nauseus Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 4 hours ago, Spidey said: Another post flown straight over your head. The hypothetical scenario is: a choice between having a referendum in 2016 or triggering Article 50 without a referendum and then holding the referendum once negotiations had been concluded, I.e early 2019. Which would have been the sensible thing to do? Feel free to phone a friend. I think EU fans would have been even more upset than they are now if Article 50 had been triggered just to enable withdrawal negotiations with the EU to leave it. We wouldn't even have needed the referendum! I'm afraid that it you who needs the helpline. I'm sure someone, somewhere, can help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 23 minutes ago, nauseus said: disagree the culprit is the UK government the day, which includes the Civil Service. man the decision power is with the parliament they have the power to sort but they just don't assume responsibility for anything you have a failed governance system UK doesn't work as other reasonably modern nations in Europe you are odd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 24 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said: man the decision power is with the parliament they have the power to sort but they just don't assume responsibility for anything you have a failed governance system UK doesn't work as other reasonably modern nations in Europe you are odd These decisions are made about legislation. Primary legislation is normally proposed by the elected government. The system is not perfect but it is proven and still works as well as most. Pre EEC/EU influence, the UK system worked better than those of most European nations. The problem at the moment is that the government leadership is a joke and the PM is a remainer, who is superficially attempting to do a job that should have been assigned to a leaver, or even better, a neutral leader. I am even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartender100 Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Oops German recession fears. Do they sell much to the UK? https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/economy/germany-economy-recession-fears/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 5 hours ago, nauseus said: These decisions are made about legislation. Primary legislation is normally proposed by the elected government. The system is not perfect but it is proven and still works as well as most. Pre EEC/EU influence, the UK system worked better than those of most European nations. The problem at the moment is that the government leadership is a joke and the PM is a remainer, who is superficially attempting to do a job that should have been assigned to a leaver, or even better, a neutral leader. I am even. yep, and with that joke behind the steering wheel the ultimate decision maker does not do anything, just sits there playing with its thumbs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 11 hours ago, mfd101 said: I wasn't suggesting ANY of that. This is the C21st not the C19th. I was merely suggesting that political & other leaders have a moral (non-partisan) duty to ensure that, to the extent possible, every voter is well-informed of issues, consequences & related facts so that the voters can make (one hopes) rational decisions BEFORE they vote. Something that was apparently NOT the case in the Brexit referendum. In the run up to the people’s 2016 referendum, the Government sent a leaflet to every household, setting out the facts, and recommending that the electorate vote to remain in the E.u. Unfortunately for the establishment in 2016, the people remembered how they had been lied to and deceived in the run up to the 1975 referendum, when we were assured that we would be only joining a trading block. They then took to social media, and filled their minds with as much information as possible, and consequently used this knowledge to vote to leave this so called union. This has lead to the impass we now have in our halls of government, with the people who we wrongly thought were are representatives, working against the people. But not to worry, come the next G.E many of them will be collecting their P45, courtesy of their electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 7 hours ago, melvinmelvin said: man the decision power is with the parliament they have the power to sort but they just don't assume responsibility for anything you have a failed governance system UK doesn't work as other reasonably modern nations in Europe you are odd Many people seem to think, that Brexit is the major problem for the Bureaucrats in Brussels. They are wrong, it’s small compared with the increasing problems regarding Italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 9 hours ago, nauseus said: I think EU fans would have been even more upset than they are now if Article 50 had been triggered just to enable withdrawal negotiations with the EU to leave it. We wouldn't even have needed the referendum! I'm afraid that it you who needs the helpline. I'm sure someone, somewhere, can help. The referendum would have been held post negotiations when we could all have understood the real consequences of leaving or remaining. You replied to my post but didn't answer the question. Would it have been better to have held the referendum before or after the negotiations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 14 hours ago, Snow Leopard said: I see your point almost. My opinion as always been this. UK has a non-binding referendum after the General Election. For sure that vote would have been to leave. Go to Brussels and negotiate. Then have a binding referendum based on the offer on the table. The outcome would be what it would be 14 hours ago, Snow Leopard said: No, I don't. Too late. The first one was binding. I would agree to another referendum in a few years on whether we should re-enter or not. You cannot win this argument now either way. Anything but abiding by the result is undemocratic. You have just contradicted yourself. The referendum was advisory, not binding. The vote, indeed was to leave. No legal obligation for the government to carry it out. A post negotiations referendum is still perfectly feasible, In fact it may still happen. You may yet get your wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superal Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 16 hours ago, Spidey said: The money that we are contractually committed to is much less than the final settlement, but still billions. So why are we paying more than our commitments ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfd101 Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 2 hours ago, nontabury said: In the run up to the people’s 2016 referendum, the Government sent a leaflet to every household, setting out the facts, and recommending that the electorate vote to remain in the E.u. Unfortunately for the establishment in 2016, the people remembered how they had been lied to and deceived in the run up to the 1975 referendum, when we were assured that we would be only joining a trading block. They then took to social media, and filled their minds with as much information as possible, and consequently used this knowledge to vote to leave this so called union. This has lead to the impass we now have in our halls of government, with the people who we wrongly thought were are representatives, working against the people. But not to worry, come the next G.E many of them will be collecting their P45, courtesy of their electorate. OK, I guess I'm used to the Oz constitutional referendum situation (which happens about once a decade or 2, and almost always fails because of the very high threshold for success - "a majority of votes in a majority of the States"). The way it works is that the Electoral Commission - not the politicians - puts out a brochure to all households with the facts, the pros & cons etc. And it's neutral on which way to vote - the pollies do that bit separately. Seems to work pretty well. The failures of constitutional change come from the 'smaller' States (WA, SA, Tas), always suspicious of change which they see as being imposed upon them by those horrible people in The East or on The Mainland ... Under Oz law, that's the only thing that can be called a 'referendum'. Anything else is just a popular vote or plebiscite (eg the vote on gay marriage 18 months ago) and has political force but no force of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 25 minutes ago, superal said: So why are we paying more than our commitments ? Barnier & Co insisted on the UK fixing the divorce settlement before they would negotiate any other issues. They had us over a barrel with that and we caved in. It was a sign of things to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvinmelvin Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 hours ago, nontabury said: Many people seem to think, that Brexit is the major problem for the Bureaucrats in Brussels. They are wrong, it’s small compared with the increasing problems regarding Italy. agree EU has some very serious challenges ahead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dick dasterdly Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 hours ago, superal said: So why are we paying more than our commitments ? And where is the list as to the UK's actual, genuine commitments?