Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 08:00 AM

We are certainly in interesting times.

Can we go back to boring now please?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 07:49 AM

Maybe! But   what will follow?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 07:15 AM

She's doomed ah tell ye, doo-o-omed!

Fingers crossed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 06:51 AM

Uncertainty = the spice of life!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 06:49 AM

At last something we can all agree on, there, Iains!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 06:10 AM

I suspect the next few days could be interesting

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 05:09 AM

So the brexit secretary has resigned, and now the pure-evil Esther McVey has gone. You're belly-up, Theresa.

No brexit?

No-deal brexit?

Another bloody referendum?

General election?

Nice work, Tory tossers. Two and a bloody half years to get to this...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Nov 18 - 01:00 AM

"So Theresa has more than hinted that the alternatives to this deal, should it be rejected by parliament, would be no deal or no brexit.. We live in hope."

Well, I said on this forum a couple of years ago that 'no Brexit' was her end-game, and I still believe that could be the case. She's seemed to be heading that way all along, with a strategy that will enable the abandonment of Brexit, but which will lay the blame at other people's doors. In which case, hats-off to her, she's a smarter cookie than many (including me) would believe.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 05:38 PM

So Theresa has more than hinted that the alternatives to this deal, should it be rejected by parliament, would be no deal or no brexit.. We live in hope.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 01:48 PM

DMcG I think betrayed is the word you may be searching for.

Not really. I did consider the word 'betrayal' before I posted, but did not think it captured what I wanted to say. That puts the blame on someone else - May, the remainers, the judges, the media, and who know who - anyone else, really, rather than face the possibility what was demanded may not have been realistic.

If you voted to leave, you didn't vote to get some paper measurement. You voted to achieve something. It looks as if you are not getting that. That is what losing looks like.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 01:31 PM

DMcG I think betrayed is the word you may be searching for. But as yet I hear no dulcet tones from the fat lady. Counting chickens may yet be premature.
Should it come to an election I wonder what platform. Corbyn will be on?
Will he support his heartlands as displayed earlier (From: Iains - PM
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 11:37 AM) or run with the trendy guardianistas that infest this thread.
Will the real corbyn stand up! The man has the backbone of overcooked spagetti. Is Janus his role model?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 01:07 PM

Well, Iains, if Rees Mogg and co are right and the deal is nothing like what people voted for, I put it to you that you lost as well.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 11:37 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM .................

Out of sensible discussion,so back to the insults. I notice the left offer no analysis as to why they lost-just an endless succession of arguments as to why those that did not vote should be understood.

An analysis of commy corbyn otherwise known as st corbyn of the allotment

Labour Press Team
?
@labourpress

Tonight @BBCNewsnight wrongly??? claimed that Jeremy Corbyn always thought UK would be better off outside the EU, and failed to correct despite our complaint. He campaigned for the UK to remain in and reform the EU.
3,256
12:18 AM - Nov 14, 2018


Let’s examine this post-midnight claim by Labour’s Press team:

    In 1975, Corbyn voted in favour of leaving the European Economic Community, which later became the European Union
    Corbyn later voted against the Maastricht Treaty that created the EU, arguing it was undemocratic.
    Corbyn voted against the Lisbon Treaty, which established the constitutional basis for the EU.
    In 2010, Jeremy Corbyn voted against the creation of the European Union’s diplomatic service.
    In 2011, he broke the Labour whip to vote for a referendum on our EU membership.
    During the referendum, when for party management reasons he supposedly supported the remain campaign, he went on holiday.
    After the referendum he called for the immediate triggering of Article 50.
    During the 2016 general election his Labour Party stood on a platform of implementing Brexit.
    He now says “Brexit can’t be stopped.”
    His leadership of the Labour Party is widely recognised as strategically enabling for Brexit.

Corbyn has always been against what he sees as a capitalist club and he has been admirably consistent on this issue for over four decades. Who is Labour’s press team trying to kid?

From the impeccable source Guido, of course.
An open invitation for any of the remainiacs to prove him wrong:
Good Luck

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 09:36 AM

tick tock 4 months to the deadline in March.
Today I hear Theresa has an important show down meeting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 09:28 AM

We've had this with him before, Karen. We've told him that there is no law in this country that says you have to vote, that people who choose not to vote (for the variety of reasons I listed, at least some of them representing perfectly valid and conscientious choices) still pay their taxes and contribute to society just as much as people who vote. Perhaps we should ask this rather crude and vulgar man this question: Who has the greater merit, a person who chooses not to vote at all or a person who chooses to vote for the BNP...?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 07:40 AM

1000!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 07:26 AM

"Further analysis achieves zilch". I disagree.

"Who really cares about those who did not vote". Lots of people presumably. For example, a politician who did not consider abstainers would be foolish, as these same people may elect to vote in future elections.

