Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Confusion of VIs]

2 hours ago, Huggy said:

There's literally an EU country backing Putin and stopping the EU from assisting Ukraine, and you're pointing at the 'gammons' as the problem.

I mean, Putin is dividing and conquering and there's a headline a little bit up on this very page explaining how.

The individual states are fre to give aid directly.

I think Germany has actually given more than the UK, and other states have given fat more in terms of % of GDP.

That said, Hungary is clearly heading on a direction that is not consistant with EU membership and should be shown the door.

[pig]

39 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The individual states are fre to give aid directly.

I think Germany has actually given more than the UK, and other states have given fat more in terms of % of GDP.

That said, Hungary is clearly heading on a direction that is not consistant with EU membership and should be shown the door.

Tbf Shultz told Orban to FO out of the room while they voted on Ukraines accession. Clearly couldn't do the same with the funding but plenty of assurances leaking through the press that its going to happen even if the EU countries have to take it out of EU mechanisms.

Can't help but think the EU countries are deliberately making a show of Orbans obstructionism and getting around it as part of the means of undermining it.

[jammin35]

On 07/12/2023 at 21:12, Bruce Banner said:

So was it Putin that got Brexit done?

UK and US sanction Russian hackers who used 'spear-phishing' to 'meddle in British politics' | UK News | Sky News

 

You will note that the article makes no such claim.

My sister is married to a Norwegian military colonel. Intelligence. The prevailing view in the Norwegian intelligence community is that Putin stood to gain from Britain voting remain.

Why?

Recall the situation as it was in 2016. Trump was not yet in power, but was making noises about pulling out of NATO, and other US politicians were also aggrieved that only the US and UK were actually meeting their nato obligations. Meanwhile, various European politicians were making noises about an EU army “to rival NATO” as Macron said. Nick Clegg described this desire for an EU army as a “heinous lie” but it was not.

The problem, though, was that an EU army would be weak without Britain. 

Had Britain remained in the EU, there is at least the possibility that Trump would have used this as an excuse to pull the US out of NATO. Bear in mind, also, that the Rand Corporation released a report on NATO response to a Russian attack, which stated that Putin would be in Germany long before the US was able to forward position its forces. And that’s assuming the US still cared to do so.

One other factor. In about 2015, the BBC ran a documentary (can’t remember the name) which put retired generals and politicians in a war room, in which a Russian provocation led to escalation hitch ultimately resulted in a Russian nuclear strike. In a move that was described as “incredible” by senior intelligence officials, the representatives in the room decided not to retaliate, as it would simply add to the death toll. Broadcasting this, knowing that Russia would be watching, basically undermined the idea of mutually assured destruction which has arguably kept everybody safe for decades.

Now imagine that you are Putin. You know that the UK probably won’t react to nuclear escalation, but you are not sure about the US. You know that a US corporation predicts that you can beat NATO even with the US in it. And you know that voices in the EU want their own, weaker, army. And you see Britain as a major factor in the future of NATO. A leave vote strengthens nato. A remain vote weakens it.

what do you do?
 

 

[Huggy]

12 hours ago, jammin35 said:

A remain vote weakens it.

what do you do?

Second confirmatory people's vote of course?

Then best out of 5!

Edited December 17, 2023 by Huggy

[Bruce Banner]

29 minutes ago, Huggy said:

Second confirmatory people's vote of course?

Then best out of 5!

Follow the experts.... Switzerland would not have run such an ill defined referendum, and if they had they'd have voided it and run it again... Democracy in action.

[winkie]

31 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Follow the experts.... Switzerland would not have run such an ill defined referendum, and if they had they'd have voided it and run it again... Democracy in action.

Our vote was executed in the wrong way, to change from in to out should be a vote where  10% or more of those that voted, voted for change, voted to remove us from the EU.....if less than 10% the option of more information and explanation and to have a revote.......not forgetting millions didn't vote that day because happy with how things were, told incorrectly we would not vote to leave or didn't know enough about what the implications would be.....so when people say the Tories will never win the next general election, don't believe it, if want to see change see ID in order and get out there to vote, else might regret it later.

[Huggy]

2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Follow the experts.... Switzerland would not have run such an ill defined referendum, and if they had they'd have voided it and run it again... Democracy in action.

