FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit....
Brexit....
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"And so the debate and confusion rolls on... I’m dismayed (as are most) that this hideously abhorrent debacle, is being played out across the world making a complete mockery of our political system. I’m not typically a political person but I have watched the proceedings today with interest.... and utter disgust. A vicious circle of political jargon and argument between adults whom we place (placed!) our trust. The only thing I’ve gained from today’s BBC News broadcasts are Legal Exegesis - fantastic phrase! And a tweet I saw .... It is attempting to solve the Gordian Knot without the use of Alexander's sword which served only to Divide. Leaving each of us with half a rope . " Great quote. Love it. Sadly it's impossible to have a dialogue about the issue. It's so divisive. Everyone is polarised and angry and feels like they're gonna be or are being betrayed... | |||
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
"And so the debate and confusion rolls on... I’m dismayed (as are most) that this hideously abhorrent debacle, is being played out across the world making a complete mockery of our political system. I’m not typically a political person but I have watched the proceedings today with interest.... and utter disgust. A vicious circle of political jargon and argument between adults whom we place (placed!) our trust. The only thing I’ve gained from today’s BBC News broadcasts are Legal Exegesis - fantastic phrase! And a tweet I saw .... It is attempting to solve the Gordian Knot without the use of Alexander's sword which served only to Divide. Leaving each of us with half a rope . Great quote. Love it. Sadly it's impossible to have a dialogue about the issue. It's so divisive. Everyone is polarised and angry and feels like they're gonna be or are being betrayed... " Gonna have to start talking soon..... | |||
"And so the debate and confusion rolls on... I’m dismayed (as are most) that this hideously abhorrent debacle, is being played out across the world making a complete mockery of our political system. I’m not typically a political person but I have watched the proceedings today with interest.... and utter disgust. A vicious circle of political jargon and argument between adults whom we place (placed!) our trust. The only thing I’ve gained from today’s BBC News broadcasts are Legal Exegesis - fantastic phrase! And a tweet I saw .... It is attempting to solve the Gordian Knot without the use of Alexander's sword which served only to Divide. Leaving each of us with half a rope . Great quote. Love it. Sadly it's impossible to have a dialogue about the issue. It's so divisive. Everyone is polarised and angry and feels like they're gonna be or are being betrayed... Gonna have to start talking soon....." I bloody hope so | |||
| |||
"Unfortunately the we are the laughing stock of the world ! I blame labour because we could have the sweetest deal ever and they would vote it down ! Party politics "Nope we had the best deal before Cameron did what he did | |||
"I think Brexit brought to the fore a lot of internal divisions of this political union that were only increased with successive government's incompetency (both labour and conservative). The past 30 years have seen a gradual decline of living standards and disposable income that now affect a disproportionately high number of people...regardless where in the UK you go. I've lived in this wonderful place for 5 years and worked in England, Scotland and Wales. To say I was shocked at the levels of poverty...both blatant and hidden is an understatement. If so many people weren't struggling; particularly in post industrial regions the vote could have gone differently. I think the writing is on the wall and the political union that's existed for 300 years has its days numbered...." It didn't help that all our issues, caused by our own politicians, were blamed on the EU. Small wonder people then think leaving it will do wonders for the country. | |||
 | |||
"Unfortunately the we are the laughing stock of the world ! I blame labour because we could have the sweetest deal ever and they would vote it down ! Party politics "No, this isn't true. Labour would have voted for a soft Brexit deal. Many Remainers, myself included, would have accepted a soft Brexit. | |||
| |||
"Unfortunately the we are the laughing stock of the world ! I blame labour because we could have the sweetest deal ever and they would vote it down ! Party politics