It takes longer than four years to negotiate with the WTO. As I understand it, those people who believe this is a quick fix appear to misunderstand how it works. Here is a link to discussion of the WTO and Brexit.




https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45112872

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:32 AM

Better spare a thought for Ireland.Many of their exports end up in Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. The only direct ferries are to Cherbourg, Roscoff and Santander. The rest come through the UK. The same for imports.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:27 AM

Don't worry Steve, you will be able to live off chlorinated chicken, vegetables with rat droppings and Californian Zinfandel when we deal with Trump :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:19 AM

Better start stockpiling those fresh tomatoes and peppers and aubergines and lettuce and cheese that all come through the Channel ports...oops, maybe not...we can live on cattle fodder and vitamin pills, can't we? Pass the tin opener!

D'ye think Morrison's Nero d'Avola will go up, Dave? Jeez, better get in there NOW! Panic!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:12 AM

Yep,
Accept that we are never going to reach an agreed settlement with the EU, and use the remaining 4 months to plan for leaving on WTO terms.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 06:11 AM

I asked was my referendum flawed, not the decision.

So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel

Do you? And if so, should I rerun the referendum giving better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 05:56 AM

C'mon, Theresa, throw in the towel, say it can't be done and walk away now. You know it makes sense!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 05:37 AM

No, Dave,
I do not believe your decision to go to the pub was flawed.
I just do not believe it is a valid analogy to the Brexit referendum, which is what you seemed to imply with the line:
Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 18 - 03:04 AM

Once again and for the last time. So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel. Do you think I should rerun it with better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 02:18 PM

Who really cares about those that did not vote. They lost the chance to possibly make a difference to the outcome. Further analysis achieves zilch. To further claim the vote was advisory overlooks a fact of life Labour was all to aware of. Ignore the electorate and you may not have a seat come the next election. Seems the remainiacs are dancing on a series of pins. Would that be because they have run out of meaningful argument?
Perhaps you'd care to strive for a minute or two to comprehend the simple concept that the referendum was NOT an election and that it would have been perfectly possible to apply rules apropos of the outcome other than "a simple majority wins."

No need to strive fellah. The only rules concerning the outcome was first past the post the winner takes it all. (I find the use of apropos rather condescending. I wonder if that is why the boy keeps using it?)
Keep pin dancing! is it a square dance or a line dance. My father and grandfather used to perform a sword dance each New Years Eve. They used to lay them flat on the ground.(Health and safety issue. I suggest you take heed.)
Below a reinforcing mechanism to make my point. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyIOl-s7JTU

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:42 PM

Given today's news of a deal agreed at the technical level and being discussed by ministers, the exact way the voting figures of the referendum are presented is of little significance. The decisions now being taken are entirely in the hands of a small number of ministers and, probably, some 630 Mps thereafter, which is where it should have been all along if MPs had done the job they are paid for. I hope they will do so this tome, unless the duck their responsibility again and have another referendum - which seems likely to me at the moment. But all could change ...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:10 PM

Eeeeeh. Not had a pint of Moonraker for yonks. But that was not one of the options on the referendum so, sorry, no can do!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:01 PM

Fudge it, Dave. Drink a pint of John Willie Lees instead.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 01:00 PM

"...who could be bothered to turn out and vote."

Unless you are some kind of omniscient being, you can't know why people didn't vote. It's almost a dead cert that some people genuinely couldn't decide. It's almost a dead cert that some people felt they didn't know enough to make an informed decision. Some people oppose referendums on principle and may have refused to take part. Some people probably forgot to vote, were too sick to vote or were out of the country. Sure, some people "couldn't be bothered" but how extremely arrogant it is of you to diss all the people who didn't vote by insinuating that they "couldn't be bothered."   

One more thing, Nigel. 52% of those who voted didn't "decide to leave the EU." The poll was advisory only. Voters expressed a view, then the government decided that we should leave the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 12:52 PM

So, you believe my stay at home or leave for the pub referendum was basically flawed then Nigel. Do you think I should rerun it with better information?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 12:21 PM

I'm not on British time, I demand a recount !!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 11:40 AM

OK. The polls are closed. I can do better than the EU referendum. Not only have I achieved a majority, it was unanimous! The votes are in and counted and everyone who voted said I should go for a pint.
Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!
:D

An incomplete analogy. No-one else was either eligible to vote, or even advised of the vote.
The referendum was well advertised, and members of the electorate could either vote, or choose not to vote. Those who chose not to vote were leaving the decision to the voters who could be bothered to turn out and vote.
Of those who chose to vote 52% (a majority) decided that we should leave the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 11:28 AM

Polls are closed or pubs are open?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 10:53 AM

Too late, Raggy. Polls are closed!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 10:27 AM

Pint !!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 09:46 AM

OK. The polls are closed. I can do better than the EU referendum. Not only have I achieved a majority, it was unanimous! The votes are in and counted and everyone who voted said I should go for a pint.

