UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
UK and North American politics. => A look at British politics in the light of the decision to leave the EU. => Topic started by: G-Unit on February 03, 2019, 08:22:33 AM
-
The Moral Maze discussed the moral duty of MP's. Melanie Phillips put the case that I have been making; that MP's moral duty is to keep their promises. They promised to abide by the result of the Brexit referendum and they should do it. Some MP's, she said, are trying to reverse the result of the referendim while pretending that's not what they are doing. She, like me, sees that as dishonest and immoral.
There followed a lot of discussion about sovereignty, where power ultimarely lies, what MP's are entitled to do and so on. In my opinion none of it was able to answer or negate Phillip's point because her point is bery clear and very simple. There's no excuse for breaking your promises!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002828
-
The Moral Maze discussed the moral duty of MP's. Melanie Phillips put the case that I have been making; that MP's moral duty is to keep their promises. They promised to abide by the result of the Brexit referendum and they should do it. Some MP's, she said, are trying to reverse the result of the referendim while pretending that's not what they are doing. She, like me, sees that as dishonest and immoral.
There followed a lot of discussion about sovereignty, where power ultimarely lies, what MP's are entitled to do and so on. In my opinion none of it was able to answer or negate Phillip's point because her point is bery clear and very simple. There's no excuse for breaking your promises!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002828
An MP’s responsibility is to act in the best interest of their constituents.
-
An MP’s responsibility is to act in the best interest of their constituents.
And collectively in the best interests of the country.
-
Anna Soubry (Conservative) on party versus country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWbnOtXHVGk
-
The Moral Maze discussed the moral duty of MP's. Melanie Phillips put the case that I have been making; that MP's moral duty is to keep their promises. They promised to abide by the result of the Brexit referendum and they should do it. Some MP's, she said, are trying to reverse the result of the referendim while pretending that's not what they are doing. She, like me, sees that as dishonest and immoral.
There followed a lot of discussion about sovereignty, where power ultimarely lies, what MP's are entitled to do and so on. In my opinion none of it was able to answer or negate Phillip's point because her point is bery clear and very simple. There's no excuse for breaking your promises!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002828
as far as I can see MPs made no promise to implement the result of the referendum....and as I understand its only because of the legal challenge that MPs were given the right to vote on it...it was camerons govt that made the promise...not MPs
-
An MP’s responsibility is to act in the best interest of their constituents.
They voted to hold a referendum. By doing that they accepted that their constituents were going to decide for themselves what their best interests were.
After the result was known they voted to trigger Article 50. Bt doing that they accepted that the UK was going to leave the EU, even if no deal was negotiated.
Did they act against the best interests of their constituents when they did those things?
-
And collectively in the best interests of the country.
I repeat; they voted for things which they now seem to believe were not in the best interests of the country.
-
They voted to hold a referendum. By doing that they accepted that their constituents were going to decide for themselves what their best interests were.
After the result was known they voted to trigger Article 50. Bt doing that they accepted that the UK was going to leave the EU, even if no deal was negotiated.
Did they act against the best interests of their constituents when they did those things?
Did MPs realise the implications of leaving at the time?
-
as far as I can see MPs made no promise to implement the result of the referendum....and as I understand its only because of the legal challenge that MPs were given the right to vote on it...it was camerons govt that made the promise...not MPs
Cameron pledged to abide by the result. All those who voted for the referendum bill did so knowing that, so they all endorsed it.
-
Cameron pledged to abide by the result. All those who voted for the referendum bill did so knowing that, so they all endorsed it.
If he did, that was a silly thing to do, IMO. He could have pledged that it would be 'given serious consideration as a valuable input' and left it at that. That, after all, is what an advisory referendum actually is.
He didn't stay around to deal with the mess, did he?
-
Another thought for the pot: what about constituencies in which the balance of Leave / Remain has since changed. What should / can MPs do about it?
-
Did MPs realise the implications of leaving at the time?
Are you suggesting that no-one knew what they were doing but went ahead anyway? I'm quite prepared to believe that but not to see it as a viable excuse.
-
If he did, that was a silly thing to do, IMO. He could have pledged that it would be 'given serious consideration as a valuable input' and left it at that. That, after all, is what an advisory referendum actually is.
He didn't stay around to deal with the mess, did he?
Nevertheless that's what happened. They all agreed to implement the result.
-
Another thought for the pot: what about constituencies in which the balance of Leave / Remain has since changed. What should / can MPs do about it?
They do what they do when it haopens following a general election. Nothing.
-
Nevertheless that's what happened. They all agreed to implement the result.
What does “implementing the result” actually mean, does anyone really know?
-
What does “implementing the result” actually mean, does anyone really know?
It means that the UK will leave the EU if that's the result of the referendum,
-
It means that the UK will leave the EU if that's the result of the referendum,
With a deal or without?
-
Cameron pledged to abide by the result. All those who voted for the referendum bill did so knowing that, so they all endorsed it.
Mos voted for the bill that was, advisory... Cameron pledged to abide by the result... MPs didn't.. Cameron got it wrong.. He didn't have the authority to mplement the result
-
Are you suggesting that no-one knew what they were doing but went ahead anyway? I'm quite prepared to believe that but not to see it as a viable excuse.
We're back to the informed-consent analogy.
Or another one: if a bus driver believes that a certain route is the best way to get from A to B, but then learns that it's turned into a dangerous route along a crumbling cliff edge, should the bus driver carry on nonetheless or stop and think about whether it's a good idea?
PS: What's destination B?
-
I find that lots of MPs could be forgiven for genuinely-held assumptions two years ago.
I can't say the same of an MP (Daniel Kawczynski) who flat out denies, now, that the UK was a beneficiary of the Marshall Plan. Just how bizarre is that?
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1091980104434155520
-
If politicians don't keep their promises we might as well stick a pin in our voting papers at a general election because the Manifestos aren't worth the paper they're written on.
-
If politicians don't keep their promises we might as well stick a pin in our voting papers at a general election because the Manifestos aren't worth the paper they're written on.
You say this as if it’s something new, politicians not keeping their manifesto promises.... *%87
-
If politicians don't keep their promises we might as well stick a pin in our voting papers at a general election because the Manifestos aren't worth the paper they're written on.
I find it beyond gob-smacking that people elected to represent their constituents can spout such "mistruths".
What kind of world is it when you should be fact-checking your local representative, who you might even be friendly with at the local pub?
I wonder if anyone in Shrewsbury realises that their MP is bellowing that the UK never benefited from the Marshall Plan.
Twilight Zone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk
-
I find it beyond gob-smacking that people elected to represent their constituents can spout such "mistruths".
What kind of world is it when you should be fact-checking your local representative, who you might even be friendly with at the local pub?
I wonder if anyone in Shrewsbury realises that their MP is bellowing that the UK never benefited from the Marshall Plan.
Twilight Zone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk
it may be a matter of opinion...the UK received money from the Marshall plan....but did we benefit from it or was the money totally wasted by the then labour government
-
it may be a matter of opinion...the UK received money from the Marshall plan....but did we benefit from it or was the money totally wasted by the then labour government
This is the statement from the MP in question:
Daniel Kawczynski
Verified account @DKShrewsbury
Britain helped to liberate half of Europe. She mortgaged herself up to eye balls in process. No Marshall Plan for us only for Germany. We gave up war reparations in 1990. We put £370 billion into EU since we joined. Watch the way ungrateful EU treats us now. We will remember.
6:01 AM - 2 Feb 2019
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1091728290337959936
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
-
You say this as if it’s something new, politicians not keeping their manifesto promises.... *%87
It's not politicians breaking their promises that's surprising, it's that people think it's OK.
-
It's not politicians breaking their promises that's surprising, it's that people think it's OK.
I expect people in jobs above my pay level in various spheres to know what they're talking about. That's what they get paid for.
-
I expect people in jobs above my pay level in various spheres to know what they're talking about. That's what they get paid for.
If you're referring to politicians they didn't, did they? Or so they want us to believe.
-
If you're referring to politicians they didn't, did they? Or so they want us to believe.
Didn't what?
-
It's not politicians breaking their promises that's surprising, it's that people think it's OK.
So it’s the people you have the problem with not the politicians??
-
I expect people in jobs above my pay level in various spheres to know what they're talking about. That's what they get paid for.
you are probably quite a bit brighter than the average backbencher...cabinet members are far more educated....although diane abbott doesnt come across as particularly bright...corbyn didnt complete his degree having only managed two grade Es at A level...then theres the mp who thought it was clever to try and avoid 3 penalty points...im sure theres lots more
-
They voted to hold a referendum. By doing that they accepted that their constituents were going to decide for themselves what their best interests were.
