|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 8, 2019 16:37:42 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 17:46:58 GMT
Good question, the no deal thing is a bargaining chip and removing it from the negotiation is an oxymoron. Tying the hands of the negotiation team behind their backs is nothing short of treason frankly. Then again, the talk of bringing the parliament down is also a bargaining chip to try and force the leave voters into remaining. Also bloody treasonous. Someone doubled the dose of bromide in the drinking water at the puzzle palace. Planks. Democracy? What democracy?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 8, 2019 18:51:00 GMT
Good question, the no deal thing is a bargaining chip and removing it from the negotiation is an oxymoron. Tying the hands of the negotiation team behind their backs is nothing short of treason frankly. Then again, the talk of bringing the parliament down is also a bargaining chip to try and force the leave voters into remaining. Also bloody treasonous. Someone doubled the dose of bromide in the drinking water at the puzzle palace. Planks. Democracy? What democracy?
Some of us might consider the actions of an unelected Prime Minister counselled by an unelected advisor in frustrating the will of a democratically-elected parliament and tipping us into a no-deal Brexit as being the real treason here.
I really don't understand Cummings' strategy. This is a man who is on record as saying "If there’s no deal, there will be significant problems that were completely avoidable" yet he seems determined to drive the bus over the cliff.
It's impossible not to be reminded of David Cameron's assessment of him as a "career psychopath".
There's an argument that runs that Cummings is hell-bent on re-making Britain's institutions and government, and that he's realised that in order to re-make them the way he wants, they need first to be broken and that's now what he's aiming to do.
If that's true, then we should all be very afraid. Because I really doubt most of us share Cummings' worldview, which by all accounts is rather terrifying. Boris risks just being his puppet and, just to repeat the point, Cummings has never been voted for by anyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 19:44:55 GMT
Putting it basically, when negotiating there is a need for chips on 'our' side to counteract chips on the eu side. Giving those chips away gratis is the worst kind of negotiation and is in fact abject surrender which, the remainers like because they can then get enough fear in the equation to attempt to force a rerun and remain. You talk of democracy and yet the actions of the remain mp's et al is anything BUT democracy. May had no leg to stand on with the mp's removal of the no deal option, now it is still ON the table there is an outcry. Leave it on the table to focus the minds of eu leaders on the fact that we are a sovereign nation and not a puppet state, though the remainers would have us believe otherwise. A set of sensible negotiation should be possible to get a good deal. Without the no deal option we are royally screwed. As you stated, where is the democracy in that? Where was the option on the ballot for 'leave with a deal'? With the eu nations going into free fall, do we really want to be tied to them and their failed policies? Do we really want to be stuck in the system that subsidises German and French defence for which they have NEVER paid their quota?
|
|
|
Democracy
Aug 8, 2019 23:17:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by racingteatray on Aug 8, 2019 23:17:48 GMT
What really will piss me off more than anything will be if we get a no-deal Brexit, which turns out to be the predicted shit-show for this country and those who cheered it on then shirk their responsibility for what they’ve done. Because I can see that happening. You’ve indicated as much above.
No deal as leverage is delusional and it is not the failure to keep that as an option that mattered or matters. The only genuine leverage (and chance of some sort of half decent deal) we had was lost the day we sent in the Art. 50 notification, an action that Brexiteers forced Mrs May to take and the EU was only to happy to accept, knowing that it fatally damaged Britain’s negotiating position. Cummings himself publicly agrees on this point.
But I reckon most Brexiteers will never care to recognise that or own their mistake.
For me, Brexit is a child of a sick and twisted culture today where almost nobody takes any damn responsibility for their own actions or inactions, and blames everything on somebody else.
I suspect Mrs Thatcher, first and foremost, who believed strongly in personal responsibility, would have been appalled by what has become of this country and of the Conservative party.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 9, 2019 7:13:28 GMT
My worst fears (about politics) were confirmed a few weeks ago - Cameron really did have no clue about what to do if the referendum vote outcome was "leave"; no plan, no outline of a plan, nothing.
