Re: Brexit (New).
 

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Can you actually prove that the young do that?

May got a poor result because around half the country don’t want Brexit at all. That’s a precarious electoral position to be in if you are seeking a resounding mandate.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

But it was the right strategy! What did it for her was the confusion over funding relating to care for the elderly, which spooked a lot of traditional Conservative voters, coupled with the surprising popularity at the time with Jeremy Corbyn.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It wasn’t really confusion over funding. The party came up with one of its most progressive policies ever and their voters said no. Capitalists in life wanting a socialist death.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Re: Brexit (New).
 

So it’s anecdotal evidence.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

If it was the right strategy then we would not be where we are standing now with the constant internecine warfare in the governing party which could result in Theresa May having to face a delegation from the 1922 Committee in these coming weeks.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Give over, it is implicit in the term of no longer being in the European Union. Is a party’s manifesto on the ballot paper?

No longer being a member of the EU meant.

Exiting the single market,
Exiting the customs union,
Exiting the four freedoms associated with the single market
No longer being subject to ECJ

The above is what was put to British people, everything since the result has been obfuscate the above.

And people trying to be clever and say (Whiney voice) “it wasn’t on the ballot paper”. We it was.

All this talk in the last two years saying that the type of Brexit wasn’t on the ballot paper has Just been a smokescreen by the MPs to stop Brexit, and guess what, they may do.

---------- Post added at 13:31 ---------- Previous post was at 13:29 ----------

Was that on the ballot paper?

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

Strange how Labour were against it then?

---------- Post added at 13:34 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

She’s would have needed a majority large enough to out vote the ERG and all the other parties, bar a few Labour Brexiteers, those kind of numbers were never possible.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I don’t need to give over anything. There’s no need to be disrespectful simply because you are wrong. Also, it’s impossible to articulate a whiney voice in text alone, it’s a ridiculous notion to suggest otherwise.

Many countries outside the European Union have a varying range of relationships with the trading bloc.

You are attributing what you want from Brexit from a definition that exists in your head only in the desperate hope that’s what it will look like. The good news is that it will not happen because there’s no mandate or political will for it.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

With all due respect, that’s bollocks.

It was clear to everyone that the Brexit on offer at the referendum was a so called Hard Brexit. If you didn’t understand that...well.

It was only after the result that Nick Clegg coined the terms Hard and Soft Brexit. He knew what was voted on was a Hard Brexit and being the Europhile he is he immediately started the obfuscation process.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It wasn’t clear at all. It’s absolute nonsense, and historical revisionism, to suggest otherwise. Our relationship with Europe and the single market was unclear. Ardent Brexiteers have in the past used Norway as a potential future model.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Not sure if you can count never having an MP elected in a by-election or General Election in the Labour heartlands as "did very well"...

In fact, they’ve only had 2 MPs elected in by-elections (when Carswell and Reckless resigned), and only 1 in a General Election (Carswell, who has since re-joined the Conservatives).

No UKIP candidate, who wasn’t already the sitting MP previously for another party, has ever won a seat in the House of Commons (no matter how many times (7) NF tried).

Re: Brexit (New).
 

That said - the surge in support for UKIP prior to 2015 cannot be denied. In 2015 - The Tories got 11.3m votes and 329 seats, while Ukip got one seat for 3.9m votes. The voting system in the UK is well and truly knackered, but then so will Democracy itself, if Brexit does not occur.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

UKIP did enough to force a referendum, The BNP & UKIP which you would describe as far right outdid LibDems in many constituencies and in local elections did even better.

To discount this as an MP’s numbers game would be very foolish. Parliament and the establishment ignored this threat and feeling and what did we get? Brexit.

To ignore this shows you are as out if touch in your ivory tower as most of Westminster.

It’s Hilarious.

Westminster and the Establishment facilitated this fiasco by ignoring large swathes of the electorate that had valid concerns, concerns that were preyed upon by UKIP and the far right.

And now after the result how do they intend to adress those concerns? By ignoring the electorate. Stupid is as stupid does.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy. David Davis

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It hasn’t changed it’s mind.

A parliament that ignores the will of the people should lose it’s mandate as the Executive.

