Will we leave the EU?

[thecrashingisles]

2 minutes ago, the gardener said:

To involve Parliament in this decision involves the murder of democracy.

Parliament is sovereign.  Isn't that the whole point?

[Odysseus]

Wouldn't it be delightfully ironic if we invoked article 50 only for Hard Brexiteers to delay the parliamentary process over and over again through judicial reviews  so the 2 years expire with no deal and we exit the EU in it's entirety 

[knock out johnny]

15 minutes ago, the gardener said:

To involve Parliament in this decision involves the murder of democracy.

What an ill-informed and melodramatic statement

Anyway I thought you were busy sharpening your pitchfork and checking the map to see how to get to London

 

#YouWonGetOverIt!

[the gardener]

8 minutes ago, knock out johnny said:

What an ill-informed and melodramatic statement

Anyway I thought you were busy sharpening your pitchfork and checking the map to see how to get to London

 

#YouWonGetOverIt!

I haven't even got a pitchfork to sharpen. I might get a billhook though. Very useful tool.

 

I actually don't think Leave has won. Well for a few hours on the morning of 24th June I did but once Cameron resigned I smelt a betrayal in the offing. Lob the hand-grenade of a Conservative leadership campaign to buy time to work out how to reverse the referendum result, string it out a bit whilst lining up a legal challenge or two, perhaps give Parliament a say - a long, drawn-out one with plenty of fillibustering opportunity, maybe get the Lords to throw it back three times. By that time we'll be two years+ down the road, having had plenty of opportunity to ply the public with more propaganda, a few hundred thousand new British citizens entitled to vote, perhaps several hundred thousand Leave voters dead (from old age), then call for a second referendum, you know, just to make sure. Remain win that by a whisker and that's the end. Remain vote accepted without question. Game over.

 

No I think we'll only leave if there are riots. Nothing else will be listened to. The Government will do all it can to make sure it's a slow motion, boiling a frog type betrayal to avoid any one incident that would mobilise protests.

The only problem with this plan is that 17.4 million people will forever believe the Government plus Remainers to be their mortal enemy. It won't make for a pleasant society for anyone to live in.

[South Lorne]

18 minutes ago, the gardener said:

 

I haven't even got a pitchfork to sharpen. I might get a billhook though. Very useful tool.

 

I actually don't think Leave has won. Well for a few hours on the morning of 24th June I did but once Cameron resigned I smelt a betrayal in the offing. Lob the hand-grenade of a Conservative leadership campaign to buy time to work out how to reverse the referendum result, string it out a bit whilst lining up a legal challenge or two, perhaps give Parliament a say - a long, drawn-out one with plenty of fillibustering opportunity, maybe get the Lords to throw it back three times. By that time we'll be two years+ down the road, having had plenty of opportunity to ply the public with more propaganda, a few hundred thousand new British citizens entitled to vote, perhaps several hundred thousand Leave voters dead (from old age), then call for a second referendum, you know, just to make sure. Remain win that by a whisker and that's the end. Remain vote accepted without question. Game over.

 

No I think we'll only leave if there are riots. Nothing else will be listened to. The Government will do all it can to make sure it's a slow motion, boiling a frog type betrayal to avoid any one incident that would mobilise protests.

The only problem with this plan is that 17.4 million people will forever believe the Government plus Remainers to be their mortal enemy. It won't make for a pleasant society for anyone to live in.

...relax..to start we need the Judges to confirm they have no 'Vested Interests' for remaining in the  EU ....and understand if they have, these should have been declared...anyone breaking such a code of ethics must resign.....the only honourable way forward....

Edited November 7, 2016 by South Lorne

[cock-eyed octopus]

1 hour ago, the gardener said:

 

I haven't even got a pitchfork to sharpen. I might get a billhook though. Very useful tool.

 

I actually don't think Leave has won. Well for a few hours on the morning of 24th June I did but once Cameron resigned I smelt a betrayal in the offing. Lob the hand-grenade of a Conservative leadership campaign to buy time to work out how to reverse the referendum result, string it out a bit whilst lining up a legal challenge or two, perhaps give Parliament a say - a long, drawn-out one with plenty of fillibustering opportunity, maybe get the Lords to throw it back three times. By that time we'll be two years+ down the road, having had plenty of opportunity to ply the public with more propaganda, a few hundred thousand new British citizens entitled to vote, perhaps several hundred thousand Leave voters dead (from old age), then call for a second referendum, you know, just to make sure. Remain win that by a whisker and that's the end. Remain vote accepted without question. Game over.

