Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 01:09 PM

As expected:

18:05 Six opposition parties have written a joint letter to the speaker calling for contempt proceedings to be launched against the government over its failure to publish its Brexit legal advice in full.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:44 PM

"The referendum when first mooted should have been given a clear legal status by a parliamentary debate a"
That couldn't have happened without specifying exactly what was on offer - you can't make binding agreements on selling a bag of fog
Pretty obvious we still don't know
Since when has anything the British people voted for been mandatory ?
The British electoral system is based on politicians making promises they have no intention of keeping
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:43 PM

At 17:36 Cox said it would be "an astonishing thing" if the EU were not to act in good faith.

I gently point out that if everyone acted in good faith there would be little need for lawyers at all. Disputes arise when one party thinks the other is not acting in good faith.


And I suspect many Brexiteers will find the idea that the EU acts in good faith a rather difficult morsel to swallow.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:36 PM


I regard the debate in Parliament as idiocy of the first order.

So are the people doing this idiots (q.v.)?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:32 PM

I regard the debate in Parliament as idiocy of the first order. The referendum when first mooted should have been given a clear legal status by a parliamentary debate and and ensuing vote. That those that supposedly know better than the rest of us made such a monumental cockup says little for the calibre of out politicians and civil service. That the ensuing fiasco was not envisaged by all those "mighty brains" does little to inspire confidence in any of them.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:16 PM

I have already pointed out that anyone capable of any kind of accomplishment cannot be called an idiot

You are making the same mistake that Nigel did earlier. Any discipline tends to use terms with a level of formality that is not present in every day English. In his case, he was mixing up the terms error and accuracy as used in every day English with the terms as used in a formal accountancy context. You are doing something similar: treating a common or garden sense of the word 'idiot' as if it was in a clinical or legal context.


Which of course has nothing to with Brexit. Why not comment on the debate about legal advice going on at this very minute in Parliament instead?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:16 PM

You seem to have forgotten in the brief respite from idiocy Baccy
No sense, no feeling
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 12:09 PM

"Would you like a mouthwash?"

Mouthwash stains the teeth. My dentist (you wouldn't like her, she's from Lithuania, one of those immigrants you and your village-idiot Brexit-cronies are so pissed off about) strongly advises against its use.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:59 AM

I have already pointed out that anyone capable of any kind of accomplishment cannot be called an idiot. To continue to use the term, after being told how totally inappropriate it is, merely demonstrates your own degree of retardation. Whether that lies in the range of moron or imbecile, I leave you to decide, I cannot be arsed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:56 AM

The fact that Theresa May refuses to reveal the advice given to her on the legality of Brexit is an indication that it is not binding or at the very least, that only she knows whether it is legally binding or not, so any claims that it is is a load of arrogant bollocks
As it was passed by vague promises that are mostly impossible to honour and the chaos that is likely to follow exiting Europe is now obvious, the only democratic and honorable thing to do is to allow the electorate to confirm the decision (or otherwise)
Interesting that those who hide behind "the people's choice" excuse refuse to even consider that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:56 AM

The fact that Theresa May refuses to reveal the advice given to her on the legality of Brexit is an indication that it is not binding or at the very least, that only she knows whether it is legally binding or not, so any claims that it is is a load of arrogant bollocks
As it was passed by vague promises that are mostly impossible to honour and the chaos that is likely to follow exiting Europe is now obvious, the only democratic and honorable thing to do is to allow the electorate to confirm the decision (or otherwise)
Interesting that those who hide behind "the people's choice" excuse refuse to even consider that fact
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:51 AM

A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. 

And that also addresses Iains 'waste of time and money' remark. Parliament, if it wishes, can make a further referendum binding. (Though there is complication that in our system no Parliamentary session can bind a subsequent one.)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:42 AM

From the Full Fact website:

Start with the law

The referendum was not legally binding. There’s no one source that can prove this statement true... That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one.

In other countries, referendums are often legally binding—for example, because the vote is on whether to amend the constitution. The UK, famously, doesn’t have a codified constitution.

A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. In practical terms this would mean someone would be able to go to court to make the government implement the result. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011, for example, was legally binding in this way.

Otherwise, as the High Court put it on 3 November:

“a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”.
So, purely as a matter of law, neither the government nor Parliament has to do anything about the referendum.

