Brexit!

[Strokes]

Just now, bovril said:

I'm saying nothing....

I’m staying moot.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, BlueSi13 said:

 

Check out the number at the bottom to see where the problem is though.  406 constituencies voted leave but are only represented by 160 MPs.  Whereas 242 constituencies voted remain but are represented by 486 MPs.  You think that's representative?  

 

Those MPs all won elections in their constituencies. Hard to think of anything more representative under our current democratic system.

 

If Hard Brexiteers wanted a majority of Hard Brexit MPs in parliament, they could have voted for parties or candidates who supported that - or stood as candidates, or had existing "Remainer/Soft Brexit" candidates deselected. They didn't - and the electorate voted in the range of MPs that it did.

 

In 2017, Hard Brexit supporters also had the UKIP option in about 50% of seats: almost a single-issue party devoted to Hard Brexit. They got no MPs elected and got massacred.

 

May called an election seeking a bigger majority to push her Brexit ideas through. But the electorate decided that the election wasn't only about Brexit - and that they wanted to remove May's majority instead.

 

Voters decided that the 2017 election was NOT only about Brexit, but also about tax, spending, public services, care for the elderly, tuition fees, investment, the economy etc. Across a  range of issues, they elected MPs to represent them....pretty representative, really. 

 

The fact that a lot more constituencies had a Leave majority in the preceding referendum is interesting but irrelevant. That was a national referendum, with no constituency element: all that mattered was the national 52-48 vote for Leave - an unclear, non-specific outcome that has divided and messed up the country ever since. 

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m staying moot.

 

It's the Christian solution.....

 

"Beholdest thou the moat that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the bean that is in thine own eye" 

[Ali Begbie]

1 hour ago, BlueSi13 said:

To you it is because the side you voted for lost.  

 

As I asked yesterday, if roles were reversed, we'd voted remain but the majority of MPs backed Brexit and decided to take us out anyway as it was only an "advisory referendum", you'd have no problems with that?

The majority of MPs do back Brexit. They have decided to take us out.

 

There just isn't a mandate for No Deal. 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

The problem with that tweet is that it appears to make out that if we leave the Single Market we will lose £1.9 billion a week.  However for that to happen trade between the UK and EU would have to drop to 0.  Considering the EU has a significant trade surplus with us (+64 billion) such a scenario would be equally as disastrous for them.

 

However we both know that isn't going to happen.  The no-deal forecast models themselves make no such prediction, indeed they suggest that leaving the Single Market and Customs Union will cost us £1 billion a YEAR which equates to 0.055% pa reduction in growth.  Certainly not £1.6 billion a WEEK.

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168964684764131328.html

 

Conclusion = a sensible and pragmatic free trade deal that suits both sides interests.

You’re doing rather well here mate, fair play to you. I imagine most know this though and are deliberately just posting ridiculous statements and statistics. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

Wasn't a GE though was it, it was an advisory referendum, so it's a mute point.

You’ve been proven wrong but it doesn’t count is essentially what you’re saying

[Facecloth]

Just now, Leicester_Loyal said:

You’ve been proven wrong but it doesn’t count is essentially what you’re saying

Where have I been proven wrong 

 

I refer to Alfs long post above ⬆️

[The Horse's Mouth]

Both parties were voted on the mandate that they would respect the referendum result and deliver Brexit bottom line, brexiters have a right to be aggrieved because it's clear that we have a parliament that is almost completely remain and those in leave constituencies aren't respecting their fellow constituents. Its clear to anyone no matter what side you sit yourself on, that this past 3 years has all been about running down the clock for most MPs, the longer this is drawn out, the more strain on the country the more likely they can expect to win a 2nd referendum 

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Both parties were voted on the mandate that they would respect the referendum result and deliver Brexit bottom line, brexiters have a right to be aggrieved because it's clear that we have a parliament that is almost completely remain and those in leave constituencies aren't respecting their fellow constituents. Its clear to anyone no matter what side you sit yourself on, that this past 3 years has all been about running down the clock for most MPs, the longer this is drawn out, the more strain on the country the more likely they can expect to win a 2nd referendum 

But MPs can't win. Whichever deal (or no deal) ended up winning a consensus in the Commons there'd still be a reasonable proportion of the Leave-voting electorate whinging about it not being exactly what they were promised by those who led the Leave campaigns. Let's not forget the most outspokenly pro-Brexit section of the House in the ERG voted against May's agreement, which would have fulfilled the terms of the referendum perfectly well, and have said they will continue to do so. Are they respecting the referendum result?