No, this isn't true. Labour would have voted for a soft Brexit deal. Many Remainers, myself included, would have accepted a soft Brexit."when you say many remainers would of accepted it can I ask when you voted in the referendom were yo thinking back then if the vote doesn’t go the way I want it to go I’m not accepting it if so why did you bother voteing ? | |||
"Unfortunately the we are the laughing stock of the world ! I blame labour because we could have the sweetest deal ever and they would vote it down ! Party politics
No, this isn't true. Labour would have voted for a soft Brexit deal. Many Remainers, myself included, would have accepted a soft Brexit.when you say many remainers would of accepted it can I ask when you voted in the referendom were yo thinking back then if the vote doesn’t go the way I want it to go I’m not accepting it if so why did you bother voteing ?"People disagree with the outcomes of votes all the time. If Corbyn won the next election, you wouldn't suddenly think whatever policies he introduced were ok just because he'd won a democratic vote. I don't favour cancelling Brexit outright, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with offering another vote to the people. | |||
| |||
"And if we have another vote will remainers accept that if it goes against them ? I doubt it very much so what is the point of a vote if ppl arnt going to accept the result absolutely no point at all " I imagine a 2nd referendum would be binding, rather than advisory, and that a vote for Johnson's deal would see it go through automatically. That would be the practical side. If you're asking that people stop saying Brexit is a bad idea, and "pull together" or whatever, then that's never going to happen. It's not how democracy works. I refer you to my Corbyn as PM example. | |||
"And if we have another vote will remainers accept that if it goes against them ? I doubt it very much so what is the point of a vote if ppl arnt going to accept the result absolutely no point at all I imagine a 2nd referendum would be binding, rather than advisory, and that a vote for Johnson's deal would see it go through automatically. That would be the practical side. If you're asking that people stop saying Brexit is a bad idea, and "pull together" or whatever, then that's never going to happen. It's not how democracy works. I refer you to my Corbyn as PM example. " aw so you think if a second vote went your way ppl would come together then or even a wider split in the country ? I think the divid would be bigger more resentful and unnhealable price worth paying eh | |||
"And if we have another vote will remainers accept that if it goes against them ? I doubt it very much so what is the point of a vote if ppl arnt going to accept the result absolutely no point at all I imagine a 2nd referendum would be binding, rather than advisory, and that a vote for Johnson's deal would see it go through automatically. That would be the practical side. If you're asking that people stop saying Brexit is a bad idea, and "pull together" or whatever, then that's never going to happen. It's not how democracy works. I refer you to my Corbyn as PM example. aw so you think if a second vote went your way ppl would come together then or even a wider split in the country ? I think the divid would be bigger more resentful and unnhealable price worth paying eh " No. I don't think there is a way to bring people together on this. There might have been 3 years ago, but not anymore. May threw away any chance of compromise with her stupid 'red lines'. But yes, I think that pissing off Brexiters is a price worth paying to stop Brexit. Just as you think that pissing off Remainers is worth it to get Brexit. | |||
| |||
"Unfortunately the we are the laughing stock of the world ! I blame labour because we could have the sweetest deal ever and they would vote it down ! Party politics "The greatest deal ever is the one that we have. A consensus could have been reached if the Conservatives actually thought to talk to the other half of the country, and the other parties about what might work. They didn't. Corbyn is also a numpty with his half-arsed position. We screwed ourselves as a country. We have to stop blaming everyone else eventually. | |||
| |||