 

No I think we'll only leave if there are riots. Nothing else will be listened to. The Government will do all it can to make sure it's a slow motion, boiling a frog type betrayal to avoid any one incident that would mobilise protests.

The only problem with this plan is that 17.4 million people will forever believe the Government plus Remainers to be their mortal enemy. It won't make for a pleasant society for anyone to live in.

 

If they try to stitch this one up, watch out for a UKIP landslide next election.

 

[80sBaby]

5 hours ago, kzb said:

Under 18's are about 20% of population.  Still leaves 8% unaccounted for -prisoners and people who can't be arsed probably.

It's completely disingenuous to include persons not entitled to vote on that pie chart.  I don't want my future decided by 8-year olds!

"I don't want my future decided by old people!" - my 5 year old....albeit unrelated to Brexit, it provides a fair retort to your aversion to trusting the will of children! ;-)

[80sBaby]

5 hours ago, TheBlueCat said:

All this talk of opt outs is BS. We supposedly had an opt out from parts of the social chapter and yet the ECJ chose to ignore that and impose the exact wording of the treaties instead. If it's not written into the treaty, it's not an opt out, simple as that.

I have never understood what the problem with the ECB is? Beyond the fact we kept losing cases to terrorist we want to export to torturer's?

Jokes aside, given the EU group....without a central legal system, how can you settle disputes fair? Are we simply suppose to trust each others legal system without a certain level of standardisation?

[Konig]

4 hours ago, DTMark said:

To set out publicly where that line is would be suicidal for our negotiating position.

And the country voted to leave. Not "leave if x,y and z". Just "leave".

You think we have a "negotiating position" but then declare we actually "just voted to leave". 

So, which one is it?

Or will you just choose which position to take according to your own personal view of every issue that comes up during the next 2 (more like 10) years of unraveling this mess....

 

[long time lurking]

26 minutes ago, Konig said:

You think we have a "negotiating position" but then declare we actually "just voted to leave". 

So, which one is it?

Or will you just choose which position to take according to your own personal view of every issue that comes up during the next 2 (more like 10) years of unraveling this mess....

 

We have a negotiating position ,but we can`t use it until we "leave" as in invoke A50 until then we have no position other than being member state

Can you not see the problem of 650 Mp`s trying to agree on every point ? 

[the gardener]

1 hour ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

 

If they try to stitch this one up, watch out for a UKIP landslide next election.

 

Yes. I will campaign for them, although probably in neighbouring constituencies as my local Tory MP is a ardent Leaver. I don't like him much but he is a genuine Leaver. My constituency voted 58% in favour of Leave.

If UKIP only contest seats against pro-Remain tories (assuming they aren't deselected) then between the Conservatives and UKIP they could bag about 450 seats no problem. How many problems would a 250 majority have in getting it's preferred Brexit policy implemented? The SNP, what's left of Labour and the pitiful shell of LibDem detritus could vote against everything and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

 

If the Conservatives are serious about honouring the will of the people then they could destroy Labour for a generation and not get too much trouble from the new 2nd largest party UKIP. LibDems are non-existent and the SNP would be irrelevant.

The Leave vote has given the Conservatives power for at least a decade if only they seize the opportunity.

 

[frederico]

Yeah, labour are only useful for stirring at the moment and then they implode again.

Actually I will believe brexit when it happens, 

But brexit just means brexit, no anything, no market access no free movement just leave the EU .

No negotiation is needed, there is no halfway house so let's either go or stay.

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

The Tories would be wise to do a deal with UKIP if they are forced to call an early election to get Brexit through. UKIP would be wise too, if they are serious about the objective.

I think UKIP just want to cause trouble and get themselves (himself) on TV.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

7 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

The Tories would be wise to do a deal with UKIP if they are forced to call an early election to get Brexit through. UKIP would be wise too, if they are serious about the objective.

No chance, they hate each other. 

A lot of UKIP are Tory defectors who hate the Tories and have spouted bile against the Tories.  They'll just split the vote.

[knock out johnny]

1 minute ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

No chance, they hate each other. 

A lot of UKIP are Tory defectors who hate the Tories and have spouted bile against the Tories.  They'll just split the vote.

Not so sure - I agree with gardener that if it's handled correctly we could end up with a one party state 

[Arbitrage]

33 minutes ago, the gardener said:

Yes. I will campaign for them, although probably in neighbouring constituencies as my local Tory MP is a ardent Leaver. I don't like him much but he is a genuine Leaver. My constituency voted 58% in favour of Leave.

