|
Brexit
Aug 17, 2019 0:45:16 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 0:45:16 GMT
The issue if we have a 2nd referendum and remain won then the Leavers would demand another one and Farage would still have his platform. What if we voted to Leave again and it was very close, would the remainers accept this any more than 2016 one.
We cannot have more than 2 choices on any ballot as that would be almost certain to have no clear majority. Lets say it was No Deal, Leave with negotiated deal or remain and results were say 32%, 21% and 47%?
|
|
227 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 17, 2019 1:59:24 GMT
Post by ukpuppetboy on Aug 17, 2019 1:59:24 GMT
We cannot have more than 2 choices on any ballot as that would be almost certain to have no clear majority. Lets say it was No Deal, Leave with negotiated deal or remain and results were say 32%, 21% and 47%? Well surely you should negotiate the new arrangement (deal or not) and put THAT (single) option to the people before putting it to rest? Either way. At least then the nation would have the facts laid before them for once and should be able to make an informed decision and not one based on lies, well intentioned promises that cannot be kept or a complete avoidance of the issues that arise altogether.
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 17, 2019 5:23:26 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2019 5:23:26 GMT
The issue if we have a 2nd referendum and remain won then the Leavers would demand another one and Farage would still have his platform. What if we voted to Leave again and it was very close, would the remainers accept this any more than 2016 one. The reason I think there should be a second referendum is because the first was conducted entirely on a basis of undeliverable promises and scaremongering. I wouldn't have a problem with the Leave side winning if the campaign had been conducted fairly and honestly. What I take issue with is that we're only in this position now because they promised things that they knew couldn't possibly happen and created bogeymen out of foreigners. I would hope those deceitful ploys would only fool people once. Of course some people will never change their minds, and it's clear from the "we mustn't delay no matter what the cost to Britain" faction that for them this is entirely about hating the EU and to hell with the consequences for everyone else. (My father, for example, thinks the EU is Germany's way of continuing WW2.) But the people whose jobs are under threat because of trading difficulties deserve another say now they know that the world is not going to be hammering on the door of a post-EU United Kingdom begging for our business. Have two questions: Should the UK leave the EU? If the UK leaves the EU, is it acceptable to leave without a deal?
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 17, 2019 7:25:11 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 17, 2019 7:25:11 GMT
Only one majority Labour government has needed Scottish Labour MP's Labour were the dominant Scottish Party until recent years but now only have 7 MPs out of the 59 North of the Border. If Scotland did go independent then using the last Election results Tories would have 304 seats and Labour 255 seats. That would give the Tories a clear majority. Considering that Labour had a minimum of 40 seats in Scotland at every Election from 1964 to 2010, it is very interesting that taking these away would have only deprived Labour of a majority once. But we have to factor in two Blair Landslides and the 18 years of Tory rule under Maggie and Major. With the Lib Dems having their strong hold, the NI parties having their seats, I'd feel without Scottish seats or support from SNP then for a Labour Government to win an election with a devolved Scotland would be very hard. Yep Labour win landslides when the country get fed up of the nasty party. That party has the greatest record in any western democracy of the last century so it is really difficult for Labour to win in a conservative country. But when they formed majority governments they have only needed Scottish MP's once. Look it up, I've got the figures if you want me to save you time, but it is an urban myth that the Labour party can't win without Scottish MP's.
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Aug 17, 2019 13:15:53 GMT
Take your pick, from Tony Blair on to that campaign lead by that woman in the high court backed by her banker etc. Why does it matter who she’s backed by? She went to the high court and won. Do we not like the law now? (Do not get me started on your disrespectful use of ‘that woman’ either. You clearly have the internet, try Google.)
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Aug 17, 2019 19:31:32 GMT
It matters because it is a matter for the Government, not anybody who happens to be wealthy enough to go to a court. As for the other, couldn't in the time I had, and just using correct English, not intending anything by it. The government is not above the law and they must never be. (I’m pretty sure you’d be beatifying her if it was in reverse.)
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 18, 2019 21:03:26 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 18, 2019 21:03:26 GMT
An interesting struggle playing out in Government. Civil servants have been able to leak, and thereby undermine Gov policy (Leave iirc) at will, under PM May. Someone is likely to be taken aside and get their privates singed with a blow torch - probably by Cummings himself - if they are identified under the current leadership. Nonetheless, planning for worst-case scenarios are leaking like a Thames Water main on the South Circular. I'm not sure this will work as intended anymore; it seems to confirm this Gov's determination to stick to policy. Johnson is to meet Merkel/Macron this week. Things have been frosty between Berlin and Paris since Merkel told Macron he was "delusional" over Brexit so, with Johnson doing his Boris act, this should all go splendidly. Carry On Off the Cliff: www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/18/number-10-furious-leak-document-predicting-no-deal-brexit-shortages
|
|
952 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 19, 2019 7:03:27 GMT
Post by vdcni on Aug 19, 2019 7:03:27 GMT
Well that article actually says a former minister and not civil servants and worst case scenario is what the government is now claiming now that it has leaked and given how much they have lied over no deal planning I'm not sure why we're expected to believe that.
