A Political Thread

[ncurd]

And if its a remain vote all the leavers will kick off until we have 20 votes on the same thing

The horse has already bolted on this one and wasn't considered because nobody (of authority) actually thought leave would win. But I would happily concede a super majority (60%) would be required to remain within the EU. In reality it should of been required to leave.....but ho hum no point in arguing that.

 

[ncurd]

It won't be happening, as the Government has already decided to implement the talks which will precede our departure next year.

The people decided, rightly or wrongly, so we just have to make the most of it.

Show me where constutionally the government can't withdraw Article 50.

When you fail to do that explain why the people shouldn't be allowed to make an informed decision based on the deal the government manages to negotiate.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Please show me why the Government should have to listen to the minority of people? 52% said out, so therefore the Government has to listen to them.

Awaits your typical boil, bluster and anger reply.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Show me where constutionally the government can't withdraw Article 50.

When you fail to do that explain why the people shouldn't be allowed to make an informed decision based on the deal the government manages to negotiate.

However, just to appease you:

From the BBC's Reality Check:

Reality Check verdict: The government is clear that it respects the result of the referendum, so it argues that any debate is theoretical. However, the question of whether Article 50 is irrevocable is the subject of legal dispute.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was written with a deliberate lack of clarity - it does not say whether it can be revoked once it has been triggered.

As a result, the UK government has been unable to make any definitive legal statements on the issue.

The Justice Secretary, Liz Truss, has said "My understanding is that it is irrevocable," while the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, said in December 2016: "Is it irrevocable? I don't know."

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Please show me why the Government should have to listen to the minority of people? 52% said out, so therefore the Government has to listen to them.

Awaits your typical boil, bluster and anger reply.

Technically 37% of people wanted to leave,
30-whatever said remain, and 20-whatever weren't arsed to vote.

I'm not sure how I feel about a 2nd referendum. I badly want us to stay, but it'll cause proper outrage/uproar.
It should be redone anyway because there were zero facts and considerations put into it, no one knew what they were voting for (as in the details of it). We still don't know now.
You can't vote on something so big if you have zero idea what's going to happen.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

I agree with you on the part that facts and considerations were not a part of it.

There was so much anger and rage about this contentious issue, particularly online, that decent debate (especially the economical arguments) got stifled.

I think most Leave voters just wanted to say to the Government 'look, we have had enough of you lot ignoring us and putting us down'. If only successive Governments could have done more maybe?

I can see us hard Brexiting and would not put it past the current lot to waste our time only to leave with (as the Welsh put it) Llagerrub.

My main concern is the future - okay, we are currently leaving the EU (good or bad is open to debate), but what are we entering into in 2020 and beyond?

The house always wins.

 

[ncurd]

Please show me why the Government should have to listen to the minority of people? 52% said out, so therefore the Government has to listen to them.

Awaits your typical boil, bluster and anger reply.

Show me where I said the goverment have to listen to a minority. Infact if you read what I write you will see that I concede a super majority would likely be required in a 2nd referendum to remain.

 

[ncurd]

However, just to appease you:

From the BBC's Reality Check:

Reality Check verdict: The government is clear that it respects the result of the referendum, so it argues that any debate is theoretical. However, the question of whether Article 50 is irrevocable is the subject of legal dispute.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was written with a deliberate lack of clarity - it does not say whether it can be revoked once it has been triggered.

As a result, the UK government has been unable to make any definitive legal statements on the issue.

The Justice Secretary, Liz Truss, has said "My understanding is that it is irrevocable," while the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, said in December 2016: "Is it irrevocable? I don't know."

Umm that just proves my point.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Umm that just proves my point.

No, it proves that there is (and I quote) 'a deliberate lack of clarity'.

That means that we do not know for sure - like virtually all EU rules and legislation it is a virtual Spaghetti Junction to sift through.

