Originally Posted by djfunkdup (Post 35973376)

117-Days 14-Hrs 1-Min and 45 seconds :D:D:D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973373)

Provide some evidence and I'll believe you. Not baseless accusations. I prefer to live in the real world of facts and not hearsay.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973227)

Those who scream about sovereignty do so, until they realise that Parliament is sovereign above all. If Parliament votes instruct the Government to remain, and the Government ignores the will of Parliament in favour of a non-binding advisory referendum we can look forward to a) a general election and b) a Brexit vote in 2019.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973378)

You might have to reset/suspend that clock at some point ;)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973381)

Parliament voted to give this specific decision to the electorate. Parliament subsequently voted to enact the result of the referendum.

So the result referendum is no longer “advisory”

If parliament vote the deal down, which they can do, it doesn’t change the law, and we will still leave in March.

Parliament voting no to the deal is not a vote to remain.

There would have to be a Parliamentary vote on whether to stay in or out. Considering Parliament have already voted to leave ( the result of which I don’t recall being conditional on what type of deal, if any, we ended up with) it would be the greatest betrayal ever seen in modern Western politics.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973373)

Provide some evidence and I'll believe you. Not baseless accusations. I prefer to live in the real world of facts and not hearsay.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973391)

How many times should Parliament vote on the deal?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973393)

There are not sufficient 'facts' that can be used to prove the point, because we are looking to the future. We only have forecasts based on whatever assumptions people want to put into the mix.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973297)

And they still keep getting it wrong. Time after time after time. Plenty of evidence for that.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973381)

Parliament voted to give this specific decision to the electorate. Parliament subsequently voted to enact the result of the referendum.

So the result referendum is no longer “advisory”

If parliament vote the deal down, which they can do, if it doesn’t change the law, and we will still leave in March.

Parliament voting no to the deal is not yet a vote to remain.

There would have to be a Parliamentary vote on whether to stay in or out. Considering Parliament have already voted to leave ( the result of which I don’t recall being conditional on what type of deal, if any, we ended up with) it would be seen by some asthe greatest betrayal ever seen in modern Western politics.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973396)

I'm just asking you to back up your statement below with evidence:

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35973399)

The evidence has already been proven by the last forcasts that didn't hold true why should this be any different?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35973374)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...-may-r9wmh0v89

No wonder the Govt. want this legal advice 'kept quiet'. It's out now anyway so they might aswell publish.

Seemed to have been leaked from within the cabinet - surprise, surprise ! (#oilysnakegove). The vultures are circling round TM !

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973400)

This is big news - leading on Sky.

https://news.sky.com/story/fresh-bre...mands-11569427

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973396)

I'm just asking you to back up your statement below with evidence:

Originally Posted by Carth (Post 35973402)

I can't be bothered to trawl through the internet all day Andrew, but perhaps these few links may answer your question in some small way.

Forecasts and analysis are simply a guessing game . . links are various and scattered, but the story is the same

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/ci...y-got-it-wrong

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/ec...ital-economics

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-admits-errors

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wall-st...ong-1511474337

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ng-186090.html

http://betagroup.co.uk/economists-never-learn/

https://iea.org.uk/uk-economy-likely...in-2018-again/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/...about-experts/

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973416)

No one's expecting you to trawl round the internet all day. ;) Thanks for the articles, I'll have a read later. :)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973435)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973398)

I’ve put some fixes in bold.

Almost everything Parliament does is conditional, it can change it’s mind on the basis of any new facts it pleases. Outright remaining is betrayal, a second referendum that remain wins less so. Which is why you are so terrified of it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973398)

Which is why you are so terrified of it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973404)

They aren’t simply a guessing game, otherwise there wouldn’t be so much money in it. Yes, they can be wrong and often there’s a margin, but to attribute it to guesswork is simply misleading.l

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973437)

I was under the understanding that amending others posts was not allowed on this forum?

---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:16 ----------



I’m not afraid of anything, I voted remain, it wouldn’t bother me if we stayed in. But that’s not what the result was.

I’m a Democrat first and foremost

---------- Post added at 17:38 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------



They are scenarios that have been modelled, all of which assume that the government would be passive in all situations - which simply isn’t the case

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973444)

If I should have copied and pasted your post, then added to it to clarify then I apologise to the forum team for not understanding the rule correctly.