This just fills me with unease. The first question I'll ask of this is how many people will decide whether to rerun the democratic vote or not? I guess about a dozen.

Also, the single example of a Swiss referendum being overturned was about tax on married/unmarried couples. I disagree a second referendum should be held for that one because I also disagree a first shouldn't have been held. That's why we vote for governments so they can do that job. It's a simple pissing tax law, don't bother voters with nonsense like that.

Brexit however, is more complex and important and should be a referendum (just like 1975, where they certainly didn't know what they were voting for, or the alternative vote referendum in 2011). Fundamental changes to the country should go to the people, and they should get a chance to change their minds after enough time has passed to fully determine the costs and benefits.

Also, with the Swiss method, we would literally get an infinite number of legal challenges from every direction on big ticket items because they so complex. See below:

"The information provided to the electorate was "incomplete" and therefore "violated the freedom of the vote", the court ruled."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47879777

I've been on this thread for years and have seen what the definitions of "proof", "incomplete", "no one has yet told me of any benefits" (Copyright @IMHAL @jonb2 2016-2023), and many other words and phrases can be

1 hour ago, winkie said:

Our vote was executed in the wrong way, to change from in to out should be a vote where  10% or more of those that voted, voted for change, voted to remove us from the EU.....if less than 10% the option of more information and explanation and to have a revote.......not forgetting millions didn't vote that day because happy with how things were, told incorrectly we would not vote to leave or didn't know enough about what the implications would be.....so when people say the Tories will never win the next general election, don't believe it, if want to see change see ID in order and get out there to vote, else might regret it later.

Would you be happy for this method to be used in a rejoin vote in a generation's time? The Rejoiners will be the ones voting for change that time

Edited December 17, 2023 by Huggy

[Bruce Banner]

45 minutes ago, Huggy said:

Also, the single example of a Swiss referendum being overturned was about tax on married/unmarried couples. 

Are you sure about that?

Take it from the Swiss: the Brexit referendum wasn't legitimate (prospectmagazine.co.uk)

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Bruce Banner

[Bob8]

2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Follow the experts.... Switzerland would not have run such an ill defined referendum, and if they had they'd have voided it and run it again... Democracy in action.

It was right to implement the result.

Of course, leaving the customs unions and single market was stupid. There was not democratic mandate for that at all and it was to do with Tory politics. But there was a result on leaving the EU or not.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, Bob8 said:

It was right to implement the result.

Of course, leaving the customs unions and single market was stupid. There was not democratic mandate for that at all and it was to do with Tory politics. But there was a result on leaving the EU or not.

Take it from the Swiss: the Brexit referendum wasn't legitimate (prospectmagazine.co.uk)

[Huggy]

1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

Are you sure about that?

Take it from the Swiss: the Brexit referendum wasn't legitimate (prospectmagazine.co.uk)

 

It looks like the 2014 one was the government just watering it down rather than cancelling it. I was concentrating on the legal side of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative

Again, it does look like a small number of people deciding 'what's best' whether it's the government or courts. It's quite obvious from the Swiss that any decisions of importance shouldn't be allowed in the hands of normal people

[Bruce Banner]

51 minutes ago, Huggy said:

It looks like the 2014 one was the government just watering it down rather than cancelling it. I was concentrating on the legal side of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative

Again, it does look like a small number of people deciding 'what's best' whether it's the government or courts. It's quite obvious from the Swiss that any decisions of importance shouldn't be allowed in the hands of normal people

Confuse the normal people with lies so that they vote for what you want and then, when the lies are exposed,  hold them to it. Which is what happened with the Brexit vote. My friend, who lived in Switzerland for thirty years, says that there is no way the Swiss would have put up with that sort of nonsense.

As for watering down rather than cancelling, it seems they held a new referendum...

What we can learn from the Swiss on referendums (theneweuropean.co.uk)

The Swiss held two important national referendums last Sunday. The first decisively reversed a previous one of 2014 which, by a wafer-thin majority, had sought to end freedom of movement of people with the EU, putting the country’s whole relationship with Europe in jeopardy.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Bruce Banner

[Bob8]

3 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Take it from the Swiss: the Brexit referendum wasn't legitimate (prospectmagazine.co.uk)

I am sure there are precedents The referendum was a mistake and we are obliged to follow through on the result for democracy to be seen to be respected.

