Snow Leopard Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 19 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said: Neither Cameron nor his Tory party can just declare something binding. They don’t have the authority or powers to do that. They can promise something, sure. But they cannot just declare something binding. Especially not when they run away then and let someone else take over. How about Corbyn sending a leaflet to every household asking for a vote on 90% tax for the rich and 0% tax for everyone else? Would that vote also be binding if he added a footnote claiming it is? I understand Brexiteers are frustrated now as they find out that Cameron was making the false promise of the opinion poll being more than just advisory. Same as Brexiteers made false promises to the people and ignored reality, so did Cameron. (Not to mention that the Brexit opinion poll was manipulated and ambiguous; nothing you seriously accept or even implement as a proper democracy.) In the spirit of democracy and politics. Given the run-up to this from previous years. It was morally binding. You are correct though there was no legal obligation to act on the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dick dasterdly Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Just now, nontabury said: Not according to the P.M. at the time, David Cameron. Plus lets not forget,that in the 2017 G.E. the two parties that gained 80% of the votes,declared in their parties manifesto, that they would honour the electorates Democratic vote to exit this so called union. I'm sure that I'm not the only one tired of going round in circles on this subject.... Prior to the referendum everyone believed that the result would be enacted - as per the govt. leaflet and media interviews supporting remain, and explaining how it would mean leaving the single market etc. etc. It was only after the referendum that 'advisory'/'parliamentary democracy' terms cropped up from the remainers..... And then there was a GE, in which only the Lib Dems (or whatever they're called nowadays) supported remain - and they had even less support than previously..... We've been through these 'arguments' so many times over and over again on every brexit thread that it's becoming beyond boring and annoying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 20 minutes ago, nontabury said: Not according to the P.M. at the time, David Cameron. Plus lets not forget,that in the 2017 G.E. the two parties that gained 80% of the votes,declared in their parties manifesto, that they would honour the electorates Democratic vote to exit this so called union. many CEC tales begin with - Notwithstanding .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 21 hours ago, Spidey said: Do you agree that it would have been better for the government to have held the referendum after the negotiations had concluded rather than before they had started? Take your time. That would be 1 referendum, held now rather than one referendum in 2016 and calls for a second referendum now. 5 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said: In the spirit of democracy and politics. Given the run-up to this from previous years. It was morally binding. You are correct though there was no legal obligation to act on the outcome. You still haven't answered my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Leopard Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Spidey said: You still haven't answered my question. Because it's too late. It's over and done with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Snow Leopard said: Because it's too late. It's over and done with. Not at all. If you think that it would have been fairer, more democratic to hold the referendum after negotiations had been completed, no problem, hold the fairer, more democratic referendum now. No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 37 minutes ago, Spidey said: No one suggested having negotiations before triggering article 50. I believe that the government tried this and were, rightly, sent away with a flea in their ears. Absolutely no need for a referendum before article 50 was triggered. Once triggered EU had no choice but to negotiate. Once negotiations were completed, call a referendum, leave under the terms of the agreement or remain. Question: How can this not be a fairer, more democratic way of doing things than what actually happened? Or are you terrified that the British public would ignore their xenophobic, irrational feelings, based on no facts and vote with their heads, i.e. REMAIN. not quite the same but I think several new EU members followed a path similar to your sketch before joining step 1 : talks and establishment of conditions/criteria step 2 : inform the nation step 3 : vote; fancy joining or do not fancy joining 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Leopard Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 14 minutes ago, Spidey said: Not at all. If you think that it would have been fairer, more democratic to hold the referendum after negotiations had been completed, no problem, hold the fairer, more democratic referendum now. No problem. The negotiations would always have the same outcome. Even after 10 referendums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Snow Leopard said: The negotiations would always have the same outcome. Even after 10 referendums. I agree, but the British public weren't made aware of the inevitable outcome before the referendum, they were blatantly lied to. Those that did put forward the inevitable outcome (myself included) were poo pooed and shot down as scaremongers. Who's scaremongering now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welovesundaysatspace Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Snow Leopard said: In the spirit of democracy and politics. Given the run-up to this from previous years. It was morally binding. You are correct though there was no