|
Post by Northy on Sept 12, 2019 6:26:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 12, 2019 6:28:04 GMT
Questions for the more vocal remainers on this board. If the revised WA comes back into play before October 31, would you be happy if parliament said ‘Aye’ Would you consider Boris to be a success if it goes through? Do you actually think parliament would pass a revised WA or do you think they will continue to push for an extension with a view to achieving ‘remain’? For the life of me, I struggle to understand why the current coalition doesn’t push to revoke Art 50. They have the weight of numbers to make it happen and have made their positions clear. I think the population have seen enough & will never trust Govt again. I think revoking A50 is exactly what the Remainers want to do. But, as we’ve seen over the past few weeks timing is everything. It’s a question of when they do this. I think it would happen very soon after the election if Johnson doesn’t win.
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Sept 12, 2019 6:28:31 GMT
Absolutely needs to be a people’s vote, it’s the only way out of this mess🗳 & if the same result is returned? This is the issue isn't it? I don't think the result would be too dissimilar to the last referendum with a straight forward option of Leave with No Deal or remain. There is a clear difference between the Lib Dems and Labour at the moment. The Lib Dems are unequivocal in their wish to revoke Article 50 whereas (I think) Labour want to negotiate a new WA and then offer a second referendum on that WA and Remain. I would hope that Boris would be sensible and accept the offer from the BP to campaign for leave with no deal. If the final option is a referendum of a wishy washy BRINO or Remain then Remain would romp it, which is what many of us predicted three years ago.
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Sept 12, 2019 6:46:53 GMT
& if the same result is returned? This is the issue isn't it? I don't think the result would be too dissimilar to the last referendum with a straight forward option of Leave with No Deal or remain. There is a clear difference between the Lib Dems and Labour at the moment. The Lib Dems are unequivocal in their wish to revoke Article 50 whereas (I think) Labour want to negotiate a new WA and then offer a second referendum on that WA and Remain. I would hope that Boris would be sensible and accept the offer from the BP to campaign for leave with no deal. If the final option is a referendum of a wishy washy BRINO or Remain then Remain would romp it, which is what many of us predicted three years ago. I think Boris is pushing the Brexit party out to ensure that any leave votes go conservative in a GE. He doesn’t want to share power with a party that have little if any policies outside of leaving the EU. Any alliance enables the ‘racist’ slur to gain traction which only benefits the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 12, 2019 6:49:29 GMT
Absolutely needs to be a people’s vote, it’s the only way out of this mess🗳 & if the same result is returned? It would have to be a more nuanced ballot paper, with all the scenarios...
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 12, 2019 6:53:31 GMT
Absolutely needs to be a people’s vote, it’s the only way out of this mess🗳 Or just deliver the referendum vote
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Sept 12, 2019 6:56:12 GMT
& if the same result is returned? It would have to be a more nuanced ballot paper, with all the scenarios... Example of ballot paper? Would you not be comfortable with the same ballot paper given everyone’s supposed increase in knowledge on the matter? Any dissemination leads to only one result does it not?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 12, 2019 7:02:18 GMT
Absolutely needs to be a people’s vote, it’s the only way out of this mess🗳 Or just deliver the referendum vote Well worth watching. A reminder for the people living (and loving living) in the Westminster bubble that there is another world out there. And it ain’t happy. On the other hand, the man is white, old and clearly racist. So fuck him. Let’s expand the next referendum to include 16 and 17 as well as EU nationals resident in the UK (for which there is a precedent in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum) and hope to silence that voice.
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 12, 2019 7:04:31 GMT
It would have to be a more nuanced ballot paper, with all the scenarios... Example of ballot paper? Would you not be comfortable with the same ballot paper given everyone’s supposed increase in knowledge on the matter? Any dissemination leads to only one result does it not? So are you saying, we either stay or leave without a deal & no backstop. Or, stay or leave with the deal, including the backstop. Or, recall Cameron. Hang draw & quarter him. Then get a shaman(or shaher!)to read his entrails as to what our future should entail...
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Sept 12, 2019 7:11:20 GMT
Absolutely needs to be a people’s vote, it’s the only way out of this mess🗳 Or just deliver the referendum vote “Bollock paper!” I wondered what eebygum did when he’s not gracing us with his presence. As for him saying he knew what he was voting for in the first place, let me say here & now... He’s either lying, a genius or a £@#&!n idiot... Which one do you think...
