Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[weegienative]

16 minutes ago, Ross. said:

If it goes to a second vote, and that vote is to remain in the EU, should we ignore it?

I didn’t say they expected a democratic vote to be overturned or ignored. I said they don’t expect it to happen. They are not necessarily the same thing.

It is the same thing.

People voted for Brexit. Not deal A, not deal B, but Brexit. If it doesn't happen then a democratic vote has been ignored.

If it goes to a second vote down the line and it's overturned, fine. But it's not yet been implemented and so therefore it's undemocratic.

The precedent being set is, the government don't like a referendum result, makes a cluster f**k of the people's desired outcome, re run the referendum, get the result they wanted in the first place.

Take away your personal opinion on this occasion, do you think that's a good precedent to be setting? Bearing in mind the next issue you might be on the receiving end.

Edited December 12, 2018 by weegienative

[weegienative]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'll take that as a yes.

Crack on.

[Shandon Par]

Just now, weegienative said:

It is the same thing.

People voted for Brexit. Not deal A, not deal B, but Brexit. If it doesn't happen then a democratic vote has been ignored.

If it goes to a second vote down the line and it's overturned, fine. But it's not yet been implemented and so therefore it's undemocratic.

The precedent being set is, the government don't like a referendum result, makes a cluster f**k of the people's desired outcome, re run the referendum, get the result they wanted in the first place.

Take away your personal opinion on this occasion, do you think that's a good precedent to be setting? Baring in mind the next issue you might be on the receiving end.

You've certainly put him strait there.

[cyderspaceman]

2 minutes ago, weegienative said:

It is the same thing.

People voted for Brexit. Not deal A, not deal B, but Brexit. If it doesn't happen then a democratic vote has been ignored.

If it goes to a second vote down the line and it's overturned, fine. But it's not yet been implemented and so therefore it's undemocratic.

The precedent being set is, the government don't like a referendum result, makes a cluster f**k of the people's desired outcome, re run the referendum, get the result they wanted in the first place.

Take away your personal opinion on this occasion, do you think that's a good precedent to be setting? Baring in mind the next issue you might be on the receiving end.

Daft c**t.

[weegienative]

6 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

Sounds like this is going to be the easiest negotiation in history. Right?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patricksmith/nobody-said-it-was-easy

Did you read the content before posting that?

[Pull My Strings]

5 minutes ago, weegienative said:

I'm aware of that, it doesn't detract from the point. May is a remainer and look at the state of her during the past 2 years. For the benefit of everyone there needs to be someone with a genuine wish for Brexit.

Or how about someone with the bottle to admit that the Brexit which was promised in the referendum campaign and which (some) people voted for is undeliverable. They've given it their best shot but the prospectus promised simply doesn't work. You can't have no border with the single market without being part of the single market.

[weegienative]

1 minute ago, Pull My Strings said:

Or how about someone with the bottle to admit that the Brexit which was promised in the referendum campaign and which (some) people voted for is undeliverable. They've given it their best shot but the prospectus promised simply doesn't work. You can't have no border with the single market without being part of the single market.

I voted to leave the EU. Everything else is a by product.

What part of that is undeliverable?

[Ross.]

Just now, weegienative said:

It is the same thing.

People voted for Brexit. Not deal A, not deal B, but Brexit. If it doesn't happen then a democratic vote has been ignored.

If it goes to a second vote down the line and it's overturned, fine. But it's not yet been implemented and so therefore it's undemocratic.

The precedent being set is, the government don't like a referendum result, makes a cluster f**k of the people's desired outcome, re run the referendum, get the result they wanted in the first place.

Take away your personal opinion on this occasion, do you think that's a good precedent to be setting? Baring in mind the next issue you might be on the receiving end.

It's really not the same thing.

Brexit was never set in definitive terms, which is one of the huge problems here. Brexit means a very different thing to a lot of the people who voted for it. Now that we can see what the practical impact and effects will be, a second vote of some kind should be happening, and that should always have been the case.

