Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 02:56 AM

Farage has left UKIP

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 01:57 AM

Even off all implodes and we end up withdrawing Article 50, the Brexiteers will never accept any reason for it failing apart from May and co not really fighting for interests or being prepared to 'no deal'. So come the next election there would certainly be a UKIP or similar shouting "we were betrayed." There is no knowing how successful they would be, but it a definite risk that we end up with such a party in government.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 05 Dec 18 - 12:22 AM

I hope that you are right Steve, I really do.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:52 PM

I'm getting an increasing feeling that the whole thing will implode before we get another referendum. I don't think we're going anywhere.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:32 PM

It was interesting that Theresa May chose to absent herself from the House when the crucial vote today was declared, and that it was Angela Leadsom who announced to the members that the government would obey their instructions, and publish the full advice tomorrow.

Even more interesting was the legal opinion today indicating that the European Court of Justice is likely to rule that the UK government can just cancel its withdrawal from the EU if it chooses. A clear Parliamentary vote to reject May's deal, stated by the EU to be its last word, together with a firm decision that No Deal is totally unacceptable would logically mean that the only option in town should be to do precisely that.

If it were seen as essential to hold a referendum, the predicted ruling would simplify matters. It would remove from the table arguments about whether the EU might make demands on the UK in return for cancelling withdrawal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 06:43 PM

Could I politely request that references to Germany in the 1930's and 1940's are not included in this thread.

Please refer to my opening post.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:57 PM

That sounds like writing the guy a blank cheque to do what he likes.

After all, Hitler was thinking about 'future generations' when he brought in capital punishment for being disabled, racially impure, or thinking differently to him.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:03 PM

Who to believe, Paul Staines, bankrupt, drink drives and general conspiracy theorist, or the Governor of the Bank of England. Hard one.

As for James Freeman Clarke, yes thats a good quote. And the next generation, the young and educated, they are the ones above all who will benefit from continued membership of the EU, the ones to whom the loss of Freedom of Movement is a drastic blow. So yes, the representatives need to think about the next generations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:55 PM

Edmund Burke Quotes. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman thinks about the next generation.”
? James Freeman Clarke

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:44 PM

some excellent news from guido, the man with a finger on the pulse!

https://order-order.com/2018/12/04/brexit-britain-fdi-soaring-manufacturing-booming/






















IHS

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:44 PM

I think its become more obvious than ever that the blokes in charge will do what they want and all our arguing and bitterness has been for nothing.

No one we know, will decide what happens. Very probably someone we've never heard of decided what was going to happen, long before the referendum.

I can't believe I'm the only one who feels totally powerless.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 01:36 PM

I think the business over publishing the legal documents is more important than the documents, or even Brexit. It was about whether, after Parliament has passed a binding motion, the government can just say "Nah, we'll ignore that." At heart it was about whether authority rests in the Commons or the government, and Rees-Mogg argued on Newsnight last night that was constitionally important.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 01:16 PM

May and her cronies have been found guilty of breaching parliamentary privilege for refusing to reveal the full legal advice on Brexit
It has also been decided that MPs should have a vote on the details of Brexit thanks to an alliance between the opposition and the D.U.P.
I'm beginning to change my opinion of blood-sports - beats Est Enders any day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 12:12 PM

Well it wasn't shit-for-brains Guido...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 12:10 PM

"'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion"

Now who said that Iains? Its not difficult to look up, but it was no socialist, in fact it dates from well before there was even such a thing as socialism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:51 AM

"Typical socialist arrogance to decide what is best for the little people"
Where did that come from
The views of the British people are as varied as the politicians - no party could possibly represent all the views of the British people at the one time and it would be totally unconstitutional to attempt to represent only those who voted for them
Brexit in fact scraped through on a tiny majority - in fact a minority of the British people voted for it.
Nobody asks the British people what they want or think before they put up for election

The politicians tell the people what they intend to do at election time and, when they are elected, forget what they've promised and do what suits their own policies
You argued that the Brexit vote should be mandatory - if what the people actually voted for (what had peen promised) Britain would be as near to socialism as you could get = that would never suit you people now, would it?
You don't answer questions and you continue to personally insult people - each time you do you shrink mentally   
You really are not very good at this, as you continue to prove by your infantile behavior
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:38 AM

So by that measure 38% of MPs voting leave should be fair representation, eh, 34% voting remain and the rest left shrugging their shoulders. That would work, wouldn't it, Nigel? Everything solved Nigel's way!
Yep, that would work. If it comes to a parliamentary vote on whether we complete on the intention to leave the EU, I would be quite happy if 38% voted to leave, 34% voted remain, and the rest shrugged their shoulders and let those willing to take an interest to get on with it. Though I doubt that was what you meant.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:36 AM

MPs are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. Not the views of their constituents. and definitely not their political party.