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Sept 12, 2019 7:18:54 GMT
Example of ballot paper? Would you not be comfortable with the same ballot paper given everyone’s supposed increase in knowledge on the matter? Any dissemination leads to only one result does it not? So are you saying, we either stay or leave without a deal & no backstop. Or, stay or leave with the deal, including the backstop. Or, recall Cameron. Hang draw & quarter him. Then get a shaman(or shaher!)to read his entrails as to what our future should entail... I’m throwing the question out there as to what would close this issue for both sides. I think the only way you get there would be the same ballot. It’s been analyzed to death. If there are multiple options, remain will be guaranteed a win. Per this website, leavers don’t know what they voted for. 3 years on I would say they do so would you be comfortable with the same ballot paper? Just so you & this board knows, I could have voted in the last referendum but didn’t feel it appropriate that I did. I’ve been away since 2002. I’m just embarrassed being a Brit abroad at the political shitshow back home. I would also add that my heart is labour, everyone doing alright in life but for me, this whole issue is democracy. If the decision had gone the other way in 2016 then so be it. I don’t like the EU project and it’s will to centralize law & fiscal policy outside of the UK.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Sept 12, 2019 7:22:34 GMT
& if the same result is returned? It would have to be a more nuanced ballot paper, with all the scenarios... Deal or no-deal?
|
|
|
Post by henry on Sept 12, 2019 7:30:39 GMT
I wonder if we will get a “leaked “ document outlining the dangers of shitting on 17.4 million people.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 12, 2019 7:31:53 GMT
It would have to be a more nuanced ballot paper, with all the scenarios... Deal or no-deal? Twenty Questions?
|
|
|
Post by Etain Tur-Mukan on Sept 12, 2019 7:44:07 GMT
About some of the gloomy points to this document.
Reduced cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Does anyone think that would really happen?
"Hello, Interpol? This is Scotland Yard. We have some information on an international smuggling operation working in Britain, Spain, and Greece. You want to get together and compare notes?"
"Sorry, guys. You're not part of the EU anymore, so we can't talk to you about it. Have a nice day."
I think it would be even less likely that intelligence organizations would cooperate less with MI6 if Britain was out of the EU. Especially the NATO members.
Shortages of food and medicine... Country A has something to sell. Country B wants to buy it. They agree on a mutually satisfactory price, and the deal is done. Let's say, for instance, that Britain currently buys one million euros worth of food and drugs from Germany every year. I would assume that both countries are happy with that deal since they have done it for years. Britain pays what it thinks is a fair price, Germany gets what it considers a fair price.
Why should that change if Britain is out of the EU? If Germany decides to charge more, or not sell at all, doesn't that imply that they thought it wasn't a good deal all along? After all, if it's a good deal for both sides, you keep doing it.
Any EU member that doesn't deal with Britain the same way before or after Brexit is essentially saying, "We didn't want to make this deal with you in the first place, but the EU forced us to."
On the other hand, if these trade deals are politically motivated, then that says a lot about membership in the EU. Are member nations being forced to make unfavorable trade deals with other member nations? Are member nations being prevented from making profitable deals with other nations? If so, then it seems that being a member of this 'economic union' does the exact opposite of what it supposed to do.
The point is every point in the document assumes that the countries will suddenly go from economic trading partners to bitter rivals and do little or no trade and that there are no other countries you can get the same things from.
If the shortages are purely down to ports getting clogged up due to tariffs etc then I imagine until things are alleviated then things will be waved through.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 12, 2019 8:24:05 GMT
Questions for the more vocal remainers on this board. If the revised WA comes back into play before October 31, would you be happy if parliament said ‘Aye’ Would you consider Boris to be a success if it goes through? Do you actually think parliament would pass a revised WA or do you think they will continue to push for an extension with a view to achieving ‘remain’? For the life of me, I struggle to understand why the current coalition doesn’t push to revoke Art 50. They have the weight of numbers to make it happen and have made their positions clear. I think the population have seen enough & will never trust Govt again. Wouldn't really say I was a vocal remainer but I'll give my opinion. If the revised WA comes back into play before October 31, would you be happy if parliament said ‘Aye’Yes. I'm fed up with the games and same repetitive arguments. Let the voters have what they apparently all knew they had voted for. Would you consider Boris to be a success if it goes through?No, as the revisions will be negligible and the deal will favour the EU. Do you actually think parliament would pass a revised WA or do you think they will continue to push for an extension with a view to achieving ‘remain’?Probably push to reject it again but I have a feeling that it would pass somehow.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 12, 2019 8:31:50 GMT
Or just deliver the referendum vote Well worth watching. A reminder for the people living (and loving living) in the Westminster bubble that there is another world out there. And it ain’t happy. On the other hand, the man is white, old and clearly racist. So fuck him. Let’s expand the next referendum to include 16 and 17 as well as EU nationals resident in the UK (for which there is a precedent in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum) and hope to silence that voice. Some good points put forward there mate. Aside from classing people like JRM as working class, and that working class will be worst hit (as is documented) and that unrestricted migration is incorrect, he's probably not far wrong.