legal obligation to act on the outcome. Moral is something highly individual, so something can hardly be “morally binding”. I personally think it is moral to do what’s best for the country and its people, and that it’s “morally binding” for politicians to do that and respect the constitution rather than blindly following the ambiguous result of a manipulated opinion poll. But I can accept that we have a different understanding about what’s moral and what not; like I said, it’s individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welovesundaysatspace Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said: I'm sure that I'm not the only one tired of going round in circles on this subject.... Prior to the referendum everyone believed that the result would be enacted - as per the govt. leaflet and media interviews supporting remain, and explaining how it would mean leaving the single market etc. etc. It was only after the referendum that 'advisory'/'parliamentary democracy' terms cropped up from the remainers..... The referendum was never binding and always advisory; after, during and before the referendum. Or did I miss that there was a different constitution in place before the referendum? It doesn’t matter that people decided to ignore the facts, same as people decided so many facts. 1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said: And then there was a GE, in which only the Lib Dems (or whatever they're called nowadays) supported remain - and they had even less support than previously..... We've been through these 'arguments' so many times over and over again on every brexit thread that it's becoming beyond boring and annoying! Yes, some arguments are boring and annoying, especially when they mean you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said: I'm sure that I'm not the only one tired of going round in circles on this subject.... Prior to the referendum everyone believed that the result would be enacted - as per the govt. leaflet and media interviews supporting remain, and explaining how it would mean leaving the single market etc. etc. It was only after the referendum that 'advisory'/'parliamentary democracy' terms cropped up from the remainers..... And then there was a GE, in which only the Lib Dems (or whatever they're called nowadays) supported remain - and they had even less support than previously..... We've been through these 'arguments' so many times over and over again on every brexit thread that it's becoming beyond boring and annoying! the term tedious comes to mind well opined DD, I might lend some support to that in return for a Belhaven whether the referendum was binding or advisory re which criteria etc etc is surely an interesting discussion for those interested in constitutional legal matters but that is hardly the main thrust of these Brexit threads now, I'm kinda surprised that TVFers put so much effort and energy into engaging in repeat discussions re history (like binding / advisory) Cameron Blair who pissed where at what time for what purpose? fine little energy and TVF resources are spent on looking forward, what should the foggy islands do now and in the near future in order to benefit the society that would be more useful and more interesting (but admittedly also more difficult) planning the future is way more challenging than pissing into the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said: planning the future is way more challenging than pissing into the past I quite agree, much more fruitful to plan for the future, so let's put this Brexit nonsense behind us, stay in the EU and plan for a bright future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 6 hours ago, Spidey said: No one suggested having negotiations before triggering article 50. I believe that the government tried this and were, rightly, sent away with a flea in their ears. Absolutely no need for a referendum before article 50 was triggered. Once triggered EU had no choice but to negotiate. Once negotiations were completed, call a referendum, leave under the terms of the agreement or remain. Question: How can this not be a fairer, more democratic way of doing things than what actually happened? Or are you terrified that the British public would ignore their xenophobic, irrational feelings, based on no facts and vote with their heads, i.e. REMAIN. So the government just says "bugger it, lets trigger Article 50 today, right now, no messin about". That action would have brought down whoever risked taking it and it would have gone down really well with most of the Europhiles, eh? Give my regards to Peter Pan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 6 hours ago, Snow Leopard said: Democracy at work then. Why do politicians or unelected eurocrats need to listen? Eurocrats don't, British MP's who want to keep their jobs do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 39 minutes ago, nauseus said: So the government just says "bugger it, lets trigger Article 50 today, right now, no messin about". That action would have brought down whoever risked taking it and it would have gone down really well with most of the Europhiles, eh? Give my regards to Peter Pan. No, you're completely skewing what I've said. To put it in terms even you can understand: The government triggers article 50 and tells the country that, when the deal is finalised, they will hold a referendum as to whether to accept the deal or remain. Both sides would have been much happier with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 11 hours ago, Spidey said: No, you're completely skewing what I've said. To put it in terms even you can understand: The government triggers article 50 and tells the country that, when the deal is finalised, they will hold a referendum as to whether to accept the deal or remain. Both sides would have been much happier with that. Just pulls the trigger, just pulls it, right? Shoot low Sheriff, he's riding a Shetland! