Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Markyblue]

4 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

It's hard to disagree with the statement because there's just nothing there.  What do the opposition disagree with?  What would they do differently?  What is their Brexit vision?

 

Labour has abdicated its position as opposition to the government choosing instead to be a student union.

Agree with you but what you have to remember and he does his best to conceal it,corbyn hates the eu project far more than some openly leave supporting tories.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I wouldn’t expect it to appeal to yourself but you have to admit her old approach wasn’t exactly yielding results, so maybe, just maybe, they might negotiate now. 

Yeah, I'm beyond cynical about it all as you know. But you're right, although everything she's done in her approach up to this point has smacked of naivety, and now trying to take this new tough stance at this stage just smacks of desperation.

 

1 hour ago, The Guvnor said:

I don't personally think this is anything to do with being a 'little island' or' taking on' 27 countries. We have all been following this for the last two years and I can understand T Mays frustration to a certain point as obviously she would like a relationship with the EU which would have the least disruption for us and them, and anyone who believes a no deal break from the EU will be easy street for them is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I do however respect any EU decision as it was us who voted to leave and rules are rules and if they have boundaries which they are not prepared to deviate from that's fine by me. The country took a vote to leave the EU and that is what we have to do, deal or no deal , so for that reason there cannot be a 'peoples vote' or second referendum otherwise it makes a mockery of our democratic system

 

But in the EU's eyes that relationship is us staying in the EU - a perspective they know almost half of this country actually backs too. They've said many times that invitation remains open, so from their point of view I can see why they're not budging. It is a grossly inflexible position to take, but they really don't need to take a different one at this point in time when we've already threatened to walk away without a deal.

 

As for the second referendum, surely it would end all dispute as people would actually know the conditions of leaving they're voting for now. If Leavers are that confident that just leaving the EU and becoming "sovereign" again is actually the bottom line for which 17 million people voted, then they have nothing to fear from it do they? As a Remainer now (I was genuinely on the fence pre-referendum and entered it with an open mind), I would be far more willing to accept a win for Leave following a second vote, once we know exactly what it means, than I am currently. I know I'm far from alone in that either.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

It's hard to disagree with the statement because there's just nothing there.  What do the opposition disagree with?  What would they do differently?  What is their Brexit vision?

 

Labour has abdicated its position as opposition to the government choosing instead to be a student union.

He could have just flied at May though, he didn't. He blamed the EU as well which is pretty good given a lot of people who support he can't see much wrong in the organisation. 

 

I agree with you on the second point, though - the worst set of politicians ever to form an opposition in terms of political intelligence and realism. 

[breadandcheese]

Just now, Markyblue said:

Agree with you but what you have to remember and he does his best to conceal it,corbyn hates the eu project far more than some openly leave supporting tories.

In which case he's being hugely disingenuous to the country.  All his supporters tell me he's an honest poplitician standing up for his principles.  He's not standing up for anything at the moment.

 

[Guest Markyblue]

2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Yeah, I'm beyond cynical about it all as you know. But you're right, although everything she's done in her approach up to this point has smacked of naivety, and now trying to take this new tough stance at this stage just smacks of desperation.

 

But in the EU's eyes that relationship is us staying in the EU - a perspective they know almost half of this country actually backs too. They've said many times that invitation remains open, so from their point of view I can see why they're not budging. It is a grossly inflexible position to take, but they really don't need to take a different one at this point in time when we've already threatened to walk away without a deal.

 

As for the second referendum, surely it would end all dispute as people would actually know the conditions of leaving they're voting for now. If Leavers are that confident that just leaving the EU and becoming "sovereign" again is actually the bottom line for which 17 million people voted, then they have nothing to fear from it do they? As a Remainer now (I was genuinely on the fence pre-referendum and entered it with an open mind), I would be far more willing to accept a win for Leave following a second vote, once we know exactly what it means, than I am currently. I know I'm far from alone in that either.

As usual you dont get how democracy works do you.its not about you excepting anything other than a original democratic vote. Every time you people skirt around democracy by insisting a new vote enhances democracy we actually leave it further behind us.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

Yeah, I'm beyond cynical about it all as you know. But you're right, although everything she's done in her approach up to this point has smacked of naivety, and now trying to take this new tough stance at this stage just smacks of desperation.

It’s definitely desperate from her but that’s not always a bad thing.

