UK in deadlock over Brexit 'Plan B' as May and Corbyn tussle

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am glad I am not the only Guardian reader here.

Or to say it in ColinCaserole's words: "The best Brexit of all, is no Brexit at all."

You misunderstand.

 

I read most publications if it looks as if they have anything (that goes against their usual interests) to say.

 

I quoted the Guardian articles as they are a remainer newspaper, and so, normally supported by remainers.

[Baerboxer]

17 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Looks like he had an ear infection ???? 

 

Love May's little smirk!

[Loiner]

The good thing that a fresh people's vote would bring would be a vote based on the now known facts rather than the lies and fantasies that were brought before the British people before the 2016 vote.
This is why the latest poll on public opinion backs Remain by 12 percentage points and why delaying Brexit would be in everyone's best interests. 
Time for some common sense if that's at all possible.

The people voted for Leave after 40 years of EEC/EU actual bitter experience. The facts of life in the EU were learned and will not be forgotten.
There have been more lies and fantasies since 2013 when Cameron announced his referendum election pledge. Most of those came from the govt in the form of Project Fear. A poll backing Remain by 12% is just the latest of those, and equally untrue.
Further delaying Brexit is not in anybody’s interest, other than those plotting to overturn the will of the people.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[melvinmelvin]

24 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Looks like he had an ear infection ???? 

I have no idea whether he is pissed or not. I know he enjoys a beer and a nip, have actually met him in Lux.

 

Last year or the year before I read a stmt from Brussels (CEC) that he suffers from so and so illness.

 

I actually suffer from the same,

on a bad day (without the aid of Belhaven) I walk like I am pissed and have very very bad body/balance control.

Must walk very slowly to safeguard against falling over. Navigating stairs tricky indeed.

 

 

 

 

[rixalex]

1 hour ago, Disaantri said:

Cameron was a blithering idiot not to ensure his referendum to introduce a new law/treaty or amend and existinglaw/treaty required a minimum 60/40 vote (to avoid the obvious division a closer result has caused, regardless of talk of democracy 50% of actual voters +1 is not a sensible majority) or stick to the fact that it was non binding for parliament, so that he got his way. And what did he do, blabber on TV before the event that it was binding, then slink away from the mess.

How would he have justified the Brexit vote having a 60/40 minimum vote requirement for change, when the Scottish Independence referendum had no such thing?

[Loiner]

I'm guessing you're not the sharpest tool in the box

But he’s got a vote and it’s just as good as yours.
And there’s more of us than you.
It never ceases to amaze me how Remainers seem to think if they throw insults at us, then we will change our minds.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

How would he have justified the Brexit vote having a 60/40 minimum vote requirement for change, when the Scottish Independence referendum had no such thing?

That was a mistake too, to be honest. Referendums which could result in fundamental and lasting change should require a supermajority. That said the die is cast so for indyref2 we will be sticking with the 50% plus 1 vote for the winning side. 

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, rixalex said:

How would he have justified the Brexit vote having a 60/40 minimum vote requirement for change, when the Scottish Independence referendum had no such thing?

They would have been left in the same quandary as we have now if a 60/40 minimum vote had been specified.

 

Instead, they (mostly) accepted the remain within the UK vote - and it's (mainly) started again with the brexit result.

 

Having said this, of course Scottish Nationalists continued the fight after the Scot's vote on independence.

[JulesMad]

What happened to the 'United' as in United Kingdom and United states of america?!? They better change it into 'UN-united' so it still be UK and usa ????

 

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Cameron was a blithering idiot not to ensure his referendum to introduce a new law/treaty or amend and existinglaw/treaty required a minimum 60/40 vote (to avoid the obvious division a closer result has caused"

 

I agree with this point.  It should have been stated that, on such an important issue, a majority of 60% was required.  He made the mistake of thinking that remain would easily win the referendum result.....

 

As things turned out, leave would not have won the necessary 60% of votes, and so UKIP would have continued (bearing in mind leave won more votes than remain) - and would likely have attracted even more voters?

 

I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with you but would like to offer some observations,

 

there have not been many referendums addressing Leave EU,

as far as I know only 1, Greenland, long time ago - simple majority as far as I remember,

they left

 

there have been a number of referendums re joining misc EU treaties,

Maastricht-Lisbon Schengen Euro etc etc important stuff

cannot remember any not being simple majority

 

there have been a number of referendums re joining EU,

important stuff comparable to leave in my book

simple majority I think, most if not all

 

 

[rixalex]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

That was a mistake too, to be honest. Referendums which could result in fundamental and lasting change should require a supermajority. That said the die is cast so for indyref2 we will be sticking with the 50% plus 1 vote for the winning side. 

What's the point in sticking to a precedent if you are against that precedent in principle and think it is flawed and a mistake? 

[NanLaew]

27 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

on a bad day (without the aid of Belhaven) I walk like I am pissed and have very very bad body/balance control.

And after the Belhaven?

[RuamRudy]

12 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

They would have been left in the same quandary as we have now if a 60/40 minimum vote had been specified.