Now we have had a process to select a new PM and party leader yet within weeks there is talk of ousting and a general election.... and a"no deal" walk away from everything Brexit. The lunatics really are in charge at the asylum named Parliament
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 9, 2019 9:18:58 GMT
My worst fears (about politics) were confirmed a few weeks ago - Cameron really did have no clue about what to do if the referendum vote outcome was "leave"; no plan, no outline of a plan, nothing. Now we have had a process to select a new PM and party leader yet within weeks there is talk of ousting and a general election.... and a"no deal" walk away from everything Brexit. The lunatics really are in charge at the asylum named Parliament There may be lunatics at the asylum named Parliament but they've now got a new high security wing for the biggest loons up the road in Downing Street. That's the really scary part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 9:48:24 GMT
".....and those who cheered it on then shirk their responsibility for what they’ve done. Because I can see that happening. You’ve indicated as much above".
Where did I do that then? You titled this thread "Democracy"., you asked where it was. Nowhere is the answer. The ballot was poor with stay or leave, no talk of a deal anywhere. The remainers have been throwing rocks on the road everywhere. The attempt to remove no deal as a bargaining chip is antidemocratic.
The fear mongering is a poor substitute for a plan, the remainers were just as guilty of this as the leave campaign and both boiled down to 'do what we want or else'.
Time for cool heads and logic rather than the hysteria we have been and are getting.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 9, 2019 10:01:54 GMT
I'd just like to make it clear now that I voted to remain and if there are actually any shortages of important goods that I need I fully expect the leave voters to usher me to the front of the queue as they stand by their convictions.
Clearly that makes me the delusional one.
At what point do the no dealers at all costs get reminded that one of their catchphrases (thought up by Cummings, apparently) was 'Take Back Control'?
In addition to that it was uttered ad finitum by the likes of Andrea Leadsom prior to using phrases like 'decision making should lie with our Sovereign Parliament'.
Shutting down Parliament to force a No Deal through is hypocrisy of the highest order.
And, anyway, at what point did a vote to leave become a vote for a no deal?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 9, 2019 10:10:42 GMT
I think we need to stop trotting out this tired mantra about an "unelected PM while conveniently forgetting half the PMs in the last 100 years on both sides were unelected and we vote for a party in the UK, not a President.
Personally, I think somebody needs to to come out and say "look the vote was only advisory and when we've looked into it it turns that over the last 40 years we've sleepwalked into a situation where we are no longer a sovereign state and have become inextricably enmeshed with 27 other European states to the point where to unentangle ourselves will cause untold economic damage. We need to accept the fact that we are now part of the European Project, for better or worse, and those European MPs, the ones you don't get off your arse and vote for, are now running things. We've therefore got far too many MPs and need to reduce this number by at least half to reflect their reduced importance going forward." And withdraw Article 50.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 10:43:34 GMT
".....at what point did a vote to leave become a vote for a no deal"? At what point did vote leave mean voting for a deal? The whole deal from phrasing the ballot paper to the whole debate forwards has been SNAFU and is unlikely to change with remainers talking us into a depression and some leave followers painting a far too rosy picture of our leaving the eu. The truth as always remains to be seen but democracy is being held to ransom and we all lose from that.
BTW, seeing as it is thought the vote was only advisory, how does that work going forward, the eu top idiot got in with .8 percent so we should rerun that and next time an election is held we should rerun that too because someone is sure to disagree with the result.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 9, 2019 10:45:57 GMT
I think we need to stop trotting out this tired mantra about an "unelected PM while conveniently forgetting half the PMs in the last 100 years on both sides were unelected and we vote for a party in the UK, not a President. Personally, I think somebody needs to to come out and say "look the vote was only advisory and when we've looked into it it turns that over the last 40 years we've sleepwalked into a situation where we are no longer a sovereign state and have become inextricably enmeshed with 27 other European states to the point where to unentangle ourselves will cause untold economic damage. We need to accept the fact that we are now part of the European Project, for better or worse, and those European MPs, the ones you don't get off your arse and vote for, are now running things. We've therefore got far too many MPs and need to reduce this number by at least half to reflect their reduced importance going forward." And withdraw Article 50. On your first point, Boris was the first (and one of many) to attack Gordon Brown as unelected when he succeeded Blair. But then we know Boris is an utter hypocrite.
On your second point, I agree completely. But sadly the Brexiteers are not listening. They have scented victory and refuse to entertain any idea that their victory might prove almost definitely pyrrhic.
Plus we appear to be short that somebody unless Boris is actually planning the biggest bait and switch in history (which being Boris is possible but surely unlikely).
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 9, 2019 10:49:26 GMT
BTW, seeing as it is thought the vote was only advisory
It is not "thought", it is fact.