 

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

But in the EU's eyes that relationship is us staying in the EU - a perspective they know almost half of this country actually backs too. They've said many times that invitation remains open, so from their point of view I can see why they're not budging. It is a grossly inflexible position to take, but they really don't need to take a different one at this point in time when we've already threatened to walk away without a deal.

 

As for the second referendum, surely it would end all dispute as people would actually know the conditions of leaving they're voting for now. If Leavers are that confident that just leaving the EU and becoming "sovereign" again is actually the bottom line for which 17 million people voted, then they have nothing to fear from it do they? As a Remainer now (I was genuinely on the fence pre-referendum and entered it with an open mind), I would be far more willing to accept a win for Leave following a second vote, once we know exactly what it means, than I am currently. I know I'm far from alone in that either.

I wouldn’t be against a referendum, I do still think leave would win and would at least put this to bed.

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

As for the second referendum, surely it would end all dispute as people would actually know the conditions of leaving they're voting for now. If Leavers are that confident that just leaving the EU and becoming "sovereign" again is actually the bottom line for which 17 million people voted, then they have nothing to fear from it do they? As a Remainer now (I was genuinely on the fence pre-referendum and entered it with an open mind), I would be far more willing to accept a win for Leave following a second vote, once we know exactly what it means, than I am currently. I know I'm far from alone in that either.

Would it? Why would I trust someone to respect the result of the second referendum when they already proven they wouldn't accept the result of the first?

 

Before we know it Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson will be on television telling "after transition" it will be even more clearer and then we should have third referendum just to make sure.

 

The problem is these people have been so used to getting their own way they genuinely can't understand this.

 

Think of the constitutional crisis it could create as well, let's say Labour win the next election and the next day we see severe capital flight and the pound drop, do we then have another election the Thursday after to make sure people want this? We are a first World country who respects the rule of law and democracy, whatever happens that can never change and I can't believe how many high profile people now believe it should. I expect it from people like JK Rowling and Gary Lineker but elected politicians partaking in this is appalling. 

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

In which case he's being hugely disingenuous to the country.  All his supporters tell me he's an honest poplitician standing up for his principles.  He's not standing up for anything at the moment.

Surely no one seriously believes that any more?

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s definitely desperate from her but that’s not always a bad thing.

 

I wouldn’t be against a referendum, I do still think leave would win and would at least put this to bed.

I do now.

 

Purely on the basis remain politicians still seem to think this is about economics and also they don't realise the leave side would fight the second referendum on the issue of democracy.

 

With Corbyn probably backing leave in that it could even be a bigger margin. 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Markyblue said:

As usual you dont get how democracy works do you.its not about you excepting anything other than a original democratic vote. Every time you people skirt around democracy by insisting a new vote enhances democracy we actually leave it further behind us.

It was a non-binding, advisory referendum. If referenda are binding in perpetuity then surely the one we had in the 70s should be the one respected now and forever? See you in democracy class next week. 

 

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Would it? Why would I trust someone to respect the result of the second referendum when they already proven they wouldn't accept the result of the first?

 

Before we know it Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson will be on television telling "after transition" it will be even more clearer and then we should have third referendum just to make sure.

 

The problem is these people have been so used to getting their own way they genuinely can't understand this.

 

Think of the constitutional crisis it could create as well, let's say Labour win the next election and the next day we see severe capital flight and the pound drop, do we then have another election the Thursday after to make sure people want this? We are a first World country who respects the rule of law and democracy, whatever happens that can never change and I can't believe how many high profile people now believe it should. I expect it from people like JK Rowling and Gary Lineker but elected politicians partaking in this is appalling. 

Because most Remainers are actually reasonable people, who think people deserve to be in full possession of the facts of what leaving the European Union will actually mean in terms of tangible stuff. If people like what they see and still go for it, that's tough shit for people like me as far as I'm concerned - but people deserve that chance and, as I say, why would you be worried as a Leaver if you think just Leaving is the be all and end all for those who voted for it anyway?

 

People on both sides were grossly ill-informed and the level of debate what unbelievably childish ahead of 2016. Maybe I'm the one being naive now, but I'd really like to see the prospect of a second referendum as a chance to raise the level of national debate to one more acceptable to the likes of you and I - and I genuinely think it would be now because we'd be talking entirely in practicalities and not conjecture (which, as I say, both sides were guilty of). Could you get on board with that idea?