 

https://www.theparliamentaryreview.co.uk/news/erg-will-continue-to-vote-down-withdrawal-agreement-mark-francois-warns

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

The problem with that tweet is that it appears to make out that if we leave the Single Market we will lose £1.9 billion a week.  However for that to happen trade between the UK and EU would have to drop to 0.  Considering the EU has a significant trade surplus with us (+64 billion) such a scenario would be equally as disastrous for them.

 

However we both know that isn't going to happen.  The no-deal forecast models themselves make no such prediction, indeed they suggest that leaving the Single Market and Customs Union will cost us £1 billion a YEAR which equates to 0.055% pa reduction in growth.  Certainly not £1.6 billion a WEEK.

 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168964684764131328.html

 

Conclusion = a sensible and pragmatic free trade deal that suits both sides interests.

But it's a laughably bad thread. The effects on immigration and productivity will be as a direct result of leaving the SM/CU, thus meaning anyone with any sense, let alone an economist, wouldn't then think that the residue once they are removed are the effect of leaving the SM/CU. 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Both parties were voted on the mandate that they would respect the referendum result and deliver Brexit bottom line, brexiters have a right to be aggrieved because it's clear that we have a parliament that is almost completely remain and those in leave constituencies aren't respecting their fellow constituents. Its clear to anyone no matter what side you sit yourself on, that this past 3 years has all been about running down the clock for most MPs, the longer this is drawn out, the more strain on the country the more likely they can expect to win a 2nd referendum 

 

The Tories were voted in on a mandate to seek a Brexit deal with the closest possible relationship with the EU etc. May tried to obtain that - but her deal was rejected not only by "Remainers", but also by Soft Brexiteers & by 100 ERG/DUP types who wanted a Harder Brexit or No Deal.

 

Labour MPs were voted in on a clear mandate to oppose No Deal as the worst possible option & to seek a "Jobs First Brexit Deal" retaining the benefits of the Single Market & Customs Union. They've pretty much tried to do that.

 

The parliament is not "almost completely remain". There was a Remain majority before the referendum, but most Remain-supporting MPs have shown willing to accept a compromise Brexit deal. Parliament just has no agreement on any particular type of Brexit. Most opposition MPs voted to support Brexit options involving a Customs Union, SM 2.0 etc.....but most Tory MPs will only accept something between May's Deal and No Deal....hence the impasse.

 

[Finnaldo]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

 

Fair enough, I respect your honest opinion although I don’t think all of that’s entirely true, we elect MPs based on manifesto promises, and expect them to deliver on them. If the MPs are swaying from those promises, they should have the guts to put it back to the people, via a second referendum or a GE imo.

 

This is an interesting point actually. 

 

Of course that's fully true in our Parliamentary, but government after government how many manifesto promises are made and not followed up on? It's rarely declared an outrage or an affront to democracy, and other than the Lib Dems losing student vote after their tuition promise failing, I can't think how often it's ever considered a grave misdemeanor to simply not follow through on manifesto promises.

 

Ultimately, the Brexit referendum is a bygone relic from two governments ago which has been absolutely slaughtered and the process has demoralised and polarised British society.

 

If a Corbyn government was to be voted in tomorrow, immediately have a referendum for an aggressive nationalisation campaign that passed 52-48 and became a three year slog of legal battles and protest, only for a Lib Dem/Tory government to get in and cancel it straight up, would it be an affront to a democracy? Would we all suggest that the new government should follow up and force through nationisation, even if it was to wreck the economy, and then just sort it out after?

 

It seems, simply as there was an ***ADVISORY*** referendum that its now some do or die task and encompasses democracy as a whole. What separates this from any other manifesto promise that's too big or too ambitious or simply never followed through on before a new government inevitably forgets or scraps it? It's ultimately led to the Conservative Party of 2010, that was resurgent and popular generally, to a Party that's deselected elected MPs for simply going against the party on one vote (which the current government was infamous for as backbenchers), with a pantomime Victorian baddie as Leader of the House and a Prime Minister that embarrassed himself at every public opportunity and only defence was being labelled a 'harmless buffoon' before being elected by the party.

 

Brexit, however people look at it, is a policy. It's not a manifestation of democratic ideals, it's not some bastion of the common people vs the elite, it's just been framed this way, as a larger than life event, by opportunists on both sides (although, in my opinion on one side moreso than the other) who can use it as a platform for power or as a vehicle to make their investors a hell of a lot of money.

Edited 17 September 2019 by Finnaldo

[yorkie1999]

5 hours ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

So are we going to stop trading with the EU then?

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

This is an interesting point actually. 

 

Of course that's fully true in our Parliamentary, but government after government how many manifesto promises are made and not followed up on? It's rarely declared an outrage or an affront to democracy, and other than the Lib Dems losing student vote after their tuition promise failing, I can't think how often it's ever considered a grave misdemeanor to simply not follow through on manifesto promises.