Typical socialist arrogance to decide what is best for the little people, and when did they ever do other than follow the party line.
Definitely an escapee from la la land to come up with the opening sentence.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:21 AM

MPs are elected to represent the interests of their constituents. Not the views of their constituents. and definitely not their political party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 10:13 AM

"Wotcha going to do if they do reconfirm their original decision?"
Accept it, of course
It would then have been based on information that was not available first time around
It's the right who send in the troops and open up the torture chambers when things don't go their way - as did Thatcher's fascist mentor, Augusto Pinochet (probably another of your lily-white heroes)

Sorry Al - my mistake - humour's a bit thin on the ground at present
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 09:36 AM

My views are almost always 180-deg from those of my Tory MP, one of The Beast of Grantham's 'Golden Balls' boys. Which shows Nigs's assertions that an MP should always represent his constituents' views as illogical nonsense.

I feel sorry for the Banana-Bunch on here, their teachers should have made them sit at one of the front desks, and made sure they were paying attention.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 09:33 AM

Waiting for the backlash on that one ....... I’m sure Brexiteers will be delighted to learn that the top EU court has granted Britain permission to act unilaterally .

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 09:22 AM

It's tough for leavers to take that in, though, John. It's slightly reminiscent of the "who cares about the losing side" conversation we're thankfully no longer having.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 08:10 AM

MPs are elected to represent their constituents by pursuing the policies and views of the political party in whose name they stand for election. That is how Party-political representative democracies work.

They are not elected to 'represent the views of their voting constituents' - their voting constituents will undoubtedly have many varied, widely differing views on any given subject, common sense dictates that it would be impossible for an MP to represent that wide range of views.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:52 AM

MPs are not the slaves of their constituents. Democracy does not demand that MPs always do their constituents' bidding. If they did, we'd still be stringing people up and carting boatloads of "immigrants" (especially black ones) "back to where they come from" and putting boys in the army for being naughty because "it nevvah done me no 'arm." Democracy demands that MPs wise up on the issues affecting the country and act in what they then believe to be in the country's best interests, not on the whims of their constituents. And if their constituents don't agree, they can boot them out next time. I'm so happy to be able to apprise you of what real parliamentary democracy is, Nigel. It's worth remembering that 38% of the electorate voted leave. So by that measure 38% of MPs voting leave should be fair representation, eh, 34% voting remain and the rest left shrugging their shoulders. That would work, wouldn't it, Nigel? Everything solved Nigel's way!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:34 AM

The only job most MPs do is to ensure their re-election come the time.
It is me me par excellence.

Not entirely true, but a common trait of human nature, I am afraid. For example, I have asked quite a few Leavers to name ways in which they will personally be worse off but think that a price worth paying to leave. I haven't had a convincing response yet, which sounds very like "me, me, me" in my opinion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:27 AM

The only job most MPs do is to ensure their re-election come the time.
It is me me par excellence! To see any posistive attributes is the height of folly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:26 AM

The problem there Nigel is that every deal (or no deal) would be detrimental to the UK as a whole.

Every pundit, economist, financial guru etc etc over the past 30 months has said that we will be worse off if we leave the EU.

The Bank of England and even the Government has said the same.

Now you may be in a position where you can absorb that downside, but many people do not have that luxury and are dependent of our elected representatives to ensure they do not suffer adversely.

If that means those representatives throwing out Brexit then so be it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 07:15 AM

We know that a majority of MPs favour remain. We know that the referendum wasn't binding. We need these brave MPs of ours to stop watching their backs and do the Right Thing.
The 'right thing' in your view.
It was always the case that 'a majority of MPs favour remain', but it was seen that they were not representing the views of their constituents. The referendum made quite clear that they were not representing the views of their voting constituents. To now act directly against that expressed view, without getting confirmation of their actions from their constituents, would be a disaster for democracy in UK.
The job of MPs now is to get us out of the EU with the best deal possible, or on WTO terms if no good deal is forthcoming.
And yes, that is my opinion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 06:24 AM

A simple reconfirming of the original decision gets us nowhere. Too much has happened since 2016 and a deal has been put on the table. It's late in the day but we need our politicians to do the job we elected them for, which is to decide what is in the country's best interests (not the Tory Party's). We know know that we can reverse Article 50. That's a start. We know that there is little appetite for no deal. We know that May's deal will fall. We know that a majority of MPs favour remain. We know that the referendum wasn't binding. We need these brave MPs of ours to stop watching their backs and do the Right Thing. Which is to ditch brexit. Anything else is just insane and will wreck the country. It'll take time but we'll forgive them. This is a time to put party politics aside.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 06:09 AM

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:52 AM

The UK is not governed by a system of 'Popular Democracy', where the citizens make the judgments and decisions necessary to run the country. We periodically elect Members of Parliament, whose (very well-paid) job is to make the important decisions of policy and law on behalf of all of the citizens of the UK. It's called 'Representative Democracy' and it's the system we have relied upon for several hundred years.

