Politics

[Sweep]

19 minutes ago, Spider said:

Mounts, Royal, Moon Boy etc.. seem convinced a second vote would be a landslide for leave.

 

To be fair, Moon Boy said we were definitely leaving at the end of March, as it was law and couldn't be stopped......he then was ecstatic that Johnson got the gig, as he said that definitely meant we would leave at the end of October, and again, no way it could be stopped.....well that doesn't look like it's going to happen now. I await his next "We're definitely leaving on XX date,  and no way can it be stopped or pushed back" as well as an update on his "Good Ship Brexit" saga, which looks like it might have hit some choppy waters 😀

[Guest]

The thing is - lets say the Lib Dems won a GE majority (pretend!) I still think they should have a 2nd referendum and not just revoke because a GE doesn't offer a mandate on a specific question. Its very likely nobody will win more than 50% of the vote and also even then there will be people who vote for a party not representing their Brexit choice for other reasons. 
 

So I'm not with the LD's that even if they win they can just revoke it. They need a direct mandate from the populous. But now there is a very specific question to ask. I do not think this is good democracy. I really do not. But the problem has been made - a referendum on vague options - that nobody can argue was clear. If it was clear you'd not have had Brexiteers voting down a deal that delivered on leaving the EU without CU/SM membership - because it wasn't "Brexity enough".

I don't think anyone can argue that there was any agreement what Brexit meant and there were multiple definitions offered up before the vote. And subsequently it is clear as day that Brexiteers have shifted what "Brexit means" and delayed it in order to do so. 

The referendum was poor democracy because it needed to spell out a specific choice - and make it legally binding. Subsequent referendum will be poor democracy in light of that BUT can at least provide a definitive answer to a specific question. And its fine for people to not like the result. But do it right and make it legally binding and then anyone can complain (as that IS good democracy) but the result will be enacted. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, darwen_white said:

But it wouldn't though.

We'd still have knobheads organising marches and petitions. Not to mention the BBC initiated shouting at College Green

 

 

 

But that's what freedom and democracy are. They aren't about everyone agreeing. So people voicing their unhappiness is essentially what its all about. That wouldn't stop it happening - if it was done properly with watertight legally binding mechanisms. 

[Escobarp]

I simply don’t buy this legally binding nonsense. The first referendum in my and everyone that voted to leaves opinion was legally binding. 

We are destroying the democratic fabric of our nation and have started down a very dangerous path. 

As I’ve said if it’s not delivered upon, the result the of the original referendum that is  ,we may as we shut down parliament rip it up and start again as we are finished with the current system as it will set a precedent for any group that disagree with anything in the future that they can simply force it to be stopped. You can disagree with that til the cows come home but it’s the truth of the matter. 

[Spider]

15 minutes ago, darwen_white said:

But it wouldn't though.

We'd still have knobheads organising marches and petitions. Not to mention the BBC initiated shouting at College Green

 

 

 

There are people protesting in London pretty much every day about something or other - as is their democratic right and it's the way things should be.

However, a second win here would shut those who claim we didn't know the facts right up.

Of course some would still protest, fair enough, but the moral and democratic high ground would rest firmly with Leave.

They've nothing to be scared of in a vote - they're not Jeremy Corbyn after all - so should embrace the chance to drive home their obvious advantage and have the courage and conviction they project all over the socials.

Otherwise, they're just cowardy cowardy custards.

Edited October 25, 2019 by Spider

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

I simply don’t buy this legally binding nonsense. The first referendum in my and everyone that voted to leaves opinion was legally binding. 

We are destroying the democratic fabric of our nation and have started down a very dangerous path. 

As I’ve said if it’s not delivered upon, the result the of the original referendum that is  ,we may as we shut down parliament rip it up and start again as we are finished with the current system as it will set a precedent for any group that disagree with anything in the future that they can simply force it to be stopped. You can disagree with that til the cows come home but it’s the truth of the matter. 

What you saw it as though - well it wasn't. Its result was not able to pass directly into law. Its legal status was "advisory". And technically that is "tell us what you think and we'll see what we might want to do". It had to be advisory because Cameron didn't set any details out. He didn't say "vote leave and we will leave the EU on the following date via the following mechanism". Cameron said "we'll do what you say" then walked.......

