The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (113 Viewers)

[fernandopartridge]

I seen to remember you posing multiple suggestions and say no one knows. There’s still little chance of May’s deal getting through, IMO.

The May deal won't go through and she's got 3 days to come up with something better. The obvious conclusion is that there will be another vote or an extension to A50

 

---

[Astute]

Your starting going on as though I was attacking you. I don’t believe people voted against myself and my family, more so against Eastern European migrants. However some of the rhetoric on here and both in the press has attempted to blame migration for the country’s woes and scapegoating immigrants.

I also have managed to get out of the country and am already looking forward to weekends on Lake Garda from around May

You have constantly accused me of scapegoating immigrants and Immigration for saying that the more people who move here the more homes we need. And nothing is being done to build the homes we need. The governments for many years have failed. But you only ever seem to notice the homes and Immigration bit.

Have a great time. Love it around Lake Garda. Beautiful place. That has been my problem. I l8ve northern Italy so much that I have never got around to exploring the rest of it. But 4 years 3 months until I can retire....8 years 10 months until I plan to retire. Hoping to spend a year or two exploring Italy.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

What I don’t get about the population of Boston is who do they think will make things better for them? The Conservative party don’t give a shit about them and never had. Any investment in that city over the last decade or so has come from European grants and if the proportion of that grant that we pay came back to our coffers you can rest assured that it wouldn’t be spent on something that would benefit the working poor in our country.

I just don’t get it

 

[Astute]

Avoiding your claims about the south east being for remain, I see. You’ve continually tried to link EU migration for the country’s issues, including Boston.

I know Boston very well. I said how bad some of the problems are. As usual I got told I was wrong. Some even tried to argue with the evidence. Boston was also the place in the UK which was the most % voted for leave. Yet you still dispute the facts. Immigration does cause problems in some areas. Lack of affordable houses and hospitals for starters. And before you say it I don't blame the immigrants.

 

[Astute]

What I don’t get about the population of Boston is who do they think will make things better for them? The Conservative party don’t give a shit about them and never had. Any investment in that city over the last decade or so has come from European grants and if the proportion of that grant that we pay came back to our coffers you can rest assured that it wouldn’t be spent on something that would benefit the working poor in our country.

I just don’t get it

Good point made.

I say what people see and what people think. They are not my views other than what happened to my step dad at Boston hospital. They think out of the EU means thousands more won't be moving to Boston and surrounding areas through immigration. Services are at breaking point. It needs investment. The investment would come through the Tories......

 

[Captain Dart]

Well what do ya know! The superstate is coming.

Paris and Berlin herald new era of integration

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Good point made.

I say what people see and what people think. They are not my views other than what happened to my step dad at Boston hospital. They think out of the EU means thousands more won't be moving to Boston and surrounding areas through immigration. Services are at breaking point. It needs investment. The investment would come through the Tories......

Went to North Sea camp prison recently. Boston needs investment no question. But I’m sure many towns and cities are suffering from similar lack of investment. Hartlepool being another one

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Well what do ya know! The superstate is coming.

Paris and Berlin herald new era of integration

That sounds exciting and sensible doesn’t it?

 

[Sick Boy]

You have constantly accused me of scapegoating immigrants and Immigration for saying that the more people who move here the more homes we need. And nothing is being done to build the homes we need. The governments for many years have failed. But you only ever seem to notice the homes and Immigration bit.

Have a great time. Love it around Lake Garda. Beautiful place. That has been my problem. I l8ve northern Italy so much that I have never got around to exploring the rest of it. But 4 years 3 months until I can retire....8 years 10 months until I plan to retire. Hoping to spend a year or two exploring Italy.

I agree that investment needs to be made, immigration will continue if the country remains successful.

Let me know when you plan to go to the south and I will give you some pointers, especially for Sicily, which is on another level to northern italy

 

[SIR ERNIE]

Well what do ya know! The superstate is coming.

