceptics and Europhiles in the Commons. All that is needed to justify the legal basis of a second referendum is a majority in Parliament for a new Referendum Bill. It takes months to organise an election and the issue of a second referendum and Brexit itself is a cross-party issue: Brexit, nor the issue of a second referendum transcends party politics.

How could a second Brexit referendum be triggered?

Here's an excerpt:

'What are the possible routes to a second referendum?

As discussed in a previous blogpost, primary legislation is required to provide the legal basis for a referendum. One possibility is clearly that the government could change its mind, perhaps as a result of a large shift in public opinion, and introduce a referendum bill. At present, this looks unlikely: Theresa May has firmly ruled out a second referendum. Theoretically, it would also be possible for a referendum to be mandated by a Private Member’s Bill, but this even less likely given the timescale and that few such bills ever succeed.

Most likely, if a majority in parliament favoured a second referendum, would be for parliament to force the government’s hand. There is a precedent for parliamentarians to impose a referendum as a condition for passing a government bill: the 1979 devolution referendums came about in this way. As outlined above, parliament will have multiple opportunities to vote on the withdrawal agreement. These could be used to require a referendum, either by defeating the government directly, or by extracting concessions. The potential flashpoints where a referendum might be called are outlined in the diagram below.'

Nope. The democratic process is achieved through parties elected on a manifesto commitment and delivering that commitment in their role as elected politicians.

Over 80% of the house were elected by standing on a pledge to honour the result.

 

[martcov]

Nope. The democratic process is achieved through parties elected on a manifesto commitment and delivering that commitment in their role as elected politicians.

Over 80% of the house were elected by standing on a pledge to honour the result.

That was not the only thing in their manifestos though, so it is stretching the point to say people voted for Brexit to be carried out at the last election based on party votes alone.

In the country where there was a viable alternative to Brexit, they voted overwhelmingly for a remain party.

 

[Grendel]

That was not the only thing in their manifestos though, so it is stretching the point to say people voted for Brexit to be carried out at the last election based on party votes alone.

In the country where there was a viable alternative to Brexit, they voted overwhelmingly for a remain party.

The MPs representing their constituents stood on that pledge

 

[Astute]

This is why for me the EEA would be the most sensible compromise - I believe another referendum which reversed the decision could cause far greater problems. However, I also believe that a 'no deal' Brexit would also have the potential for problems, such as civil unrest.

However, it is hard to see anything other than May's deal or remaining, I can't see parliament allowing a no deal scenario to actually happen.

The problem is that whatever happens and whatever we end up with there will be millions of people unhappy.

Any sort of deal that keeps us tied to the EU rules and regulations like open borders will be disliked. Just like leaving without a deal. So I can see unrest whatever happens.

Thanks Cameron. You excelled yourself here.

 

[Astute]

Nope. MPs are elected to represent their constituents, they've been elected to serve a term of 5 years and since the mandate for Brexit is unclear hence opposition to May's bill from Eurosceptics and Europhiles in the Commons. All that is needed to justify the legal basis of a second referendum is a majority in Parliament for a new Referendum Bill. It takes months to organise an election and the issue of a second referendum and Brexit itself is a cross-party issue: Brexit, nor the issue of a second referendum transcends party politics.

How could a second Brexit referendum be triggered?

Here's an excerpt:

'What are the possible routes to a second referendum?

As discussed in a previous blogpost, primary legislation is required to provide the legal basis for a referendum. One possibility is clearly that the government could change its mind, perhaps as a result of a large shift in public opinion, and introduce a referendum bill. At present, this looks unlikely: Theresa May has firmly ruled out a second referendum. Theoretically, it would also be possible for a referendum to be mandated by a Private Member’s Bill, but this even less likely given the timescale and that few such bills ever succeed.

Most likely, if a majority in parliament favoured a second referendum, would be for parliament to force the government’s hand. There is a precedent for parliamentarians to impose a referendum as a condition for passing a government bill: the 1979 devolution referendums came about in this way. As outlined above, parliament will have multiple opportunities to vote on the withdrawal agreement. These could be used to require a referendum, either by defeating the government directly, or by extracting concessions. The potential flashpoints where a referendum might be called are outlined in the diagram below.'

So who do you think would take a step like that who actually holds enough power to do so?

It would be political suicide.

And to add to that there is a good chance they wouldn't even get the result they wanted.

 

[djr8369]

The problem is that whatever happens and whatever we end up with there will be millions of people unhappy.

Any sort of deal that keeps us tied to the EU rules and regulations like open borders will be disliked. Just like leaving without a deal. So I can see unrest whatever happens.

Thanks Cameron. You excelled yourself here.