There’s nothing undemocratic about asking the people if this outcome meets their expectations. Being a Democrat first are foremost is a red herring.

If there are any other economic models which assume the Government does act why haven’t these been commissioned by interested parties? The European Research Group is certainly lacking in research in this regard.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35973443)

If there was a 2nd referendum and the vote was still for leave, would that actually be honoured? If so, then why bother with a 2nd and just get on with honouring the 1st.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35973446)

If none of the options in a 2nd referendum represents the outcome of the 1st, then it IS undemocratic.

It would be like the losing party in a general election actually winning, and having a further vote to decide who would be prime minister from the losing party.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973425)

You know very well about Project Fear and the forecasts that were made about the economy taking a hit immediately after any vote to leave the EU. It was wrong, wrong, wrong.

The economic forecasts you are relying on for the future assume that negatives from leaving the EU will not be balanced by anything else changing. So while they may be fairly accurate about those negatives (or not), without the balance of positives also being factored in, you get a misleading result. Frankly, I would have thought that was obvious.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973429)

UK economic growth is lower since the referendum, inflation is up and the pound trading lower. I’m unsure how desirable any of these qualities are.

A lower pound could increase manufacturing exports, increasing our competitiveness. However you’d hope that’d be reflected in higher growth - which is isn’t.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973450)

As you know, business hates uncertainty. That's why we need to make the method of leaving the EU clear with no further delay. Will it be deal or no deal? We need to settlethis before Christmas. Then just look at how the markets react.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973449)

Only today, I was reading in the leave-supporting Sunday Times about how the benefits of any trade deals have been vastly oversold and account to fractions of a per cent. It looks like they now accept the maths so it may be just a matter of time before you do too.
And, as I explained before, government propaganda should not be confused with forecasting.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973444)

There’s nothing undemocratic about asking the people if this outcome meets their expectations. Being a Democrat first are foremost is a red herring.
.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973454)

Well there is when the outcome from the first referendum has not been enacted.

I’m all for another referendum in say 15-20 years, when we would truly know the outcomes of his decision.

It’s not a red-herring at all, funny you should describe a being democrat as a red-herring........says it all really.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973448)

The losing party in a General Election is given an opportunity no more than five years from the date of the previous one to take their case to the people again.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973452)

And if the markets crash?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973455)

The outcome of the first referendum has been enacted

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35973456)

BREXIT BOMBSHELL: Gina Miller says 'my court win means NO DEAL BREXIT is inevitable'

ARCH-Remainer Gina Miller admitted her legal action means MP’s “cannot stop” a no-deal Brexit

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...-May-deal-vote

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973457)

Oktherefore, by your own logic, there should be at least a minimum of 5 years before another referendum. Personally I think at least 15 yrs minimum. However you agree that This referendum should at least be allowed to play out, for five years?

As you say, There should be no second vote?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973460)

I could not disagree further.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973458)

You are such a drama queen! :D

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973462)

Why post it then?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973448)

The losing party in a General Election is given an opportunity no more than five years from the date of the previous one to take their case to the people again.

The performance of the Government in reality is then held against the alternative proposals going forward.

This would be entirely consistent with measuring the performance of Brexit negotiations and possible outcomes all over again.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973463)

selective interpation

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973436)

You are assuming it’s actually possible to deliver long term and sustainable economic growth when outside he largest trading bloc on the planet, with it entirely unclear where this trade will come from and what benefits it will have.

Your proposal is equally as hypothetical as chopping someone’s hands off and suggesting they find a way to tie their shoelaces.

Indeed politicians have told you the best way to deliver economic growth and that is to remain.

I’m still unclear on any EU laws we will be “free of” that will deliver economic benefits. I asked last week and got no meaningful reply.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973470)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973465)

Well explain what you mean by this post then?

If that it not what you meant then this post is a total waste of words, which wouldn’t be the first time, granted.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:52 ----------



That’s a new one, surely everybody interprets others posts subjectively. Are you suggesting I should generally interpret your posts?



The point being that even after a general election there is a 5yr term to implement the result.