Paris and Berlin herald new era of integration

Confirmation that those who voted remain because they wanted things to stay the same, really didn’t understand what they were voting for.

Begs the question ‘Which version of remain did you actually vote for?'

 

[skybluetony176]

Confirmation that those who voted remain because they wanted things to stay the same, really didn’t understand what they were voting for.

Begs the question ‘Which version of remain did you actually vote for?'

The one where we have a veto and could block this being rolled out as EU policy. If we remained we’d be no more obligated to joining this than we would to be to joining the Euro or changing our passports from blue to red. This is German/French domestic policy.

Begs the question which EU did you actually think we were voting to leave?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Would you like to explain how it could unify the country?

The first and obvious problem is that there is no clear majority for the next course of action as there is no majority for a no-deal or for May's deal and a second referendum doesn't seem particularly necessary to ordinary people at this point. At 52/48 majority, you could argue that the result of the referendum is 'unfinished business', at least, that was the view of Nigel Farage in 2016 had Remain won by that same margin. But, a second referendum gives everyone a say on the matter, and what the Government could do is propose a two-stage referendum. Arguing with Grendel and Sir Ernie has actually helped me come to this point, so credit to them but it solves their grievances and mine. The first referendum is a simple Remain v Leave, and if Leave wins a referendum, the second referendum would be on May's deal vs no-deal. Even if Leave won again, people who voted Remain will at least get the opportunity to choose the direction of Brexit. In this scenario, Remainers won't be able to argue they were dragged into Brexit as they would've at least had the consolation of choosing their poison, so to speak. For Leavers, they get to go away and choose to either reject the deal and go for no deal. If the electorate voted to Remain, then it's clear the support for Brexit had declined and no longer the 'will of the people'. In fact, the argument for a second referendum is best put by a Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, who said: “we could have two referendums. As it happens it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed” in the House of Commons in 2011. In 2016, the electorate voted on the concept of remaining or leaving the EU, not the mechanics of what that entailed, so it makes perfect sense to hold a referendum after the treaty was renegotiated. I accidentally came across the idea of the two-stage referendum in reply to Grendel and Sir Ernie but Vernon Bogdanor (a professor at KCL who specialises in Government) makes the better argument in the Guardian -- search at your own leisure. There will be some divisions because someone stands to lose in this process, but the alternative of not putting the question back to the people is worse in my view because there's not even a majority of what people want between May's deal and no-deal, so the mandate is weak, in my view.

Now, the bigger problem at hand is the crisis in Government at present, the average person doesn't really know about the mechanics of Parliament and we're headed for a storm next week. The Government has just lost two bills in two days, one was a finance bill, which a Government hasn't lost since 1978 (my mum was 6 then), for those of you posters who remember the 70s will remember the crisis in UK politics at that point. Parliament is dead set on blocking a no deal scenario (which again, the electorate may need to step in here), and is about to reject May's deal so legally, Brexit is at risk here. The Parliamentary vote on the 15th is huge and if May loses that vote, it causes a lot of problems because the government would have lost the confidence of Parliament. In short, it's position is untenable and cannot continue to govern, and therefore, carry out Brexit.

In the event of May losing this parliamentary vote, cabinet ministers will resign. Second, Labour has said they will 'immediately' table a motion of no-confidence in the Government, and there's a good chance the Government will lose -- the Government has at least 20 MPs willing to break ranks. This will trigger another election because there's no viable alternative government-in-waiting. If May resigns, a new Conservative leader will have to be elected, but they will have no mandate to govern so an election is necessary. Meanwhile, Brexit will have to be delayed because the time it takes to organise an election, the deadline of 29th March will either have been passed, or there would be no time for a new government to do anything with regards to Brexit. Just today, Labour have said they back delaying Brexit. Based on polling now, Labour would probably win the popular vote, but the polls are neck and neck so the Tories could well win again. Either way, a majority for either party is unlikely and we're basically in the same scenario with a new PM and/or new party in government. With the government physically unable to carry out the result of 2016, it will have to defer to the electorate yet again in another referendum. The alternative is crashing out without a deal and there simply isn't a majority for that option, and I highly doubt the Government, or indeed Parliament (if the Government is willing) to go through with that without a referendum.

