Nobody even knows what that means. And that isn’t what was sold to the people prior to the referendum.
The UK was caught it a bait and switch and you want to just go through with it. Unreal.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
The UK was caught it a bait and switch and you want to just go through with it. Unreal.
That's the trouble with 'trends' in demographics, you can predict how many people may be born, or die in a specific period, what is not specified over the same a period of time is how people will vote at any point. The problem with politics as Harold Macmillan reportedly observed .."things change... events dear boy, events".
Precisely. Brexit means Brexit.
Oh really. She was saying it as if she understood what that really meant.
Proof of that is that she maintains that her 'deal' equates to Brexit.
What? Yeah you can, it's pretty easy, the UK has a stable rate (albeit increasing thanks to NHS cuts) of people dying at older ages and very low rates of teenage deaths. There's events, but this ain't one of them.
You know logic isn't just rhyming words right?
In all likelihood we would have another at some point, are you oblivious to the fact this was already the second such ref?
Wouldn’t that make the UK the only country in the world trading on solely WTO terms?
There is no answer to my point, in reality the referendum is only an inspiration for a subsequent act of parliament where the MPs decided to brexit. Things get interesting when you count the amount of time MPs voted on the actual nature of brexit since the initial act of parliament.
Yes, fortunately for the UK referendums are rare but a referendum could in theory occur more often than a general election and vice versa.
That’s the thing. He seems to think otherwise.
To you:
If Parliament is who chose to act on the advisory referendum, then couldn’t Parliament also decide to change its mind and ask for more advice?
What is it, pretend to be Andrew Marr day? I'm not some politician sitting on QT or Newsnight
I've answered well into thr double figures in the past couple of hours and its the 3pm. perhaps you can prove your 'impartial' agenda and spread your investigative questions to other stances, put out your own personal manifesto on the EU issue
Think you've missed the point I was trying to make.
Yes, with demographic trends you can predict births and deaths, what you cannot predict is how people will vote at a given point, mainly because of the unpredictability of political events. You alluded to the fact that so called 'gammon faces' who voted remain, might change to leave voters and swing it for Brexit... but not perhaps if it leads to the downfall of the Tory party?
Even before a second referendum can be considered, other events have to play out. EG. Will Labour MPs who came from leave areas cross the floor and vote for May's deal? Will Tory MPs from leave areas vote for measures to defeat Brexit? Perhaps the only thing for sure, is the DUP will not vote for anything with unlimited 'backstop' in it? Any or all of these events should they take place could affect the vote in a second referendum, just as much as if 'x' number of old people die and 'y' number of new voters come on to the register.
Parliament can do whatever it wants, they can cancel brexit or they can ask for more advice. Their duty is to do what is best for the country and their constituency.
Right, so you’re going to ignore the two tough questions @Silva asked you.
Seen
Nah, Labour MPs won't cross the isle in large numbers, they've already announced their support for the second ref. having failed to bring about a GE and their plan is to call the vote after the Tuesday vote fails, as it'll have a small chance of being backed by tory remainers then
By his definition there is no requirement other than leave the EU. So for example the UK could leave the EU and join a new institution named the EC(European cartel) that has the exact same members, rules and functioning than the EU.
Do you think Brexiters have the slightest clue as to what trading on WTO rules actually means? JRM is a leading cheerleader and he doesn't understand what it means.
Ok. I'll give you the courtesy of answering one more (4 x freedoms)
In sum, being tied into the EU's movement policies would not work under my vision of Brexit. I'd want the freedom to control immigration and use that freedom to bring in skilled workers from across the world. People have their own views, but I don't see how freedom of movement is a prerequisite for trade (it is if you want to create a single economy)
As I've answered your question, I'll
Ask if you going to scrutinise and 'Andrew Neal' question other viewpoints/ stances today?
Don't think Jeremy is as confident as you seem to be on this matter, the Labour Party is on the cusp of fracturing, the TIG escapade shows it's weakness. Even Angela Rayner one time darling of the left is now coming under fire for comments about Blair, who would have predicted that?
"Events dear boy, events" all unpredictable, have more likelihood of influencing matters than demographics!
so the words on the paper are up for interpretation?
the fracture is people who are hard remain not people who will split to vote for may's deal
That was @Silva ’s question, bud.
Andrew Neil is a massive nerd
Everything is open to interpretation
Freedom of movement was great in 1975 too.
So a no. I'll leave you to your agenda then
so it is fine if we leave and maintain the 4 freedoms since a number of leavers expected the norway deal
I’m just saying... it wasn’t my question. I just felt you were ignoring them.
As to questioning the Remain side... I did that back in 2016. Their answers made sense.
I was getting about 6 alerts on this thread every time I checked my phone, hard to keep up
I know your stance and will prioritise your questions on this accordingly
Yeah, because it has no chance of being voted for by remain tories before Mays deal fails. Even the people's vote folk are fine with having the vote when it has a chance of passing.
Sorry, I don't quite follow your reasoning on this one?
Won't 'hard remain' want to (excuse the pun) remain solid, they will surely vote together on each and every motion that might stop or delay Brexit, strike from behind cover, or whatever? Because if the Remain MP's 'fracture' then not just the Remain battle, but the Remain war is likely to be lost and any second referendum, should there be one, will be a vote either for May's deal, or for No deal and the remain 'rump' might as well then join the Lib Dem's and they can console one another!
This is the second time we have voted in or out of Europe, so this one shouldn't have happened. It was a referendum, not a neverendum
Some remainers thought the EU created the NHS and would spread similar magical fairy dust in the future, while others voted on the design on the Union and EU flags.
You'll find similar with other elections, but you seem to be advocating the repeat of elections and votes. If you think continous uncertainty is good, then that's your burden
As in, they want to remain in the EU and cancel article 50 after a second referendum which they think they will win. That was the purpose of the independent spliters, to force a second ref.
The point of a second referendum is provide actual terms for leaving, rather than the vague proposal which you've admitted it up to interpretation. If leave wins with actual terms set out, that happens and everyone shuts up. It's not a second in/out referendum that is again open to interpretation.
Putting viewpoints to one side, is there actually time in your opinion?
Yeah, the EU has said they will extend A50 in the event of a general election or second referendum, which would be held 6-8 weeks after being voted for in parliament.
Yes, I understand that's what Remainer's want, but splitting their forces/voting intentions as you seem to suggest they might, could end up with a second referendum being the final hurdle alright, but they might not get the question on the referendum which they want. Surely the Electoral Commission who rules on such matters will take into account the votes in the House and the numbers spread?
Splitting your forces is always a risky tactic!