Maybe it can, maybe parts of it can and maybe it cannot. We're not experts so let's not delude ourselves that we know for sure - when even two prominent Tories cannot agree on if it is so or not, us plebs cannot know for sure either.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

Show me where I said the goverment have to listen to a minority. Infact if you read what I write you will see that I concede a super majority would likely be required in a 2nd referendum to remain.

Show me, show me SHOW ME!!!! I am Ncurd and I demand your adherence!

Please and Thank You would not go amiss.

If a super majority was needed, and the result still went against what you wanted (I take it you are a Remainer?) what then.

How many times does the result have to go against you, before you concede defeat - 10, 100, never?

The best way that you could unsettle people is by moving from the UK. We can have referendum after referendum, which wastes time and costs money, or people and businesses who are largely pro-EU could just state:

'The EU means that much to me that I am prepared to become a leaver - I will leave the UK and relocate abroad.'

That would help the UK get things like infrastructure and the NHS under control - less pressure on services would be fantastic.

 

[ncurd]

Oh sorry I need to be polite when you put words in my mouth.

It means the rules are whatever the political will wants them to be. If the UK shows it's willingness to stay and as a net contributor to the EU budget I doubt highly they would be unwilling to agree to withdraw it. It's a possibility but the political coup of the UK changing their mind would make it impossible

If we can't change our minds I demand the that entire campaign to remove us from EEC and subsequently the EU be decalred null and void. They've been campaigning since 1975 against a 67% majority. Democracy isn't about victors declaring victory and everyone else shutting up, I and others am allowed to campaign for and defend my views until the end of time.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

'Oh sorry I need to be polite when you put words in my mouth.'

As do I, when certain posters accuse me of certain things when I am not even commenting about them. 'You ARE saying X and Y' - no I am not, it was not my intention to do so - crossed wires perhaps, or deliberately twisting things? Answers on a postcard please.

Now, onto sensible discussion:

'If the UK shows it's willingness to stay and as a net contributor to the EU budget I doubt highly they would be unwilling to agree to withdraw it. It's a possibility but the political coup of the UK changing their mind would make it impossible.'

You would have to convince the staunchest of Leavers that it was in their best interest to give the EU another go. Would you personally be prepared to go to Clacton, Boston, Skegness, Ashton-in-Makerfield and other strong Leave areas and tell these people that they are wrong and we must abandon Brexit? Somehow, I doubt you would and I think you'd also be told (in no uncertain terms) where you could stick it and the high horse you rode in on.

These people are not prepared to listen - they dug their heels in and got what they wanted after years of being ignored by the elite classes. Your anger should be directed at people like Cameron, Brown and especially Blair who did nothing for these people. Why should your feelings matter to them, when theirs don't matter to you?

If we can't change our minds I demand the that entire campaign to remove us from EEC and subsequently the EU be declared null and void. They've been campaigning since 1975 against a 67% majority.

Oh dear me, because you're angry you're not getting your way you want it scrapped. I hate to tell you this but stuff your privilege. YOU are just one of millions of voters and your feelings and thoughts do not trump (oops trigger word) others. Your vote and mine are the SAME and yours is no more important than mine than mine is yours. How about I demand that all Remain voters personally compensate Leave voters financially if Brexit is abandoned?

Democracy isn't about victors declaring victory and everyone else shutting up, I and others am allowed to campaign for and defend my views until the end of time.

Except if what they want goes against what you want, of course

Would you say that the BNP, EDL, UKIP, English Democrats are allowed to campaign and defend their views?

 

[ncurd]

Hence why I'm willing to concede that a super majority would be required in a second referendum to remain within the EU. A clear indication that the majority of those willing to vote have changed their mind. Mind you I'd also count the 3 million EU citizens that were excluded from having a say about the country they live and pay taxes in but that's a seperate debate.

I literally have no idea what your point on compensation is.

UKIP yes perfectally legitimate poltical party even if I disagree with them on a huge amount. Every UKIP political candidate I have ever met has been reasonable including those who ran against me.