Referendums in this country are either advisory or binding, and this is very clear in law. A referendum is advisory unless stated to be binding, and this one was not stated to be binding (unlike for example the one on proportional representation).
This explains it well, so I shall save myself the bother: www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/the-culture-secretary-said-the-eu-referendum-was-binding-it-wasnt
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Aug 9, 2019 10:49:45 GMT
".....at what point did a vote to leave become a vote for a no deal"? At what point did vote leave mean voting for a deal? The whole deal from phrasing the ballot paper to the whole debate forwards has been SNAFU and is unlikely to change with remainers talking us into a depression and some leave followers painting a far too rosy picture of our leaving the eu. The truth as always remains to be seen but democracy is being held to ransom and we all lose from that.
BTW, seeing as it is thought the vote was only advisory, how does that work going forward, the eu top idiot got in with .8 percent so we should rerun that and next time an election is held we should rerun that too because someone is sure to disagree with the result.
I'm fairly sure our delightful politicians were clear that a wonderful deal would be forthcoming from the cowering EU. It hasn't turned out that way and I feel as if the lunatics in the ERG/DUP are now pulling the strings. Bob's point about it being advisory doesn't mean re-running the referendum, it means accepting that we've checked it out on behalf of those who voted in favour and on reflection it turns out to be a terrible idea. Obviously anybody who suggests it publicly will be strung up by Farage, etc. (run Bob, run while you still can )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 10:54:52 GMT
The referendum was stated to be binding at the time and since. Even Cameron stated that as fact.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Aug 9, 2019 11:26:46 GMT
The referendum was stated to be binding at the time and since. Even Cameron stated that as fact. I think both you and Racing are correct. When the likes of Cameron were certain that they would win the referendum it was presented, if not explicitly, but certainly implicitly, as binding. It was a once in a lifetime vote designed to shut the anti-EU brigade up for 20 years or so. Once the shock of the defeat set in then the absoluteness of the result was re-visited and it was declared "advisory". Certainly, if the result had gone the other way and Farage and co then piped up that it was only advisory they would have been derided. Boris is a funny one for me. I think he is completely unsuited to any ministerial position but oddly enough he might pull off being PM. No deal should never have been taken off the table and the Irish backstop is a complete non-starter. The EU will negotiate well beyond the 11th hour, as they have done on numerous occasions so I can see his tactic of playing hardball at this time. That said, everyone is focusing on Oct 31st 2019. We should be focusing on every October on every subsequent year. Both the EU and the UK need a long term trading relationship. It's like focusing on the acrimonious divorce whilst ignoring the fact that we need a sensible relationship afterwards to take care of the kids.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 11:46:13 GMT
Agreed, cool heads and leave the panic room empty. Will it happen though? There is no reason we cannot have a good deal and as you say, the eu are doing what they always do, leave the deal until we are leaving the table.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 9, 2019 12:22:38 GMT
The referendum was stated to be binding at the time and since. Even Cameron stated that as fact. Cameron, the man who gave us a referendum with only 2 possible outcomes, one of which was "do nothing and carry on". The other outcome - he never stopped to consider or plan the consequences.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 12:36:46 GMT
A bit like Bliar and Brown jobbie, the whole lot should be in a cell, one bucket, shared. Shooting really is too good.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 9, 2019 13:47:50 GMT
The referendum was stated to be binding at the time and since. Even Cameron stated that as fact. I think both you and Racing are correct. When the likes of Cameron were certain that they would win the referendum it was presented, if not explicitly, but certainly implicitly, as binding. It was a once in a lifetime vote designed to shut the anti-EU brigade up for 20 years or so. Once the shock of the defeat set in then the absoluteness of the result was re-visited and it was declared "advisory". Certainly, if the result had gone the other way and Farage and co then piped up that it was only advisory they would have been derided. Implicitly or otherwise, as a matter of law and fact, it was an advisory referendum.
And if you can construct an argument that Cameron implied the referendum was binding, you can certainly construct an argument that Leave implied that we would leave with a deal, and a good one at that.
Cameron called three referendums; two were advisory and only one was expressed to be binding (the one on proportional representation). Any suggestion that this was not entirely deliberate is false.
After all the Scottish referendum was advisory and so Mrs Sturgeon is entirely entitled to continue her quest for Scottish referendum.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 9, 2019 13:51:41 GMT
There is no reason we cannot have a good deal [...]. Really? Talk me through this assertion please.
