I duknow... not everyone was eligible to vote, works for me *shrugs*
Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,870 comments
- 301,528 views
- 17,324
- United Kingdom
I've actually wasted 2-3 hours typing out paragraphs in response to this, but I used the word **** a lot and called you an empowered English gammon wanker (though only by extension) ... which I accept probably isn't fair or true and have decided not to post, to be honest I'm still trying to find a more composed way of saying it without just ranting at you... and at the moment I can't, but I'll try and summarise... My business and my personal life exists because the only actual difference between us all, no matter of nationality, is miles. Now that a xenophobic minority of the country has decided to try and put up barriers between us and other people, that is no longer the case. It's all the kind of bad stuff that gets dismissed as project fear by **** head nationalistic frog-faced **** scum, but to me it's 40% of turnover, it's 50% of new future business, it's losing 20% of staff, it's my girlfriend getting abused by those freshly empowered and emboldened gammon wankers I mentioned earlier and it's (part of) why she doesn't live in "Great" Britain, it's 10-20% on my personal outgoings for doing the right thing by the person I love. I suspect you read headlines, headlines that lump all UK people and all UK business into one or two groups... the real world isn't like that - "getting a better deal" does simply not translate to individuals at most levels - it'd take me a day to explain the nuances of one of our major customer or supplier relationships. If you think you've paid a price then I'm sorry you don't have a job to go back to in January, I'm sorry your business has been set back 9 years and I'm sorry your partner has to put up with being told to **** off back to where she came from more often (English people.... what can I say!).
Robin
Premium
- 16,799
- United Kingdom
Well its a good thing you did because it would have been as rude as your previous post assuming you know ANYTHING about my private life. Clearly your experiences have made you enraged which is fair enough but do you think it's right or even relevant for me to have to hear it? Go to you MP if your so unhappy because I'm not in government and I'm not the one currently organising Brexit.
- 31,706
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
- 528
- United Kingdom
- PD_ApexPredator
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Could anybody? By default the leader of the Tory party can't, whoever she/he is. Swivel-eyed loons on both ends of the string.
I'll jump into this discussion in your fashion.
You know what your problem is? You come across as someone who talks a lot, but says very little. And you alternate that with posting an even less informativeas response every now and then.
What more would you like me to say that I haven’t already (In this thread)?
-I’m pro remain (and the people’s vote)
-I think no-deal will cause generational problems and a further disconnect between the political class and the rest of the voters AND massive economical problems both short and long term
-Brexit was a political game played out by our political class
I didn’t jump into a discussion I’ve been here and I’m just responding to posts. Someone comes along saying no-deal can be done, or May’s deal is good. And manages to come up with some nonsense about fish and that everyone loves May’s plan?
Oh and of course no one could be affected by Brexit yet, where still in the EU! Seems fair game to me for quizzing, no?
(Oh and naturally I hope no one else replies to this publicly posted message!)
- 40,875
It's very GT Subforum-y, all the way down to passive-aggressive liking of every post that goes against someone he was arguing with.I'll jump into this discussion in your fashion.
You know what your problem is? You come across as someone who talks a lot, but says very little. And you alternate that with posting an even less informative
- 528
- United Kingdom
- PD_ApexPredator
Not according to the UN, who studied attitudes & sentiments before, during, and after the referendum:
- UK has seen 'Brexit-related' growth in racism, says UN report
- Xenophobia Strongly Linked To Brexit Vote
- UN: Migrants face 'hostile environment' in post-Brexit Britain
but what do they know eh.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Theresa May returns to Brussels again today where she has one last shot at persuading the EU to give ground on the Irish backstop... don't hold your breath.
She will almost certainly return with insufficient 'reassurances' that the Irish backstop will not persist indefinitely, and thus her deal will, finally, be pronounced dead.