[Bruce Banner]

32 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I am sure there are precedents The referendum was a mistake and we are obliged to follow through on the result for democracy to be seen to be respected.

That makes no sense, democracy in this country is broken and needs fixing.

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

That makes no sense, democracy in this country is broken and needs fixing.

You are not very good with people seeing things differently generally!

We had a vote, not leaving the EU would have been seen as undemocratic regardless of what the Swiss have previously done. Obviously, leaving the CU and SM was stupid and it is depressing to see people tying that to the referendum.

[Bruce Banner]

[Bob8]

16 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

Hurry up and die.

[zugzwang]

8 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Hurry up and die.

Rude!

[Trampa501]

If there were to be another referendum on rejoining (I doubt we'll see one) then I feel it's only right a minimum 55% is required, and I'm in the Rejoin camp. It can't be good to go through another 52% vote that is trumpeted as "will of the people".  Of course there is no guarantee that the EU would allow us back. Pushing to join the CU and SM may be a better route.

[micawber]

The position with Hungary is exactly why I want a new population-approved single country of "Europe" and not a club of mislead nations.

I'm happy to wait outside until people are ready.

[Huggy]

1 hour ago, Trampa501 said:

It can't be good to go through another 52% vote that is trumpeted as "will of the people".  Of course there is no guarantee that the EU would allow us back.

Why not? A 50.1% vote should be enough. It's the will of the people, but it has to be after a sensble amount of time though. Otherwise people might get a bit disillusioned with the democratic process, thinking it's simply there to enrich the priest class. It was 30 years between EC/EU votes. I think that's a reasonable time between the EU and the, ahem, future EUCCR votes.

Also, if the EU don't want us back, they surely don't believe in the remainer lie of "stronger together" too

[Bruce Banner]

3 hours ago, Huggy said:

Why not? A 50.1% vote should be enough. It's the will of the people, but it has to be after a sensble amount of time though. Otherwise people might get a bit disillusioned with the democratic process, thinking it's simply there to enrich the priest class. It was 30 years between EC/EU votes. I think that's a reasonable time between the EU and the, ahem, future EUCCR votes.

Also, if the EU don't want us back, they surely don't believe in the remainer lie of "stronger together" too

Was a vote for something that was a lie a valid vote?

Would a vote made with a brownshirt breathing down your neck be a valid vote?

Where do we draw the line?

[winkie]

21 hours ago, Huggy said:

This just fills me with unease. The first question I'll ask of this is how many people will decide whether to rerun the democratic vote or not? I guess about a dozen.

Also, the single example of a Swiss referendum being overturned was about tax on married/unmarried couples. I disagree a second referendum should be held for that one because I also disagree a first shouldn't have been held. That's why we vote for governments so they can do that job. It's a simple pissing tax law, don't bother voters with nonsense like that.

Brexit however, is more complex and important and should be a referendum (just like 1975, where they certainly didn't know what they were voting for, or the alternative vote referendum in 2011). Fundamental changes to the country should go to the people, and they should get a chance to change their minds after enough time has passed to fully determine the costs and benefits.

Also, with the Swiss method, we would literally get an infinite number of legal challenges from every direction on big ticket items because they so complex. See below:

"The information provided to the electorate was "incomplete" and therefore "violated the freedom of the vote", the court ruled."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47879777

I've been on this thread for years and have seen what the definitions of "proof", "incomplete", "no one has yet told me of any benefits" (Copyright @IMHAL @jonb2 2016-2023), and many other words and phrases can be

Would you be happy for this method to be used in a rejoin vote in a generation's time? The Rejoiners will be the ones voting for change that time

Absolutely.......most people even some leavers have regretted their vote..... tomorrow's Europe will not be yesterday's Europe.

[Dweller]

Must admit having been following this thread or Brexit news of late so is the full border about to be implemented around the whole of the UK in the New Year? Hasn't it been delayed and delayed because it will fuel inflation? 

https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/economy/arid-41292097.html

 

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

12 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Was a vote for something that was a lie a valid vote?

Would a vote made with a brownshirt breathing down your neck be a valid vote?

Where do we draw the line?

A vote on a lie is still a lie. In fact it’s worse than a lie because the vote attempts to validate the lie. 
 

Brex_hit was built on lies. As has been proven time and time again since 2016.