"And so the debate and confusion rolls on... I’m dismayed (as are most) that this hideously abhorrent debacle, is being played out across the world making a complete mockery of our political system. I’m not typically a political person but I have watched the proceedings today with interest.... and utter disgust. A vicious circle of political jargon and argument between adults whom we place (placed!) our trust. The only thing I’ve gained from today’s BBC News broadcasts are Legal Exegesis - fantastic phrase! And a tweet I saw .... It is attempting to solve the Gordian Knot without the use of Alexander's sword which served only to Divide. Leaving each of us with half a rope . " We didn't decide what we wanted when we started. It can't really be a surprise that we are where we are. Parliament represents the entire population. As it should. I don't understand why their should be any expectation that it can find a miraculous solution to an intractable problem. If we remain, nothing changes with our relationship with the EU and our economic relationship with the rest of the world. That's generally quite simple to deal with. Are we going to solve our domestic concerns whilst renegotiating every international relationship that we have. Hmmm  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"It’s a shambles and it’ll continue to be so thing has been a farce since ever Cameron announced the referendum. Boris is winding down the clock his end game is no deal and crash out on 31st " Will he manage to crash out? He and and his cronies?... The US is obviously ordering him to do so... How can he get it done? | |||
"It’s a shambles and it’ll continue to be so thing has been a farce since ever Cameron announced the referendum. Boris is winding down the clock his end game is no deal and crash out on 31st Will he manage to crash out? He and and his cronies?... The US is obviously ordering him to do so... How can he get it done?" The third letter sent by him and signed by him basically saying to the EU first letter was sent because I had to by law but I don’t want an extension we are leaving on 31st like it or not | |||
"And if we have another vote will remainers accept that if it goes against them ? I doubt it very much so what is the point of a vote if ppl arnt going to accept the result absolutely no point at all " Democracy isn't something that just happens once, with opinion frozen in time - it's a dynamic, fluid process, where our representative democracy has MPs in place to represent the needs of country and its citizens. When the advisory referendum incorporated illegal activities and lies, with the public now explaining how they didn't understand the implications of the complexity of it, it's reasonable to conclude that parliamentary sovereignty is a fortunate asset, potentially helping to avoid catastrophes. Out of 74 polls this year, only 1 didn't have a majority of the population wanting to remain in the EU. The public are now better informed and understand that the deals available do not give them what they need. | |||
| |||
"A 2nd referendum is not needed what needs to be done is to cancel brexit altogether "how very democratic of you, just totally ignore one of the biggest votes in recent history | |||
"A 2nd referendum is not needed what needs to be done is to cancel brexit altogether how very democratic of you, just totally ignore one of the biggest votes in recent history "The biggest mistake in history I would say, they didnt spend 5 min thinking of the consequences tho, such as the economical impact and as well what will happen to northern irelands and the good friday agreement. | |||
" what will happen to northern irelands and the good friday agreement." There was an article on the BBC website last week saying , the remain campaign did bring it up but it was dismissed with magic thinking from leavers. The editor of the daily mirror also said that people didn't want to know. Immigration and the magic bus were the issues that concerned voters | |||
| |||
"Unfortunately the we are the laughing stock of the world ! I blame labour because we could have the sweetest deal ever and they would vote it down ! Party politics "Why haven't we negotiated the sweetest deal ever? Oh, I can answer that! We already have that deal by being members of the EU. | |||
"It’s a shambles and it’ll continue to be so thing has been a farce since ever Cameron announced the referendum. Boris is winding down the clock his end game is no deal and crash out on 31st Will he manage to crash out? He and and his cronies?... The US is obviously ordering him to do so... How can he get it done? The third letter sent by him and signed by him basically saying to the EU first letter was sent because I had to by law but I don’t want an extension we are leaving on 31st like it or not " There are unconfirmed reports of a fourth letter, which simply read: “Hello. My name is Boris, and I am five years old.” | |||