I'm past debating the concept of a second referendum, whether it's right or wrong, the political climate at this moment will make it an inevitability because the Government and Parliament are broken and only the electorate can break the deadlock with a referendum because a GE won't change the scenario at hand. It's better than the alternatives.




Rees-Mogg has history of backing second EU referendums
Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

 

[Astute]

The first and obvious problem is that there is no clear majority for the next course of action as there is no majority for a no-deal or for May's deal and a second referendum doesn't seem particularly necessary to ordinary people at this point. At 52/48 majority, you could argue that the result of the referendum is 'unfinished business', at least, that was the view of Nigel Farage in 2016 had Remain won by that same margin. But, a second referendum gives everyone a say on the matter, and what the Government could do is propose a two-stage referendum. Arguing with Grendel and Sir Ernie has actually helped me come to this point, so credit to them but it solves their grievances and mine. The first referendum is a simple Remain v Leave, and if Leave wins a referendum, the second referendum would be on May's deal vs no-deal. Even if Leave won again, people who voted Remain will at least get the opportunity to choose the direction of Brexit. In this scenario, Remainers won't be able to argue they were dragged into Brexit as they would've at least had the consolation of choosing their poison, so to speak. For Leavers, they get to go away and choose to either reject the deal and go for no deal. If the electorate voted to Remain, then it's clear the support for Brexit had declined and no longer the 'will of the people'. In fact, the argument for a second referendum is best put by a Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg, who said: “we could have two referendums. As it happens it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed” in the House of Commons in 2011. In 2016, the electorate voted on the concept of remaining or leaving the EU, not the mechanics of what that entailed, so it makes perfect sense to hold a referendum after the treaty was renegotiated. I accidentally came across the idea of the two-stage referendum in reply to Grendel and Sir Ernie but Vernon Bogdanor (a professor at KCL who specialises in Government) makes the better argument in the Guardian -- search at your own leisure. There will be some divisions because someone stands to lose in this process, but the alternative of not putting the question back to the people is worse in my view because there's not even a majority of what people want between May's deal and no-deal, so the mandate is weak, in my view.

Now, the bigger problem at hand is the crisis in Government at present, the average person doesn't really know about the mechanics of Parliament and we're headed for a storm next week. The Government has just lost two bills in two days, one was a finance bill, which a Government hasn't lost since 1978 (my mum was 6 then), for those of you posters who remember the 70s will remember the crisis in UK politics at that point. Parliament is dead set on blocking a no deal scenario (which again, the electorate may need to step in here), and is about to reject May's deal so legally, Brexit is at risk here. The Parliamentary vote on the 15th is huge and if May loses that vote, it causes a lot of problems because the government would have lost the confidence of Parliament. In short, it's position is untenable and cannot continue to govern, and therefore, carry out Brexit.

In the event of May losing this parliamentary vote, cabinet ministers will resign. Second, Labour has said they will 'immediately' table a motion of no-confidence in the Government, and there's a good chance the Government will lose -- the Government has at least 20 MPs willing to break ranks. This will trigger another election because there's no viable alternative government-in-waiting. If May resigns, a new Conservative leader will have to be elected, but they will have no mandate to govern so an election is necessary. Meanwhile, Brexit will have to be delayed because the time it takes to organise an election, the deadline of 29th March will either have been passed, or there would be no time for a new government to do anything with regards to Brexit. Just today, Labour have said they back delaying Brexit. Based on polling now, Labour would probably win the popular vote, but the polls are neck and neck so the Tories could well win again. Either way, a majority for either party is unlikely and we're basically in the same scenario with a new PM and/or new party in government. With the government physically unable to carry out the result of 2016, it will have to defer to the electorate yet again in another referendum. The alternative is crashing out without a deal and there simply isn't a majority for that option, and I highly doubt the Government, or indeed Parliament (if the Government is willing) to go through with that without a referendum.