 

I'm also not sure the comparison between referenda which happen incredibly rarely on the whims who whoever's in government and parliamentary elections, which legally have to take place at least once every five years, really holds weight either. As I mention above, this was an advisory and non-legally binding vote, so why would we be disrespecting the rule of law in holding another on different terms? The government have taken the British people's advice, worked out the realities, and can now present that to the British people again.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Voll Blau said:

It was a non-binding, advisory referendum. If referenda are binding in perpetuity then surely the one we had in the 70s should be the one respected now and forever? See you in democracy class next week. 

 

 

Because most Remainers are actually reasonable people, who think people deserve to be in full possession of the facts of what leaving the European Union will actually mean in terms of tangible stuff. If people like what they see and still go for it, that's tough shit for people like me as far as I'm concerned - but people deserve that chance and, as I say, why would you be worried as a Leaver if you think just Leaving is the be all and end all for those who voted for it anyway?

 

People on both sides were grossly ill-informed and the level of debate what unbelievably childish ahead of 2016. Maybe I'm the one being naive now, but I'd really like to see the prospect of a second referendum as a chance to raise the level of national debate to one more acceptable to the likes of you and I - and I genuinely think it would be now because we'd be talking entirely in practicalities and not conjecture (which, as I say, both sides were guilty of). Could you get on board with that idea?

 

I'm also not sure the comparison between referenda which happen incredibly rarely on the whims who whoever's in government and parliamentary elections, which legally have to take place at least once every five years, really holds weight either. As I mention above, this was an advisory and non-legally binding vote, so why would we be disrespecting the rule of law in holding another on different terms? The government have taken the British people's advice, worked out the realities, and can now present that to the British people again.

Because we were told the government would implement the decision of the referendum, that was the in the leaflet we all got from them - what we weren't told was that we'll cock up the deal so bad you can have another go when we do, if they had said that at the start then fine.  If you remember back in 2016 we already had the "negotiation" when Cameron came back with his thin gruel and then we were to decide. 

 

I have absolutely no intention of getting on board with potentially better debate as I have no confidence that would occur, for a start the front benches of both major parties now have ever worse politicians on them than during the first one, if anything the debate could be even more extreme.

 

But again, this is more the issue of democracy, if the debate wasn't good that's the fault of politicians, the debate is often atrocious during a general election campaign but we don't rerun the result.

 

Would you be calling for another referendum now had we voted to stay because of the supposed lack of information given we now see plans for an EU defence force etc? Of course you wouldn't, it's just an obvious attempt by people to reverse a result they don't like.

 

If you don't respect democratic votes and implement them you'll create a monster, I wouldn't put my name to a second referendum if Leave was polling at 99% - I wouldn't try and overturn a Labour victory if the Tories were at 99% - this is far more important than that.

 

By all means campaign for one to rejoin on day one after we have left. If the backing is there to stop Brexit you'll be able to do it and then you can commit the nation fully to it.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Because we were told the government would implement the decision of the referendum, that was the in the leaflet we all got from them - what we weren't told was that we'll cock up the deal so bad you can have another go when we do, if they had said that at the start then fine.  If you remember back in 2016 we already had the "negotiation" when Cameron came back with his thin gruel and then we were to decide. 

 

I have absolutely no intention of getting on board with potentially better debate as I have no confidence that would occur, for a start the front benches of both major parties now have ever worse politicians on them than during the first one, if anything the debate could be even more extreme.

 

But again, this is more the issue of democracy, if the debate wasn't good that's the fault of politicians, the debate is often atrocious during a general election campaign but we don't rerun the result.

 

Would you be calling for another referendum now had we voted to stay because of the supposed lack of information given we now see plans for an EU defence force etc? Of course you wouldn't, it's just an obvious attempt by people to reverse a result they don't like.

 

If you don't respect democratic votes and implement them you'll create a monster, I wouldn't put my name to a second referendum if Leave was polling at 99% - I wouldn't try and overturn a Labour victory if the Tories were at 99% - this is far more important than that.

 

By all means campaign for one to rejoin on day one after we have left. If the backing is there to stop Brexit you'll be able to do it and then you can commit the nation fully to it.

Still doesn't make it legally binding though, does it? Doing something because you said you would on a leaflet isn't respecting the rule of law, is it? Politicians really would be in trouble if they were bound to that. 