Following the logic of the brexiteers, it is the will of the people in Mudcat that I get to that pub!

:D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 07:07 AM

"That is what I would call dishonesty."

Agreed, Dave. Plus the near-criminal dishonesty of a Tory government prepared to plunge the country into division on a scale unseen previously, the likelihood of serious social unrest, the possible return to sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, and the probable black-hole of the as-yet-unknown consequences of a no-deal Brexit, for no other reason than to preserve the tax-evasion/avoidance activities of a small cadre of immensely rich individuals (including some of their own members and MPs) to whom they are in deep hock.

There must be a special place in Hell for this bunch of lying, deceitful, self-serving scrotes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 07:05 AM

"At 7:42 He is saying that Nigel Farage should have been prosecuted for what he (Steve Shaw) and others have read into a poster although it was not explicitly stated..."

I said no such thing, nor anything remotely like it.

On the separate matter of that poster's content (separate, that is, from the third person in a couple of days to completely misrepresent what I've said in really simple words in my posts), anyone who can't see the devious, dishonest and downright wicked intent of that poster was clearly born yesterday.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:55 AM

A very good article from the Irish Times yet again

Historians will not believe sheer ignorance of Brexit supporters

It is in the main opinion but does highlight some interesting points such as, refering to Theresa May on the border issue,

So she knew full well that a Brexit that involved leaving the customs union would create a hard border. And then, as prime minister, she insisted on the opposite: that a hard Brexit was perfectly compatible with no return of a hard border. She unknew what she had known.

That is what I would call dishonesty.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:22 AM

"STAUNCH LABOURITES"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:22 AM

"STAUNCH LABOURITES"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:11 AM

The 'savage hordes invading Britain' poster was racist by its very nature no matter how the authorities chose to deal with it(or not to
It was reported as such throughout the world - not just by 'staunch labourites' our own press described it for what it was
Why am I not surprised at racists who depict the Irish (and non-Irish living ing Ireland) as 'bog-trotters' and claim Brits living abroad have no right to comment on British politics, standing up for racists ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:08 AM

Not bad for double standards, with only ten minutes between.
At 7:32 Steve Shaw is arguing against anything being read into his posts which is not explicit in the original text. (fair enough)
At 7:42 He is saying that Nigel Farage should have been prosecuted for what he (Steve Shaw) and others have read into a poster although it was not explicitly stated, and may never have been intended to be read into it. That is an action which he himself describes as "twisting dishonesty".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 06:03 AM

It would appear that Ians may have shifted his ground, though his 'argument' is, I think, simplistic and fallacious.

I am not aware of anybody who does not 'comprehend' that the voting system here in the UK is a first past the post one in which a 'simple majority' wins that particular election/referendum. I doubt that Ians knows any such person. To the best of my knowledge, no post on this thread has suggested lack of comprehension of that issue.

Where Ians' argument becomes fallacious is when he goes on to assert that 'nothing else has any importance or impact'. This may be because he did not spell out sufficiently clearly what he meant. Importance in terms of what? Impact upon what? Here is where the argument appears fudged.

It is perfectly feasible and legal within our system, that system that he suggests some people fail to 'comprehend', for a topic to be voted upon more than once, for example. So, if public opinion were strong enough, then there would be nothing within our system to prevent a second referendum relating to membership of the EU.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:58 AM

Hold the vote in the actual pub, Dave. That should rig the outcome in your favour.

The Spectator article is a mishmash of confusion between immigrants/refugees, legal/illegal and temporary/permanent, and the survey appears to have been conducted largely by leading questions.

A nice piece of nonsense from this Tory rag's article:

"Fully 81 per cent of the European public agree that immigrants should be helped in their own countries"

Just 1000 people in each country were asked, therefore the assertion "fully 81 per cent" (of almost half a billion people!) is invalid. We're not told how that tiny sample was selected for a start. And someone really should appprise the writer of the simple fact that if you're still in your own country you're not an immigrant. :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:40 AM

We could try an experiment here. Let's take a vote for whether we think I should go out for a pint of Black Sheep on Friday or stay in. If more people vote for one it must be adhered to as it will be 'the will of the people'.

The polls are open between 10:40 and 14:40 GMT and I will cast the first vote.

Pint.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:29 AM

An excellent read, John.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 05:03 AM

Something for those who don't understand the difference between an election and a referendum to ponder (if their indoctrination allows Them to ponder and understand)...

Election/Referendum - Different Voting Threshholds

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 18 - 04:53 AM

"Under UK electoral law the simple majority wins. Nothing else has any importance or impact. Some here seem unable to comprehend such a simple concept."

Perhaps you'd care to strive for a minute or two to comprehend the simple concept that the referendum was NOT an election and that it would have been perfectly possible to apply rules apropos of the outcome other than "a simple majority wins."