After the result was known they voted to trigger Article 50. Bt doing that they accepted that the UK was going to leave the EU, even if no deal was negotiated.
Did they act against the best interests of their constituents when they did those things?
Yes.
-
So it’s the people you have the problem with not the politicians??
I have a problem with both. Not only do politicians think it's ok to break their promises, some people agree wth them.
-
I expect people in jobs above my pay level in various spheres to know what they're talking about. That's what they get paid for.
If you ignore the Peter Principle, nepotism and the old boy's network some of them might.
-
I have a problem with both. Not only do politicians think it's ok to break their promises, some people agree wth them.
And some people take the pragmatic approach and accept that sometimes promises have to be broken for perfectly good reasons.
If people have a problem with politicans who break their promises they can vote them out next time.
-
If you ignore the Peter Principle, nepotism and the old boy's network some of them might.
LOL
-
And some people take the pragmatic approach and accept that sometimes promises have to be broken for perfectly good reasons.
If people have a problem with politicans who break their promises they can vote them out next time.
MP's clearly believed it was right to hold a referendum and to trigger Article 50. Now they don't velieve that any more. How can people trust them to be telling the truth this time?
-
MP's clearly believed it was right to hold a referendum and to trigger Article 50. Now they don't velieve that any more. How can people trust them to be telling the truth this time?
Trust them to be telling the truth about what? Most warnings about the impact of a no deal Brexit are coming from businesses and economists.
-
Trust them to be telling the truth about what? Most warnings about the impact of a no deal Brexit are coming from businesses and economists.
About if and why they have changed their minds.
-
Trust them to be telling the truth about what? Most warnings about the impact of a no deal Brexit are coming from businesses and economists.
Inevitably there will be winners and losers in any change in the way the UK does business and brexit is no different. I truly believe the vast majority of people in the UK will be better off in the long run.
-
About if and why they have changed their minds.
Why would they lie about changing their minds? That makes no sense at all.
-
Inevitably there will be winners and losers in any change in the way the UK does business and brexit is no different. I truly believe the vast majority of people in the UK will be better off in the long run.
Maybe, but in the short run it could be disastrous for those who lose their jobs and livlihood as a result. We see what longterm harm and resentment the death of the mining (and other) industry bred in this country, many people snd communities have still not recovered, I think Brexit could wreak similar havoc on farming and the food industry, manufacturing and small business.
-
“Deloitte’s fourth-quarter survey polled 110 finance chiefs, including those at FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 companies as well as the British subsidiaries of overseas businesses. It found 78 per cent were braced for a deterioration in the long-term business environment. Seventy-nine per cent were pessimistic in the third quarter last year.
“Uncertainty over Brexit is driving a marked shift towards defensive balance sheet strategies among British businesses,” Ian Stewart, chief economist at Deloitte, said. “With the UK’s growth prospects heavily dependent on the so far uncertain nature of its exit from the EU, corporates are cutting back on capital expenditure and hiring, focusing instead on cost reduction.”
-
This thread isn't about whether the UK should leave the EU or not, it's about whether MP's have a moral obligation to carry out the wishes of the people.
The Prime Minister is committed ro delivering Brexit and in my opinion she is to be commended.
-
This thread isn't about whether the UK should leave the EU or not, it's about whether MP's have a moral obligation to carry out the wishes of the people.
The Prime Minister is committed ro delivering Brexit and in my opinion she is to be commended.
With the closeness of the Referendum, discounting any of the illegalities of the Leave campaign, a Brexit that left us in the SM and CU would have represented the “will of the people”. Both main parties appear to have rejected that and are heading for a harder Brexit for their own reasons.
MPs have a moral obligation to do what is best for their constituents.
Take a shire constituency, the electors would probably in favour for fox hunting, anti LGBT, anti immigration and anti welfare. Should that MP have a moral responsibility to ensure those views are enacted in law?
-
Inevitably there will be winners and losers in any change in the way the UK does business and brexit is no different. I truly believe the vast majority of people in the UK will be better off in the long run.
In what ways will they be better off?
How long is "in the long run"?
-
With the closeness of the Referendum, discounting any of the illegalities of the Leave campaign, a Brexit that left us in the SM and CU would have represented the “will of the people”. Both main parties appear to have rejected that and are heading for a harder Brexit for their own reasons.
MPs have a moral obligation to do what is best for their constituents.
Take a shire constituency, the electors would probably in favour for fox hunting, anti LGBT, anti immigration and anti welfare. Should that MP have a moral responsibility to ensure those views are enacted in law?
Usually it's left to Parliament to make decisions. In this particular case a decision was taken to allow the people to decide. Once MP's agreed to that they had no moral right to overrule the people's decision.
-
In what ways will they be better off?
How long is "in the long run"?
Nissan is already reading the writing on the wall and as we slam the door on our biggest market with no thought of what is to take its place on the horizon one wonders how long we can make a profit from taking in each others washing.
Do we even have the plant in place to do so? Didn't we sell it all off to the likes of Nissan in the eighties as we shut it down left right and centre?
-
Nissan is already reading the writing on the wall and as we slam the door on our biggest market with no thought of what is to take its place on the horizon one wonders how long we can make a profit from taking in each others washing.
Do we even have the plant in place to do so? Didn't we sell it all off to the likes of Nissan in the eighties as we shut it down left right and centre?
I posted on the other thread about JRM's "unusual" perspective on what businesses need...
-
Whatever business leaders, economists MP's or anyone else says it's too late. Parliament asked the people to decide and they did.
-
Whatever business leaders, economists MP's or anyone else says it's too late. Parliament asked the people to decide and they did.
OK, I'm questioning the basis on which people voted.
-
Whatever business leaders, economists MP's or anyone else says it's too late. Parliament asked the people to decide and they did.
So off the cliff we must hurtle even though we are in a bus with perfectly workable brakes. But to use the brake is considered immoral, because 52 of the 100 passengers are shouting “faster! Harder!’
-
So off the cliff we must hurtle even though we are in a bus with perfectly workable brakes. But to use the brake is considered immoral, because 52 of the 100 passengers are shouting “faster! Harder!’
The way things have turned out that appears to be a very sound analogy.
-
The way things have turned out that appears to be a very sound analogy.
It needs the extra bit at the end,
So off the cliff we must hurtle even though we are in a bus with perfectly workable brakes. But to use the brake is considered immoral, because 52 of the 100 passengers are shouting “Faster! Harder!’, whilst believing the bus has secret wings which will activate once over the cliff.
-
OK, I'm questioning the basis on which people voted.
Whatever the basis the answer was delivered.
-
So off the cliff we must hurtle even though we are in a bus with perfectly workable brakes. But to use the brake is considered immoral, because 52 of the 100 passengers are shouting “faster! Harder!’
You do love your hyperbole, don't you? Such drama! A vote is a vote and the majority wins, even if only by one vote. The winners get what they want and the losers don't. That's democracy.
-
Nissan is already reading the writing on the wall and as we slam the door on our biggest market with no thought of what is to take its place on the horizon one wonders how long we can make a profit from taking in each others washing.
Do we even have the plant in place to do so? Didn't we sell it all off to the likes of Nissan in the eighties as we shut it down left right and centre?
If Brexit was a significant reason for Nissan moving proposed production of their new car why did they move production all the way to Japan not another EU country.
IMO the main reason for the move was that in 2025 the EU is banning production of diesel cars and elsewhere are not. Quite simple but using Brexit as an excuse will help with Nissan's PR. Why make cars in the UK to sell to India, Japan or China. It is not economic to do IMO.
-
If Brexit was a significant reason for Nissan moving proposed production of their new car why did they move production all the way to Japan not another EU country.
IMO the main reason for the move was that in 2025 the EU is banning production of diesel cars and elsewhere are not. Quite simple but using Brexit as an excuse will help with Nissan's PR. Why make cars in the UK to sell to India, Japan or China. It is not economic to do IMO.
Why do we have to rely on Nissan... Perhaps the UK govt could use some of the money we used to give to the EU to establish a UK car, industry
-
An MP’s responsibility is to act in the best interest of their constituents.
In a nutshell, the UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. The public do not empower MPs to do their own thing imo.
-
MPs should support the view of their constituents... Do MPs know how their constituents voted
-
If politicians don't keep their promises we might as well stick a pin in our voting papers at a general election because the Manifestos aren't worth the paper they're written on.
It's the same old story, if they don't like the result, keep trying. The Scottish indy referendum being a classic example of this.
-
Why do we have to rely on Nissan... Perhaps the UK govt could use some of the money we used to give to the EU to establish a UK car, industry
Britain could set up its own automotive industry again using the £39 billion we won't now be forking out to Brussels. With electric motor technology about to explore worldwide this would be the perfect time to dump the internal combustion engine and go electric or at least go hybrid to begin with.