Your final paragraph - the very point is that in our democracy we refresh it every 5 years at the very longest. So that's the point - things that are decided are generally ripped up and started again. The bottom line is that asking people is not undemocratic - and had the result been implemented when May eventually got her deal - we'd be well into transition now. But it wasn't - because it suddenly wasn't "Brexit" and the definitions changed. They changed without any of us being asked. I know people who voted for Brexit who always wanted May's deal and now feel they've been let down by the very Brexiteers who rejected it. But regardless another vote - if public opinion is still for Brexit - what's the issue? If its not then surely that in itself is democratic? Even if you find it less than ideal to have to ask people again and even if that does open up questions - a second vote would not be undemocratic. Whatever way it went. 

[frank_spencer]

26 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

So you would class the leader of the lib undems as lunatic fringe?

At the minute yes.

Her and BoJo/farage are 2 cheeks of the same arse

[frank_spencer]

26 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

So you would class the leader of the lib undems as lunatic fringe?

At the minute yes.

Her and BoJo/farage are 2 cheeks of the same arse

[DirtySanchez]

3 hours ago, Mounts Kipper said:

 To have a parliament that represents the electorate it’s vital farage wins some seats, there are many many bigger cunts in this parliament than him and his views are shared by a reasonably large part of the electorate. 

What's his track record of winning seats like?

[Escobarp]

13 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

What you saw it as though - well it wasn't. Its result was not able to pass directly into law. Its legal status was "advisory". And technically that is "tell us what you think and we'll see what we might want to do". It had to be advisory because Cameron didn't set any details out. He didn't say "vote leave and we will leave the EU on the following date via the following mechanism". Cameron said "we'll do what you say" then walked.......

Your final paragraph - the very point is that in our democracy we refresh it every 5 years at the very longest. So that's the point - things that are decided are generally ripped up and started again. The bottom line is that asking people is not undemocratic - and had the result been implemented when May eventually got her deal - we'd be well into transition now. But it wasn't - because it suddenly wasn't "Brexit" and the definitions changed. They changed without any of us being asked. I know people who voted for Brexit who always wanted May's deal and now feel they've been let down by the very Brexiteers who rejected it. But regardless another vote - if public opinion is still for Brexit - what's the issue? If its not then surely that in itself is democratic? Even if you find it less than ideal to have to ask people again and even if that does open up questions - a second vote would not be undemocratic. Whatever way it went. 

We have no democracy to go through the 5 year cycle if this vote is not adhered to

its the way I see it and that will never ever be changed. 

[Escobarp]

7 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

At the minute yes.

Her and BoJo/farage are 2 cheeks of the same arse

Fair enough answer pal 

[Mounts Kipper]

12 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

What's his track record of winning seats like?

His track record has no bearing on future chance of winning seats, he did alright in the EU elections and he’s the biggest U.K. party in Brussels. However as usual I’m not sure what point you are trying to make anyhow. 

[Spider]

3 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

His track record has no bearing on future chance of winning seats, he did alright in the EU elections and he’s the biggest U.K. party in Brussels. However as usual I’m not sure what point you are trying to make anyhow. 

Would Leave win a second vote Mounts? Genuine question.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

So you would class the leader of the lib undems as lunatic fringe?

I would

2008; let’s have an in and out referendum 

2016; lost, but let’s have a 2nd go

2019; forget that, let’s just revoke and if there was another referendum, we would not respect/honour it, just like we didn’t with the first.

I can’t see that as a logical position.

[Guest]

Just now, boltondiver said:

I would

2008; let’s have an in and out referendum 

2016; lost, but let’s have a 2nd go

2019; forget that, let’s just revoke and if there was another referendum, we would not respect/honour it, just like we didn’t with the first.

I can’t see that as a logical position.

It isn't. But its one she can take knowing she cannot win a GE. If we had PR and Lib Dems could have a very significant say - she'd be fully 2nd referendum. The move to "lets just revoke" was simply political to distinguish themselves from Labour as Corbyn slowly, ever so slowly drifted towards 2nd ref territory.