That leaves May with several options, all of which are diametrically opposed to everything she has said - a 'Plan B' (what? how? when?) deal, a second referendum, or No Deal, but it is hard to see how No Deal can be selected as an option with the vast majority of MPs lined up against it. Unfortunately, No Deal is practically the only bargaining chip the UK had left, but without a majority to support the move, it is no longer a viable option. That leaves Plan B or a second referendum... Plan B is almost certainly going to be as bad (if not worse) that the deal that is already dead in the water, and I can't see how any other deal can be negotiated at this late stage anyway. That leaves a second referendum, but with the understanding that anything other than a vote to abandon Brexit will (have to) be rejected.
Previously, before the Article 50 situation was made clear by the ECJ, I said that a second referendum would be pointless because a vote in favour of Remain couldn't actually be delivered.... it is now the other way around. A second vote to Leave now looks like it can't be delivered, thus what is the point in even having a vote on it?
In the cold light of day, it does read pretty badly - the UK now has little other option but to abandon Brexit. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of that, but even I have to admit that it looks bad... the idea that we actually have little choice but to 'vote again until we get it right' looks truer than ever now. I'm not against a second referendum in principle - why should we be afraid of more democracy? But, it is not as simple as that - it is pretty clear that the EU's strategy (and even possibly Theresa May's) all along has been to wreck Brexit, and to engineer a circumstance where the 'wrong' result can be overturned... it is not simply that the British people have 'come to their senses' and now 'see the error of their ways'... it is largely because options that could have made Brexit far more attractive have been rejected (and mostly not even considered) by both a Remain-leaning UK government and an intransigent EU, who have made it clear that a 'successful' Brexit ought to be impossible. Either way, we now find ourselves in a situation where UK MPs are 'looking to the UK people' to get us out of this shambles, without fully explaining or realising that a second referendum would, by all intents and purposes, be a complete sham.
She will almost certainly return with insufficient 'reassurances' that the Irish backstop will not persist indefinitely, and thus her deal will, finally, be pronounced dead.
That leaves May with several options, all of which are diametrically opposed to everything she has said - a 'Plan B' (what? how? when?) deal, a second referendum, or No Deal, but it is hard to see how No Deal can be selected as an option with the vast majority of MPs lined up against it. Unfortunately, No Deal is practically the only bargaining chip the UK had left, but without a majority to support the move, it is no longer a viable option. That leaves Plan B or a second referendum... Plan B is almost certainly going to be as bad (if not worse) that the deal that is already dead in the water, and I can't see how any other deal can be negotiated at this late stage anyway. That leaves a second referendum, but with the understanding that anything other than a vote to abandon Brexit will (have to) be rejected.
Previously, before the Article 50 situation was made clear by the ECJ, I said that a second referendum would be pointless because a vote in favour of Remain couldn't actually be delivered.... it is now the other way around. A second vote to Leave now looks like it can't be delivered, thus what is the point in even having a vote on it?
In the cold light of day, it does read pretty badly - the UK now has little other option but to abandon Brexit. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of that, but even I have to admit that it looks bad... the idea that we actually have little choice but to 'vote again until we get it right' looks truer than ever now. I'm not against a second referendum in principle - why should we be afraid of more democracy? But, it is not as simple as that - it is pretty clear that the EU's strategy (and even possibly Theresa May's) all along has been to wreck Brexit, and to engineer a circumstance where the 'wrong' result can be overturned... it is not simply that the British people have 'come to their senses' and now 'see the error of their ways'... it is largely because options that could have made Brexit far more attractive have been rejected (and mostly not even considered) by both a Remain-leaning UK government and an intransigent EU, who have made it clear that a 'successful' Brexit ought to be impossible. Either way, we now find ourselves in a situation where UK MPs are 'looking to the UK people' to get us out of this shambles, without fully explaining or realising that a second referendum would, by all intents and purposes, be a complete sham.
Last edited:
- 17,324
- United Kingdom
I asked you directly how it had affected you, you simply related it to being the same as everyone else, since I know that everyone is not affected the same way it seemed to me that you actually had nothing to say on the matter - so ... fair game.
Just answering your question...
.. so there's that.
He does not care, he fully supports the PM and her deal. Thanks to the fact I live in a Tory stronghold, every vote I've made in the last 20 years has been virtually worthless, and his office has already taken to twitter to commit to, and underline this stance. It really is only as effective as complaining to you to be honest.