-
Britain could set up its own automotive industry again using the £39 billion we won't now be forking out to Brussels. With electric motor technology about to explore worldwide this would be the perfect time to dump the internal combustion engine and go electric or at least go hybrid to begin with.
The £39b also invoves paying commitments, including a contribution to MEP pensions, 73 of whom were from the UK, plus a sum to help them find other "jobs".
It's not the annual amount that the UK would normally pay, which is far less.
Aside from that, I thought £350m a week was supposed to go to the NHS, Or have we been looking at different buses?
-
You do love your hyperbole, don't you? Such drama! A vote is a vote and the majority wins, even if only by one vote. The winners get what they want and the losers don't. That's democracy.
Spare me your lectures, I do know how it works you know.
-
It's the same old story, if they don't like the result, keep trying. The Scottish indy referendum being a classic example of this.
There were dire warnings concerning Scotland's economic future if it left the UK but Scots still voted for it and would again. For some, the economy isn't their priority.
-
There were dire warnings concerning Scotland's economic future if it left the UK but Scots still voted for it and would again. For some, the economy isn't their priority.
IMO it really should be as “it’s all about the economy, stupid”.
-
The closer the UK gets to Brexit the more the country regrets it, polls show
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-closer-uk-gets-to-brexit-the-more-the-country-regrets-it-polls-show-2019-1?r=US&IR=T
-
IMO it really should be as “it’s all about the economy, stupid”.
It wasn't all about the economy in either the Scottish Independence Referendum and the Brexit Referendum, Money may make the world go round but people have other needs and desires too.
-
Quiz
Who said this?
"Referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting... We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details later".
https://twitter.com/conservative4pv/status/1092497632499560448
-
Quiz
Who said this?
"Referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting... We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details later".
https://twitter.com/conservative4pv/status/1092497632499560448
There was a reply;
Replying to @conservative4pv @DavidDavisMP
But the referendum was very clear. It was to Leave the EU rather than Remain. You lost. Get over it.
-
There was a reply;
Replying to @conservative4pv @DavidDavisMP
But the referendum was very clear. It was to Leave the EU rather than Remain. You lost. Get over it.
Some people may not care where the bus is going. If I want to get from A to B, I'd rather know. A problem is that neither the driver nor the bus company seems to know either.
Maybe I'll take a train. Oh wait, no trains.
-
Comments from 1978 on converting from miles to kilometres...
https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1092120538259038209
-
There were dire warnings concerning Scotland's economic future if it left the UK but Scots still voted for it and would again. For some, the economy isn't their priority.
Did I miss something *%6^ In the referendum I voted in, Scotland voted to remain as part of the United Kingdom.
-
Some people may not care where the bus is going. If I want to get from A to B, I'd rather know. A problem is that neither the driver nor the bus company seems to know either.
Maybe I'll take a train. Oh wait, no trains.
Out of the EU. No need for public transport, you won't actually be moving.
-
Did I miss something *%6^ In the referendum I voted in, Scotland voted to remain as part of the United Kingdom.
The majority did, many others didn't.
-
Maybe, but in the short run it could be disastrous for those who lose their jobs and livlihood as a result. We see what longterm harm and resentment the death of the mining (and other) industry bred in this country, many people snd communities have still not recovered, I think Brexit could wreak similar havoc on farming and the food industry, manufacturing and small business.
One has to decide, should we buy plentiful relatively cheap lamb from Australia and New Zealand after Brexit or pay more for the homegrown variety? The reality of it is that more people will be able to have lamb on their table more often so is that necessarily a bad thing? UK farmers must learn to produce good quality food at a reasonable price and not depend on subsidies amounting to around £100 per acre per annum.
Parliament has a moral obligation to deliver Brexit which after all is the will of the majority. Anything less would undermine democracy for centuries to come IMO.
-
Out of the EU. No need for public transport, you won't actually be moving.
Oh well. No doubt better to abandon all projects and just sit and admire the sunny uplands.
-
One has to decide, should we buy plentiful relatively cheap lamb from Australia and New Zealand after Brexit or pay more for the homegrown variety? The reality of it is that more people will be able to have lamb on their table more often so is that necessarily a bad thing? UK farmers must learn to produce good quality food at a reasonable price and not depend on subsidies amounting to around £100 per acre per annum.
Parliament has a moral obligation to deliver Brexit which after all is the will of the majority. Anything less would undermine democracy for centuries to come IMO.
I had a few articles saved for you, John, as I was interested in your view. I'll try to find the links.
NB: Methinks we're on the wrong thread... ;)
-
One has to decide, should we buy plentiful relatively cheap lamb from Australia and New Zealand after Brexit or pay more for the homegrown variety? The reality of it is that more people will be able to have lamb on their table more often so is that necessarily a bad thing? UK farmers must learn to produce good quality food at a reasonable price and not depend on subsidies amounting to around £100 per acre per annum.
Parliament has a moral obligation to deliver Brexit which after all is the will of the majority. Anything less would undermine democracy for centuries to come IMO.
I have been able to buy frozen New Zealand Lamb in France for 25 years. And very good it is too. Although I actually prefer Mutton.
-
PS. This all seems to be getting a bit cross. Could we cool it a trifle, Please.
-
The majority did, many others didn't.
You posted as follows ...
"You do love your hyperbole, don't you? Such drama! A vote is a vote and the majority wins, even if only by one vote. The winners get what they want and the losers don't. That's democracy."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10574.msg512557#msg512557
Which is why your post referring to the Independence Referendum " ... but Scots still voted for it and would again." left me a little bemused as the majority vote was against Independence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10574.msg512577#msg512577
-
It wasn't all about the economy in either the Scottish Independence Referendum and the Brexit Referendum, Money may make the world go round but people have other needs and desires too.
Most of which are less easy to achieve without a job, or with less money to live on.
-
You posted as follows ...
"You do love your hyperbole, don't you? Such drama! A vote is a vote and the majority wins, even if only by one vote. The winners get what they want and the losers don't. That's democracy."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10574.msg512557#msg512557
Which is why your post referring to the Independence Referendum " ... but Scots still voted for it and would again." left me a little bemused as the majority vote was against Independence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10574.msg512577#msg512577
I was referring to the Scottish people who voted to leave the UK, despite being told it was a bad idea economically. .
-
Change in YouGov poll results re whether was a good idea or not.
https://twitter.com/RCorbettMEP/status/1092522889465737221
-
I was referring to the Scottish people who voted to leave the UK, despite being told it was a bad idea economically. .
One could almost be forgiven for thinking from your original post that those voters had won the referendum. They did not.
Snip
Polls in the run-up to the referendum vote showed a closing of the gap, with one poll giving the Yes campaign a 51–49 lead. In the referendum Scotland voted against independence by 55.3% to 44.7%, with an overall turnout of 84.6%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
-
One could almost be forgiven for thinking from your original post that those voters had won the referendum. They did not.
Snip
Polls in the run-up to the referendum vote showed a closing of the gap, with one poll giving the Yes campaign a 51–49 lead. In the referendum Scotland voted against independence by 55.3% to 44.7%, with an overall turnout of 84.6%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence
I think most people know they didn't. My point was that not everyone puts ecomonic prosperity before everything else.
-
I think most people know they didn't. My point was that not everyone puts ecomonic prosperity before everything else.
... and here was I thinking that we vote politicians into office in the hopes that they will safeguard the country by ensuring our economic growth and prosperity and thus stability.
Probably shows why you and I would vote differently in any two option referendum.
-
... and here was I thinking that we vote politicians into office in the hopes that they will safeguard the country by ensuring our economic growth and prosperity and thus stability.
Probably shows why you and I would vote differently in any two option referendum.
You know why you vote the way you do, but it doesn't follow that everyone else has the same priorities. Margaret Thatcher thought that Britain should turn away from manufacturing and build a service economy. That may have been good for the economy of the country as a whole, but not for those individuals and communities who lost their jobs.
-
Christopher Wylie
🏳️🌈
Verified account @chrisinsilico
Christopher Wylie
🏳️🌈 Retweeted Brexitshambles
Senior EU officials have told me bluntly they know Brexit was won through illegality and cheating by Leave. Leaving the EU is not the ‘will of the people’. Brexit is the will of a British government complicit in ignoring data crime, electoral crime and Russian interference.
https://twitter.com/chrisinsilico/status/1093443720203173888
-
Christopher Wylie
🏳️🌈
Verified account @chrisinsilico
Christopher Wylie
🏳️🌈 Retweeted Brexitshambles
Senior EU officials have told me bluntly they know Brexit was won through illegality and cheating by Leave. Leaving the EU is not the ‘will of the people’. Brexit is the will of a British government complicit in ignoring data crime, electoral crime and Russian interference.
https://twitter.com/chrisinsilico/status/1093443720203173888
Well, that's a new one. Were these Senior EU Officials elected or not? Oh, and who are they?