 

I'm not expecting a second referendum by the way, and I'm reasonably confident we'll be back in within 20 to 30 years once we've gone. I just feel like the buyer's remorse is going to be extremely high if we go out in the way we look like we will at present. Only a miniscule minority would have done so.

[Sharpe's Fox]

SHE HAS LOST IT HAHA SHE IS DERANGED

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

Still doesn't make it legally binding though, does it? Doing something because you said you would on a leaflet isn't respecting the rule of law, is it? Politicians really would be in trouble if they were bound to that. 

 

I'm not expecting a second referendum by the way, and I'm reasonably confident we'll be back in within 20 to 30 years once we've gone. I just feel like the buyer's remorse is going to be extremely high if we go out in the way we look like we will at present. Only a miniscule minority would have done so.

I know it wasn't legally binding, but now it is enshrined into law that we leave the European Union after the EU withdrawal act - could you imagine though if they did just say "we're not enforcing it" - trust in politicians is already bad.

 

If the country votes to go back in so be it, I'll fully respect that - for what it's worth I doubt the EU will still exist in that time, the East are now in open dissent and the South are becoming sick of being collateral for German currency dominance. 

[Guest MattP]

Also @Voll Blau the "peoples vote" crowd take some of the cause for this, the pushing of it is giving politicans in Europe a desire not to negotiate and instead hope for that.

 

If this does end up as no deal they can't be absolved of their responsibilities for it happening.

[Sharpe's Fox]

The way this has all turned out has been class.

[Dr The Singh]

56 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

SHE HAS LOST IT HAHA SHE IS DERANGED

Yeah but those dance moves are just class

[Sharpe's Fox]

ty mods

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

ty mods

I've not seriously just had my post deleted for calling you that in a jovial way have I? 

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

I've not seriously just had my post deleted for calling you that in a jovial way have I? 

 

Change is coming

[lifted*fox]

2 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

It was a non-binding, advisory referendum. If referenda are binding in perpetuity then surely the one we had in the 70s should be the one respected now and forever? See you in democracy class next week. 

 

 

Because most Remainers are actually reasonable people, who think people deserve to be in full possession of the facts of what leaving the European Union will actually mean in terms of tangible stuff. If people like what they see and still go for it, that's tough shit for people like me as far as I'm concerned - but people deserve that chance and, as I say, why would you be worried as a Leaver if you think just Leaving is the be all and end all for those who voted for it anyway?

 

People on both sides were grossly ill-informed and the level of debate what unbelievably childish ahead of 2016. Maybe I'm the one being naive now, but I'd really like to see the prospect of a second referendum as a chance to raise the level of national debate to one more acceptable to the likes of you and I - and I genuinely think it would be now because we'd be talking entirely in practicalities and not conjecture (which, as I say, both sides were guilty of). Could you get on board with that idea?

 

I'm also not sure the comparison between referenda which happen incredibly rarely on the whims who whoever's in government and parliamentary elections, which legally have to take place at least once every five years, really holds weight either. As I mention above, this was an advisory and non-legally binding vote, so why would we be disrespecting the rule of law in holding another on different terms? The government have taken the British people's advice, worked out the realities, and can now present that to the British people again.

 

you talk far too much sense to waste your time arguing in here mate.

 

not worth wasting the skin on your fingers typing it out though, tbh. 

[Guest MattP]

19 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Change is coming

Chris Williamson has procured Foxestalk, is the music forum now the gulag?

[Livid]

So after two years our master plan has come down to the Prime Minister throwing the rattle out of her pram because the nasty EU won’t play ball. 

 

Whilst the rest of the EU are going ‘Bothered’ at us it’s worth remembering all those fountains of knowledge on Twitter that they still need us more than we need them. Righto!! 

 

I despair of it all! 

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

you talk far too much sense to waste your time arguing in here mate.

 

not worth wasting the skin on your fingers typing it out though, tbh. 

He's not arguing, he's debating. 

 

Very good at it as well, the thread needs more people like this, not less.

[lifted*fox]

banging his head against a brick wall, is what he's doing. 

 

trying to explain that democracy isn't a one time thing to a group of people who are adamant that an advisory referendum that was paid for illegally and based on misinformation is binding when it isn't at all - yeah, good luck to @Voll Blau

Edited 21 September 2018 by lifted*fox