It's our parliamentary representatives who should be making these decisions, based on the information which they receive as part of their position as representatives of the people, and which the ordinary people do not. It's what they exist, and receive their generous remuneration, for.

The utter chaotic donkey's breakfast we currently find the country and parliament paralysed by is the result of the abandonment, albeit for one poll only, of our system of Representative Democracy, and handing responsibility for the most important decision since the end of WW2 to the electorate, with campaigns run on the basis of lies and mis-information.

There should be NO SECOND (or third, depending on how you look at it) REFERENDUM. Our MPs are elected and paid to make The Big Decisions on our behalf, and that's how this whole catastrophe should have been run right from the start. Let Parliament decide which of the three options they prefer:-

1) The No-Deal Hard Brexit
2) Brexit according to May's watered-down 'Deal'.
3) Remain in the EU, preferably on the terms that we had prior to the Referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:45 AM

It was an attempt at humour Jim. I used to be in the Dennis Skinnere mould of Leave voters. On the grounds that one load of bloated capitalists is enough to take on at a time.

Nowadays I realise I know nowt. So I have no horse in this race.

I feel revulsion at the way both camps express themselves.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 05:41 AM

"WHAT IS WRONG WITH ASKING THE PEOPLE TO RE-CONFIRM THEIR DECISION"

Wotcha going to do if they do reconfirm their original decision?
Do you think you have sprinkled fairy dust over the winning brexiteers?
Are you really convinced the outcome would change? IF the vote went 60/40 for leave, you would still be bleating.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 04:59 AM

"WHAT IS WRONG WITH ASKING THE PEOPLE TO RE-CONFIRM THEIR DECISION"

Whether it's the least bad option is a moot point. But make no mistake - if it were to happen it would happen after another campaign of lies and distortions from both sides of the argument. I'm not clear as to how you think that would advance democracy beyond what happened in the last campaign... Thing is, it could be the best, or only, chance of our ditching brexit. But we remainers arguing for it, knowing full well that we're going to get a lot more heat and very little light all over again, seems just a little expedient. I just wish that referendums had never been born, but this is too serious for us to just sit around wishing.

It now seems as if we can reverse Article 50 unilaterally. Interesting.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 04:39 AM

SOME FACTS THAT HAVE SLIPPED UNDER THE NET amidst all the Brexit cavortings

Some practical back-up here

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-in-work-family-joseph-rowntree-foundation-state-of-the-nation-report-a8664891.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-in-work-family-joseph-rowntree-foundation-state-of-the-nation-report-a8664891.html
Sorry, can never get the Independent to blue-clickie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 04:32 AM

Good article, Jim, and very disturbing. I suppose it is the Tory party's return to the old values! Not a lot to do with brexit though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 04:18 AM

" Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your deluded ramblings?"
A further reminder tha you are very much in the minority here - just you and your two friends who scurry into self-imposed purdah when they are confronted with a difficult question
As far as I am concerned, your only value here is as an example of the paucity of ideas of the extreme right - we can expect no more from someone who regards Paul Staines A GURU
Keep up the good work, your right-wing hissy-fits are the nearest thing we have to entertainment in these grim days

This THUMBNAIL SKETCH offers a pretty reasonable summing up of the effects of Right-wing politics   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:31 AM

"More demented rubbish from the king of bullshit. L"
More insecure insulting from or resident mental midget
How about addressing the points instead of throwing stones from a safe, anonymous distance - neither intelligent or particularly courageous

"Jim won't satisfied til we go for the hard remain option."
I have no idea how a second vote would go
As a claimed socialist, You should be ashamed siding with these cap- diffing brain-deads
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:26 AM

"As far as the rabid right are concerned, "too much knowledge in the 'wrong' hands is a dangerous thing"
" Brexit was driven by populism - the appeal to people's prejudices - the main instigator was the leader of a now discredited party which was based on Xenophobia"

More demented rubbish from the king of bullshit. Lets be having some proof to back your ludicrous assertion! Do you seriously expect anyone to pay any attention to your deluded ramblings?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 03:14 AM

Jim won't satisfied til we go for the hard remain option.

