Brexit (Old)

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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 nomadking

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.

Because there’s an ‘if’ in there...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

And if the markets crash?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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.

Says who? How have they worked that out? They don't know how businesses and other countries will react, so that opinion is pretty worthless, frankly.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

Being a democrat selectively proves you don’t truly believe in it.

The outcome of the first referendum has been enacted, to commence negotiations and got us nowhere. What’s on the table is in no way representative of any of the promises made. Except of course the racist and xenophobic dog whistle.

[papa smurf]

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

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

And if the markets crash?

You are such a drama queen!

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

The outcome of the first referendum has been enacted

Err.....last time I checked we were still members of the EU, And still will be until March next year. I’ll let you know in APRIL if it has been enacted or not.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

Laughable that the headline doesn’t match the quote. What she says is without an extension to A50 we will have no deal, as she thinks the timescales are too tight for anything else. She is also ignoring the potential that unilaterally withdraw or extend A50 could shortly be an executive function, and not a Parliamentary one, depending on the ruling of the Court of Session.

‘Gina Miller, now a prominent supporter of the People's Vote campaign for a second referendum, warned Theresa May's deal will lead the country to a "constitutional crisis".’

---------- Post added at 18:42 ---------- Previous post was at 18:42 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

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?

I could not disagree further.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I could not disagree further.

Why post it then?