"Unfortunately the we are the laughing stock of the world ! I blame labour because we could have the sweetest deal ever and they would vote it down ! Party politics
Why haven't we negotiated the sweetest deal ever? Oh, I can answer that! We already have that deal by being members of the EU. "It’s weird isn’t it? Was it Liam Fox who said it would be the easiest deal in history to make? | |||
"who won?" No one's won in my opinion. We've all lost | |||
"A 2nd referendum is not needed what needs to be done is to cancel brexit altogether how very democratic of you, just totally ignore one of the biggest votes in recent history "Democracy has nothing to do with it. It was an advisory referendum. Plus if we're talking about ignoring referendum results, why are the 17.3 million (100k more than opinioned Brexit), who voted to join the EEC being ignored? Oh and before anybody comes back with the usual twaddle about that was only to join a trade bloc, do some research. The founding principles have always to been to get the benefits of closer political, trade and security relations (and that does not mean a federal state or EU army for you paranoid Brexiteers). | |||
"A 2nd referendum is not needed what needs to be done is to cancel brexit altogether how very democratic of you, just totally ignore one of the biggest votes in recent history
Democracy has nothing to do with it. It was an advisory referendum. Plus if we're talking about ignoring referendum results, why are the 17.3 million (100k more than opinioned Brexit), who voted to join the EEC being ignored? Oh and before anybody comes back with the usual twaddle about that was only to join a trade bloc, do some research. The founding principles have always to been to get the benefits of closer political, trade and security relations (and that does not mean a federal state or EU army for you paranoid Brexiteers)."lot of people who had the referendum on joining the EEC say they were never informed properly what they were joining, although I cant state if this was true or not as I was not old enough to vote in that referendum just like most people on here, urself included I suspect. | |||
"A 2nd referendum is not needed what needs to be done is to cancel brexit altogether how very democratic of you, just totally ignore one of the biggest votes in recent history
Democracy has nothing to do with it. It was an advisory referendum. Plus if we're talking about ignoring referendum results, why are the 17.3 million (100k more than opinioned Brexit), who voted to join the EEC being ignored? Oh and before anybody comes back with the usual twaddle about that was only to join a trade bloc, do some research. The founding principles have always to been to get the benefits of closer political, trade and security relations (and that does not mean a federal state or EU army for you paranoid Brexiteers). lot of people who had the referendum on joining the EEC say they were never informed properly what they were joining, although I cant state if this was true or not as I was not old enough to vote in that referendum just like most people on here, urself included I suspect."We would have to go back to research archive materials, so that we don't try to rely on hearsay and anecdotes | |||
"A 2nd referendum is not needed what needs to be done is to cancel brexit altogether how very democratic of you, just totally ignore one of the biggest votes in recent history
Democracy has nothing to do with it. It was an advisory referendum. Plus if we're talking about ignoring referendum results, why are the 17.3 million (100k more than opinioned Brexit), who voted to join the EEC being ignored? Oh and before anybody comes back with the usual twaddle about that was only to join a trade bloc, do some research. The founding principles have always to been to get the benefits of closer political, trade and security relations (and that does not mean a federal state or EU army for you paranoid Brexiteers). lot of people who had the referendum on joining the EEC say they were never informed properly what they were joining, although I cant state if this was true or not as I was not old enough to vote in that referendum just like most people on here, urself included I suspect."Which "lot of people"? According to whom? How many have you asked? What defines "a lot"? More than five? | |||
"Unfortunately the we are the laughing stock of the world ! I blame labour because we could have the sweetest deal ever and they would vote it down ! Party politics
Why haven't we negotiated the sweetest deal ever? Oh, I can answer that! We already have that deal by being members of the EU.