I'm past debating the concept of a second referendum, whether it's right or wrong, the political climate at this moment will make it an inevitability because the Government and Parliament are broken and only the electorate can break the deadlock with a referendum because a GE won't change the scenario at hand. It's better than the alternatives.




Rees-Mogg has history of backing second EU referendums
Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

So in other words no it wouldn't unify the UK ​

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So in other words no it wouldn't unify the UK ​

Let’s clarify this, do you think crashing out of the EU without a deal will do a better job of ‘unifying’ the country?

Also, I’m intrigued, if there were to be a second referendum on Remaining v Leaving, how would Astute vote?

 

[Grendel]

Let’s clarify this, do you think crashing out of the EU without a deal will do a better job of ‘unifying’ the country?

Also, I’m intrigued, if there were to be a second referendum on Remaining v Leaving, how would Astute vote?

We won’t crash out without a deal

 

[Astute]

Confirmation that those who voted remain because they wanted things to stay the same, really didn’t understand what they were voting for.

Begs the question ‘Which version of remain did you actually vote for?'

This isn't an EU thing. It is Germany and France. But I would expect someone to try and make a point that doesn't exist and then others will agree.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

We won’t crash out without a deal

I’ve already established that, thank you.

What do you think will happen? As it stands, Parliament is set on blocking a no deal outcome and some sources reckon the May’s deal could lose by up to 80 votes in Parliament. Hence, May is desperately trying to gain support from Labour MPs at the eleventh hour.

Whether or not it’s right or wrong, a referendum looks v likely if May’s deal is rejected. In your view, what’s the alternative?

 

[Astute]

Let’s clarify this, do you think crashing out of the EU without a deal will do a better job of ‘unifying’ the country?

Also, I’m intrigued, if there were to be a second referendum on Remaining v Leaving, how would Astute vote?

Would you like to explain what you mean by crashing out of the EU without a deal?

Do you understand what is going on? Because if you listen to many of those who want to remain whatever they don't understand what is going on.

Just like leaving with Mays deal isn't leaving with a deal. It is leaving with an agreement. Noting more at all. The deal would be made after leaving.

 

[Astute]

I’ve already established that, thank you.

What do you think will happen? As it stands, Parliament is set on blocking a no deal outcome and some sources reckon the May’s deal could lose by up to 80 votes in Parliament. Hence, May is desperately trying to gain support from Labour MPs at the eleventh hour.

Whether or not it’s right or wrong, a referendum looks v likely if May’s deal is rejected. In your view, what’s the alternative?

If you have established that we won't crash out without a deal why do you jeep saying it?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Would you like to explain what you mean by crashing out of the EU without a deal?

Do you understand what is going on? Because if you listen to many of those who want to remain whatever they don't understand what is going on.

Just like leaving with Mays deal isn't leaving with a deal. It is leaving with an agreement. Noting more at all. The deal would be made after leaving.

Analysing the political climate, Parliament has moved to increase Parliamentary powers against the Government to prevent the Government leaving without a deal on the 29th March. It’s also set to reject May’s deal, and the implications are pretty clear.

With the UK’s rich parliamentary history, we know what happens when the Government loses the confidence of Parliament. To clarify, that is when the Government is defeated on major legislation. Either May will resign herself, or the Government will face, and likely lose a vote of no confidence. Either or, the result is a general election because the Government’s position becomes untenable.

Frankly, Parliament and the electorate of 2016 are at odds, Brexit is actually at risk so a referendum is likely. As someone pointed out, 76% of MPs voted Remain and MPs are in charge of ratifying the Brexit deal. The Government cannot go above Parliaments head on this and any withdrawal bill needs to ratified by Parliament.

A general election won’t change the situation, so what’s necessary? A public vote breaking the deadlock.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

If you have established that we won't crash out without a deal why do you jeep saying it?