|
|
|
Post by LL Cool Dave on Sept 12, 2019 8:31:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Sept 12, 2019 8:45:22 GMT
Questions for the more vocal remainers on this board. If the revised WA comes back into play before October 31, would you be happy if parliament said ‘Aye’ Would you consider Boris to be a success if it goes through? Do you actually think parliament would pass a revised WA or do you think they will continue to push for an extension with a view to achieving ‘remain’? For the life of me, I struggle to understand why the current coalition doesn’t push to revoke Art 50. They have the weight of numbers to make it happen and have made their positions clear. I think the population have seen enough & will never trust Govt again. Wouldn't really say I was a vocal remainer but I'll give my opinion. If the revised WA comes back into play before October 31, would you be happy if parliament said ‘Aye’Yes. I'm fed up with the games and same repetitive arguments. Let the voters have what they apparently all knew they had voted for. Would you consider Boris to be a success if it goes through?No, as the revisions will be negligible and the deal will favour the EU. Do you actually think parliament would pass a revised WA or do you think they will continue to push for an extension with a view to achieving ‘remain’?Probably push to reject it again but I have a feeling that it would pass somehow. I have thought the same for a while, Fos. The WA lost by less votes each time, and with sufficient tinkering I could see it passing.
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Sept 12, 2019 8:58:32 GMT
Wouldn't really say I was a vocal remainer but I'll give my opinion. If the revised WA comes back into play before October 31, would you be happy if parliament said ‘Aye’Yes. I'm fed up with the games and same repetitive arguments. Let the voters have what they apparently all knew they had voted for. Would you consider Boris to be a success if it goes through?No, as the revisions will be negligible and the deal will favour the EU. Do you actually think parliament would pass a revised WA or do you think they will continue to push for an extension with a view to achieving ‘remain’?Probably push to reject it again but I have a feeling that it would pass somehow. I have thought the same for a while, Fos. The WA lost by less votes each time, and with sufficient tinkering I could see it passing. I could see it passing if it came back. The good news would be that we would have left the EU so we can stop repeating the same debates over and over again. The bad news is it's not over. We then move on to the saga of the negotiation of the future trade deal.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 12, 2019 9:07:53 GMT
I wonder if we will get a “leaked “ document outlining the dangers of shitting on 17.4 million people. It is a disgraceful con by Vote Leave and the top people who backed leave in the campaign for the lies and deceit and cons. They really have shitted on 17.4m people.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 12, 2019 9:11:39 GMT
Someone on the Peston show just said the majority of it was written when May was in power, so I think its been knocking about for awhile. Not sure why people think this is a stick to beat Johnson with he didn't create the current impasse in parliament. No deal is a consequence of the last 3 wasted years of supposedly trying to get a deal through the commons . As I've said before we are where we are because of parliament , don't blame Boris or the voters That's a good point Harry I'm no fan of Boris Johnson or The Conservative Party but Parliament has blocked every single attempt to get a deal. May's deal, No Deal and every other proposed deal has been voted down. The Lib Dems want a second referendum but will only accept the outcome if it's Remain. Labour want to re-negotiate the deal then campaign against it. It's hard to see, in this sea of complete disingenuousness,where else Johnson can go.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 12, 2019 9:13:27 GMT
For those asking about a referendum question it is simple:
Question 1: remain or leave? If remain wins, every 5 years MPs must vote on whether or not to remain in the EU. We would also seek to immediately change the article 50 process to compel the EU to negotiate issues BEFORE notice to leave has been served if a member state wants to leave and to detail the procedure that must be followed.
Question 2: if leave wins the above, do we leave with no deal on X date (probably 31 January) or do we take May’s withdrawal agreement on that same date?
Now people are informed of the leave outcomes, if the will of the people is still to leave then that is what happens, but with a specific outcome.