The Queen should dissolve Parliament if they don’t deliver Brexit.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

That’s quite desperate. A general election is the solution to test public opinion.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

you cant say that lots have and you do know we like in a parliamentry sovereign democracy right

Re: Brexit (New).
 

That went down last well last time as that is why Theresa May called a election last time so that she could get a stronger mandate from the public to endorse her governments Brexit policy but alas that did not turn out as the pollsters and the media had imagined did it.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It was tongue in cheek.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It would help if the result of the first vote was enacted first for that to actually mean anything.

Regardless - No evidence exists to say people in their many millions have changed their mind. Every leave voter I know, has not changed their mind and I know quite a few, this in contrast to Remain voters who I do know, who would now vote leave.

---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------

I am sorry but you cannot tell someone else "they can't say that" and then you say "lots have", you have no way of knowing. It's a complete fallacy to say, "lots have", when you cannot possibly know.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

There’s no basis to implement a referendum result nobody wants. Be that May’s deal, or no deal.

If anyone in the leave campaign genuinely thought public opinion hadn’t changed they’d be at the front of the queue saying it’s time for a second referendum. A referendum to end the meddling, based on the evidence available.

It’s telling that there’s no appetite for such a referendum.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It tells no such thing - we don't keep having the same votes because one side won't accept they lost - leave won the democratic process in 2016. So we leave.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

i accept i didn't explain myself properly there is people that changed mind in both directions no one can know for certain what difference in the result would be now i was trying to say to Pierre no one can say that for certain that's all i wasn't clear enough

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Except Parliament will not vote for it.

The only way we leave the European Union and it's if Leave wins a second referendum. It's the political reality and there is no way around it.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Nothing says someone is secure in their proposition as much as an ad hominem attack...

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I’d be happy to have another referendum based on the exact same question.

---------- Post added at 16:24 ---------- Previous post was at 16:23 ----------

I still wouldn’t bet the farm.

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Yeah I must really come across as insecure. Jesus , you class that as an attack!? Some really sensitive souls on this forum.

It is a widely used phrase that implies the person it is directed at is out of touch, which is what your post previous certainly evidenced. It’s not an attack, get over yourself. Also it was not “ad hominem” I did not avoid the topic of the discussion or try to evade a reply to you. If you’re going to use clever words make sure you know what they mean.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Yes there is. There isn’t a Parliamentary majority for a Second Referendum. Leave doesn’t need to win twice to get enacted.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

If you are relying on these MPs to allow Brexit then you are going to be disappointed.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Brexit has already been allowed. Did you forget A50 has been invoked by said parliament ?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

On March 29th? April 12th? or another date?

You are relying on them to not reverse it. Or delay it in perpetuity. As I said prepare for disappointment. The first step was always enabling a delay and that has been achieved.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Oh i don't know did you not see that thicket of idiots in London yesterday.;)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Nottingham area surely ;)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Robert Peston is saying the coup might be over as the main Tory leadership candidates don't want a caretaker and the other MPs don't want a leadership election yet.

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1109804183643979777

Re: Brexit (New).
 

No l was watching something else which was more suited to my palate.;)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I don't think they've reached London yet. ;)

---------- Post added at 19:44 ---------- Previous post was at 19:40 ----------

Exactly. 75% of Parliament is against Brexit. I think it may happen but not on the terms that Rees-Mogg and chums have pretended are possible.

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------

Great article here from former diplomat Robert Cooper. Including
https://www.ft.com/content/5f3df8bc-...6-79eaea5acb64

Re: Brexit (New).
 

:)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

For anyone wondering, this is who invented 'Brexit':

https://news.sky.com/story/brexits-m...cline-11576816

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Re: Brexit (New).
 

That was my point in the last post Hugh..........you need to move on it’s not about you.

I didn’t “avoid” the topic or discussion or try to not to continue to engage in the discussion. Therefore by the very definition you have posted it was not “ad hominem”

I merely pointed out that you’re out of touch, which you have not countered. Shall we move on?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

The idea the EU plays grant money for University places wasn't part of any Remain campaign I've seen. The EU does pay scientific grant money, i.e for research, and that obviously is unlikely to continue for new projects.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I knew Sky News were bad, but two years...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37896977

Re: Brexit (New).
 