As the result of the referendum has not even been implemented yet, do you think we could be afforded the courtesy of seeing the result carried out before we vote again?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973471)

No. I don’t think we should be afforded that courtesy without the question being asked again due to more information being available.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973472)

So, to carry on the general Election analogy. When the Lib-Dems stated categorically in their manifesto that they would not increase tuition fees, but then when in government they reneged on that promise, outright lied. Surely then, as we now fully knew one of the outcomes of that election,and it was not as promised, we should have been allowed to rerun the election?

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973473)

I’m quite sure they paid the price of that decision in 2015. What you are proposing is the whole country pays the price until 2040.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973474)

But you offer no argument that the mechanics of the point are invalid.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973475)

Your point is totally invalid.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973477)

So really we can summarise your position as Brexit at all costs, and you are absolutely terrified you will lose your dream in the next few months.

It’s not about the economy, or the best interests of the country, but about restricting freedom of movement at all costs. Being happy to have five years of recession is quite a price to pay.

At least be honest about it, I’d have slightly more respect for you.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973477)

So really we can summarise your position as Brexit at all costs,

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973477)

So really we can summarise your position as Brexit at all costs, and you are absolutely terrified you will lose your dream in the next few months.

It’s not about the economy, or the best interests of the country, but about restricting freedom of movement at all costs. Being happy to have five years of recession is quite a price to pay.

<SNIP>

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35973481)

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973480)

Evidently I can hold a better one than you, run away then, come back when you can debate the points and arguments put to you.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973483)

Far from, but you don’t actually have a consistent or coherent argument. You voted Remain, now you want us to Leave at the soonest opportunity under the guise of democracy but denying people the right to vote on it.

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35973487)

Jfman - really you sound like Corbyn, Roll out the picket signs "we shall not be moved"

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973489)

You’re not listening, or either can’t understand or refuse to understand.

Try to think jfman, thinking is so important.

I voted Remain. Leave won. Parliament voted to leave in March 2019. I merely support the democratic decisions of the electorate and the democratically elected Parliament.

Subsequently to that I only wish to see a period of time elapse for bexit to play out before it is revisited. I would prefer 10-15 years, but would live with 5 as a minimum, that’s all.

Well yes.....we would have to assess the drawbacks and benefits of rejoining at the time.

Try harder, I have to deal with your unique skill of not understanding any points put to you.

Fair enough, I look forward to you adding nothing.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973490)

That’s quite an insult. :D

I’m going to try and avoid the circular discussions, I think my position has been repeated enough.

However it’s a virtual certainty the politicians are trying to weasel out of this without getting the blame for doing so.

More people than ever before are mentioning “no Brexit at all” and a 2nd referendum. It’s all about softening up the public for when one/other/both happens to minimise a backlash.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:22 ----------



Ironically you continue with your flawed understanding of what constitutes democracy and even further flawed understanding of our constitution.

Parliament is sovereign in this country. The people, or rather Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, are not. A key principle within this is that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament, and as such no Government can bind a future Government. Regardless of any advisory referendum carried out on any random date.

Your whole reason for wanting to leave is not understanding this point. Which is fine I suppose, because clearly you don’t understand the economics of the situation enough for it to be on that basis.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973490)

Ironically you continue with your flawed understanding of what constitutes democracy and even further flawed understanding of our constitution.

Parliament is sovereign in this country. The people, or rather Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, are not.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973479)

You can barely hold a consistent argument so let’s leave it there. Don’t quote me.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35973495)

Don’t think of it as a 2nd referendum, more of a 1st referendum on the deal...

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973493)

I thought you had nothing to add?

You fail to understand that on this question Parliament conceded it sovereignty to the electorate. It is quite that simple. Do you understand yet?


No one is saying that. If a future government, after this referendum is enacted, wishes to ask if we want to re-join the EU, they can.

already addressed this, which you ignore again. Funny how it’s ok for you to be selective.

The result has been enshrined in law, in a parliamentry democratic vote, therefore no longer advisory

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973496)

But Hugh, that is not and has never been a thing.

There was a referendum to stay or leave. Leave won.

Anything after this is waffle with dumplings.

We voted to leave, therefore we must leave. If after we have left and there is a movement to rejoin, fine. No problem with it.