The outcome of all this should be that future referendum campaigns must be forced to set out more specific outcomes and aims, rather than vague promises on the side of busses and outright lies about the positives and negatives of what already exists. That would be a good thing.

In terms of a precedent being set by going to a second vote, it is the sensible thing to do when you have more information available. Sensible governance of the UK rarely happens though, so I wouldn't expect that precedent being set to be anything you should worry about.

[Pull My Strings]

7 minutes ago, weegienative said:

It is the same thing.

People voted for Brexit. Not deal A, not deal B, but Brexit. If it doesn't happen then a democratic vote has been ignored.

If it goes to a second vote down the line and it's overturned, fine. But it's not yet been implemented and so therefore it's undemocratic.

The precedent being set is, the government don't like a referendum result, makes a cluster f**k of the people's desired outcome, re run the referendum, get the result they wanted in the first place.

Take away your personal opinion on this occasion, do you think that's a good precedent to be setting? Bearing in mind the next issue you might be on the receiving end.

It doesn't set a legal precedent because referenda have no legal force. It might serve as a salutary political lesson about the stupidity of asking the public to vote on ill defined, poorly thought out propositions which the majority of elected representatives and the government do not support.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Ross. said:

It's really not the same thing.

Brexit was never set in definitive terms, which is one of the huge problems here. Brexit means a very different thing to a lot of the people who voted for it. Now that we can see what the practical impact and effects will be, a second vote of some kind should be happening, and that should always have been the case.

The outcome of all this should be that future referendum campaigns must be forced to set out more specific outcomes and aims, rather than vague promises on the side of busses and outright lies about the positives and negatives of what already exists. That would be a good thing.

In terms of a precedent being set by going to a second vote, it is the sensible thing to do when you have more information available. Sensible governance of the UK rarely happens though, so I wouldn't expect that precedent being set to be anything you should worry about.

Referenda are an alien concept to British democracy, unlike where you are. There's no rules or conventions about them, the last one wasn't even legally binding, just an advisory snap poll. There is zero democratic deficit in consulting the electorate again about the manner of our leaving, or if they still want to do so. 

[weegienative]

Just now, Pull My Strings said:

It doesn't set a legal precedent because referenda have no legal force. It might serve as a salutary political lesson about the stupidity of asking the public to vote on ill defined, poorly thought out propositions which the majority of elected representatives and the government do not support.

I didn't say it set a legal precedent, I said precedent.

It's the same as paper money, particularly Scottish bank notes. They are not legal tender, they are taken as goodwill and nothing else. The only true legal tender is bank of England notes. I'm not so sure you'd be happy for organisations to stop accepting all your Scottish notes tomorrow because TECHNICALLY they're not legal.

Think about the wider ramifications and permissions you are giving the politicians if you allow or even actively support the defying of a democratic vote.

[doulikefish]

I cant believe the tories are having a leadership vote,they had one a couple of years ago according to the gammons she should nowbe leader for life

 

 

[Fullerene]

50 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Define easily.

Ask Liam Fox

[weegienative]

8 minutes ago, Ross. said:

It's really not the same thing.

Brexit was never set in definitive terms, which is one of the huge problems here. Brexit means a very different thing to a lot of the people who voted for it. Now that we can see what the practical impact and effects will be, a second vote of some kind should be happening, and that should always have been the case.

The outcome of all this should be that future referendum campaigns must be forced to set out more specific outcomes and aims, rather than vague promises on the side of busses and outright lies about the positives and negatives of what already exists. That would be a good thing.

In terms of a precedent being set by going to a second vote, it is the sensible thing to do when you have more information available. Sensible governance of the UK rarely happens though, so I wouldn't expect that precedent being set to be anything you should worry about.

I keep hearing this again and again, Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for. I only ever hear it for those who voted remain funny enough.

If you want to go down the road of not having clarity on how negotiations would go post referendum, that's because the EU would not allow negotiations to commence until article 50 had been triggered.