It’s weird isn’t it? Was it Liam Fox who said it would be the easiest deal in history to make? "The easiest deal in history is that one that was already made | |||
"And so the debate and confusion rolls on... I’m dismayed (as are most) that this hideously abhorrent debacle, is being played out across the world making a complete mockery of our political system. I’m not typically a political person but I have watched the proceedings today with interest.... and utter disgust. A vicious circle of political jargon and argument between adults whom we place (placed!) our trust. The only thing I’ve gained from today’s BBC News broadcasts are Legal Exegesis - fantastic phrase! And a tweet I saw .... It is attempting to solve the Gordian Knot without the use of Alexander's sword which served only to Divide. Leaving each of us with half a rope . " Confusion, not so. It’s a question of living with the a deal which is acceptable to all. That’s not so hard. The one word to solve this is compromise, that’s it. That would be lynchpin to help untie the knot, which is the accepted version of events relating to to Gordian knot. | |||
"And so the debate and confusion rolls on... I’m dismayed (as are most) that this hideously abhorrent debacle, is being played out across the world making a complete mockery of our political system. I’m not typically a political person but I have watched the proceedings today with interest.... and utter disgust. A vicious circle of political jargon and argument between adults whom we place (placed!) our trust. The only thing I’ve gained from today’s BBC News broadcasts are Legal Exegesis - fantastic phrase! And a tweet I saw .... It is attempting to solve the Gordian Knot without the use of Alexander's sword which served only to Divide. Leaving each of us with half a rope . Confusion, not so. It’s a question of living with the a deal which is acceptable to all. That’s not so hard. The one word to solve this is compromise, that’s it. That would be lynchpin to help untie the knot, which is the accepted version of events relating to to Gordian knot." It would have been possible three years ago before: "Brexit means Brexit", "Leave means Leave", "You lost, get over it". I don't know if the division was deliberately aggrevated and encouraged, but compromise requires listening and that's not happening. The only option for leaving, and leavers are in control, has been getting harder and harder. Unfortunately this has led to a more entrenched position from the other half of the population. Putting a timer on it makes it even more febrile. I don't like it, but withdraw Article 50 and spend time talking. Perhaps a year of consultations and public meetings. We might find that the actual problem is a very different one. Could be a whole new model for democracy. Then another referendum under no pressure. | |||
"A 2nd referendum is not needed what needs to be done is to cancel brexit altogether how very democratic of you, just totally ignore one of the biggest votes in recent history
Democracy has nothing to do with it. It was an advisory referendum. Plus if we're talking about ignoring referendum results, why are the 17.3 million (100k more than opinioned Brexit), who voted to join the EEC being ignored? Oh and before anybody comes back with the usual twaddle about that was only to join a trade bloc, do some research. The founding principles have always to been to get the benefits of closer political, trade and security relations (and that does not mean a federal state or EU army for you paranoid Brexiteers). lot of people who had the referendum on joining the EEC say they were never informed properly what they were joining, although I cant state if this was true or not as I was not old enough to vote in that referendum just like most people on here, urself included I suspect.
Which "lot of people"? According to whom?
How many have you asked? What defines "a lot"? More than five?"I stated that I could not be sure if this was true as it was before my time an yours too so not sure how you think you know better, and yes more than 5, an yes that is what they said to me, my parents are included in this and I am afraid I am going to believe them when they say it as they have no reason to lie.  | |||
| |||
"I dnt know what does define "a lot"? You tell me, you seem to have answers for everything else. If it pleases you I will re phrase my statement to say the majority of people I have spoken too that were old enough at that point in time." That's the whole point isn't it? You've mentioned your parents and the majority of people that you have asked of that age. Not a normal conversation for me, but perhaps for you? Is that number "a lot"? I'm suggesting that you consider how many that is and how representative that is of 40 million or so. | |||
"A 2nd referendum is not needed what needs to be done is to cancel brexit altogether how very democratic of you, just totally ignore one of the biggest votes in recent history
Democracy has nothing to do with it. It was an advisory referendum. Plus if we're talking about ignoring referendum results, why are the 17.3 million (100k more than opinioned Brexit), who voted to join the EEC being ignored? Oh and before anybody comes back with the usual twaddle about that was only to join a trade bloc, do some research. The founding principles have always to been to get the benefits of closer political, trade and security relations (and that does not mean a federal state or EU army for you paranoid Brexiteers). lot of people who had the referendum on joining the EEC say they were never informed properly what they were joining, although I cant state if this was true or not as I was not old enough to vote in that referendum just like most people on here, urself included I suspect.
Which "lot of people"? According to whom?