True. There is no route out of this mess that doesn’t cause harm and whatever happens the Brexiters will still blame everyone else and vent their anger at something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Astute]

Many people think that the remaining leave options of May’s and no deal are bad for the country. Leave was sold as being good for the country. It obviously isn’t.

So, ask the people if they still want to go ahead with it. If they do, then what would be the argument for another referendum?

I cannot see one. That would be it for me. I would still criticise leave though. Unless by some miracle it worked.

Miracle?

Let's forget how much you want and need us to stay in the EU for once. Just consider these points.

If we leave without a deal not much will change for at least a year after us leaving. The EU has stated so. And it isn't to help us. It is to help those remaining countries in the EU. They also stated that.

Several countries in the EU are financially in trouble. Doing anything to make trade with the UK difficult will make the problem much worse for many. This gives at least a year to come to a trade agreement. I can see that the trade that benefits the EU countries being made easy. Those that benefit us the most could be a different matter. But there would also be trade offs. Maybe the fisheries staying the same.

Leaving without a trade deal will happen whatever happens to the so called deal put together between May and the EU. That is mainly to do with Ireland. And nobody would like to be the ones saying there must be a solid border in Ireland.

The negotiations have hardly even started yet. We won't know what is going to happen until details of any agreements made next year onwards are known.

 

[Astute]

True. There is no route out of this mess that doesn’t cause harm and whatever happens the Brexiters will still blame everyone else and vent their anger at something.

Brexiteers?

I'm glad that it isn't the same for those who want to remain however it happens

 

[djr8369]

Brexiteers?

I'm glad that it isn't the same for those who want to remain however it happens

Of course it isn’t the same. Remain is the status quo and remainers aren’t blaming the wrong people for their ills or when their fantasy plans don’t come to fruition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[martcov]

Miracle?

Let's forget how much you want and need us to stay in the EU for once. Just consider these points.

If we leave without a deal not much will change for at least a year after us leaving. The EU has stated so. And it isn't to help us. It is to help those remaining countries in the EU. They also stated that.

Several countries in the EU are financially in trouble. Doing anything to make trade with the UK difficult will make the problem much worse for many. This gives at least a year to come to a trade agreement. I can see that the trade that benefits the EU countries being made easy. Those that benefit us the most could be a different matter. But there would also be trade offs. Maybe the fisheries staying the same.

Leaving without a trade deal will happen whatever happens to the so called deal put together between May and the EU. That is mainly to do with Ireland. And nobody would like to be the ones saying there must be a solid border in Ireland.

The negotiations have hardly even started yet. We won't know what is going to happen until details of any agreements made next year onwards are known.

1. withdrawal agreement

Up in the air

2. future relationship

If we leave without a WA, how do you think we will progress to the future relationship negotiations?

 

[SIR ERNIE]

The only people who seem to argue against a second referendum are people who clearly are committed to Brexit at all costs. That's fair enough, but to hide behind the veil of 'the democratic will of the people' is disingenuous and dishonest.

The only ‘disingenuous and dishonest’ people are those like you who’ve spent 2½ years whining about the result of a democratic referendum; inventing hard and soft versions of Brexit and claiming people didn’t understand what they were voting for.

Now you call for a second referendum because 'it’s in the interests of democracy' when like the Liberal Undemocrats, all you really want to do is overturn the result before it’s even been honoured.

Chances are you didn’t even bother to vote.

Still, Parliament is stuffed with people like you so you may yet get your way.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Of course it isn’t the same. Remain is the status quo and remainers aren’t blaming the wrong people for their ills or when their fantasy plans don’t come to fruition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remain is not the status quo though. One of the many reasons people votes to leave was due to the direction the EU is going in.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Nope. MPs are elected to represent their constituents, they've been elected to serve a term of 5 years and since the mandate for Brexit is unclear hence opposition to May's bill from Eurosceptics and Europhiles in the Commons. All that is needed to justify the legal basis of a second referendum is a majority in Parliament for a new Referendum Bill. It takes months to organise an election and the issue of a second referendum and Brexit itself is a cross-party issue: Brexit, nor the issue of a second referendum transcends party politics.

How could a second Brexit referendum be triggered?

Here's an excerpt:

'What are the possible routes to a second referendum?

As discussed in a previous blogpost, primary legislation is required to provide the legal basis for a referendum. One possibility is clearly that the government could change its mind, perhaps as a result of a large shift in public opinion, and introduce a referendum bill. At present, this looks unlikely: Theresa May has firmly ruled out a second referendum. Theoretically, it would also be possible for a referendum to be mandated by a Private Member’s Bill, but this even less likely given the timescale and that few such bills ever succeed.