If UKIP only contest seats against pro-Remain tories (assuming they aren't deselected) then between the Conservatives and UKIP they could bag about 450 seats no problem. How many problems would a 250 majority have in getting it's preferred Brexit policy implemented? The SNP, what's left of Labour and the pitiful shell of LibDem detritus could vote against everything and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

 

If the Conservatives are serious about honouring the will of the people then they could destroy Labour for a generation and not get too much trouble from the new 2nd largest party UKIP. LibDems are non-existent and the SNP would be irrelevant.

The Leave vote has given the Conservatives power for at least a decade if only they seize the opportunity.

 

You're forgetting something. The Conservatives are already in government. If they were serious about Brexit Article 50 would have been implemented the day after the Brexit vote as promised by Cameron

You seriously think any Brexit voter would vote Tory ever again if May delivers, after much delay, a soft Brexit (which means staying in the EU)

The LibDems were destroyed by their tuition fee U turn. A Tory betrayal of Brexit would be even worse for them. The only Tories left would be the ones who voted for remain. The same principle would also apply to Labour

The 48% remain vote will be split 3 ways between LibLabCon

The 52% Brexit vote will all go to UKIP

To stop Bexit permanently would require one of two things

1. Banning 'extremist' political parties (anybody campaigning for Brexit is extremist & must be banned / jailed)

2. A 'temporary' suspension of democracy due to a war or some other national emergency. Temporary could last for years

[thecrashingisles]

1 hour ago, Arbitrage said:

You're forgetting something. The Conservatives are already in government. If they were serious about Brexit Article 50 would have been implemented the day after the Brexit vote as promised by Cameron

You seriously think any Brexit voter would vote Tory ever again if May delivers, after much delay, a soft Brexit (which means staying in the EU)

The LibDems were destroyed by their tuition fee U turn. A Tory betrayal of Brexit would be even worse for them. The only Tories left would be the ones who voted for remain. The same principle would also apply to Labour

The 48% remain vote will be split 3 ways between LibLabCon

The 52% Brexit vote will all go to UKIP

To stop Bexit permanently would require one of two things

1. Banning 'extremist' political parties (anybody campaigning for Brexit is extremist & must be banned / jailed)

2. A 'temporary' suspension of democracy due to a war or some other national emergency. Temporary could last for years

Most people don't care that much about it which is why UKIP can't win seats in General Elections.

[the gardener]

28 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Most people don't care that much about it which is why UKIP can't win seats in General Elections.

Most people don't care about it! A massive turnout and the biggest mandate in UK political history and you claim that most people don't care. What planet are you on?

[thecrashingisles]

54 minutes ago, the gardener said:

Most people don't care about it! A massive turnout and the biggest mandate in UK political history and you claim that most people don't care. What planet are you on?

Only 32% of people say it's an important issue, whether good or bad with the highest level at 40% among ABs who are more likely to be pro Remain.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3799/Immigration-and-NHS-tied-as-the-most-important-issues-facing-Britain.aspx

[DTMark]

What really annoys me about all of this, is that the government *must* have known that constitutionally, this was going to require approval by Parliament.

I did hear, not sure how true it is, that the type of referendum was non-binding, deliberately so - in order that the result did not have to be enacted. That being different to other referenda. It was essentially an opinion poll, despite how it was presented. Had it been binding, it would not have required Parliament's approval.

So here we are, four months after the vote, we still haven't called for "Article 50" and now, apparently, Parliament must vote.

Vote on what?

The issues were debated and discussed. There was hype and propaganda on all sides. It's up to anyone with their own independent mind to pick through all of that and reach a decision. And people did exactly that.

It wasn't a multi-part referendum with a series of questions like "I want to leave... if we get this and that.. but otherwise remain".

This "single market" thing hasn't only come to bear since then, it was known then, and still we voted to leave. To now say that the electorate were basically stupid is an affront to the whole concept of democracy. Rather like the scope creep of the European Union itself really.

By not triggering Article 50 we have an extended period of uncertainty. What would have happened if we'd done it the day after? Why are the judiciary getting in on the case just now, and not back then?

This does look as though it's going to follow the classic European Union way of having another referendum and I wouldn't care to call the result.

In the meantime - the approval of Parliament - approval for what? Of what?

There are no "terms" because we haven't said we're leaving yet. Only then will we be able to negotiate. So what exactly is Parliament set to debate right now? Whether to trigger Article 50?