Not to get all Donald Trump "Nil Sum Game" on you, but a good deal for one side usually implies that the other side getting not such a good deal. And what is the incentive for Europe to give us what we want if it comes at a cost to them?
If a win-win scenario was remotely plausible, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 9, 2019 14:16:31 GMT
A "good deal" would have been that we continue to trade as before (ie when we were/are in the EU), and we'd cut out the "Brussels makes our laws" bit of being in the EU
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 9, 2019 14:27:14 GMT
A "good deal" would have been that we continue to trade as before (ie when we were/are in the EU), and we'd cut out the "Brussels makes our laws" bit of being in the EU The entire point of having common EU laws on eg standards and quality of goods and services, workers' rights, competition and so on and so forth is precisely that it enables us to have things like mutual recognition of regulations and standards and a level playing field, and thus enable the single market and customs union, which we benefit from. Does the system work perfectly? No, because as long as people exist they will try and game the system and we are no different. But it is demonstrably better than a free-for-all.
The notion that we can trade as before without that is, legally and politically speaking, effectively impossible.
So that's not a good deal. It's an impossible one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 18:46:05 GMT
"Implicitly or otherwise, as a matter of law and fact, it was an advisory referendum".
And if you can construct an argument that Cameron implied the referendum was binding, you can certainly construct an argument that Leave implied that we would leave with a deal, and a good one at that".
Cameron did not 'infer' that the referendum was binding, he stated it as a fact. They all did. The other fact is that the Cameron team made no allowance or plans for a leave result. Either way the eu bottom line is that we leave without a deal unless both sides agree. Posit this, if the eu is so deal oriented, why did they deliberately come up with the NI backstop that they amd May KNEW would never pass? 11th hour and deals will be done, the less scare mongering and chest beating the better.
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Aug 9, 2019 20:20:44 GMT
Personally, I think somebody needs to to come out and say "look the vote was only advisory and when we've looked into it it turns that over the last 40 years we've sleepwalked into a situation where we are no longer a sovereign state and have become inextricably enmeshed with 27 other European states to the point where to unentangle ourselves will cause untold economic damage. We need to accept the fact that we are now part of the European Project, for better or worse, and those European MPs, the ones you don't get off your arse and vote for, are now running things. We've therefore got far too many MPs and need to reduce this number by at least half to reflect their reduced importance going forward." And withdraw Article 50. I'm totally with you (and Racing) on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Aug 9, 2019 20:22:19 GMT
For me, Brexit is a child of a sick and twisted culture today where almost nobody takes any damn responsibility for their own actions or inactions, and blames everything on somebody else. I suspect Mrs Thatcher, first and foremost, who believed strongly in personal responsibility, would have been appalled by what has become of this country and of the Conservative party. Yep. All day long. Pisses me off royally as well. It's the same in many workplaces and certainly the case in both my current one and its two immediate predecessors.
|
|
|
Democracy
Aug 9, 2019 23:22:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by racingteatray on Aug 9, 2019 23:22:52 GMT
"Implicitly or otherwise, as a matter of law and fact, it was an advisory referendum". And if you can construct an argument that Cameron implied the referendum was binding, you can certainly construct an argument that Leave implied that we would leave with a deal, and a good one at that". Cameron did not 'infer' that the referendum was binding, he stated it as a fact. They all did. The other fact is that the Cameron team made no allowance or plans for a leave result. Either way the eu bottom line is that we leave without a deal unless both sides agree. Posit this, if the eu is so deal oriented, why did they deliberately come up with the NI backstop that they amd May KNEW would never pass? 11th hour and deals will be done, the less scare mongering and chest beating the better. No one is suggesting the EU is deal-orientated, least of all me. I suspect they are not. Having stated that a deal will be done, what will your reaction be if we do crash out without a deal? I’m not saying you are definitely wrong because I accept that at the moment anything is possible, but by the same token no-deal cannot so airily discounted. I sit in business meetings every day with company directors and senior bankers and they are literally all assuming and planning for a hard Brexit at this point. No-one would do that if it wasn’t a very real possibility. The problem is that being a very real possibility nevertheless doesn’t make it a valuable bargaining chip because I don’t think the EU is minded to save us from our stupidity at this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 11:32:04 GMT
The eu is determined not to save itself. Domino's, and I do not meant the pizza place.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Aug 10, 2019 18:54:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Aug 11, 2019 7:43:34 GMT
|
|