-
Well, that's a new one. Were these Senior EU Officials elected or not? Oh, and who are they?
He was one of the main whistleblowers in the Cambridge Analytica / Facebook saga. I find it perfectly plausible as the EU will also be watching out for Russian / far-right interference in the upcoming elections.
-
Shamir being the other main whistleblower.
https://twitter.com/shahmiruk/status/1093622989881511937
-
Kate Hoey (Lab) thinks ROI should leave the EU and pay for manning its borders if it chooses to stay.
Cambridge University classicist Professor Mary Beard tweeted: “When Kate Hoey on @BBCr4today talks about the Irish having to pay for putting up the border between N and S Ireland if there is to be one, she sounds to me dangerously like Mr Trump and Mexico.”
Former Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, a supporter of the pro-EU Open Britain campaign, said: “With her suggestion that Ireland will have to pay for any border, Kate Hoey seems to have been taking diplomacy lessons from Donald Trump.
“It really is astonishing how much damage Brexit is already doing to our country’s reputation. Even our closest friends, Ireland, are now becoming the target of unhinged attacks from hard Brexit cheerleaders.”
Ross Greer MSP, the Scottish Greens’ Europe spokesman, said; “Kate Hoey’s suggestion that the government in Dublin pay for a hard border in Ireland would be laughable if it wasn’t so insulting and so dangerous to the peace process.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/15686353.pro-leave-labour-mp-kate-hoey-ireland-can-pay-for-border-posts-after-brexit/
Odd. I've heard this before.
I think I'll pass on that Kool-Aid, thanks.
-
Kate Hoey (Lab) thinks ROI should leave the EU and pay for manning its borders if it chooses to stay.
Cambridge University classicist Professor Mary Beard tweeted: “When Kate Hoey on @BBCr4today talks about the Irish having to pay for putting up the border between N and S Ireland if there is to be one, she sounds to me dangerously like Mr Trump and Mexico.”
Former Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, a supporter of the pro-EU Open Britain campaign, said: “With her suggestion that Ireland will have to pay for any border, Kate Hoey seems to have been taking diplomacy lessons from Donald Trump.
“It really is astonishing how much damage Brexit is already doing to our country’s reputation. Even our closest friends, Ireland, are now becoming the target of unhinged attacks from hard Brexit cheerleaders.”
Ross Greer MSP, the Scottish Greens’ Europe spokesman, said; “Kate Hoey’s suggestion that the government in Dublin pay for a hard border in Ireland would be laughable if it wasn’t so insulting and so dangerous to the peace process.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/15686353.pro-leave-labour-mp-kate-hoey-ireland-can-pay-for-border-posts-after-brexit/
Odd. I've heard this before.
I think I'll pass on that Kool-Aid, thanks.
Sometimes it is easy to read what you want to see.
The subject of a hard border was menmtioned, and Kate suggested IF EU and Ireland want a hard border they can build it and pay for it... nothing Trump about it. Spitting out dummy comes to mind.
I want a new car... looks like I will have to work and pay for it myself.. unless...
-
Sometimes it is easy to read what you want to see.
The subject of a hard border was menmtioned, and Kate suggested IF EU and Ireland want a hard border they can build it and pay for it... nothing Trump about it. Spitting out dummy comes to mind.
I want a new car... looks like I will have to work and pay for it myself.. unless...
Would make it easier for Isis brides to get back into the U.K. if we didn’t man borders.
-
Would make it easier for Isis brides to get back into the U.K. if we didn’t man borders.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10584.0
-
Moving to this thread...
I wasn't able to see the live stream, and I haven't read a summary yet of yesterday's Wilson case.
It concerned the fact that, due to the illegalities of the Leave campaign (apparently to a criminal standard), the 2016 referendum should be considered legally void.
It failed. Why?
MCM
@sub_neon
So in court today it was found that the referendum would have been immediately QUASHED due to illegalities...IF it was MANDATORY. As it is ADVISORY it CANNOT be. Let that sink in. @UKEUchallenge are heroes for trying as far as I'm concerned.
11:21 AM - 21 Feb 2019
https://twitter.com/sub_neon/status/1098694156455739400
The irony.
Background reading:
http://www.brexitshambles.com/the-legal-loophole-that-defies-democracy-in-britain/
http://www.brexitshambles.com/dr-robert-c-palmer-explains-the-significance-of-the-wilson-case-and-the-intriguing-law-behind-it/
-
Worth a read for those who think all leavers voted for a no-deal.
@njstone9
I'm starting a thread to uncover the lie that all Brexit voters wanted the UK to leave the Single Market.
Firstly, the promise from Gove, Johnson et al was that the UK could have full access to the SM minus FOM and regulatory alignment.
https://twitter.com/njstone9/status/966689913755201536
-
Vote leave is at it again, wanting to deselect the "traitors" who oppose the "proper WTO Brexit" people voted for.
https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1098617916495458305
How many people believed the early assurances that the UK would still remain in the Single Market?
-
On polls and voting.
Brexit is not the will of the British people – it never has been
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/
-
Dr Rob Palmer
🔶
@RobertCPalmer13
[Ref illegality & corruption THREAD 👇👇]
Been asked to summarise the Susan Wilson (@Suewilson91) v Prime Minister case. This thread gives the basics of the pleadings and relief sought. /1
https://twitter.com/RobertCPalmer13/status/1034828304673632256
-
It seems to me that Brexit has highlighted the differences in attitude towards moral obligations.
Theresa May feels she's got a moral obligation to deliver Brexit because that's what the British people voted for in the referendum.Other politicians don't agree. They range from those who think the people were wrong and should be ignored to those who accept the result of the vote but want their own version of Brexit to be accepted.
I think it demonstrates the different views of morality which exist in Britain.
-
It seems to me that Brexit has highlighted the differences in attitude towards moral obligations.
Theresa May feels she's got a moral obligation to deliver Brexit because that's what the British people voted for in the referendum.Other politicians don't agree. They range from those who think the people were wrong and should be ignored to those who accept the result of the vote but want their own version of Brexit to be accepted.
I think it demonstrates the different views of morality which exist in Britain.
I would like to see the hard evidence of Cambridge analitica having the great swathe of influence over the Brexit vote.
The only reason the far right are taking lead is due to politicians refusing to accept there are real issues in this coutry- which will noit go away unless someone has the gaul to stand up for the UK. and not as a multi cultural entity.
How do you suppose the BNP party began to take votes away? not because people are Nazis, but because they talked a language those voters wanted to hear and that was- 'we will save the UK'. how they would go about it is anyones guess, which is why it is very important to listen to the people who voted to leave- or this angry minority(we are told it is a minority- no evidence of course) gang the momentum and join forces with far right groups!
See Carana-Nothing to do with Russian darling...
-
I would like to see the hard evidence of Cambridge analitica having the great swathe of influence over the Brexit vote.
The only reason the far right are taking lead is due to politicians refusing to accept there are real issues in this coutry- which will noit go away unless someone has the gaul to stand up for the UK. and not as a multi cultural entity.
How do you suppose the BNP party began to take votes away? not because people are Nazis, but because they talked a language those voters wanted to hear and that was- 'we will save the UK'. how they would go about it is anyones guess, which is why it is very important to listen to the people who voted to leave- or this angry minority(we are told it is a minority- no evidence of course) gang the momentum and join forces with far right groups!
See Carana-Nothing to do with Russian darling...
Politicians have recently rejected democracy by rejecting;
The vote electing Corbyn
The vote to leave the EU
The need to resign if you leave your party.
All that is, imo, deshonourable behaviour by our 'Honourable' Members of Parliament. I don't see how they can ever claim the moral high ground again. They think desperate measures are justified to achieve their goals. I believe they are setting a terrible example.
-
It seems to me that Brexit has highlighted the differences in attitude towards moral obligations.
Theresa May feels she's got a moral obligation to deliver Brexit because that's what the British people voted for in the referendum.Other politicians don't agree. They range from those who think the people were wrong and should be ignored to those who accept the result of the vote but want their own version of Brexit to be accepted.
I think it demonstrates the different views of morality which exist in Britain.
In your opinion when the people voted Leave they voted for no deal so why would you be supportive of anyone trying to get the best deal possible?
-
In your opinion when the people voted Leave they voted for no deal so why would you be supportive of anyone trying to get the best deal possible?
Thank you for once again telling me what I think. I would like a cite showing where I said 'the people voted for a No Deal Brexit' please.