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dick dasterdly Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 On 1/10/2019 at 3:54 PM, melvinmelvin said: the term tedious comes to mind well opined DD, I might lend some support to that in return for a Belhaven whether the referendum was binding or advisory re which criteria etc etc is surely an interesting discussion for those interested in constitutional legal matters but that is hardly the main thrust of these Brexit threads now, I'm kinda surprised that TVFers put so much effort and energy into engaging in repeat discussions re history (like binding / advisory) Cameron Blair who pissed where at what time for what purpose? fine little energy and TVF resources are spent on looking forward, what should the foggy islands do now and in the near future in order to benefit the society that would be more useful and more interesting (but admittedly also more difficult) planning the future is way more challenging than pissing into the past "fine little energy and TVF resources are spent on looking forward, what should the foggy islands do now and in the near future in order to benefit the society that would be more useful and more interesting (but admittedly also more difficult) planning the future is way more challenging than pissing into the past" The problem is that what happens next is entirely down to MPs, so there's zero point in us speculating about future planning as, at the moment, the electorate and (even more so!) TV posters have very little influence and even less control! I expect the next 'round' of genuinely interesting comments and arguments will happen once we know what has been 'decided' by the govt. and MPs in (hopefully) the near future. Edit - I've no idea what a belhaven is (it sounds like something from Norse mythology? ????) - but assuming its a drink, please have one on me as I appreciate so many of your posts ????. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said: "fine little energy and TVF resources are spent on looking forward, what should the foggy islands do now and in the near future in order to benefit the society that would be more useful and more interesting (but admittedly also more difficult) planning the future is way more challenging than pissing into the past" The problem is that what happens next is entirely down to MPs, so there's zero point in us speculating about future planning as, at the moment, the electorate and (even more so!) TV posters have very little influence and even less control! I expect the next 'round' of genuinely interesting comments and arguments will happen once we know what has been 'decided' by the govt. and MPs in (hopefully) the near future. Edit - I've no idea what a belhaven is (it sounds like something from Norse mythology? ????) - but assuming its a drink, please have one on me as I appreciate so many of your posts ????. what can I say, guess my general comment would be; be proactive rather than a responder, be part of setting the agenda, even if you are retired in Asia, as I also am I would assume that UK MPs responds to public pressure, be part of establishing that pressure, don't give in its your country not only the politicians - they are merely co-owners ----- at any rate as we say in Yorkshire, Belhaven, a Scottish heavy - oooooohhh nice Back in the ice age when I went to uni in Edinburgh on Sundays me and pals often did one of two, snooker and some pints in Edinburgh University student union quarters or taking the bus to Belhaven, indulging in Belhavens in a local hotel (Sunday mind you) Belhaven is a small village west of the city, along a road parallel to the West Approach Road but halfway up in the hills, (say Morningside/Tollcross and straight west to give you an idea) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 26 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said: Back in the ice age when I went to uni in Edinburgh Well that explains, why it's sometimes so difficult to understand what you say. You are writing with Scottish accent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dick dasterdly Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 56 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said: what can I say, guess my general comment would be; be proactive rather than a responder, be part of setting the agenda, even if you are retired in Asia, as I also am I would assume that UK MPs responds to public pressure, be part of establishing that pressure, don't give in its your country not only the politicians - they are merely co-owners ----- at any rate as we say in Yorkshire, Belhaven, a Scottish heavy - oooooohhh nice Back in the ice age when I went to uni in Edinburgh on Sundays me and pals often did one of two, snooker and some pints in Edinburgh University student union quarters or taking the bus to Belhaven, indulging in Belhavens in a local hotel (Sunday mind you) Belhaven is a small village west of the city, along a road parallel to the West Approach Road but halfway up in the hills, (say Morningside/Tollcross and straight west to give you an idea) Thanks for the explanation re. belhaven - I've wondered every time you mention it! As, like you, I'm now living in Thailand, there's no way to be proactive, even if I wanted to pursue that path. And I don't, as living abroad I think it's up to those living in the UK to react once they KNOW their govt.'s future actions - which should prove one way or another their intentions. In the same way as May's 'commitments' re. brexit have continually changed, and we now know her 'agenda'..... She started with agreeing to the eu's ridiculous agenda list as to the order in which issues would be discussed (!), and then went on to:- 1) "no deal is better than a bad deal" - and now is desperately trying to convince everyone that her 'deal' (loved by the eu) is actually a very good deal ???? 