As things stand, when May’s deal is rejected, the alternative to a second referendum is to leave without a deal. Parliament is, however, acting to prevent that.

You keep questioning saying a second referendum would unify the country, that’s not my argument, I called it a ‘best bet’. Since you disagree, I’m interested in what you think is the best course of action? What you think will best ‘unify’ the country?

Also, I’d like an answer as to how you’d vote in a second referendum, please.

 

[Astute]

As things stand, when May’s deal is rejected, the alternative to a second referendum is to leave without a deal. Parliament is, however, acting to prevent that.

You keep questioning saying a second referendum would unify the country, that’s not my argument, I called it a ‘best bet’. Since you disagree, I’m interested in what you think is the best course of action? What you think will best ‘unify’ the country?

Also, I’d like an answer as to how you’d vote in a second referendum, please.

The best way of unifying the UK wouldn't be by ignoring what 52% voted for.

You say about the change of policy. I don'tthink that part is over yet. Bercow has overstepped the mark yet again. He is supposed to be unbiased. But his wife has a defamatory sticker I'm the window of her car about Brexit. He has been on a charge for bullying. And now he has gone against rules.

Which way would I vote? Very good question. Remain is my preference. But I am against another referendum. But I can't see it happening. Because it shouldn't happen.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

The best way of unifying the UK wouldn't be by ignoring what 52% voted for.

You say about the change of policy. I don'tthink that part is over yet. Bercow has overstepped the mark yet again. He is supposed to be unbiased. But his wife has a defamatory sticker I'm the window of her car about Brexit. He has been on a charge for bullying. And now he has gone against rules.

Which way would I vote? Very good question. Remain is my preference. But I am against another referendum. But I can't see it happening. Because it shouldn't happen.

But did the 52% vote for May’s deal? No, as the stats show they favour no deal to May’s deal. But, a no deal Brexit doesn’t have a majority either. Would 52% have voted to Leave if they knew we’d leave without a deal? I doubt that very much.

Whether or not that is the case is irrelevant because Parliament is doing what it can to prevent a no deal and it’s about to reject May’s deal.
I want you to respond to this question, in this scenario, how else can the result of 2016 be honoured? Honestly, I cannot think of a viable alternative other than a second referendum.

I love irony. The argument of leaving the EU to restore Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliament is using its sovereignty to block Brexit.

 

[Astute]

But did the 52% vote for May’s deal?

No they didn't. They voted to leave the EU. End of. Not that they would change their minds. Or that there would be another referendum if enough people moaned about the result.

 

[Astute]

I love irony. The argument of leaving the EU to restore Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliament is using its sovereignty to block Brexit.

Yes the irony.

The only person that is supposed to be impartial wasn't and changed the rules all by himself when advised not to.

But you don't mind it happening because he is a remainer and is trying to get you what you want. And you don't care he has gone against rules to do so.

Bercow Brexit ruling 'extremely concerning'

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

No they didn't. They voted to leave the EU. End of. Not that they would change their minds. Or that there would be another referendum if enough people moaned about the result.

Ok. But, both options for Brexit are currently being blocked by Parliament, rightly or wrongly.

In this scenario, how can the result of 2016 be honoured? Answer that.

 

[Ian1779]

But did the 52% vote for May’s deal? No, as the stats show they favour no deal to May’s deal. But, a no deal Brexit doesn’t have a majority either. Would 52% have voted to Leave if they knew we’d leave without a deal? I doubt that very much.

Whether or not that is the case is irrelevant because Parliament is doing what it can to prevent a no deal and it’s about to reject May’s deal.
I want you to respond to this question, in this scenario, how else can the result of 2016 be honoured? Honestly, I cannot think of a viable alternative other than a second referendum.

I love irony. The argument of leaving the EU to restore Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliament is using its sovereignty to block Brexit.

I don't think anyone knows how to get out of this, as the 2 extremes are cancel Brexit or leave with no deal whatsoever, both which in their own ways will cause turmoil.