But result of the first referendum must be enacted.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973496)

But Hugh, that is not and has never been a thing.

There was a referendum to stay or leave. Leave won.

Anything after this is waffle with dumplings.

We voted to leave, therefore we must leave. If after we have left and there is a movement to rejoin, fine. No problem with it.

But result of the first referendum must be enacted.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35973498)

And even if there was a 2nd referendum, with a remain option - why should this referendum take precedence over the first?

Leave campaign will just insist on a 3rd and so on, to what end do we stand up and say one referendum is enough because this is democracy.

Keep having referendums until one side gets the result it wants, is not a true democracy.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973497)

Parliament didn’t concede sovereignty, it legislated to hold an advisory referendum. It’s free to hold as many as it pleases in future. That’s the point of sovereignty, it is supreme authority.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973499)

In your opinion, yes.

Legally, no

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973503)

I fail to see how “I’ll get there in the end” when I’m citing hundreds of years of convention relating to Parliamentary Sovereignty.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973501)

However, to repeal A50 will need all the parliamentry hoops and be debated and voted, bearing in mind that parliament has already voted to leave.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973505)

Literally in this sentence you accept Parliament is sovereign.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973504)

Yet failing to understand what parliament has done in regards to Brexit. I hope you’ll get there in the end.

nope don’t see it.

Quote and reference it.



Yes.



Will require parliamentry vote, and only if there was a realistic outcome of a new deal.



A people’s vote is not even on the horizon, a “people’s vote” is nothing but a fantasy.

A second referendum ( which is what it is) would have to debated, voted in parliament.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973506)

I think Oliver Cromwell sorted that argument out.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35973507)

[/B]

there a chance it will be after deal get defeated in parliament you must admit there a chance it will be

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973508)

Was representative democracy a big thing in the 17th Century?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973509)

Can’t deny Dave, anything is possible, is it probable?...........

Bottom line is this:

Article 50 was voted through parliament because there was a mandate from the electorate to do so. MPs that voted remain still voted A50 because they knew they had too.

Fast forward nothing has changed. There is lots of discussion but there is no overwhelming mandate to overturn A50.

Unless something happens between now and March, that Parliament thinks would result in turning around the A50 vote it won’t happen.

---------- Post added at 23:35 ---------- Previous post was at 23:33 ----------



Ha, is that the best you can do? Time for bed sunshine, do you want me to tuck you in?

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35973511)

only think that's certain is they be lots more chaos when deal gets voted down in parliament

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973509)

Ha, is that the best you can do? Time for bed sunshine, do you want me to tuck you in?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35973509)

Can’t deny Dave, anything is possible, is it probable?...........

Bottom line is this:

Article 50 was voted through parliament because there was a mandate from the electorate to do so. MPs that voted remain still voted A50 because they knew they had too.

Fast forward nothing has changed. There is lots of discussion but there is no overwhelming mandate to overturn A50.

Unless something happens between now and March, that Parliament thinks would result in turning around the A50 vote it won’t happen.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973515)

Or, not give much of a statement!

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35973517)

I thought he was just brushing over it and not giving the full book?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973514)

I think there does seem to be a change in rhetoric as jfman has highlighted. I definitely had not heard no Brexit being mentioned by the Government until recently. Whether this is a case of promoting the current deal to Brexit MPs as "May's deal or no Brexit" (and to Remain MPs as "May's deal or a no-deal Brexit") or whether there's something more substantive behind it, I don't know.

On another note, popcorn tomorrow, folks! In the afternoon, Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, will give his statement on the government's legal advice on the withdrawal agreement.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35973519)

<SNIP>

before anyone says project fear I remind you to read 3rd paragraph of article 50 and that is legal document about leaving EU

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35973507)

[/B]

there a chance it will be after deal get defeated in parliament you must admit there a chance it will be

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35973514)

I think there does seem to be a change in rhetoric as jfman has highlighted. I definitely had not heard no Brexit being mentioned by the Government until recently. Whether this is a case of promoting the current deal to Brexit MPs as "May's deal or no Brexit" (and to Remain MPs as "May's deal or a no-deal Brexit") or whether there's something more substantive behind it, I don't know.