BNP and EDL promote violence so no their voice is not legitimate or should be counted (although their members still get a vote so can't remove that). It would not surprise be if their known members were on watch lists.

English Democrats weird mix between the two I've never seen anything outright racist about them (doesn't meen it hasn't happened).

 

[GarethGriffiths]

I literally have no idea what your point on compensation is

I wouldn't have expected you to, on this occasion.

It was from a comment on a Blog which I read a week or so after Brexit - that if Remainers were to overthrow the result of the Brexit Referendum that they should financially compensate Leave voters (basically bribe them).

The basic premise was that if Leave voters no longer matter in the great scheme of things (opinions, feelings etc.) that they be cast aside from society altogether.

That would mean that Leave voters would not be taxed and instead would have their taxes paid for by Remainers in return for their silence and non dissent. In other words, they become apart from society and do not contribute to it financially or politically.

I think it was started as a joke, but a number of Remainers who saw the blog (about 100 or so) said that they would pay more to keep Leave voters pacified if it meant that they would concede and allow the UK to remain in the EU.

Going back to the Second Referendum, supposing the % for Leave is 70 and for Remain it's 30. What then? Do you say 'oh but we need a third chance?' Some people may have changed their mind (or might just be saying so) but others won't change.

 

[ncurd]

Well that's just idiots for you they exist on both sides.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

For once, I agree with you!

 

[ncurd]

On the second referendum question (which I missed) I would say we should continue (and if it's held at the right time based on the full deal immediately) leave the EU. The UK will have made a decision based on the facts.

I would say that anyone including myself would be fully entitled to campaign for reentry into the EU. But a decision should not be made until it a clear there is a significant mood for it. Not to quell rowdy backbenches in the party of power or as an love branch to give up in a power sharing agreement.

There was not significant mood for Brexit and because of the we've fractious time because a small majority (yes still a majority yadda yadda yadda) when a clear majority would of stamped out any real opposition for a period of time.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

On the second referendum question (which I missed) I would say we should continue (and if it's held at the right time based on the full deal immediately) leave the EU. The UK will have made a decision based on the facts.

I would say that anyone including myself would be fully entitled to campaign for reentry into the EU. But a decision should not be made until it a clear there is a significant mood for it. Not to quell rowdy backbenches in the party of power or as an love branch to give up in a power sharing agreement.

There was not significant mood for Brexit and because of the we've fractious time because a small majority (yes still a majority yadda yadda yadda) when a clear majority would of stamped out any real opposition for a period of time.

This is the point that I find most sticky with leavers. I'm a remainer but accept we have chosen to leave. I don't like how choosing to leave is final and we may reapply. A lot of leavers wanted to leave because they wanted to change the original referendum to join. Well by that logic when things change again, how would it be any less valid to say we want to reverse it again? It's sort of like independence movements, every time they fail to say yes, you just run it again and again and again. Of course if a yes happens, that's final, you cannot then later apply to rejoin whatever country you left.

 

[GarethGriffiths]

That is, of course, if there is still an EU in the future to join.

It might have gone in five years time, or become part of something else by then. Maybe by 2024 we will be part of a pan-global union?

The world is changing, and no empire lasts forever - Romans, Byzantines, Medo-Persians etc. they all went are were replaced by something else.

Let's look ahead at what's to come (good or bad).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

That is, of course, if there is still an EU in the future to join.

It might have gone in five years time, or become part of something else by then. Maybe by 2024 we will be part of a pan-global union?

The world is changing, and no empire lasts forever - Romans, Byzantines, Medo-Persians etc. they all went are were replaced by something else.

Let's look ahead at what's to come (good or bad).

The EU could be very different, as could Britain. For all we know the EU could have morphed into a bastion of stability whilst Britain could have disintegrated with Scotland going their own way with maybe Wales following along. That's why the attitude of in is temporary but out is final is wrong.