 

[Astute]

Ok. But, both options for Brexit are currently being blocked by Parliament, rightly or wrongly.

In this scenario, how can the result of 2016 be honoured? Answer that.

Leave without the backstop. The EU has already said hardly anything will change whilst negotiations happen to safeguard jobs in the EU. That is because many rely on us. Yet they are not supposed to care about trade because they don't need it with us.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Leave without the backstop. The EU has already said hardly anything will change whilst negotiations happen to safeguard jobs in the EU. That is because many rely on us. Yet they are not supposed to care about trade because they don't need it with us.

What does that mean exactly? Leaving without a deal or is that renegotiating May’s deal. You’ve not made that clear.

Either way, you’re not grasping the fact that MPs are voting against the Government’s deal and are voting to prevent a no-deal scenario. Again, the problem is how can the result of 2016 be honoured.

The answer is, as things stand, the result cannot be honoured because Parliament rejects both options on the table for leaving the EU. Hence, the need for another vote to break the deadlock.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I don't think anyone knows how to get out of this, as the 2 extremes are cancel Brexit or leave with no deal whatsoever, both which in their own ways will cause turmoil.

Usually, when there’s a deadlock between Government and Parliament, the electorate is consulted via an election or, later, referendums. That’s been the way of Parliament since the 18th century.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yes the irony.

The only person that is supposed to be impartial wasn't and changed the rules all by himself when advised not to.

But you don't mind it happening because he is a remainer and is trying to get you what you want. And you don't care he has gone against rules to do so.

Bercow Brexit ruling 'extremely concerning'

I think the government should have to come up with a Plan B in 3 days as opposed to 3 weeks. The Government and its ministers are bound to criticise Bercow because he’s restricting their powers. Just because someone says it’s ‘extremely concerning’ doesn’t make it so.

Let’s not forget that his intervention in 2013 Queen’s Speech paves the way for Conservatives adopting the policy of holding an EU referendum in the first place.

I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg who calls him a ‘Champion of the Commons’. The government should be held to account and Bercow’s time as chair has increased the powers of Parliament. So

As for the Bullying allegations (admittedly, I’ve not really kept up with that), he’s innocent until proven guilty in my book.

 

[Captain Dart]

There's more.

 

[skybluetony176]

Here’s an idea. Why don’t we have two referendums in quick succession. The first being leave or remain on the understanding that if we vote leave we then have a second referendum on what leave actually means. The Canada+ favoured by the ERG or Norway as favoured by UKIP before the goalposts moved after the referendum result. You could even throw a sweetener in on if we vote remain have a second referendum on do we remain on our current footing as full EU members or do we downgrade to EEA Membership in a Norway+ arrangement. I guess the danger is that the government might actually get a definitive mandate to act upon instead of out means out, leave means leave, out/leave means hard brexit, out/leave means May’s deal, out/leave means Canada+, out/leave means Norway+ or anything in between that out/leave might mean on any given day depending on the audience and which way the wind is blowing.

The funny thing is that if this had have been the process in the first place I suspect that leave would have won with a bigger majority in the first place. I myself would have given serious consideration to voting leave if I thought for one second that I’d have had a say on what leave means and if that meant I would have had the opportunity to vote for Norway+. I know a couple of other remainers who thought the same but voted remain because they were under no illusion that a vote for leave had any certainty of what leave would actually mean.

I don’t care how many angry, red faced, mouth breathers say they know what they voted for, they clearly didn’t. And that’s why we are here now because the reality is we were never asked what leave means and Teresa May drew redlines mistakingly thinking she was going to be popular by doing so which was then confirmed by the election result she stupidly called having mistakenly thinking she’d tapped into a general consensus. It’s not the general consensus in Parliament or the real world.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Well what do ya know! The superstate is coming.

Paris and Berlin herald new era of integration

….Didn't the Germans try that in 1939 ?

 

[skybluetony176]

….Didn't the Germans try that in 1939 ?

Funnily enough they didn’t. That’s why Fance and England declared war on Germany.