Anyone who still wants no deal, imagine it was you being told by your child’s consultant that your child’s life saving medicine may not be available for a few weeks after no deal and so your child’s life is in danger.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 12, 2019 9:19:11 GMT
For those asking about a referendum question it is simple: Question 1: remain or leave? If remain wins, every 5 years MPs must vote on whether or not to remain in the EU. We would also seek to immediately change the article 50 process to compel the EU to negotiate issues BEFORE notice to leave has been served if a member state wants to leave and to detail the procedure that must be followed. Question 2: if leave wins the above, do we leave with no deal on X date (probably 31 January) or do we take May’s withdrawal agreement on that same date? Now people are informed of the leave outcomes, if the will of the people is still to leave then that is what happens, but with a specific outcome. Anyone who still wants no deal, imagine it was you being told by your child’s consultant that your child’s life saving medicine may not be available for a few weeks after no deal and so your child’s life is in danger. Far too complicated. We should have a Referendum and people should be asked: Do you want to Leave the EU? Yes or No.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 12, 2019 9:27:11 GMT
About some of the gloomy points to this document. Reduced cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Does anyone think that would really happen? "Hello, Interpol? This is Scotland Yard. We have some information on an international smuggling operation working in Britain, Spain, and Greece. You want to get together and compare notes?" "Sorry, guys. You're not part of the EU anymore, so we can't talk to you about it. Have a nice day." I think it would be even less likely that intelligence organizations would cooperate less with MI6 if Britain was out of the EU. Especially the NATO members. Shortages of food and medicine... Country A has something to sell. Country B wants to buy it. They agree on a mutually satisfactory price, and the deal is done. Let's say, for instance, that Britain currently buys one million euros worth of food and drugs from Germany every year. I would assume that both countries are happy with that deal since they have done it for years. Britain pays what it thinks is a fair price, Germany gets what it considers a fair price. Why should that change if Britain is out of the EU? If Germany decides to charge more, or not sell at all, doesn't that imply that they thought it wasn't a good deal all along? After all, if it's a good deal for both sides, you keep doing it. Any EU member that doesn't deal with Britain the same way before or after Brexit is essentially saying, "We didn't want to make this deal with you in the first place, but the EU forced us to." On the other hand, if these trade deals are politically motivated, then that says a lot about membership in the EU. Are member nations being forced to make unfavorable trade deals with other member nations? Are member nations being prevented from making profitable deals with other nations? If so, then it seems that being a member of this 'economic union' does the exact opposite of what it supposed to do. The point is every point in the document assumes that the countries will suddenly go from economic trading partners to bitter rivals and do little or no trade and that there are no other countries you can get the same things from. If the shortages are purely down to ports getting clogged up due to tariffs etc then I imagine until things are alleviated then things will be waved through. You have massively oversimplified everything. We are going from being an eu member state to a non member. For example, tariffs on trade are not optional. They are legally obligated unless there is a specific trade deal. You pay the fair price and there are tariffs on top. If EU nations can get things they used to buy from Britain from another member state they will, particularly when you factor in regulation that we must comply with to sell things there. We can choose to keep buying from them of course, although they may charge more if they have to pay export tariffs. The integrity of the EU single market is about the most important thing for the EU. They will never just wave things through due to compliance with regulations. They will treat us like a 3rd party and rightly so. Data cannot simply be shared. EU citizens rights are massively protected. They won’t waive that. We can keep sharing info with them if we like. Other places on Earth don’t just share information with us for security. The EU doesn’t share this information with the wider world unless they have an agreement. Project Reality.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 12, 2019 9:34:29 GMT
For those asking about a referendum question it is simple: Question 1: remain or leave? If remain wins, every 5 years MPs must vote on whether or not to remain in the EU. We would also seek to immediately change the article 50 process to compel the EU to negotiate issues BEFORE notice to leave has been served if a member state wants to leave and to detail the procedure that must be followed. Question 2: if leave wins the above, do we leave with no deal on X date (probably 31 January) or do we take May’s withdrawal agreement on that same date? Now people are informed of the leave outcomes, if the will of the people is still to leave then that is what happens, but with a specific outcome. Anyone who still wants no deal, imagine it was you being told by your child’s consultant that your child’s life saving medicine may not be available for a few weeks after no deal and so your child’s life is in danger. Far too complicated. We should have a Referendum and people should be asked: Do you want to Leave the EU? Yes or No. You’re kidding, right?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 12, 2019 9:35:09 GMT
quite surprised Fozzy Foster hasn't commented on this, it's been on over an hour
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 12, 2019 9:41:49 GMT