-
Thank you for once again telling me what I think. I would like a cite showing where I said 'the people voted for a No Deal Brexit' please.
You said
“It's not triggering Article 50 that created the mess, it's the fact that instead of preparing for leaving the EU the government spent the time trying to make a deal. Why? No-one asked them to do that".
What did you mean by that if not that when people voted Leave they didn’t want or expect a deal?
-
You said
“It's not triggering Article 50 that created the mess, it's the fact that instead of preparing for leaving the EU the government spent the time trying to make a deal. Why? No-one asked them to do that".
What did you mean by that if not that when people voted Leave they didn’t want or expect a deal?
I don't know what people thought, I only know what they voted for. They voted to leave the EU, so obviously that was the goal. The how was in the hands of the givernment and it threw all it's energies into negotiating a deal. It seems to me they were so confiident that they were doing the right thing that they didn't pay as much attention to preparing for a no deal exit as they could have done.
-
I don't know what people thought, I only know what they voted for. They voted to leave the EU, so obviously that was the goal. The how was in the hands of the givernment and it threw all it's energies into negotiating a deal. It seems to me they were so confiident that they were doing the right thing that they didn't pay as much attention to preparing for a no deal exit as they could have done.
Yet you claim no one who voted leave asked the government to negotiate a deal, so you have now proved the point I was making before, that no one really knew what they were voting for and that is why a second referendum between May’s deal and no deal would make total sense.
-
Yet you claim no one who voted leave asked the government to negotiate a deal, so you have now proved the point I was making before, that no one really knew what they were voting for and that is why a second referendum between May’s deal and no deal would make total sense.
The people shouldn't need to vote, the politicians need to accept that it's their duty to vote May's deal through because it will achieve what the people vpted for. In my opinion they have a moral obligation to get out of the EU. Why should the people vote to sort out a mess created by politicians who refuse to carry out their wishes?
-
The people shouldn't need to vote, the politicians need to accept that it's their duty to vote May's deal through because it will achieve what the people vpted for. In my opinion they have a moral obligation to get out of the EU. Why should the people vote to sort out a mess created by politicians who refuse to carry out their wishes?
And yet opinion polls suggest that May’s deal is not what Leavers voted for at all! Perhaps you can explain why May’s deal should be voted through on this basis
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/02/19/only-third-leave-voters-think-mays-deal-beats-stay
-
The Moral Maze discussed the moral duty of MP's. Melanie Phillips put the case that I have been making; that MP's moral duty is to keep their promises. They promised to abide by the result of the Brexit referendum and they should do it. Some MP's, she said, are trying to reverse the result of the referendim while pretending that's not what they are doing. She, like me, sees that as dishonest and immoral.
There followed a lot of discussion about sovereignty, where power ultimarely lies, what MP's are entitled to do and so on. In my opinion none of it was able to answer or negate Phillip's point because her point is bery clear and very simple. There's no excuse for breaking your promises!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002828
Now that Jeremy has come out in favour of a Second Referendum can we put him in the morally bereft politician category?
-
And yet opinion polls suggest that May’s deal is not what Leavers voted for at all! Perhaps you can explain why May’s deal should be voted through on this basis
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/02/19/only-third-leave-voters-think-mays-deal-beats-stay
Can a You Gov poll of 1,783 people really tell us what 17.5 million people think?
-
Can a You Gov poll of 1,783 people really tell us what 17.5 million people think?
Yes, I think so, but as there appears to be some doubt why not ask thr GBP?
-
Yes, I think so, but as there appears to be some doubt why not ask thr GBP?
The elephant in the room. If, as leavers claim, the people want to Brexit, why are they scared of a confirming vote.
-
I find this absurd.
The referendum was advisory (although May treated the result as binding).
The result is considered to be the democratic expression of the will of the people.
But Leave cheated.
Under common law this would be considered undemocratic and therefore the result would normally be considered invalid.
However, the (undemocratic) result still stands because...
The referendum was only advisory.
"Brexit Referendum Was Corruptly Won, But Result Stands Thanks To Loophole"
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/brexit-referendum-corruptly-won-but-result-stands/
Dr Robert C. Palmer: The legal loophole that defies democracy in Britain.
http://www.brexitshambles.com/the-legal-loophole-that-defies-democracy-in-britain/
-
The elephant in the room. If, as leavers claim, the people want to Brexit, why are they scared of a confirming vote.
The progression of poll results might have something to do with it...
https://www.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-brexit-regret-remain-second-referendum-2019-2?utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop&referrer=twitter&r=US&IR=T
-
Scanning through YouTube for anything interesting (for US-related news).
And I get:
Vote Leave viewers also watch...
Recommended videos for you
There's no "Remain viewers also watch..."
Interesting.
-
The elephant in the room. If, as leavers claim, the people want to Brexit, why are they scared of a confirming vote.
How many times have the people been asked to vote again after a general election? Just to confirm that they meant what they vored for the first time, like.
-
How many times have the people been asked to vote again after a general election? Just to confirm that they meant what they vored for the first time, like.
General elections have been known to happen twice in relatively quick succession when the result was inconclusive or there was not a majority. In any case both Boris and Nigel were very keen on a second referendum before they won, why was that now?
FYI
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
-
General elections have been known to happen twice in relatively quick succession when the result was inconclusive or there was not a majority. In any case both Boris and Nigel were very keen on a second referendum before they won, why was that now?
FYI
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
Not because politicians think the people voted wtongly the first time. There's always the risk they'll do it again too; all those old people and idiots can't be trusted to do as they're told, you know.
-
Not because politicians think the people voted wtongly the first time. There's always the risk they'll do it again too; all those old people and idiots can't be trusted to do as they're told, you know.
Can I have a cite for “politicians think the people voted wrongly thr first time” please. Is this what Jeremy thinks?
-
Not because politicians think the people voted wtongly the first time. There's always the risk they'll do it again too; all those old people and idiots can't be trusted to do as they're told, you know.
And hopefully large numbers of them could be dead, or senile and can't remember what they voted the last time.
-
Not because politicians think the people voted wtongly the first time. There's always the risk they'll do it again too; all those old people and idiots can't be trusted to do as they're told, you know.
As (by your own admission) no one knows if Leave voters wanted a deal or no deal outcome why are you against a second referendum to ask the country if it wants May’s deal (a rock);or no deal (a hard place)?
-
I think we would be better out with a good deal.... The problem is we are not going to get a good deal... The ballot eas advisory... And should be treated as such
-
I think we would be better out with a good deal.... The problem is we are not going to get a good deal... The ballot eas advisory... And should be treated as such
We were never going to get a deal that left us in a better position economically out than in. That should have been made clear at the very beginning, not the leave fantasy of having our cake and eat it.
-
And hopefully large numbers of them could be dead, or senile and can't remember what they voted the last time.
That's a bit nasty, isn't it? You also seem to be assuming they were all old; not true.
-
That's a bit nasty, isn't it? You also seem to be assuming they were all old; not true.
Eleanor was being facetious I believe.
-
Eleanor was being facetious I believe.
Thanks. Yes I was. The whole thing is a farce anyway.
-
We were never going to get a deal that left us in a better position economically out than in. That should have been made clear at the very beginning, not the leave fantasy of having our cake and eat it.
Economics seem to be your benchmark, but there are other considerations.
-
Thanks. Yes I was. The whole thing is a farce anyway.
It is indeed!
Westminster is a laughing stock.
The whole shambles is a disgrace!
In my opinion.
ETA.
Im continuing to stockpile pasta, canned Italian tomatoes and cat food. 8((()*/
-
We were never going to get a deal that left us in a better position economically out than in. That should have been made clear at the very beginning, not the leave fantasy of having our cake and eat it.
I think we should have got a deal which would have eventually left us better off... It depends now whether we capitulate to Brussels and accept they control us or stand firm and leave...
-
It is indeed!
Westminster is a laughing stock.
The whole shambles is a disgrace!
In my opinion.
You are not alone. I simply don't know anymore. If I am honest, which I try to be, even if I get things wrong, the whole thing was so badly thought through, probably because Cameron didn't think the Leavers had a hope in hell's chance.
At the time it seemed like a straightforward In or Out to me, which I now know was never possible.
I don't have a problem with The EU. It treats me very well. But I do have a problem with The Brussels Bureaucrats. But then France largely ignores them. France occasionally fines me some paltry sum when I refuse to upgrade my Septic Tank, which they put down to administration. But this proves to me that Brussels actually cannot force me to do as they say.
Meanwhile, my sister in Wales was forced to spend a huge amount of money on a Tank that worked perfectly adequately beforehand.