Blair promised to hold a referendum on the EU constitution to then back track when it became the Lisbon treaty. Even though the transfer of powers was almost identical. That was outrageous.

Its difficult for me to go back much further but I’m sure there are a few on hear that could tell you more of governments gone by.

 

18 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Ultimately, the Brexit referendum is a bygone relic from two governments ago which has been absolutely slaughtered and the process has demoralised and polarised British society.

2 PMs, not two governments.

18 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

If a Corbyn government was to be voted in tomorrow, immediately have a referendum for an aggressive nationalisation campaign that passed 52-48 and became a three year slog of legal battles and protest, only for a Lib Dem/Tory government to get in and cancel it straight up, would it be an affront to a democracy? Would we all suggest that the new government should follow up and force through nationisation, even if it was to wreck the economy, and then just sort it out after?

If the government wishes to change the course, it should either hold a binding referendum or a GE. Otherwise it’s failed to live up to its manifesto, quite deliberately.

18 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

It seems, simply as there was an ***ADVISORY*** referendum that its now some do or die task and encompasses democracy as a whole. What separates this from any other manifesto promise that's too big or too ambitious or simply never followed through on before a new government inevitably forgets or scraps it? It's ultimately led to the Conservative Party of 2010, that was resurgent and popular generally, to a Party that's deselected elected MPs for simply going against the party on one vote (which the current government was infamous for as backbenchers), with a pantomime Victorian baddie as Leader of the House and a Prime Minister that embarrassed himself at every public opportunity and only defence was being labelled a 'harmless buffoon' before being elected by the party.

I can’t disagree with any of that.

18 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Brexit, however people look at it, is a policy. It's not a manifestation of democratic ideals, it's not some bastion of the common people vs the elite, it's just been framed this way, as a larger than life event, by opportunists on both sides (although, in my opinion on one side moreso than the other) who can use it as a platform for power or as a vehicle to make their investors a hell of a lot of money.

I can agree with most of that, although I doubt we agree on which side has been the most opportunistic.

[Saxondale]

44 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

So are we going to stop trading with the EU then?

No, but we're effectively going to impose trade sanctions on ourselves with our biggest trading partner. FOR NO F-CKING REASON!

 

It's not rocket science: if you increase barriers to trade, that trade will decrease. If you remove barriers to trade, that trade will increase. 

 

 

[Beechey]

15 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

No, but we're effectively going to impose trade sanctions on ourselves with our biggest trading partner. FOR NO F-CKING REASON!

 

It's not rocket science: if you increase barriers to trade, that trade will decrease. If you remove barriers to trade, that trade will increase. 

 

 

Gimme EFTA+EEA for this exact reason.

[The People's Hero]

I think it was Green Day who one crooned 'Wake me up, when September ends'... 

 

Perhaps that for a brief one hour catch up and then the same at the end of October.

 

Its gone from genuine interest and interjectionism (clearly not a word but I'm standing by it) to a kind of morbid curiosity for me. It has a kind of outsider looking in scenario about it.

 

I suspect that will remain the same and we'll just slide now in to a state where we are moaning about having to eat our neighbours on toast; but we're mainly furious because the bread cost £7.50.

[Captain...]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

So do you believe morally we have duty to implement the result of referendum?

I believe morally the government should do everything in it's power to implement the result of the referendum. I don't think they have done that. There was a simpler way to respect the result of the referendum which would have satisfied all but the most die hard remainers. 

 

The government is also morally bound not to pass any ill thought out legislation or take any course of action which will damage the country financially or otherwise. 

 

They have stuck themselves between a rock and a hard place with conflicting positions that can't be resolved when a nice soft Brexit would have had this all resolved admittedly upsetting a significant portion of Brexiteers but satisfying the vast majority of the 48% remainers and the large proportion of leavers who want to express their frustration with and distrust of the EU without risking the economy.

[LiberalFox]

15 hours ago, Foxhateram said:

I would say a 6 percent drop in house prices, a freeze on interest rates and a predicted increase in unemployment is a little more than a slight drop in GDP. 

 

EU isn't an empire or a dream of one for goodness sake. Even the hardest BREXIT supporters can't surely buy into that trash!? 

 

In times of possible war and potential worldwide financial crashes. Together is better. Freedom of movement is better and cheaper taxes is better. Not mentioning keeping trade deals, food suppliers and retaining our industrial presence. BREXIT being a word has already lost us several manufacturing contracts, causing closures, and therefore redundancies. 