For those asking about a referendum question it is simple: Question 1: remain or leave? If remain wins, every 5 years MPs must vote on whether or not to remain in the EU. We would also seek to immediately change the article 50 process to compel the EU to negotiate issues BEFORE notice to leave has been served if a member state wants to leave and to detail the procedure that must be followed. Question 2: if leave wins the above, do we leave with no deal on X date (probably 31 January) or do we take May’s withdrawal agreement on that same date? Now people are informed of the leave outcomes, if the will of the people is still to leave then that is what happens, but with a specific outcome. Anyone who still wants no deal, imagine it was you being told by your child’s consultant that your child’s life saving medicine may not be available for a few weeks after no deal and so your child’s life is in danger. Far too complicated. We should have a Referendum and people should be asked: Do you want to Leave the EU? Yes or No. I'd be fine with either a hard Brexit (31st october), a second referendum in light of 3 years of information becoming available, or agreeing an amended deal to come into effect end of Oct (or Jan 1st). Just as long as something fucking happens. The information is out there now. Everyone should know what they are voting for. So IF Brexit happens and IF it ultimately turns out to be an epic failure, then I just hope that the leavers have the maturity to accept their part in it and don't continue blaming the EU or opposition parties.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 12, 2019 9:49:03 GMT
Brexit was never about the money for me, or the terms and conditions. It's about identity , who we are and not wanting to be a small part of a federalist Europe run by the Germans with the backing of the French frog marched into single state (excuse the pun. Already they are going ahead with a European Army something we had vetoed. The second world war bankrupted this country and the Americans took our place as world leaders, but it was the right thing to do no matter the cost and in my opinion the same applies to Brexit. If finance is your only master then I suggest doing a centrefold for playboy magazine as prostituting yourself has always been a lucrative business. A double page spread of my fat gut is not what we want AT ANY PRICE! but you don't mind be the POTUS poodle? but you don't think the tories & leavers were motivated by money - i seem to remember the big red bus goes round and round? but you didn't mind a European army when we had Free French, free Poles, Free Czechs, Russians etc & volunteers from Eire fighting in WW2 - or WW1? There was no soldiers from Eire in the first world war they were British
|
|
|
Post by Etain Tur-Mukan on Sept 12, 2019 9:51:08 GMT
About some of the gloomy points to this document. Reduced cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Does anyone think that would really happen? "Hello, Interpol? This is Scotland Yard. We have some information on an international smuggling operation working in Britain, Spain, and Greece. You want to get together and compare notes?" "Sorry, guys. You're not part of the EU anymore, so we can't talk to you about it. Have a nice day." I think it would be even less likely that intelligence organizations would cooperate less with MI6 if Britain was out of the EU. Especially the NATO members. Shortages of food and medicine... Country A has something to sell. Country B wants to buy it. They agree on a mutually satisfactory price, and the deal is done. Let's say, for instance, that Britain currently buys one million euros worth of food and drugs from Germany every year. I would assume that both countries are happy with that deal since they have done it for years. Britain pays what it thinks is a fair price, Germany gets what it considers a fair price. Why should that change if Britain is out of the EU? If Germany decides to charge more, or not sell at all, doesn't that imply that they thought it wasn't a good deal all along? After all, if it's a good deal for both sides, you keep doing it. Any EU member that doesn't deal with Britain the same way before or after Brexit is essentially saying, "We didn't want to make this deal with you in the first place, but the EU forced us to." On the other hand, if these trade deals are politically motivated, then that says a lot about membership in the EU. Are member nations being forced to make unfavorable trade deals with other member nations? Are member nations being prevented from making profitable deals with other nations? If so, then it seems that being a member of this 'economic union' does the exact opposite of what it supposed to do. The point is every point in the document assumes that the countries will suddenly go from economic trading partners to bitter rivals and do little or no trade and that there are no other countries you can get the same things from. If the shortages are purely down to ports getting clogged up due to tariffs etc then I imagine until things are alleviated then things will be waved through. You have massively oversimplified everything. We are going from being an eu member state to a non member. For example, tariffs on trade are not optional. They are legally obligated unless there is a specific trade deal. You pay the fair price and there are tariffs on top. If EU nations can get things they used to buy from Britain from another member state they will, particularly when you factor in regulation that we must comply with to sell things there. We can choose to keep buying from them of course, although they may charge more if they have to pay export tariffs. The integrity of the EU single market is about the most important thing for the EU. They will never just wave things through due to compliance with regulations. They will treat us like a 3rd party and rightly so. Data cannot simply be shared. EU citizens rights are massively protected. They won’t waive that. We can keep sharing info with them if we like. Other places on Earth don’t just share information with us for security. The EU doesn’t share this information with the wider world unless they have an agreement. Project Reality. We already comply with all of the EU regulations to sell things to EU countries so unless there is massive changes the moment we leave then that would not be an immediate issue would it? By the time it could become an issue you would imagine we'd have moved on and arranged various treaties. I am talking about shortages for us. I don't expect the EU to wave things through their end. We can wave things through like we pretty much do now at our own ports if we were short of medicines though couldn't we? Not ideal no but better than any potential shortages for the moment. If the EU don't want to share security data then that is their own problem. The standards are lower on the continent.
|
|