 

Instead, they (mostly) accepted the remain within the UK vote - and it's (mainly) started again with the brexit result.

 

Having said this, of course Scottish Nationalists continued the fight after the Scot's vote on independence.

Stop me if I am going on a bit of a tangent here, but Scots were promised the most powerful devolved parliament in the world if we agreed to stay in the union. "Lead us, don't leave us." was David Cameron's plea. 

 

Gordon Brown stated, with the full backing of the UK government, that talks on extending devolution should commence the day after independence was rejected, and that within 2 years the UK would be a fully federal state, with each of the devolved administrations being as powerful as Westminster. In reality, the opposite is true - Holyrood has been stripped of powers since we made that massive blunder, and Brexit will further erode our self determination. Thankfully more and more Scots are coming to realise that they were conned by London. The UK is on life support and the prognosis is dire. 

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, rixalex said:

What's the point in sticking to a precedent if you are against that precedent in principle and think it is flawed and a mistake? 

Because the UK serves my country incredibly badly - I will accept any means possible to sever the ties that have caused us so much damage for so long. 

[johnnybangkok]

44 minutes ago, Loiner said:

 

Simply not true, however often you claim it or how much you wish it were.

Wether you calculate on the Turnout, Total electorate, or Total population:
Even more ‘most’ people did not vote for Remain.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Of 'turnout' it was 51.5% (the only calculation where it is the majority).

On 'total electorate' - the total voting population of the UK is 47 Million so 17 million represents just 36%.

Of 'Total population' - 66 million people in the UK so it's only 25%. Can't really use this of course as babies and kids don't get a say. 

 

14 Million people didn't bother/were unable to vote so it is hard to say which way they would have gone so the only conclusion that can be safely reached is 'of the people that voted that day, a slim majority of 1.3 M more voted to Leave'.   

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Stop me if I am going on a bit of a tangent here, but Scots were promised the most powerful devolved parliament in the world if we agreed to stay in the union. "Lead us, don't leave us." was David Cameron's plea. 

 

Gordon Brown stated, with the full backing of the UK government, that talks on extending devolution should commence the day after independence was rejected, and that within 2 years the UK would be a fully federal state, with each of the devolved administrations being as powerful as Westminster. In reality, the opposite is true - Holyrood has been stripped of powers since we made that massive blunder, and Brexit will further erode our self determination. Thankfully more and more Scots are coming to realise that they were conned by London. The UK is on life support and the prognosis is dire. 

Entirely my fault for responding to a reply re. the Scot. independence vote - and this is certainly the wrong thread for this entirely different topic.

[johnnybangkok]

42 minutes ago, Loiner said:

But he’s got a vote and it’s just as good as yours.
And there’s more of us than you.
It never ceases to amaze me how Remainers seem to think if they throw insults at us, then we will change our minds.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

My guess that he isn't the 'sharpest tool in the box' was more based on his terrible spelling, awful grammar, basic understanding of economics and his idea that the UK only consists of England. It wasn't about his political leanings (plenty of intelligent people in the Brexit camp after all) but if you feel compelled to defend another over a slight that YOU misconstrued, then it's no wonder you're overly sensitive about insults.          

[rixalex]

12 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Because the UK serves my country incredibly badly - I will accept any means possible to sever the ties that have caused us so much damage for so long. 

Any means possible? But your argument seems to be that not all means are successful. Not having a supermajority, in your opinion, in the case of Brexit, was a mistake and has led to, amongst other things, the current mess.

 

Why would Indyref2 be any different?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

How would he have justified the Brexit vote having a 60/40 minimum vote requirement for change, when the Scottish Independence referendum had no such thing?

And neither did the 1975 referendum.

[melvinmelvin]

30 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Because the UK serves my country incredibly badly - I will accept any means possible to sever the ties that have caused us so much damage for so long. 

As far as I gather, the SNP and independence movement has grown to a very significant power now.

 

Nearer the last ice age when I went to university in Edinburgh;

as far as I remember beeing hardcore SNPer and going it aloners was looked upon as beeing somewhat odd.

Other Scots, duun southers and the Irish looked at that as kinda odd, not negatively, but odd.

 

times change

 

Also,

I seem to learn that there is a growing "go it alone" movement in the Shetlands,

cut the moorings to UK, including Scotland.

 

interesting times indeed

 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Any means possible? But your argument seems to be that not all means are successful. Not having a supermajority, in your opinion, in the case of Brexit, was a mistake and has led to, amongst other things, the current mess.

 

Why would Indyref2 be any different?

I think you are conflating two separate things. Ideally, as I said, fundamental changes should come about with a supermajority. If the precedent had not been set already for a 50/50 vote, I would have accepted the need to Yes to achieve a supermajority.

 

I appreciate that it may lead to issues later - nobody wanted that the Brexit result would have been so close. Clearly with such a close run thing, the losing side is going to dig its heels in, especially when they have have what some claim to show evidence of cheating.

 

For that reason, indyref2 will hopefully be a resounding vote to leave - and the whole process should have international scrutiny to ensure that it is conducted fairly. I may be wrong, but I don't recall Brexit having any independent oversight?