;)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

So a 3rd of the people that voted remain have been arsed to sign an online petition, and this is news!

Re: Brexit (New).
 

So your evidence is that you believe your daughter, when you previously posted that you had convinced your daughter to agree with you?

OK.....

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Perhaps she is telling you what you want to hear - you know, like the Mail and the Express...

on a related note, h/t to @FelicityMorse

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Unless leaving the EU has no economic impact to us then there is no Brexit dividend

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I guess remainers just find it exceedingly hard to understand that new opportunities will present themselves, relaxation of tariffs will attract trade and that staying in the EU will simply stifle innovartion and bog us down with more complex legislation that people find difficult to understand.

And before there are any rants about chlorinated chicken, if we were to import it, it would be labelled and you wouldn't have to eat it if you were put off by your own propaganda. :D

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Well we'll see won't we? It's going to be a task to actually get good enough trade deals to compensate for the trade and cost lost though no longer being integrated with the European Market, the biggest economic bloc in the world remember, let alone going above it.

There is a lot of buzzword bingo that you can come out with but now it has to actually be put into practise. The UK is a successful and rich country, the 5th largest GDP in the world, will we take over Germany and move further ahead of France or fall behind? Will future generations get well-paying jobs in a big economy or will unemployment increase? We don't know but we're about to find out.

Oh and trade deals involve complex legislation, it's basically what they are.......

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Not if a trade deal with the US prevented its being labelled. And how you can tell the details of chicken in canteens, etc?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

There’s no opportunities to be had if, in our desperation, we unilaterally have to remove virtually all trade tariffs. It gives us no leverage in future trade deals and harms manufacturers of our goods and services, you know, where the employees pay tax here.

At best guess unilaterally removing tariffs might reduce the cost of many imports by 20%. There’s a much easier way to achieve that by remaining in the EU and the pound returning to pre-referendum levels.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

How many times do I have to say this?

It’s not EU money, it’s our money. We are massive net contributors. What we save in the con job membership fee, we can decide to fund ourselves, we don’t have to go through a corrupt middleman to receive our own money back.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

We can safely say the funding wouldn’t happen then as Conservative ideology reduces the size of state spending even further.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

There may be a saving in paper in membership fees, depending on the deal we strike with the EU, assuming we leave.
But the reduction in GDP from leaving is unfortunately likely to more than wipe any savings out.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Rubbish. As with every argument you’ve expressed lately. It’s flawed.

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------

Another flawed reply. Don’t know if you’v noticed but other Member States financial status isn’t looking rosey right now and they’re still members of the corrupted EU.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

The Conservatives plan to cut public spending to 37.8% of GDP by 2022. It’s a fact that reducing the size of the state, and increasing privatisation, is Conservative ideology.

I appreciate we disagree over the direction of Brexit but that ones just a fact. It doesn’t require a crystal ball.

We should have a clearer idea on my Brexit predictions this week, and certainly by April 13th.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I'm unsure as to whether you're trying to respond to the point I've made or someone else's, as none of the above is remotely relevant to mine. :confused:

Re: Brexit (New).
 

l thought this was a good tweet this morning from Nick Robinson.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Agree, neatly sums the situation up! I suspect the third thing will happen, ie long and inconclusive.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

That cheered up my Monday morning!

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Yep, talk to my niece who now no longer has a job as she was involved in an EU project and will not be considered for project grants going forward as they are only open to EU members. Ph.D. educated scientist with no job prospects due to no grant money

Re: Brexit (New).
 

The Government seem to prefer the term 'EU Exit':

https://www.gov.uk/prepare-eu-exit

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Well, that’s proper use of language I suppose. If I could go back and shoot whoever coined the term “Grexit” from which “Brexit” derives I probably would.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...xit?CMP=twt_gu

Re: Brexit (New).
 

whoohoo . . . brilliant excuse to stay in the EU . . especially for those families that might manage (if they're frugal) to spend a week in Benidorm every year and not care about the other 51 weeks spent living at home :rolleyes:

Of course if you're lucky enough to afford 3 or 4 foreign holidays a year it looks different . . unless you prefer more exotic places than Europe ;)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

1) Meaningful vote not coming back yet
2) May says No Deal will not happen if Parliament doesn't want it (not sure how that'll be enforced)

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Beth Rigby
‏
Verified account

@BethRigby
Follow
Follow @BethRigby

More
Hillary Benn just asked her whether by April 12 she will got for No Deal or extension. She says she wants her deal but in statement appeared to rule out No Deal unless MPs vote. So now the option seems to be “My Deal or Slow Brexit”

---------- Post added at 16:27 ---------- Previous post was at 16:26 ----------

extra extension by sounds of it

Re: Brexit (New).
 