How many have you asked? What defines "a lot"? More than five? I stated that I could not be sure if this was true as it was before my time an yours too so not sure how you think you know better, and yes more than 5, an yes that is what they said to me, my parents are included in this and I am afraid I am going to believe them when they say it as they have no reason to lie. "People are always affronted when they "know" something, make an assertion and are asked to verify it. I never claimed to "know better". I don't. You may have qualified your statement but do you not think that was quite an assertion? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"So we seem to have gone to objecting to no deal, to objecting to get a deal agreed in a short time frame. What next, an objection to what font and colour the text is? "i have zero issue with what happened today.... allowing the bill to 2nd reading means that more amendments can be put forward without the rush of being bullied to pass everything..... 3 days for a 250 page bill to be scrutinised was lunacy..... | |||
| |||
"'Tis the struggle for the soul of England. Enjoy. "England? | |||
"So we seem to have gone to objecting to no deal, to objecting to get a deal agreed in a short time frame. What next, an objection to what font and colour the text is? "Do you really think that three days is long enough to read and debate and modify the bill? | |||
"'Tis the struggle for the soul of England. Enjoy.
England?"Yes, it's an English phenomenon | |||
"So we seem to have gone to objecting to no deal, to objecting to get a deal agreed in a short time frame. What next, an objection to what font and colour the text is?
i have zero issue with what happened today.... allowing the bill to 2nd reading means that more amendments can be put forward without the rush of being bullied to pass everything.....
3 days for a 250 page bill to be scrutinised was lunacy....."I suspect 95% of it is the same as what was debated before. By the same Mps. By the same Parliament. It's as though Parliament simply does not want to leave. On any basis. | |||
| |||
"And to answer your question, no the number of residents i come into contact with is not a "lot" in relation to population of the uk, as I said afterwards I will change the word a "lot" to the majority, and I will also accept that this is a minority in relation to the population. " That's the point. You meant "some". You wrote "a lot". It may not have been deliberate but it does change the whole meaning of the post. You have actually thought about it though. Most people just refuse to even consider what they said being questioned. That's genuinely heartening | |||
"So we seem to have gone to objecting to no deal, to objecting to get a deal agreed in a short time frame. What next, an objection to what font and colour the text is?
i have zero issue with what happened today.... allowing the bill to 2nd reading means that more amendments can be put forward without the rush of being bullied to pass everything.....
3 days for a 250 page bill to be scrutinised was lunacy.....
I suspect 95% of it is the same as what was debated before. By the same Mps. By the same Parliament. It's as though Parliament simply does not want to leave. On any basis."You suspect? Is that your preference for how legislation is enacted? Voting based on assumption? | |||
"Because MPs know that every option leaves the British people worse off than we are today. It's their job to find these things out and act in our best interests. D'off the cap, m'lud "They don't know. No one does. If they knew the doomsday scenarios painted at the time of the referendum would have materialised. | |||
| |||
"Because MPs know that every option leaves the British people worse off than we are today. It's their job to find these things out and act in our best interests. D'off the cap, m'lud "What forecasts have said we will be worse off than at the time of the referendum? Or today? | |||
| |||
"They can only act on the evidence presented to them by the hearings they take, of government, of industry, of academia. It is difficult for an MP to vote for a policy they know will harm their constituents. Higher food prices, fewer jobs, inflation, economic and social isolation. It ain't pretty." All of which may come to pass. Or may not. We were told 800,000 jobs would be lost simply by voting to leave. It hasn't happened. The future is uncertain and all predictions are only based on assumptions which are invariably wrong. | |||
"Try reading stuff instead of wrapping your chips in it " So you can't provide any sources or substantiate what you saud then? | |||
"Because MPs know that every option leaves the British people worse off than we are today. It's their job to find these things out and act in our best interests. D'off the cap, m'lud
What forecasts have said we will be worse off than at the time of the referendum? Or today?"The government's 
They haven't published an economic assessment of the latest transition deal though. They haven't had enough time even though they wanted it to be passed... | |||
"The government's
They haven't published an economic assessment of the latest transition deal though. They haven't had enough time even though they wanted it to be passed..."Do you really believe that? Or do you like me think that the government saw a draft assessment, promptly cancelled the study and had the lot shredded and burned. | |||
"They can only act on the evidence presented to them by the hearings they take, of government, of industry, of academia. It is difficult for an MP to vote for a policy they know will harm their constituents. Higher food prices, fewer jobs, inflation, economic and social isolation. It ain't pretty. All of which may come to pass. Or may not. We were told 800,000 jobs would be lost simply by voting to leave. It hasn't happened. The future is uncertain and all predictions are only based on assumptions which are invariably wrong. " The Treasury forecasts of job losses were for leaving the EU with no deal. Go and check your sources. There's the normal reply. Bad things might not happen because of "uncertainty". You might not get hit by a car if you step into the road with your eyes closed. It's "uncertain". We have enough knowledge to predict a different result is more likely. | |||
"The government's
They haven't published an economic assessment of the latest transition deal though. They haven't had enough time even though they wanted it to be passed...