Its a weakness of the LD's that they didn't hold a sensible position - and instead decided to try and go hardcore just to be "the remain party". 

[Escobarp]

14 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

I would

2008; let’s have an in and out referendum 

2016; lost, but let’s have a 2nd go

2019; forget that, let’s just revoke and if there was another referendum, we would not respect/honour it, just like we didn’t with the first.

I can’t see that as a logical position.

You won’t find me arguing. I was trying to ascertain Franks view who I find relatively impartial on these matters 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Spider said:

Would Leave win a second vote Mounts? Genuine question.

Hopefully

Probably?

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 hours ago, Sweep said:

Or, if under scrutiny it gets absolutely pulled apart, and then weakens Johnsons hand........I feel a lot of the public are behind it now because of general "Brexit fatigue" and general apathy, they don't know what's actually in it. If it was to transpire that half the shit that Farage reckons is in it, actually is in it, then the general public wouldn't necessarily be all that happy with it, and we could start on the merry go round again

Folk seem to be forgetting this is an agreement between the EU and the UK. It's probably a long way from a true "Boris" deal, and is a compromise.

The EU are happy with it. Like they were with TM deal.

Cannot see them accepting yet another series of renegotiations by any party.

If this does get "pulled apart" those trying to do so are going to fuck off the EU. The very EU the purport to want to be with. Piss them and the government off, and we're only heading a bit closer to a no deal.

Surely Corbyn would be better off allowing the WA to go to through, then try to win an election. That way he at least gets to have a crack and the trade deal, and ensure his "worries" aren't realised.

At the moment Corbyn is the one that could stop a no deal quickly.

[Sweep]

3 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Folk seem to be forgetting this is an agreement between the EU and the UK. It's probably a long way from a true "Boris" deal, and is a compromise.

 

I agree, far too many simpletons think this is actually the "deal" that we're talking about......sadly, this is the easy bit, once we get past this, there will be many more years of discussions about what sort of trade deal we'll get. That'll be fun.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I agree, far too many simpletons think this is actually the "deal" that we're talking about......sadly, this is the easy bit, once we get past this, there will be many more years of discussions about what sort of trade deal we'll get. That'll be fun.

No doubt plenty to do. However, given his success at getting another an agreemente sorted so quickly against all predictions and brickbats, Boris is as likely as anyone to get another reasonable agreement.

The current bit that the screechers complain about (reverting to wto at the end on the implementation period) is essentially the same thing as we currently have. Can't have an open ended implementation period as it wouldn't necessarily suit either side.

Again, this has been agreed by both so I don't get the moaning.

Whether we went deal/no deal, the idea was to get a trade agreement eventually, so I can't understand the suggestion that somehow discussions will be abandoned part way through. If necessary, I'm sure both sides would extend the time frame for trade negotiations.

[Mounts Kipper]

1 hour ago, Spider said:

Would Leave win a second vote Mounts? Genuine question.

Most polls show little has changed in public opinion since the vote in 2016, and it would all depend on how the questions were framed. In my opinion any second referendum on leave /remain would be so divisive for the country that it would be a disaster. 

[Winchester White]

Corbyn is an utter clown who is putting Momentum before country. Likewise for Boris on his side. 

This whole Brexit bollocks had disaster written all over it pre referendum and has proven so. Cameron has a lot to answer for the shiny faced plum.

[DirtySanchez]

1 hour ago, Mounts Kipper said:

His track record has no bearing on future chance of winning seats, he did alright in the EU elections and he’s the biggest U.K. party in Brussels. However as usual I’m not sure what point you are trying to make anyhow. 

He's stood at seats where he thought he had a chance, otherwise he wouldn't have done it 

He lost. More than once 

[Mounts Kipper]

3 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

He's stood at seats where he thought he had a chance, otherwise he wouldn't have done it 

He lost. More than once 

Again not sure what your point is, it does not mean he can’t win a seat in future. And we all know that winning seats when not one of the 2 major parties is difficult. 

[Boby Brno]

It’s not Farage himself that could affect any result, it’s the Brexit party as a whole. They will win votes in traditional Labour seats that would never vote Tory.