Basically, The EU needs to get it's act together, and then no one would want to leave. Maybe Brexit will accomplish this.
-
I think we would be better out with a good deal.... The problem is we are not going to get a good deal... The ballot eas advisory... And should be treated as such
I'm not sure what a "good deal" actually is.
A problem, IMO, is that there is no Brexit scenario that won't leave the UK worse off economically. Some may not be aware of that or else feel that that is a price worth paying for perceived other benefits.
- One I often hear mentioned is freedom from having EU regulations "imposed" by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels", often shortened to simply "Brussels", a view widely fanned by the tabloids. I'd be interested in finding out what percentage of people understand how the EU works and the considerable influence that the UK has had in establishing EU laws.
A well-balanced report from Full Fact:
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/
Even in the least bad Brexit scenario, the UK will end up being rule-takers instead of contributing as rule-makers.
- Another is over what I hear being called "illegal immigrants" scrounging off the welfare system. The general EU policy on FOM is clear and I've posted it more than once. And the reality is that EU migrants have made a substantial net contribution to the economy, far beyond any benefits they were entitled to.
A slightly different issue is that there was a problem with companies getting around the system and bringing in cheap labour from the poorer EU countries, thus undermining jobs for businesses paying normal wages. That was by no means confined to practices in the UK and the issue was addressed by the EU back in 2016 (IIRC).
-
It is indeed!
Westminster is a laughing stock.
The whole shambles is a disgrace!
In my opinion.
ETA.
Im continuing to stockpile pasta, canned Italian tomatoes and cat food. 8((()*/
I get most of that from The Food Bank, and have a large stock already. The Food Bank is mostly funded by The EU, so British Food Banks almost certainly are as well.
The only difference is that there is no shame here.
-
I think we should have got a deal which would have eventually left us better off... It depends now whether we capitulate to Brussels and accept they control us or stand firm and leave...
I've just read up the page. I promise I hadn't seen Vertigo's post before hitting submit on my own LOL
What type of deal do you envisage that would leave the UK better off?
-
The Moral Maze discussed the moral duty of MP's. Melanie Phillips put the case that I have been making; that MP's moral duty is to keep their promises. They promised to abide by the result of the Brexit referendum and they should do it. Some MP's, she said, are trying to reverse the result of the referendim while pretending that's not what they are doing. She, like me, sees that as dishonest and immoral.
There followed a lot of discussion about sovereignty, where power ultimarely lies, what MP's are entitled to do and so on. In my opinion none of it was able to answer or negate Phillip's point because her point is bery clear and very simple. There's no excuse for breaking your promises!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002828
But what do you do when the promises that leaving was supposed to achieve aren't deliverable?
-
I'm not sure what a "good deal" actually is.
A problem, IMO, is that there is no Brexit scenario that won't leave the UK worse off economically. Some may not be aware of that or else feel that that is a price worth paying for perceived other benefits.
- One I often hear mentioned is freedom from having EU regulations "imposed" by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels", often shortened to simply "Brussels", a view widely fanned by the tabloids. I'd be interested in finding out what percentage of people understand how the EU works and the considerable influence that the UK has had in establishing EU laws.
A well-balanced report from Full Fact:
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/
Even in the least bad Brexit scenario, the UK will end up being rule-takers instead of contributing as rule-makers.
- Another is over what I hear being called "illegal immigrants" scrounging off the welfare system. The general EU policy on FOM is clear and I've posted it more than once. And the reality is that EU migrants have made a substantial net contribution to the economy, far beyond any benefits they were entitled to.
A slightly different issue is that there was a problem with companies getting around the system and bringing in cheap labour from the poorer EU countries, thus undermining jobs for businesses paying normal wages. That was by no means confined to practices in the UK and the issue was addressed by the EU back in 2016 (IIRC).
The Brussels Bureaucrats cannot force me to upgrade my Septic Tank. They have been trying since 2007. I now pay France an extra 28 Euros a year for ignoring their suggestions. This saves me from having my garden wrecked, at a cost of about 8 Thousand Euros, which I haven't got. I spent it on a new roof.
-
The Brussels Bureaucrats cannot force me to upgrade my Septic Tank. They have been trying since 2007. I now pay France an extra 28 Euros a year for ignoring their suggestions. This saves me from having my garden wrecked, at a cost of about 8 Thousand Euros, which I haven't got. I spent it on a new roof.
@)(++(*
-
I get most of that from The Food Bank, and have a large stock already. The Food Bank is mostly funded by The EU, so British Food Banks almost certainly are as well.
The only difference is that there is no shame here.
The EU offer to help fund food banks in the UK was derided by the Express (?) as being patronising. Heads or tails, the tabloids will twist anything into stoking up anti-EU sentiment.
-
The EU offer to help fund food banks in the UK was derided by the Express (?) as being patronising. Heads or tails, the tabloids will twist anything into stoking up anti-EU sentiment.
What? It's like a Special Club here. Everyone has a lovely time chatting. I suspect that I am a bit of a bonus to our Club, being English. And I certainly eat a lot better than I could afford to pay for.
And you only have to be poverty stricken, which The British State Pension is considered to be. Shock, Horror, in fact.
-
I'm not sure what a "good deal" actually is.
A problem, IMO, is that there is no Brexit scenario that won't leave the UK worse off economically. Some may not be aware of that or else feel that that is a price worth paying for perceived other benefits.
- One I often hear mentioned is freedom from having EU regulations "imposed" by "unelected bureaucrats in Brussels", often shortened to simply "Brussels", a view widely fanned by the tabloids. I'd be interested in finding out what percentage of people understand how the EU works and the considerable influence that the UK has had in establishing EU laws.
A well-balanced report from Full Fact:
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/
Even in the least bad Brexit scenario, the UK will end up being rule-takers instead of contributing as rule-makers.
- Another is over what I hear being called "illegal immigrants" scrounging off the welfare system. The general EU policy on FOM is clear and I've posted it more than once. And the reality is that EU migrants have made a substantial net contribution to the economy, far beyond any benefits they were entitled to.
A slightly different issue is that there was a problem with companies getting around the system and bringing in cheap labour from the poorer EU countries, thus undermining jobs for businesses paying normal wages. That was by no means confined to practices in the UK and the issue was addressed by the EU back in 2016 (IIRC).
I'm not sure how convincing your figures, are
-
I've just read up the page. I promise I hadn't seen Vertigo's post before hitting submit on my own LOL
What type of deal do you envisage that would leave the UK better off?
A Canada type deal
-
I'm not sure how convincing your figures, are
I haven't mentioned any. I just pointed to a Full Fact report. Not sure which figures you're questioning.
-
Britain didn't join The Monetary Union, which I think it should have done if it really wanted to benefit. Or Britain shouldn't have joined at all.
But I don't expect this opinion to be popular.
-
A Canada type deal
A problem with that it's limited, involves a variety of non-tariff barriers, with limited movement in services, and more importantly politically, border inspections.
https://fullfact.org/europe/brexit-trade-deals-norway-canada-options/
-
The EU offer to help fund food banks in the UK was derided by the Express (?) as being patronising. Heads or tails, the tabloids will twist anything into stoking up anti-EU sentiment.
The tabloids have criticised the EU for years. I remember the fuss about the curve on bananas, wine ;akes and butter mountains. Then our Prime Ministers have tried to get better deals, with Thatcher being the only one who suceeded with her rebate win. EU citizens have been portrayed as criminals or just here to take our state benefits. Then people wonder why the population isn't keen on EU membership.
-
The tabloids have criticised the EU for years. I remember the fuss about the curve on bananas, wine ;akes and butter mountains. Then our Prime Ministers have tried to get better deals, with Thatcher being the only one who suceeded with her rebate win. EU citizens have been portrayed as criminals or just here to take our state benefits. Then people wonder why the population isn't keen on EU membership.
Cui bono?
There's a whole compendium of anti-EU myths (or at best misleading articles) and which is probably no longerr up to date, but gives a fair idea of the nature and often the source. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10337.0
-
Sky News Politics
Verified account @SkyNewsPolitics
Former UKIP leader @Nigel_Farage says he would refuse to vote and campaign if a second referendum gives the options of the PM's deal or remaining in the EU.
He says instead he'll go "on holiday".
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/status/1100337822215688193
From the guy who never had a seat in the UK Parliament, and to my knowledge, has never had a more concrete plan that repeating "Brexit means Brexit".
Does he seriously have the interests of the UK at heart, or is he just all about promoting the Farage "brand" via soundbites, like Trump?