Brexiteers are clinging on to "it wasn't just advisory" because Cameron, then May, declared that they would be bound by it. They were both speaking way beyond their remit in saying that, tantamount to declaring a sort of edict. That was way out of order and was done as a political stunt in order to save face when they were confronted by opposition to brexit. They were going over the heads of our democratically-elected representatives, who overwhelmingly oppose brexit, to make a populist appeal directly to the electorate so that democratic opposition to brexit would be thwarted. To put it simply, the referendum was not legally binding, and it couldn't be made so simply via the say-so of two politicos who both seemed to forget what democracy is all about.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 11:34 AM

Would you like a mouthwash?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:57 AM

The village idiot I was referring to was the multiple-bankrupt, criminal fuckwit whose Right-Wing-Extremist-Agenda-driven ramblings you set such great store by. But, if the cap fits....suits you, sir.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:47 AM

"There is nothing advisory when a vote is held before which the nation's PM promises, verbally and in writing, that the government will obey the result and carry out the wishes of the majority. That forms a binding contract with the electorate. Much as many with personal disappointment issues would like to rewrite the terms under which people voted after the event because they don't like the result, it would be fundamentally undemocratic to allow them to do so. Parliament is only sovereign because the people allow it to be so. That sovereignty is not owned by parliament but simply held in trust. Were it otherwise we wouldn't need to hold regular elections."

Don't claim to be the author but certainly agree with the opinion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:41 AM

Brexiteers cannot possibly be idiots, village or otherwise. Idiots are defined as those having poor motor skills, very limited communication and very little response to stimuli. Under the 1918 Representation of the People Act, you cannot register as an elector if you are an idiot.

It is unclear what degree of retardation remainiacs suffer.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:40 AM

No, the speaker did not say that. He said, one week after the 2016 vote, that it would be undemocratic to rerun it because you did not like the result. He said nothing whatsoever about rerunning once you knew the proposed deal, or in the light of two more years' information.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:14 AM

Mention village idiots, and.....

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 10:08 AM

If you wish to highlight the fact the referendum was merely advisory how on earth can you justify the call for a second one if it is merely advisory? It is clearly a waste of both time and resources.
Even the squeaker admits a second is not on.
Courtesy of guido(of course!)

https://order-order.com/2018/12/03/bercow-second-referendum-fundamentally-undemocratic/

Cue the usual denialist remainiacs!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:59 AM

I said in the 'closed original' Brexit thread that I had a sneaky suspicion that May was seeking a means of aborting the village-idiocy of Brexit, and trying to manipulate a process of achieving the abandonment which would give her a get-out from shouldering the blame that the Brexit village-idiots would undoubtedly try to heap on her.

I've seen little to change my opinion on that, in fact as her government rumbles inexorably towards a bloody good kick in the balls in the 'meaningful vote', it seems more and more likely to happen.

Fingers crossed!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:40 AM

Just skimming the 52 page "Legal Position on the Withdrawal Agreement". I would be astonished if this satisfies those demanding the full legal advice. Expect a call for contempt by the end of the day.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:17 AM

"Already." Sorry.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:16 AM

I said many months ago, and have repeated it often, that our politicians of all shades should be banging their own heads together, across the party lines that are ready highly irrelevant when it comes to brexit in any case, and declare that they will act in the country's best interests. It's as plain as the noses on the faces of all but the blind and the bigots by now that that means ditching brexit, reminding the nation that the referendum was after all only advisory, and that we know a lot more now than we did then. It'll cause trouble. But so will everything else. Anyone who thinks that another referendum will put this to bed is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 07:58 AM

A further referendum repeats that dodging of responsibility and puts decisions about the Northern Ireland border and much else onto we ordinary citizens, some of whom will care deeply and others who are totally uninterested.

I do think it the duty of Parliament to sort this out without a referendum. But I admit I can't see how they can.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 07:49 AM

Sadly you are correct Karen. As Steve has pointed out on many occasions we elected politicians to act on our behalf. They negated that responsibility when the referendum was called and left us with the mess that we now have.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 07:35 AM

Raggytash

With respect:

If only it were that simple. For me, one thing that has emerged is that there isn't really a shared definition of what being in and coming out means. Some Brexiters appear to be insisting that we do not enter into any sort of deal with the EU that resembles the arrangements we had as members on the basis that it isn't really what the people wanted eg customs deals, eg free trade. 'Out means out', or does it?

And the problem of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and the border between the two: would this be decided or solved by such wording?

It's a horrible mess, and not likely to get better any time soon as far I can see.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 07:31 AM

Unfortunately that would keep a winning Leave vote as unclear as ever whether it means May's deal or no-deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 06:59 AM

Given the population should now have a much clearer picture of the implications of the UK leaving the EU should the question on a second referendum vote be the same as on the first.

"Should be United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union"

That way there can be no ambiguity.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 06:45 AM

I think Labour also needs to drop this "constructive ambiguity" and have a much clearer stance for the planned tv debate. Going in saying they want a general election but are not clear what they will do if elected is probably about the worst thing they can do.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

Very difficult question, Steve. If Parliament thinks no-deal is unacceptable it makes sense to leave it off the question paper. But without a shadow of doubt, that would cause massive anger amongst those who voted to leave. However, if it is on the ballot and people vote for remain - or even May's deal - I am not convinced their anger will be much less. Also, if Parliament has decisively rejected May's deal, it would be odd to put that as an option.