The idea that we should debate this and reach a decision about the terms we'll leave on - the EU HQ would be laughing at us when we turn up to present the cards they knew we had.

The epithet "a very British farce" springs to mind.

[billybong]

^ 

For sure it would have been binding and final if the vote had been to Remain.  That seems to be what the "final" statements were about and it being the electorate's decision.

When the Referendum Act was being passed, all the Parliamentary statements were being made, the referendum debate was in progress and then the pamphlet was being set out and printed the odds on a Remain vote were always strongly odds on.  It was final etc then.

 It was only as the voting outcomes were announced that the odds rapidly flipped and then it became advisory and not so final.

I don't think the Act actually uses the words non binding, binding or advisory (correct?) - it's just that British referendums are apparently advisory unless stated otherwise.  That was never made clear at the time despite many references to it being final as well as the electorate's decision - everyone should have known.

Edited November 8, 2016 by billybong

[DTMark]

12 minutes ago, billybong said:

^ 

For sure it would have been binding and final if the vote had been to Remain.  That seems to be what the "final" statements were about and it being the electorate's decision.

When the Referendum Act was being passed, all the Parliamentary statements were being made, the referendum debate was in progress and then the pamphlet was being set out and printed the odds on a Remain vote were always strongly odds on.

 It was only as the voting outcomes were announced that the odds rapidly flipped and then it became advisory and not so final.

I don't think the Act actually uses the words non binding, binding or advisory (correct?) - it's just that British referendums are apparently advisory unless stated otherwise.  That was never made clear at the time despite many references to it being final as well as the electorate's decision - everyone should have known.

You sound like you've followed it more closely than I, thanks.

It's certainly true that the result wasn't the expected one. And it doesn't look like any preparation whatsoever was done for the result that we had. Again very British. We'll just, er, muddle through.

I recall, during a particularly freezing winter when the trains were barely running, some news reporters stood outside a train station asking people - in that banal way that they do - how this cold snap is disrupting their journeys. Like we need to know and as if it isn't obvious.

They happened to stop a woman (who happened to be German which makes it all the more comical) who hit the proverbial nail on the head and said what we all knew.

"It's all so... disorganised".

Isn't it just.

[billybong]

 ^

Quote

Why are the judiciary getting in on the case just now, and not back then?

Indeed - seeing as it's apparently so clear cut now why didn't some of them speak up at the time and say something like the people are being misled.

They could have said it can't be final and it can't be the electorates decision as it's non binding and just advisory.  For sure they would all get the government's pamphlet and plenty of them would hear the speeches in Parliament etc etc.

Edited November 8, 2016 by billybong

[billybong]

4 minutes ago, DTMark said:

You sound like you've followed it more closely than I, thanks.

It's certainly true that the result wasn't the expected one. And it doesn't look like any preparation whatsoever was done for the result that we had. Again very British. We'll just, er, muddle through.

I recall, during a particularly freezing winter when the trains were barely running, some news reporters stood outside a train station asking people - in that banal way that they do - how this cold snap is disrupting their journeys. Like we need to know and as if it isn't obvious.

They happened to stop a woman (who happened to be German which makes it all the more comical) who hit the proverbial nail on the head and said what we all knew.

"It's all so... disorganised".

Isn't it just.

Thanks - I'm just like everyone else trying to make sense of it all based on what information there is.

Edited November 8, 2016 by billybong

[DTMark]

2 minutes ago, billybong said:

 ^

Indeed - seeing as it's apparently so clear cut now why didn't some of them speak up at the time and say something like the people are being misled.

It can't be final and it can't be the electorates decision as it's non binding and just advisory.  For sure they would all get the government's pamphlet and plenty of them would hear the speeches in Parliament etc etc.

So then... did Theresa May move to call for Article 50 and they slapped her down? Was it her timetable that they sought to tear up? Did they wake from an extended sleep like something out of a Doctor Who story ("Mawdryn Undead") and decide to have their say?

People will have a certain amount of patience and it's really quite entertaining seeing the dismay on the faces of those at the EU HQ in the meantime throwing threats around.

It's also highly entertaining seeing the Guardian commentariat (is that a word?) suddenly switching positions to say how much damage might be done to our banking sector when on any other topic it would be considered "good riddance" or "justice".

But I smell trouble brewing if this goes on much longer.

Nice to "see" you by the way. I don't venture in here often. It's only because the topic got moved