[damascase]

1 hour ago, Loiner said:

The people voted for Leave after 40 years of EEC/EU actual bitter experience. The facts of life in the EU were learned and will not be forgotten.

...............
 

What ‘bitter experience’........... Are you sure the UK would have been better off if they hadn’t joined the EEC/EU? Or would the EU have been better off withouth the never fully committed, opting-out and ‘waiving-the-rules’ UK?

Questions, questions.........

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

How would he have justified the Brexit vote having a 60/40 minimum vote requirement for change, when the Scottish Independence referendum had no such thing?

That's the whole thing about the faux democracy of British referendums and 'people's votes'.

 

The first Scottish independence referendum in 1979 which was solely to gauge support for a devolved Scottish Assembly was a 'resounding' 51.6% in favor. However, an amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if less than 40% of the total electorate voted "Yes" in the referendum. So even with a quite respectable 64% voter turnout, it was sh!tcanned and Scottish self-determination took a back seat for another 18 years courtesy of the anti-devolution Thatcher administration. In 1997, despite a reduced voter show of 60%, the 74% of Yes votes on that Labour-led devolution initiative were much more significant.

 

Tellingly, the sham, heavily caveated 1979 shambles was run by Jim Callaghan's lame duck Labour government who were shown the door by the Tories in a snap election merely two months later. That snap election was triggered when the Thatcher-led opposition won a motion of no confidence predicated by Jim's devolution cock up. Since the Tories have ballsed-up their first tilt at a referendum, can we really trust them to get any do-over right? Despite the fact that it would need to be run EXACTLY the same as the rubbish one that cameron's Tories foisted on the citizenry.

[Proboscis]

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

The politicians promised the impossible. And now they find out it's impossible to have the cake and eat it.

The same politicians should cancel the impossible brexit, resign and never "work" in politics again.

I agree it is impossible but it is much worse than that. The only things that MPs agree on are negatives, such as no crash-out.

 

So far we have had the Tories tearing apart over Brexit with a significant prepared to vote against their own PM's deal, Now we are about to see what happens with the Labour party - a report in today's Guardian about Corbyn's team ready to resign if he leans towards a people's vote (which many of his own MPs support).

 

Two last-ditch hopes are: the parliament takes over the running and votes in a deal of some sort (most likely a Norway Plus). But that is still unlikely. Instead the parliament may resort to a second people's vote with a version of May's deal, Remain and Norway as choices and a choice of 1, 2 or 3.

 

Guaranteed no one will be happy. But at least if there is a deal or remain, the country will not go broke.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

That was a mistake too, to be honest. Referendums which could result in fundamental and lasting change should require a supermajority. That said the die is cast so for indyref2 we will be sticking with the 50% plus 1 vote for the winning side. 

Agreed. And this mulligan of a second referendum suddenly masquearding as the "people's vote" will be similarly challenged.

 

I mean "people's vote"? Really? What does that make the first one? The sheeple vote?

[owl sees all]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

7 hours ago, owl sees all said:

It was a mistake JC calling a vote of 'no confidence' IMO.

Maybe he was going through the motions; a formality?

Just an ill-thought-out motion IMO.

 

If he had succeeded and a General Election took place. New prospective and sitting Labour MPs, could gain selection on whether they wanted to leave the EU or not. Same goes for the Tories, but not so many of their MPs are in 'leave' constituencies.

 

Say Labour get back in power, and a50 then comes back into focus. But this time, his MPs are leavers. Interesting times ahead.

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, Cobby said:

I do not understand why all the fuss

its better to have a no deal 

as a country we can stand alone we can survive very well 

england dose not need any one else 

we import 70% more than we export 

its Europe that needs us 

German cars 

French cars

itslian cars

spanish cars 

then it’s the wine

all foods the list goes on 

a no deal means the whole world will deal with us 

imigration

we can choose who we want to come to England 

???????????????????????????? 

it’s time now to put the great back into Britten 

 

and England to rule the waves again 

Long live 

 

 

 England ???????????????????????????? 

I think Benjamin Britten is great also 

 

Which is your favourite piece?

 

Is it Ingurlund, ingurland, ingurland?

[NanLaew]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I think Benjamin Britten is great also 

 

Which is your favourite piece?

 

Is it Ingurlund, ingurland, ingurland?

C'mon Grouse, stop buggering about with the low-hanging fruit.

[Grouse]

9 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

C'mon Grouse, stop buggering about with the low-hanging fruit.

You are quite correct; I shall desist forthwith!

[DPKANKAN]

5 hours ago, David in the north said:

Twaddle
Do you honestly think countries will refuse to sell cars & food to the UK?
Corbyn is purely out to cause as much mischief as possible in his futile attempts to have a Marxist government in the UK, regardless of what damage it does to the country or it's people.

Exactly correct! It is the F..kw.t Corbyn's half baked attempt and only chance of power. Forget us UK citizens who's taxes pay for his undeserved salary!!!????????????