In all fairness, it may be a blanket statement, but it's not absurd at all.
..
Anyway, I was almost hoping to wake up this morning to find Bojo in charge... could use a laugh.
I kinda know how you feel, but it’s easier for them to sneer from the sidelines than actually take charge of anything
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
So because 1 UN representative says it's this way this is the UN position?
Even if this is true, the majority voted for Brexit, to say the majority of those that voted in the referendum are linked with xenophobia is completely absurd.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
UN-adopted and UN-issued documents are the UN position, yes. I know it's know surprise to you that the UN is made out of peoples. That's like any organisation. Ultimately the UN collectively take responsibility for their publications and strategies but it's individuals and groups therein who make them.
Did he say that the majority of referendum voters were xenophobes? He may have but I missed it.
There was certainly an increase in xenophobia-driven crime immediately after the referendum, but that doesn't illustrate any majority.
- 17,324
- United Kingdom
I’ve been reading the morning news and it seems like if anything May’s been made weaker by yesterday, regardless of the result.
I’m struggling to see anything other than the collapse of the Tory party... but does that happen before the Brexit deadline? Like you said the deal is dead, so we have no-deal or no-Brexit and it seems like no one wants to deal with that reality
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The government have said that the 'meaningful vote' will be held by 21st January, but Labour are pressing for it to be held now - frankly, the sooner it is officially killed (or, by some miracle, accepted) the better - but the likelihood is that it will be rejected... and that will be the moment when Corbyn calls of Vote of No Confidence in the government. Ironically, however, the government are perhaps unlikely to lose that - the DUP and Hard Brexiteers will have already 'won' the important battle as far as they are concerned - that May's deal is defeated... but they are unlikely to vote against the Conservative government itself as that would bring about a General Election and could easily result in a Labour government who will have no choice but to revoke Article 50... with or without a referendum (which at this stage looks pointless anyway).
If and when May's deal is formally rejected by the UK parliament, I reckon she will have no choice but to resign.
I think that it would help the political class not to have the vote. That way they can still use the EU as the scapegoat down the line. If they have a vote then suddenly all this ‘will of the people’ talk will have been for nothing
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
TM, a No Deal doesn't require a meaningful vote in Parliament, right? By definition a deal needs both parts (parties?) to agree to sign it, so if TM says to the EU "this deal we reached doesn't obtain the UK's Parliament approval" (a very credible statement) then she is for all intents and purposes saying "No deal is possible therefore No Deal it will be".
I'm not sure I'm being clear here, but to make myself "clearer" I am referring to this particular phrase within your post:
… it is hard to see how No Deal can be selected as an option with the vast majority of MPs lined up against it …
EDIT - In my post, TM means both "Touring Mars" and "Theresa May"
Last edited:
- 29,952
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
It really is too late to hold a vote of no confidence in the government; between January and March there is very little I can see being achieved in hounding out the old government and trying to set up a new one. Whatever is going to happen with the future of the United Kingdom and the European Union, whether the notice to leave is rescinded or whether the UK really does leave, it needs to be sorted now. It's far too late to be pussyfooting about, wondering who should be in charge. Just get the big :censored:ing decisions done.
If there was ever going to be a vote of no confidence, it should have been held the nanosecond the first round of negotiations fell apart. It should have been when the first Brexit Secretary turned up with no research. It should have been when the first Brexit Secretary resigned from his post then said "Oh this is terrible and I'm resigning but I think we should do this, this and this", willfully ignorant of the fact that he was in place to do so and got found out as incapable. It should have been when the second and third Brexit Secretaries in less than 18 months quit. These were people appointed for their qualities which makes them suitable for the role specifically for negotiating with the European Union and three of them have been nothing short of an omnishambles.
It should have been such a long time ago, not now.
The UK has had, and let's be generous here, about twenty to thirty years to secretly write up a plan on what to do if it ever hypothetically decided to leave the EU and how to deal with that. It's then had two years of real, ball-cutting time to sort it and has failed to do so. Time wasted, like a pathetic schoolchild leaving their homework until the night before despite having had weeks to write it.