The omnishambles continues unabated..

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Full fact just announced: ”Many readers asked us to check the claim that 1 million people attended the People's Vote march on Saturday.

Almost certainly not. Experts in crowd modelling told @WiredUK they estimated the figure was somewhere between 312,000 and 400,000.”

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Full Fact are a reliable and decent organisation, I would 100% take their number

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I was in it and certainly felt more than 300k or we must have been funneled in a really tight area to have all people that I seen on Park Lane to walk down to Traf Square


Took us close to 4 hrs due to slow moving traffic

Re: Brexit (New).
 

l would respect Full Facts opinion personally.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Did anyone see this documentary?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/868183...v-documentary/

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Tone deaf, or what?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-p...ments-47696409 (@19:57) Until this story hit the interwebtubes, the top Google listing for Grand Wizards was this

Re: Brexit (New).
 

They’re robbing the people of their referendum. Politicians made false promises. The dream will not be realised. I feel for everyone who invested so much energy. I wish they could have seen it sooner and acted upon it.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

MP's voting on Letwin amendment


Faisal Islam
‏
Verified account

@faisalislam
2m
2 minutes ago


More
Confirmed: Business minister Richard Harrington has resigned from Government over Brexit indicative votes

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Amazing that four days before the due date of Brexit, there has been no decision on the form that Brexit will take. Maybe simplest thing is to revoke Article 50 and revisit in 40 years' time and do things properly then!

Re: Brexit (New).
 

date is officially 12th April now in International law or 22nd May if May gets deal passed

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

1 minister voted against government according to sky just now

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------

Letwin amendment won 329 to 302 majority 27

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Letwin’s Cross-party motion wins 329-302.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Government loses by a bigger margin that expected. Parliament 'takes control' although I am not clear what that means in practise since they can't force the government to do something. They will be able to do indicative votes now.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

softer Brexit incoming

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I’m now certain that Brexit will not happen.

It’s shocking, but we have a chamber of liars that voted to enact A50, but now will not. No idea were this end, but it wont be with us leaving the EU anytime soon, if at all.

Remain will win. Democracy will be sidelined.

Far right parties will rise, and everybody will naval gaze and wonder why?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

By the way this is entirely because the stupidity in being dishonest last week. They survived a similar vote by promising the government would table their own motion for indicative votes and then May turned around with the proposal for a deadline extension only if Parliament voted for her deal and no meaningful vote. If she had kept to the promise then she wouldn't be in this mess. She tried it again today by saying the government would allow time for it if they didn't vote for this amendment but whose going to believe she means it this time?

Re: Brexit (New).
 

3 ministers resigned to vote against government

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It means nothing.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

There isn't a majority for Remain or a 2nd referendum. The remaining options are no deal still, customs union/EEA or maybe finally the ERG will stop slapping themselves on the back and signing the great escape, see what's happening and back May's deal.

The far-right parties can rise anyway. If there is an economic hit they'll use that. Brexit was forever going to be betrayed. Even if it's no deal then it'll would have been that all the stuff promised could have been delivered but we were betrayed e.t.c. Days after the vote went to Leave I said that by the end of it those advocating it would claim a stab in the back narrative.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Another victory for our sovereign Parliament. No one party should dictate the destiny of our United Kingdom.

A government ignoring the will of Parliament loses a vote of confidence.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

It’s not the first time an Act of Parliament has been challenged/overturned, and it won’t be the last.

One of the strengths of our Parliamentary system is the ability to change things - otherwise once an Act became Statute Law it would be forevermore.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Rubbish.

And a Parliament ignoring the will of the people, loses even more respect and confidence from the people that put them there on broken manifesto commitments, there is nothing victorious about MPs stealing Executive privileges so they can serve their own self-interests instead of the electorate that put them there.