Most likely, if a majority in parliament favoured a second referendum, would be for parliament to force the government’s hand. There is a precedent for parliamentarians to impose a referendum as a condition for passing a government bill: the 1979 devolution referendums came about in this way. As outlined above, parliament will have multiple opportunities to vote on the withdrawal agreement. These could be used to require a referendum, either by defeating the government directly, or by extracting concessions. The potential flashpoints where a referendum might be called are outlined in the diagram below.'

I don't know how any person can take anyone who wants a second referendum seriously.

I'm still yet to hear any genuinely good arguments for it. It's just more screaming babies I'm afraid.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

See Gary Linekar is coming out with some interesting stuff today.

He says that due to Brexit it will be harder for Premier League clubs to import foreign players.

This is a bad thing, how?

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm still yet to hear any genuinely good arguments for it. It's just more screaming babies I'm afraid.

Much the same as brexit then.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Much the same as brexit then.

Plenty of good arguments. See the post next to it.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Many who voted remain and want to remain are against another referendum. You even see some on here state so.

You could look at it another way. This so called people's vote. Didn't people vote last time?

Many are of the thought that the vote should stand as it was what was voted for.

What would happen next if the vote was 52% against 48% again but this time for remain? Would it become best of 3? Would it be the result to keep as it is what you want? Should we keep voting until there is a large majority in favour of one side? If it was 52% v 48% in favour of leave again should we have yet another one as only about 2m more wanted leave over remain still?

And as you have said a referendum is democratic. Are you happy to go against a democratic vote?

To me another referendum would cause more problems than it would solve.

Here we go again...

Tell me how a referendum is undemocratic? You can't, unless you want to make an argument against referendums as a whole. Which, if you did, undermines your premise that the 2016 referendum is the be all and end all.

The issue of EU membership won't go away whether or not we leave. If we go through with Brexit, and it goes badly, people will campaign to rejoin the EU, likewise, if we end up remaining, UKIP (or successor party) will certainly be back as a political force at some point. One way or the other, the issue won't go away. Either way, there will be another referendum, if not this year, in 2029, 2039? Who knows.

I'm happy to go against a democratic vote if it is with another, democratic vote. The only rational reason you're opposed to that proposal is that you're afraid Leave would lose. A second referendum could actually do wonders for Brexiteers if Leave won, May would probably be ousted and a more prominent Brexiteer could either renegotiate a deal (v unlikely) or leave without a no-deal.

You're against May's deal, as is most of the Brexiteers, why is a chance to oust May that bad? Surely this is better than sleeping into a 'bad deal'.

Nope. The democratic process is achieved through parties elected on a manifesto commitment and delivering that commitment in their role as elected politicians.

Over 80% of the house were elected by standing on a pledge to honour the result.

You're presenting the issue of a second referendum as a partisan issue between political parties. That's not the case because the opposition to May's deal is coming from within her own party and the opposition. A general election wouldn't, in fact, couldn't be contested alongside the issue of a second referendum. This is because of Remain and Leave is a cross-cutting issue along both major political parties.

It's also a flawed argument to use the 2017 general election result as supporting Brexit in itself. The political context has changed and the issue of Brexit shouldn't be politicised along party lines, because both major parties have significant amounts of Remain and Leave voters. It's unlikely a party would win a parliamentary majority if it alienated one half of the electorate.

You certainly cannot argue there is a mandate for a no-deal Brexit.

So who do you think would take a step like that who actually holds enough power to do so?

It would be political suicide.

And to add to that there is a good chance they wouldn't even get the result they wanted.

There are several political landmines for both major parties. For the Conservatives, dissatisfaction with May's deal is helping a UKIP resurgence (polling about 6% from 1.5% last election), Tories who voted Remain will be tempted by the Lib Dems and finally, if Brexit puts the economy into recession, that'll probably destroy the Conservative's economic credibility even more than 2008 damaged Labour's economic credibility. As for Labour, prematurely supporting a second referendum will alienate Labour's supporters who voted Leave in working-class strongholds. If Labour backs May's deal, their support will alienate its cosmopolitan supporters to the point of desertion to the Lib Dems and its members strongly support a second referendum. Also, any second referendum bill will need cross-party support, and there is a good chance a % of Tory MPs who'd vote against the Government to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

To say Brexit is a political landmine is an understatement, to say the least. That is why both Conservative and Labour are navigating the climate very, very carefully because this has the potential to ruin a major political party for a generation.

 

[skybluetony176]

Plenty of good arguments. See the post next to it.

The post next to it is drivel from someone who wants to put a stopwatch on democracy.