Everything about the last two years has been nothing but a a humiliation conga for Welsh, Scottish, English, Northern Irish and British politics. The reputation and perception of the system of government operating on the islands has almost never been lower. This is quite possibly the absolute nadir and that's factoring in overthrowing the monarch and chopping his head off.
If there was ever going to be a vote of no confidence, it should have been held the nanosecond the first round of negotiations fell apart. It should have been when the first Brexit Secretary turned up with no research. It should have been when the first Brexit Secretary resigned from his post then said "Oh this is terrible and I'm resigning but I think we should do this, this and this", willfully ignorant of the fact that he was in place to do so and got found out as incapable. It should have been when the second and third Brexit Secretaries in less than 18 months quit. These were people appointed for their qualities which makes them suitable for the role specifically for negotiating with the European Union and three of them have been nothing short of an omnishambles.
It should have been such a long time ago, not now.
The UK has had, and let's be generous here, about twenty to thirty years to secretly write up a plan on what to do if it ever hypothetically decided to leave the EU and how to deal with that. It's then had two years of real, ball-cutting time to sort it and has failed to do so. Time wasted, like a pathetic schoolchild leaving their homework until the night before despite having had weeks to write it.
Everything about the last two years has been nothing but a a humiliation conga for Welsh, Scottish, English, Northern Irish and British politics. The reputation and perception of the system of government operating on the islands has almost never been lower. This is quite possibly the absolute nadir and that's factoring in overthrowing the monarch and chopping his head off.
- 29,371
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
No Deal is, by definition, the default situation - something must happen to avoid a No Deal outcome. But, up until last week, there was nothing to stop the government/Theresa May from allowing No Deal to happen, but that is now no longer the case for two reasons... firstly, the amendment proposed by Tory Remainer Dominic Grieve, that was voted on last week... it was one of the three votes that the government lost on the same day, but it is arguably now one of the most important results. It says that, if the Brexit Deal is voted down, then the decision as to what happens next is handed to MPs, who are vastly opposed to No Deal. Given that the 'Meaningful Vote' has been agreed in law, it must be put to MPs eventually - even though it was 'pulled' this week. The other big difference is that the ECJ have formally confirmed that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally at any time, which guarantees that a highly unpopular No Deal outcome can be avoided. In other words, the only way No Deal can realistically happen now is if a majority of MPs in the Commons vote for it (which isn't going to happen), or if a second referendum is held and No Deal is the most popular option... if that option is even on the ballot paper. Either way, it is now much, much more likely not to happen than it was.
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Ok, so because of the Grieve's Amendment if the deal is voted down by the MPs then the same MPs must come up with a decision on what happens next.
Let's then suppose the deal is indeed voted down. If you discard other consequences (final meltdown of the cabinet; PM's resignation; another Tory for PM or GE), the Brexit clock is still ticking and the current MPs need to meet to decide on what to do. What are the possible decisions?
a) No Deal Brexit - it won't be approved;
b) Revoking Article 50 by Parliament decision - With or without ensuing civil unrest they'd all - regardless - become "Enemies of the People", the stench of "treason" hovering over the politicians would never dissipate in the UK's collective psyche, and the word "traitor" wouldn't leave its political class' vocabulary from that point on (and for a long time).
c) Calling a new referendum on No Deal vs No Brexit (aka revoking Article 50 by the People's decision) - Same "treasonous" rhetoric would ensue, but with less ground to stand on. In any case, would need a plea to the EU for the current article 50 deadline to be postponed (check below)
d) Asking the EU (considering all this would happen with a General Election looming) for the current article 50 deadline to be postponed for a few months more (i.e. kicking the can … again) and hope the EU countries unanimously agree to it.
e) None of the above can be approved in Parliament - Quite possible considering the paralysis that seems to affect the UK's political institutions. The deadline is reached without a deal being signed. No Deal Brexit it is (what you cal the solution "by default").