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dick dasterdly Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 hours ago, Spidey said: Barnier & Co insisted on the UK fixing the divorce settlement before they would negotiate any other issues. They had us over a barrel with that and we caved in. It was a sign of things to come. The eu didn't have the uk "over a barrel" at all! May/uk negotiators for some obscure reason agreed that money to be paid to the eu should be the first item on the agenda! This was the first clue that neither the eu or uk had any intention of pursuing genuine negotiations.... But I agree with your first sentence.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Leopard Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 3 hours ago, Spidey said: You have just contradicted yourself. The referendum was advisory, not binding. The vote, indeed was to leave. No legal obligation for the government to carry it out. A post negotiations referendum is still perfectly feasible, In fact it may still happen. You may yet get your wish. My god, Where have you been, Of course it was binding, It was in the Tory manifesto that if they won the election there would be an in or out vote on EU membership. If you didn't know Cameron won the election only because there would be an in or out vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 4 hours ago, Spidey said: The referendum would have been held post negotiations when we could all have understood the real consequences of leaving or remaining. You replied to my post but didn't answer the question. Would it have been better to have held the referendum before or after the negotiations? You need to replace the word better with possible! How can you have negotiations before a referendum?? How can you have negotiations before A50 is triggered? The EU would neither be obliged nor interested to hold "practice" negotiations. If you don't believe me, read Article 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 13 hours ago, bartender100 said: Oops German recession fears. Do they sell much to the UK? https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/economy/germany-economy-recession-fears/index.html CNBC had this up (Briefly) too, yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Leopard Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, nauseus said: You need to replace the word better with possible! How can you have negotiations before a referendum?? How can you have negotiations before A50 is triggered? The EU would neither be obliged nor interested to hold "practice" negotiations. If you don't believe me, read Article 50. They did prior to the referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Snow Leopard said: They did prior to the referendum. I suppose you mean Cameron's efforts to renegotiate the UK's deal while still within the EU prior to the referendum. He didn't have a lot of luck. I am referring to negotiations for a withdrawal agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 13 hours ago, bartender100 said: Oops German recession fears. Do they sell much to the UK? https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/economy/germany-economy-recession-fears/index.html Unlike lots (most?) Brexiters, Germany and other EU nations don't deny that Brexit will hurt them. Just that it will hurt the UK more. A lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Leopard Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 1 minute ago, nauseus said: I suppose you mean Cameron's efforts to renegotiate the UK's deal while still within the EU prior to the referendum. He didn't have a lot of luck. I am referring to negotiations for a withdrawal agreement. Fair enough. But the negotiation did take place. The EU didn't listen or understand the mood of the voting population in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, bristolboy said: Unlike lots (most?) Brexiters, Germany and other EU nations don't deny that Brexit will hurt them. Just that it will hurt the UK more. A lot more. Brexit? Ha! Like most remainers you don't read the story. Exports to China are the main problem right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nauseus Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said: Fair enough. But the negotiation did take place. The EU didn't listen or understand the mood of the voting population in the UK. Yes but these "negotiations" were at that time, internal, therefore different. I don't think that the EU was ever interested in listening or understanding - they still aren't. Cameron didn't understand his electorate either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Leopard Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 10 minutes ago, nauseus said: Yes but these "negotiations" were at that time, internal, therefore different. I don't think that the EU was ever interested in listening or understanding - they still aren't. Cameron didn't understand his electorate either. Democracy at work then. Why do politicians or unelected eurocrats need to listen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welovesundaysatspace Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 59 minutes ago, Snow Leopard said: My god, Where have you been, Of course it was binding, It was in the Tory manifesto that if they won the election there would be an in or out vote on EU membership. If you didn't know Cameron won the election only because there would be an in or out vote. 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nontabury Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 4 hours ago, Spidey said: You have just contradicted yourself. The referendum was advisory, not binding. The vote, indeed was to leave. No legal obligation for the government to carry it out. A post negotiations referendum is still perfectly feasible, In fact it may still happen. You may yet get your wish. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 44 minutes ago, nauseus said: You need to replace the word better with possible! How can you have negotiations before a referendum?? How can you have negotiations before A50 is triggered? The EU would neither be obliged nor interested to hold "practice" negotiations. If you don't believe me, read Article 50. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 well if the time has run out on the possibility of extending article 50, withdraw it. Clearly we are not ready, when we decide on what we want we can re execute it as virtually all options will need two or more years transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spidey Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 9 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. Yes, no need to point out that Cameron was a limp wristed , Eton Old Boy, upper class, twit. If he'd thought for one minute that the vote would go to "leave", he would never have called the referendum. What a knob! When did any party honour it's manifesto, once elected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.