-
Breitbart keeps trying to take down the clip of Farage, drinking his ubiquitous pint, saying just after the ref results came in: "Well done Bannon, well done Breitbart. You've helped with this HUGELY".
https://twitter.com/TrickFreee/status/982171839823687680
-
Sky News:
British people are extremely divided over many key issues, including race, religion, economics and of course, #Brexit. That's according to a @SkyData poll. Follow this thread for more on the mood of the nation http://po.st/ioJo1Y https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1100324703141617664
-
Good heavens. I supported her in the impossible situation she inherited, but I think she's really lost the plot.
https://news.sky.com/story/live-theresa-may-to-address-mps-amid-calls-for-brexit-delay-11648718?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
-
Sky News:
British people are extremely divided over many key issues, including race, religion, economics and of course, #Brexit. That's according to a @SkyData poll. Follow this thread for more on the mood of the nation http://po.st/ioJo1Y https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1100324703141617664
I didn't click the link as it will be a snapshot and not a comprehensive data poll, therefore no value.
So what else is new? we have known this for many years.
-
I didn't click the link as it will be a snapshot and not a comprehensive data poll, therefore no value.
So what else is new? we have known this for many years.
Aside from a census, what would you consider as more than a "snapshot"?
-
Daniel Kawczynski
Verified account @DKShrewsbury
I will vote against any proposals for another #Brexit referendum. This would not only do great damage to our social cohesion as a nation but also harm our international reputation. Would set back eurosceptic movement shared by hundreds of millions across Europe by a generation
1:44 PM - 25 Feb 2019
https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1100179818954530818
Social cohesion? International reputation?
Which planet has he been on for the past two years?
Ah... Here's a clue, his name rang a vague bell.
He's the one who infamously asserted "No Marshall Plan for us only for Germany".
Daniel Kawczynski
Verified account @DKShrewsbury
Britain helped to liberate half of Europe. She mortgaged herself up to eye balls in process. No Marshall Plan for us only for Germany. We gave up war reparations in 1990. We put £370 billion into EU since we joined. Watch the way ungrateful EU treats us now. We will remember.
6:01 AM - 2 Feb 2019
-
Aside from a census, what would you consider as more than a "snapshot"?
The problem with BI, AI and polls is they have no integrity. it is all guess work.
I have offered this before 75% of people hate meat!! Yes it is true
The problem was 3 people were polled and two were vegans 8)--))
So, asking some people -something is pointless really.
I could very easily give you stats that 95% want to leave with no-deal...I just need to ask no deal brexiteers for an answer lol
-
The problem with BI, AI and polls is they have no integrity. it is all guess work.
I have offered this before 75% of people hate meat!! Yes it is true
The problem was 3 people were polled and two were vegans 8)--))
So, asking some people -something is pointless really.
I could very easily give you stats that 95% want to leave with no-deal...I just need to ask no deal brexiteers for an answer lol
LOL Yes, and no doubt some pollsters really only do reach out to the converted (on whichever subject). I wouldn't have thought that to be the case with a Sky-commissioned one, though.
-
LOL Yes, and no doubt some pollsters really only do reach out to the converted (on whichever subject). I wouldn't have thought that to be the case with a Sky-commissioned one, though.
You wouldn't ?why because it was commisioned? questions are always loaded, people don't always say what they mean. As an example 23 people were asked for feed back regarding new flavoured mint and chocolate drink. they said it was 'nice' when asked furtherdown the road by someone who said they though the drink tasted sour most agreed it was sour and wouldn't buy it!!!!!
lol
-
Economics seem to be your benchmark, but there are other considerations.
Of course! National pride, notions of sovereignty and kicking out “unelected bureaucrats”, bendy bananas and blue passports. None of these things put bread on the table of course, though I’m sure they are all highly desirable.
-
Of course! National pride, notions of sovereignty and kicking out “unelected bureaucrats”, bendy bananas and blue passports. Noe of these things put bread on the table of course, though I’m sure they are all highly desirable.
If being in the EU has made us prosperous why are there a million children living in poverty? One of the worst rates in the undustrialised world.
https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-lobbying/child-poverty?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI04GM04Xa4AIVrL3tCh0inwf1EAAYASAAEgLxg_D_BwE
Across the EU there are 25 million children living in poverty.
https://fra.europa.eu/en/press-release/2018/help-end-child-poverty-plaguing-europe
-
If being in the EU has made us prosperous why are there a million children living in poverty? One of the worst rates in the undustrialised world.
https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-lobbying/child-poverty?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI04GM04Xa4AIVrL3tCh0inwf1EAAYASAAEgLxg_D_BwE
Across the EU there are 25 million children living in poverty.
https://fra.europa.eu/en/press-release/2018/help-end-child-poverty-plaguing-europe
Well lets see how many children are living in poverty in ten years time shall we? Are you blaming our child poverty on the EU? New Zealand have roughly the same level of child poverty as us, is that the EU’s fault too?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/these-rich-countries-have-high-levels-of-child-poverty/
-
Well lets see how many children are living in poverty in ten years time shall we? Are you blaming our child poverty on the EU?
You seem to believe that being in the EU is necessary in order to put bread on the tables of the UK. I'm just pointing out that it hasn't done that for everyone.
-
You seem to believe that being in the EU is necessary in order to put bread on the tables of the UK. I'm just pointing out that it hasn't done that for everyone.
I think you are misrepresenting my view. I think that the effect of leaving the EU will be damaging to jobs, businesses and overall prosperity, which in turn will lead to MORE not less child poverty. Do you think the reverse is true, if so perhaps you could explain why.
-
I think you are misrepresenting my view. I think that the effect of leaving the EU will be damaging to jobs, businesses and overall prosperity, which in turn will lead to MORE not less child poverty. Do you think the reverse is true, if so perhaps you could explain why.
I have formed the impression that money is your priority because it seems to feature in so many of your posts. I don't know if leaving the EU would make us poorer, forecasts are just guesses in the end.
-
I have formed the impression that money is your priority because it seems to feature in so many of your posts. I don't know if leaving the EU would make us poorer, forecasts are just guesses in the end.
Money is essential... How can Corbyn redistribute it if there isn't any... We need money to run our essential services... Health.. Education.. Police
-
I have formed the impression that money is your priority because it seems to feature in so many of your posts. I don't know if leaving the EU would make us poorer, forecasts are just guesses in the end.
You are intent on portraying me as obsessed with money which is utterly childish of you IMO. If you think the state of the country’s economy is of secondary importance to grand ideas such as “taking back control “ then that is your prerogative. I happen to believe that the health of the economy is of vital importance to every man, woman and child in this country and should not be deliberately damaged because of the significant harm it may cause many of those men, women and children.
-
I have formed the impression that money is your priority because it seems to feature in so many of your posts. I don't know if leaving the EU would make us poorer, forecasts are just guesses in the end.
And I haven’t once mentioned the word money. Tsk.
-
And I haven’t once mentioned the word money. Tsk.
You're splitting hairs. That's what 'puts bread on the table', what you get for working and what companies run businesses for.
-
You're splitting hairs. That's what 'puts bread on the table', what you get for working and what companies run businesses for.
Which would you rather live in: a weak economy or a healthy one?
-
You're splitting hairs. That's what 'puts bread on the table', what you get for working and what companies run businesses for.
if money is so unimportant why are those with your political leanings so intent on taking it from the rich
-
if money is so unimportant why are those with your political leanings so intent on taking it from the rich
All governments take money from their citizens because otherwise there would be no money available for the public good. There would be no health service, no nice smooth public roads, no police or fire fighters and no help for the poor and disadvantaged. All governments take more from those who have more; the rich. The only difference is how much they think is reasonable.
-
You're splitting hairs. That's what 'puts bread on the table', what you get for working and what companies run businesses for.
Why did you choose to say “money” is my priority and not “the economy”? You were obviously trying to put me in a bad light, but I don’t think prioritizing the economy is necessarily the preserve of the money-grubbing.
-
All governments take money from their citizens because otherwise there would be no money available for the public good. There would be no health service, no nice smooth public roads, no police or fire fighters and no help for the poor and disadvantaged. All governments take more from those who have more; the rich. The only difference is how much they think is reasonable.
I have no problem with that. What concerns me is that in a weak economy funding public services becomes more difficult.
Conversely, in a stronger economy there's more to deal with present needs as well as investing in a better future as opposed to struggling to deal with the minimum.
-
Leave.EU
Verified account @LeaveEUOfficial
WATCH | @Nigel_Farage: "We had a referendum, we backed it up in a general election. We then had 498 MPs vote for Article 50. It was very explicit what they voted for - we leave in 2 years, with or without a deal. Now we have politicians breaking their promise to the electorate."
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1100325693223829504
How on earth could the average person who voted for Brexit have had a clue about what a no-deal could entail?
Farage himself kept going on about how Norway was a great model - I posted the clip of him repeating that over and over in various sound bites.