I said before and I say it again Faced with options that are all harmful to them, politicians are professional can-kickers. And this applies to EU countries also, nobody wants the UK to leave the Common Market and Customs Union (think Portugal, where else will we sell all those Port Wine bottles you guys drink?
), so I'm betting on solution d), with a General Election meanwhile, and maybe, with a Labour Government, the acceptance of the "rule-taker" status, meaning no borders for trade or for people from the EU (and vice versa).
You'll be worse off than with full membership, but the politicians will eventually find a way to explain that it's not really worse, just … different. And each time there's a meeting with someone from outside the EU they'll say that they're discussing the many oportunities Brexit allows for a UK opened to the world.
Considering my UK-based family and their interests, this is by far the best outcome I can think of.
Let's then suppose the deal is indeed voted down. If you discard other consequences (final meltdown of the cabinet; PM's resignation; another Tory for PM or GE), the Brexit clock is still ticking and the current MPs need to meet to decide on what to do. What are the possible decisions?
a) No Deal Brexit - it won't be approved;
b) Revoking Article 50 by Parliament decision - With or without ensuing civil unrest they'd all - regardless - become "Enemies of the People", the stench of "treason" hovering over the politicians would never dissipate in the UK's collective psyche, and the word "traitor" wouldn't leave its political class' vocabulary from that point on (and for a long time).
c) Calling a new referendum on No Deal vs No Brexit (aka revoking Article 50 by the People's decision) - Same "treasonous" rhetoric would ensue, but with less ground to stand on. In any case, would need a plea to the EU for the current article 50 deadline to be postponed (check below)
d) Asking the EU (considering all this would happen with a General Election looming) for the current article 50 deadline to be postponed for a few months more (i.e. kicking the can … again) and hope the EU countries unanimously agree to it.
e) None of the above can be approved in Parliament - Quite possible considering the paralysis that seems to affect the UK's political institutions. The deadline is reached without a deal being signed. No Deal Brexit it is (what you cal the solution "by default").
I said before and I say it again Faced with options that are all harmful to them, politicians are professional can-kickers. And this applies to EU countries also, nobody wants the UK to leave the Common Market and Customs Union (think Portugal, where else will we sell all those Port Wine bottles you guys drink?
), so I'm betting on solution d), with a General Election meanwhile, and maybe, with a Labour Government, the acceptance of the "rule-taker" status, meaning no borders for trade or for people from the EU (and vice versa).You'll be worse off than with full membership, but the politicians will eventually find a way to explain that it's not really worse, just … different. And each time there's a meeting with someone from outside the EU they'll say that they're discussing the many oportunities Brexit allows for a UK opened to the world.
Considering my UK-based family and their interests, this is by far the best outcome I can think of.
- 2,677
- UK
- Outspacer
Couldn't have put it better! 'No deal' was never a credible bargaining chip because there was absolutely no preparation going on for it. "We are preparing for no deal, so you'd better offer us a good deal" might well have focused EU minds more than pathetically begging for access. Apart from some hand-waving about technological solutions to the Irish border problem, no real work has been done on that - and that's an obvious area relevant to any true 'leaving' of the EU.
And let's not forget Cameron who was absolutely - and deliberately - unprepared for the opposite outcome of the referendum to what he wanted!
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Sure, but it can also be both, considering however many ministers we've seen in the last two years. The process has been protracted, but with alternatives being written off as @Touring Mars describes and time running short, this appears to be setting up the desired end-game for remainers. I happen to think it's no coincidence that all of this is happening now that there's not enough time left for another referendum, and I think it would be foolish to run one (even if the question and choices could be found) because the result might still be unpalatable (people are sick and tired of the whole thing, and I wouldn't underestimate the anger felt in reaction to May's 'deal' being unacceptable to either side).
I can't see that as an acceptable option. It would fine for the hum-drum stuff, but wouldn't losing our veto would remove a major restriction to the EU moving towards federalism? That would change the nature of the entity we'd be attached to considerably. A Norwegian MP might say that they don't want us in their club - of course they don't, we're more use to them inside the EU with our veto!
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,602
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