We all get a gap year in Prague, a Volkswagen camper, The Greatest Hits of Sacha Distel cd and the boxed edition of the Eurovision Song Contest.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 02:46 AM

"The referendum was a democratic vote."
Utter nonsense - again
Democracy can only work when people vote on all the facts - Brexit was driven by populism - the appeal to people's prejudices - the main instigator was the leader of a now discredited party which was based on Xenophobia
Any decision forced through by such a vote, where the voters were refused a chance to re-confirm that vote based on additional knowledge is as far from democracy as you can get.
Baccie just put it in a nutshell - the Nazis came to power on a democratic vote.
Why are those shouting the loudest about 'The People's Vote' also the main opponents of giving 'The People' the right to re-affirm that vote - rhetorical question, of course
It is no accident that the same people (here and elsewhere) treat working people with contempt
If we ask for a voice in the workplace we become "the Enemy within"
If shoddily built homes burn down it becomes "Loony Leftism" to allow the survivors to use vacant property.
I'm sure people here can make their own lists of the contempt with which ordinary people are regarded by these 'defenders of the people's vote'
Why have none of these people Iains, Stanron, Nigel; ever answered the simple question
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ASKING THE PEOPLE TO RE-CONFIRM THEIR DECISION - another rhetorical question, of course
'The People' now have far to much information to take 'THE RIGHT' decision
As far as the rabid right are concerned, "too much knowledge in the 'wrong' hands is a dangerous thing"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Dec 18 - 02:20 AM

The only second votes ignored are those of people allocated their first choice. Leave people sometimes argue it splits their vote but it doesn't because if one of the Leave options came third and was eliminated the majority of the second choices which came into play would be for the other leave option.

The only disadvantage of two leave options to one remain would be for people who make a random choice from the options, which would advantage leave, but hopefully there would not be too many picking at random.

I don't think a series of binary ballots works very well: the campaigning alone sounds horrendously complicated.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 09:43 PM

"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."

I can't agree with this. Whatever way you juggle the votes around in order to do the eliminating, you would be doing two things: squeezing out an awful lot of people's second-best from consideration, and giving leave two options but only one for remain. That simply would look wrong on the ballot paper. There'd be wigs on the green if remain were to lose.

I think you'd have to ask the people whether there should be another referendum or not. If yes, the next question could be a binary leave/remain, and remain would (probably) be a shoo-in. If no, then we take that as the go-ahead for May's deal. Yeah, problems, problems. But if you can find a better 'ole...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 06:01 PM

"How democratic would a society run by violent right wingers be, I wonder? Has it ever been tried?"

Germany in the 1930s and 1940-45. I'm sure the six million Jews could tell you precisely how democratic a society run by violent right-wingers was, if they hadn't been murdered by those violent right-wingers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 05:02 PM

The referendum might well have been a democratic vote (though the campaign fell well short of what democracy should be about), but the act of Parliament that allowed the referendum did not specify that it was binding, and the default is thereby that it isn't. Do feel free to look that up. All else is opinion.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 04:37 PM

Project fear, based on who knows what odd conception of 'Joe public'. Farage has been pushing this line for some years. How democratic would a society run by violent right wingers be, I wonder? Has it ever been tried?

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

Ooooooooh .......... project fear !!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 02:43 PM

.good to see someone actually reads the comments section of guru guido.
The argument is very simple. The referendum was a democratic vote. Should the government of the day thwart it, where does that leave democracy? If the government does not wish to be bound by the clearly stated wishes of the majority, then why should we be bound by the government. The government of the day are there by consent only, no other mechanism can maintain their validity.

The recent events in Paris could pale into insignificance if Joe public wishes to express his displeasure. Governments have fallen and countries have been destroyed for lesser provocations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Dec 18 - 01:19 PM

"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."

This comment, quoted by Iains, appears after an article on Iain's fave website, made by someone called "Malcolm" who we know nothing about apart from the fact that he or she's a brexiteer. The vote was advisory because the act passed that permitted it didn't say otherwise. That's the rules, Iains, and Cameron had no power to override that just on his say-so. We don't run our democracy like that. The comment about a "binding contract" is entirely specious. The last sentence has nothing to do with what is now being campaigned for apropos of another referendum. No-one to my knowledge is calling for a rerun or a rewriting of terms, whatever that means. The question on the ballot paper will be a different one, and we know far more now than we knew last time around.