-
Leave.EU
Verified account @LeaveEUOfficial
WATCH | @Nigel_Farage: "We had a referendum, we backed it up in a general election. We then had 498 MPs vote for Article 50. It was very explicit what they voted for - we leave in 2 years, with or without a deal. Now we have politicians breaking their promise to the electorate."
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1100325693223829504
How on earth could the average person who voted for Brexit have had a clue about what a no-deal could entail?
Farage himself kept going on about how Norway was a great model - I posted the clip of him repeating that over and over in various sound bites.
They, The MPs, never tell The Electorate enough, because they don't want you to know. So they manipulate things for their own ends, although I am never sure what those ends are from either side.
Now, I no longer know what is best for Britain, although from this side of The Channel it doesn't really matter to me. I have dealt with a Low Pound for a very long time, which hasn't been all that funny most of the time. I lost a third of my Pension to Exchange Rates, when my Pension wasn't very good in the first place.
I am positive that there will be things in place to protect expats like me. The Food Bank is my greatest gain, and it isn't even a Benefit. It's a charitable hand out. That at least will go on.
-
Leave.EU
Verified account @LeaveEUOfficial
WATCH | @Nigel_Farage: "We had a referendum, we backed it up in a general election. We then had 498 MPs vote for Article 50. It was very explicit what they voted for - we leave in 2 years, with or without a deal. Now we have politicians breaking their promise to the electorate."
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1100325693223829504
How on earth could the average person who voted for Brexit have had a clue about what a no-deal could entail?
Farage himself kept going on about how Norway was a great model - I posted the clip of him repeating that over and over in various sound bites.
It was up to the politicians to inform the people, surely? Why, after the people voted to leave, did the politicians then vote for Article 50? Di they not understand what they were voting for?
-
It was up to the politicians to inform the people, surely? Why, after the people voted to leave, did the politicians then vote for Article 50? Di they not understand what they were voting for?
Did they have a choice? If they hadn’t wouldn’t you be lambasting them all as immoral? Again??
-
Two separate issues...
1) What is done with the money in the economy, how it is distributed, who it helps.
2) How much money is in the economy.
Brexit has a serious impact on the second which in turn prevents adjustment to the first.
-
It was up to the politicians to inform the people, surely? Why, after the people voted to leave, did the politicians then vote for Article 50? Di they not understand what they were voting for?
I skim-read a Twitter thread the other day by one of the legal eagles, and I'm trying to remember who it was to find it again.
The only bit I remember clearly is that Parliament didn't vote to trigger A50, but basically to give May the equivalent of a proxy to do so. Triggering it was an executive action on her part, which surprised me.
Trying to verify my recollection of the rest of the thread, I came upon this, which I find a bit confusing:
Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill
1 February 2017
MPs have voted by a majority of 384 to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way.
They backed the government's European Union Bill, supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114.
But the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill, while 47 Labour MPs and Tory ex-chancellor Ken Clarke rebelled.
The bill now faces further scrutiny in the Commons and the House of Lords before it can become law.
The prime minister has set a deadline of 31 March for invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, getting official talks with the EU started. The bill returns to the Commons next week.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38833883
Looking up the European Union Bill, I found this:
The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2017-19 is the planned name of a future bill of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that proposes to enshrine any Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU in domestic law. The Withdrawal Agreement is the subject of ongoing and future Brexit negotiations and won't be detailed until the negotiations are completed.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal_Agreement)_Bill_2017%E2%80%9319
I was about to hit submit, but the EUB just triggered another point made in that thread: it was in response to someone on Twitter saying that MPs voted overwhelmingly to leave. Whoever it was corrected that comment: in Parliament, MPs never voted to leave. They voted for the EUB.
NB: There's more on that Wiki page:
Objectives:
Enshrine the Withdrawal Agreement between the UK and the EU in domestic law including any financial settlement and agreement on citizens’ rights[1]
Legislate the details of an implementation period[1]
Allow for changes to EU law to be legally binding in the UK
Allow for Parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process via primary legislation, instead of secondary legislation via the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Amend the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to save the effect of the European Communities Act 1972 during the transition period.
-
Two separate issues...
1) What is done with the money in the economy, how it is distributed, who it helps.
2) How much money is in the economy.
Brexit has a serious impact on the second which in turn prevents adjustment to the first.
And here was me thinking we'd never ever agree on anything. ;)
-
I hadn't read that Wiki page all the way through:
Legislative history
On 13 November 2017, the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, announced plans for a new Bill to enshrine the Withdrawal Agreement, if any, between the UK and the EU in domestic law by primary legislation. Upon further questioning in the House of Commons, Davis clarified that if MPs chose not to pass the bill, the UK would remain on course to leave the EU on 29 March 2019 without a deal as a consequence of invoking Article 50 in March 2017, after the passing of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.[3]
Described by The Independent as the government "caving in" to Tory rebels, the new bill would allow MPs to scrutinise any agreement "line-by-line", as well as make amendments.[4] Conservative MP, Steve Baker, writing for The Times, claimed the new bill "gives whatever deal we strike with the EU proper standing in British law" and that it was consistent with the referendum result, in proving "more control over how we are governed to the UK Parliament."[5]
Ok, so going back:
United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union
Letter from Theresa May invoking Article 50
On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom (UK) invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which began the member state's withdrawal, commonly known as Brexit, from the European Union (EU). In compliance with the TEU, the UK gave formal notice to the European Council of its intention to withdraw from the EU to allow withdrawal negotiations to begin.
The process of leaving the EU was initiated by a referendum held in June 2016 which favoured British withdrawal from the EU with a 52% majority. In October 2016, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, announced that Article 50 would be invoked by "the first quarter of 2017".[1] On 24 January 2017 the Supreme Court ruled in the Miller case that the process could not be initiated without an authorising act of Parliament, and unanimously ruled against the Scottish government's claim in respect of devolution. Consequently, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 empowering the prime minister to invoke Article 50 was enacted in March 2017.
Invocation of Article 50 occurred on 29 March 2017, when Sir Tim Barrow, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union, formally delivered by hand a letter signed by Prime Minister Theresa May to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council in Brussels.[2] The letter also contained the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom). This means that the UK is scheduled to cease being a member of the EU at 00:00, 30 March 2019 Brussels time (UTC+1), which would be 23:00 on 29 March British time.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_invocation_of_Article_50_of_the_Treaty_on_European_Union
-
It was up to the politicians to inform the people, surely? Why, after the people voted to leave, did the politicians then vote for Article 50? Di they not understand what they were voting for?
But they did: on the side of a bus, and micro-targetting on FB, with Bannon, Banks, Breitbart and Russian bots lending a helping hand.
The Remain campaign appears to have been fact-based as opposed to appealing to tabloidesque emotional reactions. It was also quite probably far too complacent in assuming it would be defeated.
Re the second point, I'm not sure of what would have happened. An automatic no-deal?
Did they all realise that it was advisory only, despite that phrase on a publicity leaflet? Corbyn wanted out (until he was strung to the ceiling to support a people's vote). Conservatives include the right-wing ERG lot.
The "soft Brexiters" or even Remainers may have had no idea that the UK could end up 30 or so days away from train hurtling towards a cliff face.
-
But they did: on the side of a bus, and micro-targetting on FB, with Bannon, Banks, Breitbart and Russian bots lending a helping hand.
The Remain campaign appears to have been fact-based as opposed to appealing to tabloidesque emotional reactions. It was also quite probably far too complacent in assuming it would be defeated.
Re the second point, I'm not sure of what would have happened. An automatic no-deal?
Did they all realise that it was advisory only, despite that phrase on a publicity leaflet? Corbyn wanted out (until he was strung to the ceiling to support a people's vote). Conservatives include the right-wing ERG lot.
The "soft Brexiters" or even Remainers may have had no idea that the UK could end up 30 or so days away from train hurtling towards a cliff face.
Oh your language is so.. erm so.. we are all going to die right? Ok so what will the EU do then? why not tell us you seem to be the all telling all knowing oracle in this.
Both sides have jumped onto a band wagon.
What you and others fail to realise is the media do not control everyone. so your daft claims about "The Remain campaign appears to have been fact-based as opposed to appealing to tabloidesque emotional reactions. "
and these FACTS? based on "the side of a bus, and micro-targetting on FB, with Bannon, Banks, Breitbart and Russian bots lending a helping hand. "
There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest people were influenced by the events you mention.
The evidence I would draw is the fact that the SNP gained a lot of votes and ground because main stream politics were following EU directives /rules and miss apportionatly applying discrimination against its own majority indigenous population! way back in the day before the vote!
You really have no argument to offer at all- all talk and reading other peoples stories.