On another note, popcorn tomorrow, folks! In the afternoon, Geoffrey Cox, the attorney-general, will give his statement on the government's legal advice on the withdrawal agreement.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973531)

I see no reason why Theresa May needs to put any further votes to Parliament if the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down. Just let the no-deal Brexit happen. The legislation is already passed and Article 50 is in place.

It was Theresa May's idea to have this bridge between membership and non-membership. Parliament either accepts it or they don't.

---------- Post added at 07:45 ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 ----------



I don't see 'no Brexit' as an option. As you intimate, this threat was aimed at the 'hard' Brexiteers.

Before May's idea about a transitional arrangement, most people just thought we would be leaving, full stop. So if the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't pass, we are just back to our original expectations.

The Withdrawal Agreement has certainly succeeded in muddying the waters, but it hasn't reduced the enthusiasm of those who voted to leave.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35973551)

they don't want country to fall of cliff edge OB it be utter chaos with no deal

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973552)

A 'no deal' would not bring the chaos that some predict, but the Withdrawal Agreement is designed to smooth the way.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35973552)

A 'no deal' would not bring the chaos that some predict, but the Withdrawal Agreement is designed to smooth the way.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35973555)

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/no-d...-consequences/ No deal - no Withdrawal Agreement.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973558)

. . and we have now all accepted Parliament can defy the “so called” will of the people if it wishes to.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973558)

It doesn’t matter what flawed and unquantifiable metrics people justify “no deal” as a good idea. The Parliamentary arithmetic won’t allow it when push comes to shove, and we have now all accepted Parliament can defy the “so called” will of the people if it wishes to. It’s all now about the PR.

If it was as straightforward as “no deal=Brexit” people wouldn’t be using terminology like chaos, or shitstorm. Nor would there be panic among JRM and the ERG. It’d be crystal clear.

Originally Posted by Dave42 (Post 35973553)

it would what about medicines security planes ect we leave every treaty OB as says in article 50 and we be only country in world with zero trade deals too and there no withdrawal agreement at all with a no deal Brexit OB

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35973562)

Looking at the furore this agreement has caused, it does seem that a lot of people have forgotten that the deal on the table is an interim agreement until a full trade agreement can be reached. [SEPH]: Er - see Macron for bullying details as to the difficulties we'll have reaching a trade deal with 27 countries of which France is but the first.

Here's a nice summary from some trade experts on the current status and what might happen next and what needs to happen next - https://uktradeforum.net/2018/11/30/...l-with-the-eu/ [SEPH]: Not a 'nice summary' at all because it completely downplays the likelihood or even the possibility of being trapped in the CU at the EU's whim.

Originally Posted by jonbxx (Post 35973562)

Looking at the furore this agreement has caused, it does seem that a lot of people have forgotten that the deal on the table is an interim agreement until a full trade agreement can be reached.

Here's a nice summary from some trade experts on the current status and what might happen next and what needs to happen next - https://uktradeforum.net/2018/11/30/...l-with-the-eu/

Insisting he would answer questions 'candidly', Mr Cox said the Britain was 'indefinitely committed' to the backstop if it ever came into force - but said that was a political not a legal question.
Short of agreeing a full UK-EU trade deal, the only way to break the Irish backstop is to convince a tribunal there is 'clear evidence' that the EU is deliberately avoiding finalising a trade agreement.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973565)

Curious language by the Attorney General, the backstop is “intended to be temporary“, which is to say it doesn’t have that definate legal status. Or else he would specify the timescale or mechanism by which it will end.

Tick tock for May’s plan.

---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------

I’m still unsure how a French starting point of negotiations (fishing rights) is “bullying” if we want tariff free access to the largest trading bloc in the world. What if Trump wanted rights to drill for shale gas in the UK or it’s overseas territories to go to US companies? Would that be “bullying”?

“Great” Britain better get used to being bullied I feel giving up anything in trade negotiations is suddenly a red line. The rest of the world is likely to be anticipating our distressed negotiating position as we get desperate for any kind of agreement with anyone.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35973573)

Well any agreement is “our full control”; it’s either worth the value attributed or it isn’t. Same as any financial transaction really.

If I want to sell my house for half a million quid and I can’t find a buyer, I can hardly describe the folk offering me 450k bullies for not giving me what I want.