 

Look at it this way. How does the EU effect you right now? Personally maybe not much, but as a country we heavily benefit for various reasons 

 

Will we have a better way of living after we leave? No. In fact life will be a lot harder. 

 

So what do you personally gain from BREXIT? Nothing? So why have a harder life? 

Turns out Brexiteers can buy into anything.

[yorkie1999]

25 minutes ago, Saxondale said:

No, but we're effectively going to impose trade sanctions on ourselves with our biggest trading partner. FOR NO F-CKING REASON!

 

It's not rocket science: if you increase barriers to trade, that trade will decrease. If you remove barriers to trade, that trade will increase. 

 

 

How are we going to impose trade sanctions on ourselves, the Belgians will still want to sell us Stella, the Germans will still want to sell us Mercs and the French will still want to fvck us over, the only difference is that the necessary paperwork will have to accompany the goods and seeing as most of our trading services come from digital financial markets, there's hardly going to be sanctions put on that. Surely that's not going to be a massive problem, unless certain people with hidden agendas want to make it a problem 

[Dames]

15 hours ago, Foxhateram said:

I would say a 6 percent drop in house prices, a freeze on interest rates and a predicted increase in unemployment is a little more than a slight drop in GDP. 

 

EU isn't an empire or a dream of one for goodness sake. Even the hardest BREXIT supporters can't surely buy into that trash!? 

 

In times of possible war and potential worldwide financial crashes. Together is better. Freedom of movement is better and cheaper taxes is better. Not mentioning keeping trade deals, food suppliers and retaining our industrial presence. BREXIT being a word has already lost us several manufacturing contracts, causing closures, and therefore redundancies. 

 

Look at it this way. How does the EU effect you right now? Personally maybe not much, but as a country we heavily benefit for various reasons 

 

Will we have a better way of living after we leave? No. In fact life will be a lot harder. 

 

So what do you personally gain from BREXIT? Nothing? So why have a harder life? 

People in this country almost have a type of trauma/hangover from the Second World War where their Great Grandparents/Grandparents went through an extreme hardship and came out the other end. This has been used to remind people ever since the event 'If we survived the Blitz we can survive this', 'Back in my day we had rations', 'You have it too easy' etc and we have a generation of people who came after those who lived through WW2 that had lets say an easier life but were reminded about it every single day which has left them feeling inadequate because they are desperate for their own 'We survived' moment.

 

Politicians know this and that's why they are channeling this war rhetoric and whipping people up into a frenzy. People in this country are easily misled as soon as any mention of the World Wars are invoked, they fly into a frenzy of blind patriotism and will literally do or say anything to achieve the same 'glory' as back then, hence the tired old comments such as 'If it wasn't for us they would be speaking German and should be more grateful' etc etc.

 

This is why people want Brexit. Blind Patriotism and they want their own we survived moment and they want to be able to remind the generations that come after them about it too.

[The People's Hero]

Has anyone come up with 'BREMAIN' yet?

 

I'd hate to think we're sliding out without a plan, deal, clue, any hope, respect for others or ourselves, all because no one had come up with the Anti-'BREXIT' slogan?

 

[StanSP]

 

[LiberalFox]

10 minutes ago, Dames said:

People in this country almost have a type of trauma/hangover from the Second World War where their Great Grandparents/Grandparents went through an extreme hardship and came out the other end. This has been used to remind people ever since the event 'If we survived the Blitz we can survive this', 'Back in my day we had rations', 'You have it too easy' etc and we have a generation of people who came after those who lived through WW2 that had lets say an easier life but were reminded about it every single day which has left them feeling inadequate because they are desperate for their own 'We survived' moment.

 

Politicians know this and that's why they are channeling this war rhetoric and whipping people up into a frenzy. People in this country are easily misled as soon as any mention of the World Wars are invoked, they fly into a frenzy of blind patriotism and will literally do or say anything to achieve the same 'glory' as back then, hence the tired old comments such as 'If it wasn't for us they would be speaking German and should be more grateful' etc etc.

 

This is why people want Brexit. Blind Patriotism and they want their own we survived moment and they want to be able to remind the generations that come after them about it too.

Irony is we lost our status as a world power and relied on US aid to recover from WW2.

[The People's Hero]

The fragmentation of the Labour and Tory parties, with deep schisms in both was the perfect opportunity for the Lib Dems to achieve something and some real support in the next GE just by 'not being a shambles'.

 

Sadly it seems their leadership didn't get the memo and this latest internal power struggle and not being able to decide on any particular policy can be perfectly extrapolated across the whole political spectrum and country and means the only thing we can now do is to dissolve parliament altogether and get the Queen to do her duty. Divine right of monachs and all that stuff. Come on Liz. 

 

Do you think we'll look back on this and laugh?