All the questions I can think of have problems but I find Soubry's idea of ranking May's deal, no-deal and remain in order the best.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 05:52 AM

So, if we do have another vote, what should the question be?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 07:41 PM

I wonder what odds I'd get on the possibility that, having lost the vote next week, Theresa May will opt for a fresh referendum? Given that she's being charging around calling for people to speak out in support of her deal, and to try to get their MPs to back it, going for a "people's vote" on it when the MPs defy what she'd claim the people had called for them to do would make sense. It could give her more chance of getting the deal accepted and of surviving as PM than anything else in sight.

In fact it would make sense for her not to wait, but to come out with it in her debate with Jeremy after Strictly Come Dancing on Sunday. It would put him on the back foot if it came out of the blue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 02:13 PM

ITN News piece from Robert Peston regarding this coming week's machinations....tick, tock, tick, tock....

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-02/theresa-may-has-nine-days-to-save-her-world/

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 01:58 PM

Due to hit the fan this week, according to the news headlines
MORE SECRETS - MORE LIES
How worse can this get ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 09:45 AM

Ha ha ha

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 08:36 AM

Hard Brexit might end up going soft

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 07:49 AM

The family income is threatened by Brexit since we supply goods and services to other members of the EU, and at present can do so without worrying about EU tariffs. These are specific EU customers, and we can't be waiting around for years while some WTO deal is struck with the country in question. A big worry. Lots of businesses must be in this sort of limbo.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Dec 18 - 07:37 AM

DavetheG

The euromyths lists are staggering.

I liked the 'myth' that kilts must be listed as women's wear on official lists, especially since the mistake seems to have originated in the UK, not the EU.

Boris's curved bananas nonsense dates from the 1990s apparently.

Moreover some of these regulations are sensible, including one limiting where householders can do electrical work on their own houses, which was not a EU idea in any case, just falsely stated to be such. Daily Mail again.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 02:28 PM

Agreed, DMcG. Good point

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 02:19 PM

Which is the best possible deal.

Almost. Marginally better would be if those who got us here *did* lose face - or at least acknowledge their role. But I would let them escape with glory if that was the price of getting out of this mess.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 12:42 PM

Fingers crossed, Dave!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 12:21 PM

I believe I said somewhere further up the thread that it was no longer about getting a good deal but exercise in how to save face while remaining in the EU. Which is the best possible deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 12:11 PM

Telling, though, that he's only concerned about his fuck-up in terms of self-extrication. Presumably, the fact that he's fucked it all up for the rest of the 65 million people in the U.K. doesn't disturb the self-centred, self-serving twunt one little bit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:46 AM

Matt Kelly, editor of The New European, revealed last week on Twitter that someone who knows Johnson very well said he now wishes he had "sent the other letter".
The source said: “He knows he’s fucked up massively. Now he’s working out how to get himself out of the mess.”
I guess that the person who knows Johnson very well but is also clearly a Remainer would be Boris' brother , Jo , who is one of the MPs backing the Benn ammendment I mentioned earlier today .

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:39 AM

Mayomick - :-D

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:38 AM

It doesn't really surprise me Karen. This has been going on for at least a quarter of a century. I have posted similar before but it is always worth repeating

Euromyths A-Z index

Beware - it is a long read! This has been the 'us and them' scenario since we joined the EU and sadly the campaign to discredit the EU took a massive upsurge in the few years leading to the referendum. It fooled a lot of people, including some on here, into believing the EU was some sort of evil monster foisting its petty rules on us against our will.

The question that people should be asking is if the likes of Farage, Johnson and Gove are so anti EU, what is in it for the? It is sure as hell not for the benefit of you and I.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:37 AM

I say bring back the electric fires without plugs the Brussels bureaucrats forced us to do away with. Anyone else remember the fun it used to be buying an electric fire and having to buy a plug and put it on yourself ? Watch you connect the right wires or you have to start all over again! (if you're lucky)That was before the busy-body EU dictators ruled that such harmless fun was "potentially dangerous".

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:10 AM

I find it mildly disconcerting that some of these bulbs have a longer life expectancy than I do...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 01 Dec 18 - 10:02 AM

I note the Daily Mail has a 'scare' headline relating to some new EU rule supposedly requiring a good mobile signal for banking deals to be processed with a threat this might harm Xmas shopping:


"Warning over new EU banking rules that means online shoppers need to have a mobile phone and good signal for their purchases to go through"


Some clown in the comments is moaning about being made to buy energy saving light bulbs by the EU. I bought a lot of these some time back and cannot remember the last time I bought a light bulb!