There have been numerous policy changes within the EU since 2016, many which would affect us if article 50 were to be revoked and the Brexit vote consigned to history. Do you know what they are? Did you know what you're voting for?

I think we have to plow ahead as clearly people who voted remain didn't know what they were voting for.

[Pull My Strings]

3 minutes ago, weegienative said:

I voted to leave the EU. Everything else is a by product.

What part of that is undeliverable?

The prospectus which was offered to the electorate was that the UK would be able to leave the EU whilst retaining all (or most) of the benefits of membership. The reality is that this is simply undeliverable. You can either leave with no deal or you can stay. There isn't a majority in Parliament capable of delivering any sort of deal. That's surely axiomatic by now.

You, personally, may be one of those who voted simply to leave the EU with absolutely no thought for the social, economic or political consequences but you should probably acknowledge that you're in a tiny minority if that is indeed your position. Certainly that wasn't what was promised by those advocating leave. Unless you'd like to cite some examples which suggest that it was. You'll note that I've already helpfully cited some of the horse shit promises that were made. I haven't even mentioned the bus yet.

[Pull My Strings]

17 minutes ago, weegienative said:

Did you read the content before posting that?

Truth be told I simply looked for Liam Fox's hilarious Today interview in which he spoke about how easy the negotiations would be. The rest is bonus material. Do the underlying messages predict that over two years after the vote the government would be in a position where they have virtually given up on achieving any sort of deal?

[jamieson87]

Paddy Power has a 78% probability of May winning the vote.

The bookies very often get these things right.

[weegienative]

4 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

The prospectus which was offered to the electorate was that the UK would be able to leave the EU whilst retaining all (or most) of the benefits of membership. The reality is that this is simply undeliverable. You can either leave with no deal or you can stay. There isn't a majority in Parliament capable of delivering any sort of deal. That's surely axiomatic by now.

You, personally, may be one of those who voted simply to leave the EU with absolutely no thought for the social, economic or political consequences but you should probably acknowledge that you're in a tiny minority if that is indeed your position. Certainly that wasn't what was promised by those advocating leave. Unless you'd like to cite some examples which suggest that it was. You'll note that I've already helpfully cited some of the horse shit promises that were made. I haven't even mentioned the bus yet.

I voted in the knowledge that none of doomsday scenarios will come to the fore. Interest groups will predict scenarios which suit their agenda. It happens on both sides. Example? The predictions on what would happen to the £ post Brexit vote by the remain side. All wrong. 

Many of the quotes from that buzzfeed link are perfectly valid, had someone proper been in charge of the country during the negotiations.

I'm a bit lost on the generalisation of Brexit voters by the remain side. Are they still thick racists or are they now switched on economists who will change their mind knowing the extent of negotiations? I suppose it depends what day of the week it is on that one.

[Pull My Strings]

12 minutes ago, weegienative said:

I didn't say it set a legal precedent, I said precedent.

It's the same as paper money, particularly Scottish bank notes. They are not legal tender, they are taken as goodwill and nothing else. The only true legal tender is bank of England notes. I'm not so sure you'd be happy for organisations to stop accepting all your Scottish notes tomorrow because TECHNICALLY they're not legal.

Think about the wider ramifications and permissions you are giving the politicians if you allow or even actively support the defying of a democratic vote.

What an odd digression. If you're not using precedent in a technical sense then it simply means example, which I've addressed. This episode should serve as an example of the dangers of holding referenda. That's a very useful precedent and one to be embraced. You're just talking nonsense about paper money.

[weegienative]

5 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

Truth be told I simply looked for Liam Fox's hilarious Today interview in which he spoke about how easy the negotiations would be. The rest is bonus material. Do the underlying messages predict that over two years after the vote the government would be in a position where they have virtually given up on achieving any sort of deal?

In my opinion yes, if I go into a car showroom. Which version of me gets the most free add-ons to the car? The version who goes in telling the dealer im desperate to buy a car or the version which goes in dragging my heels a bit?