That said - they cannot do any lasting damage for just one day - They are indicative votes only - not binding - Government can ignore them, if they so wish.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

What happens next? I think no-deal, Theresa's deal and people's vote are all unlikely outcomes.
Could a softer Withdrawal Agreement be put forward to the EU in place of Theresa May's deal? How long would it take to negotiate this with the EU? Or a General Election in which case all parties will need to firm up their position on Brexit. They will need to put more than "Brexit means Brexit" in their manifestos.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

And what of a parliament that ignores the electorate?

---------- Post added at 06:28 ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 ----------

They need to agree the Withdrawl Treaty or we leave on April 12th, so we know that Withdrawl Treaty will not pass, ever.

So the only other option is a long extension of a year or more, EU elections and probably a GE, a softer Brexit that isn’t really Brexit at all, or quite possibly remain.

The betrayal will be complete.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I'll put the two arguments against this to you...but we all should appreciate there's no right or wrong here.
1. Politicians have to act in the best interests of their constituents as they see things. They do not simply look at the way their constituents voted in the referendum, however politically expedient in the short term this might be.
2. A majority of the electorate now want to remain. And before anyone jumps in, no it's not bollocks, that's from multiple polls. ;)
So, a Parliament that implements Brexit could be seen as ignoring the electorate. Democracies do allow people to change their minds and many don't-knows are now against leaving.

Your point of view is a valid one, Pierre. But so is the counter view.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I don't see how a ge would solve this issue unless Pro leave and pro remain parties would be created and not a vote for either Conservative party or Labour.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Prime examples are Kate Hoey and Corbyn. Both from strong remain constituencies.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Presumably, MPs would have to agree to their party's position or face deselection. But the parties will need to define their position precisely and not just "Brexit means Brexit".

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Given that the Withdrawal Agreement itself keeps us in the customs union pro tem, maybe we should simply ditch the political statement. Then there will not be any argument left about the backstop or customs union because that will be a matter for any future trade agreement with the EU.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

I would accept that argument, if from the very outset that they acted in that way. I have to ask why didn’t they

1. Vote against the referendum in the first place
2. Stand for election on a manifesto to honour the result of the referendum
3. Vote against A.50

They should either had voted against 1. Resigned in the face of 2. Or voted against 3.


polls are so accurate aren’t they? You just don’t know that, any result would probably be within the margin of error either way

The only way to be sure would be another referendum, Which I would be happy with, but the question would have to be exactly the same.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

At least Kate Hoey's constituents know where she stands. The same can't be said of Jeremy Corbyn's.

Re: Brexit (New).
 

Parliament should have refused to vote for Article 50 until the final plan was known and embraced. May should have come to Parliament with a 'desired outcome' for Parliament to approve and then use that at the basis for the following two years.

---------- Post added at 08:44 ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 ----------

The Withdraw agreement depends on the political statement is my understanding, it's an integral part. The backstop would be needed in any case as that's a essentially a promise that we won't put up borders in N.Ireland by committing ourselves to not bringing about a situation where one would be required. The EU want the backstop to be legally binding rather than our word (and frankly given the mess here who can blame them for that?).

Personally I don't even understand how May's deal actually fixes that problem rather than delay it. Neither side wants customs checks at the border. If you don't want customs checks then you need to have tariff-free access across all physical products and regulatory alignment for them too. That's a customs union. If we're not in the Customs Union with Ireland - and therefore the EU - then you need customs checks. There is not yet any technology that can do this seeminglessly no matter what Boris Johnson says.

So either:

1) We have a Customs Union - Can't do trade deals for products plus winds up Brexit supports
2) We put up some degree of customs checks on the island of Ireland - annoys seemingly everyone breaking the Good Friday Agreement but especially Irish people in N.Ireland
3) We put a border in the Irish Sea and have a stipulation that N.Ireland lives in a different regulatory environment - DUP won't have it, and could concede N.Ireland will join Ireland eventually

If a new election got rid of the DUP in power than I think 3 would have been the option we would have gone for. 2 no one really seems to wants including Americans who've warned against it. 1 is the most likely at this point.