And if government policy is to damage Britain to that extent it absolutely should be undermined.
|
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Aug 19, 2019 7:05:00 GMT
Take your pick, from Tony Blair on to that campaign lead by that woman in the high court backed by her banker etc. Other than give his opinion I don't really see what impact Blair has had and I don't see how that gets in the way of anyone else. And Gina Miller was the opposite - without her we would have had even less debate and understanding of what is going on.
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 19, 2019 9:20:37 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 19, 2019 9:20:37 GMT
Well that article actually says a former minister and not civil servants and worst case scenario is what the government is now claiming now that it has leaked and given how much they have lied over no deal planning I'm not sure why we're expected to believe that. And if government policy is to damage Britain to that extent it absolutely should be undermined. I know what the article in The Guardian says. They really are a little stuck for catastrophising (sic) authorities this time.
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 19, 2019 9:52:01 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 9:52:01 GMT
With all this talk about parties trying to get a Government of National Unity, if they did that somehow without the Tory Right Wing Brexiteers and Corbyn's Labour Left. How could there then be a General Election in a few months time, those MPs who went against their Party Leaders would unlikely to be "welcomed back into the fold".
Ken Clarke as a Stop Gap PM wouldn't really work as he is pushing 80 and I don't think the stress of the job would be ideal for him.
One name not mentioned is Philip Hammond probably the most recently experienced Cabinet Minister available or would he be seen too close to May for a lot of people's liking?
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 19, 2019 9:59:42 GMT
It matters because it is a matter for the Government, not anybody who happens to be wealthy enough to go to a court. As for the other, couldn't in the time I had, and just using correct English, not intending anything by it. The Government must be bound by the law of the land in a democracy, otherwise it is a dictatorship. The fact that money is required to access the legal system is a travesty - the law should be there to serve its citizens interests, not just to enforce Government power over them. I think people sometimes forget that a government is only one arm of our democratic system, and that checks and balances on its power exist for a reason. Parliament is one of those checks, so is the law and our (unwritten) Constitution. One could argue that our democracy is founded on the idea that the Government shouldn't actually gets its own way all the time - going right back to Magna Carta, when the Government was the will of the King, and he was forced to cede some of his power to the Barons. That's the origin of Parliament - the Parliamentary supremacy that Brexiteers claimed to be so keen on.
|
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Aug 19, 2019 10:28:22 GMT
Huh, this case was decided by the Law Lords, by the UK Supreme Court- they decided that the government were in the wrong in their belief that they could trigger Article 50 without a vote in Parliament.
I didn't realise we were just supposed to accept the governments decisions no matter what.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Aug 19, 2019 10:53:13 GMT
The government is not above the law and they must never be. (I’m pretty sure you’d be beatifying her if it was in reverse.) Other than give his opinion I don't really see what impact Blair has had and I don't see how that gets in the way of anyone else. And Gina Miller was the opposite - without her we would have had even less debate and understanding of what is going on. The Government must be bound by the law of the land in a democracy, otherwise it is a dictatorship. I think people sometimes forget that a government is only one arm of our democratic system, and that checks and balances on its power exist for a reason. The problem lies in the idea that if you dislike a law and are rich enough, there is the idea that you can buy your way to getting it changed. I.E. when I win the Euromillions rollover, I can get several decisions I dislike over-ruled. Sure, there needs to be check and balance, but that is / was what the Law Lords were for, and that seems to be being run roughshod over. And no, I wouldn't laud Gina Miller if she were to bat for the other team - I still think it wrong for the reason given. Your perception is wrong. Taking a case to court is expensive, but each case is still going to be judged on its merit under the law. It doesn't matter how much you've spent to get it there, you can't buy the result you want. Lack of money means that you won't get access to the process, and that is a terrible thing - if you can't get access you can't put your case, no matter how much merit it has. But if your case has no merit you will still lose. The case set a useful precedent regarding Parliamentary Supremacy, but given that MPs were silly enough to vote to immediately trigger Article 50 anyway, it didn't actually affect the outcome. Wiser politicians would have voted down immediately triggering Article 50 and insisted on a consultation period to figure out just exactly what 'Brexit' actually means for our country, what our negotiating goals should have been, before Article 50 was actually triggered, to avoid this absolute fiasco with the Withdrawal agreement satisfying no-one and being repeatedly voted down. Gina Miller's case gave Parliament a chance to actually control the Brexit process so that it could be carried out in an orderly fashion. Parliament ultimately failed to do that, because they were terrified of the Brexit 'saboteur' rhetoric scuppering their election chances. We are all going to suffer in the long-run because of their abrogation of responsibility.