2) moved on to 'It's either the agreed deal, or no deal' 3) if I understand correctly, this has now changed to it's either my deal or remaining within the eu? I'm not sure on this point, as it's all been very vague by both May and MPs...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said: As, like you, I'm now living in Thailand, there's no way to be proactive, even if I wanted to pursue that path. And I don't, as living abroad I think it's up to those living in the UK to react once they KNOW their govt.'s future actions - which should prove one way or another their intentions. I have lived in for several years now. Managed to vote in the last referendum. Don't know if I'll vote in the upcoming referendum or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 22 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said: Thanks for the explanation re. belhaven - I've wondered every time you mention it! As, like you, I'm now living in Thailand, there's no way to be proactive, even if I wanted to pursue that path. And I don't, as living abroad I think it's up to those living in the UK to react once they KNOW their govt.'s future actions - which should prove one way or another their intentions. In the same way as May's 'commitments' re. brexit have continually changed, and we now know her 'agenda'..... She started with agreeing to the eu's ridiculous agenda list as to the order in which issues would be discussed (!), and then went on to:- 1) "no deal is better than a bad deal" - and now is desperately trying to convince everyone that her 'deal' (loved by the eu) is actually a very good deal ???? 2) moved on to 'It's either the agreed deal, or no deal' 3) if I understand correctly, this has now changed to it's either my deal or remaining within the eu? I'm not sure on this point, as it's all been very vague by both May and MPs...... think your are right, May's credo is now; my deal or remain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vogie Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 7 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said: think your are right, May's credo is now; my deal or remain But surely once article 50 has been signed we have two years to negotiate a deal, if no deal has been agreed, by law we leave the EU and nothing Parliament says makes any difference. The only way out is to revoke art 50, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 39 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said: 1) "no deal is better than a bad deal" - and now is desperately trying to convince everyone that her 'deal' (loved by the eu) is actually a very good deal ???? I'm pretty sure that May's deal is "loved by EU" only because it's the only deal which offers a moderately clear solution to the mess Brexit has become. It's not perfect for either side, but it is an solution, which allows both sides to go forward. Let's remember that deal is simply a temporary measurement. The real negotiations of the future of our relationship starts only after that deal has been passed by the UK parliament. I guess that will actually happen in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, oilinki said: I'm pretty sure that May's deal is "loved by EU" only because it's the only deal which offers a moderately clear solution to the mess Brexit has become. It's not perfect for either side, but it is an solution, which allows both sides to go forward. Let's remember that deal is simply a temporary measurement. The real negotiations of the future of our relationship starts only after that deal has been passed by the UK parliament. I guess that will actually happen in the near future. Let’s remember that it took the E.U. Only 45mins to agree to accept May.s so called deal. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 45 minutes ago, vogie said: But surely once article 50 has been signed we have two years to negotiate a deal, if no deal has been agreed, by law we leave the EU and nothing Parliament says makes any difference. The only way out is to revoke art 50, isn't it? if you talk formalities, my understanding is as follows; UK has a statute stating that on 29 March evening UK exits EU (that is the default, deal or no deal) if deal flies in parliament, that statute must be modified or abrogated, if not the UK pisses off on the 29th regardless, it is in the law if parliament should fancy requesting a prolongation of A50, if all 28 agree, the statute must be modified or abrogated for the prolongation to be legal if parliament should conclude that Brexit ain't sound - remain is preferable that statute must be altered or abrogated, if not - the UK pisses off on the 29th, it is in the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 49 minutes ago, oilinki said: I'm pretty sure that May's deal is "loved by EU" only because it's the only deal which offers a moderately clear solution to the mess Brexit has become. It's not perfect for either side, but it is an solution, which allows both sides to go forward. Let's remember that deal is simply a temporary measurement. The real negotiations of the future of our relationship starts only after that deal has been passed by the UK parliament. I guess that will actually happen in the near future. oilinki, major obstacle here, for many, DUPers and Tories and others, is that there ain't no safeguard in the deal that secures that it is temporary - it could be everlasting that frightens many - the potential everlasting perspective this is NOT a guaranteed temporary deal - the deal is bad bad bad bad bad and to say that this deal is the only deal possible is quadruple crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welovesundaysatspace Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 2 hours ago, nontabury said: Let’s remember that it took the E.U. Only 45mins to agree to accept May.s so called deal. I wonder why? 45 minutes? If I’m not mistaken, this deal was being negotiated by the two parties over the course of nearly two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.