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 19, 2019 14:03:43 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 14:03:43 GMT
If you really wanted to be flippant you could argue that the Justice Secretary is the head of the Judiciary and the PM is their boss so could the PM be above the justice system.
We have the rule whereby MPs can speak without fear of prosecution within the House like when those Super Injunction names were revealed.
I'm sure that both sides have checked for any archaic legislation which could help their cause.
As regards the Speaker isn't that position supposed to be impartial yet Bercow is stating his view. Also as Leader of the House Rees-Mogg has a certain control on what is debated, so I could see him being up to a few ulterior motives.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 19, 2019 20:19:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by NeilVHughes on Aug 19, 2019 20:19:39 GMT
Read an interesting piece about Boris’s strategy.
He knows he is in a corner, currently building a case of victim of Europe and insergents.
Will argue that he has been placed in a position dictated by others, forced to change the leaving date.
Everything will descend to the scenario in the light of everything he did all he could do and compromise was forced upon him.
Arise St Boris, as we get the best if both worlds, No Deal thwarted, a Custom Union, we remain in ‘Europe’ only in a smoke and mirrors scenario where we all believe we win.
Looking forward to reading the history books in 30yrs if I am still here, the true genius knows there is only a fine line between idiocy and genius and only history will tell which side of the line Boris lies.
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 19, 2019 20:41:45 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 19, 2019 20:41:45 GMT
If you really wanted to be flippant you could argue that the Justice Secretary is the head of the Judiciary and the PM is their boss so could the PM be above the justice system. Separation of Powers. The judiciary is independent. Full stop. No grace or favour, no bias, without prejudice. When required, it's role is to interpret the law as it was intended to be when the bill passed both Houses and becomes an Act.
Without the Rule of Law, there is pretty much nothing. To be clear, the Supreme Court tells the Government what it must or need not do in any given case brought before the Supremes in which HMG is a cited party.
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 19, 2019 23:20:04 GMT
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2019 23:20:04 GMT
I just don't see either of the major two parties really wanting an election with a no deal still an option. Plus if we get Brexit done then that takes Farage out of the picture. His party could take a big chunk of Labour and Tory voters. I feel the Lib Dems want an election with No Deal still an option as they seem to be regaining ground and nearly filling the 3rd taxi full of MPs. This gives them a better platform to campaign on especially with the two big parties having a lot of ongoing issues.
With the possible vote of confidence I wonder if the Sheffield Hallam member might postpone his resignation for a few days next month as his vote could be fairly important.
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Brexit
Aug 21, 2019 16:56:08 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Aug 21, 2019 16:56:08 GMT
I just don't see either of the major two parties really wanting an election with a no deal still an option. Plus if we get Brexit done then that takes Farage out of the picture. His party could take a big chunk of Labour and Tory voters. I feel the Lib Dems want an election with No Deal still an option as they seem to be regaining ground and nearly filling the 3rd taxi full of MPs. This gives them a better platform to campaign on especially with the two big parties having a lot of ongoing issues. With the possible vote of confidence I wonder if the Sheffield Hallam member might postpone his resignation for a few days next month as his vote could be fairly important. If not now for Labour, then when?
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 25, 2019 20:17:36 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Aug 25, 2019 20:17:36 GMT
Excuse me. No point stirring the pot on this point.
|
|
5,073 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Aug 25, 2019 21:02:16 GMT
What happened to the blue, red and white Brexit?
|
|
4,995 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Aug 26, 2019 8:00:43 GMT
What happened to the blue, red and white Brexit? Unfortunately that wonderful strong and stable statement is no more #sadface #sobbing #sainttheresa
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2019 8:15:27 GMT
What happened to the blue, red and white Brexit? Unfortunately that wonderful strong and stable statement is no more #sadface #sobbing #sainttheresa Blue Passports Red faced embarrassment White washed country Pretty much sums up Brexit to me.
|
|
|
Brexit
Aug 27, 2019 9:47:19 GMT
Post by missthelma on Aug 27, 2019 9:47:19 GMT
With each day that passes and with every nonsensical barrage of drivel that seeps out of Johnson, Corbyn and Swinson I am more and more ashamed to be part of a country whose elected representatives are behaving in this fashion. Leaving is becoming more the better option as really how could the UK stay in an organisation it has so profoundly insulted and treated with such contempt and derision. Also why would they want us? I certainly wouldn't.
I truly despair
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 12:51:39 GMT
With each day that passes and with every nonsensical barrage of drivel that seeps out of Johnson, Corbyn and Swinson I am more and more ashamed to be part of a country whose elected representatives are behaving in this fashion. Leaving is becoming more the better option as really how could the UK stay in an organisation it has so profoundly insulted and treated with such contempt and derision. Also why would they want us? I certainly wouldn't. I truly despair They may not be too bothered about us, but they certainly want our money. ;-)
|
|