Do you really believe that?
Or do you like me think that the government saw a draft assessment, promptly cancelled the study and had the lot shredded and burned.
"I tend to assume incompetence rather than conspiracy. With this latwst lot though I think there is both  | |||
"The government's
They haven't published an economic assessment of the latest transition deal though. They haven't had enough time even though they wanted it to be passed...
Do you really believe that?
Or do you like me think that the government saw a draft assessment, promptly cancelled the study and had the lot shredded and burned.
"Maybe, I think by this stage the Govt is relying on a combination of Brexit fatigue, the fear of no deal and the prospect of a GE. 'Lets get brexit done' I think they're relying on the belief that facts don't matter and propaganda works. | |||
"They can only act on the evidence presented to them by the hearings they take, of government, of industry, of academia. It is difficult for an MP to vote for a policy they know will harm their constituents. Higher food prices, fewer jobs, inflation, economic and social isolation. It ain't pretty. All of which may come to pass. Or may not. We were told 800,000 jobs would be lost simply by voting to leave. It hasn't happened. The future is uncertain and all predictions are only based on assumptions which are invariably wrong. The Treasury forecasts of job losses were for leaving the EU with no deal. Go and check your sources. There's the normal reply. Bad things might not happen because of "uncertainty". You might not get hit by a car if you step into the road with your eyes closed. It's "uncertain". We have enough knowledge to predict a different result is more likely." I'm old enough to remember the predictions around not joining the Euro. Im also old enough to recall how we were in a new paradigm in 2007 and that boom and bust was a phrase of history. The thing is no one genuinely knows. | |||
"So we seem to have gone to objecting to no deal, to objecting to get a deal agreed in a short time frame. What next, an objection to what font and colour the text is? "That’s a ridiculous analogy. Even pretty straightforward legislation would likely take a week or two to be read and discussed etc. This bill is some of the most complex and significant legislation parliament will ever vote on. It is absolutely right and proper that parliament has a reasonable time to digest and review it. | |||
"Because MPs know that every option leaves the British people worse off than we are today. It's their job to find these things out and act in our best interests. D'off the cap, m'lud
They don't know. No one does. If they knew the doomsday scenarios painted at the time of the referendum would have materialised. "No-one knows for absolute cast iron sure. But pretty much every indecency economic experts and model indicated that we would be worse off. | |||
| |||
"So we seem to have gone to objecting to no deal, to objecting to get a deal agreed in a short time frame. What next, an objection to what font and colour the text is?
That’s a ridiculous analogy. Even pretty straightforward legislation would likely take a week or two to be read and discussed etc.
This bill is some of the most complex and significant legislation parliament will ever vote on. It is absolutely right and proper that parliament has a reasonable time to digest and review it. "It has been reviewed for months. A track changes would show that the only material changes relate to Northern Ireland. Perhaps a couple of days is too short, but in the commercial world this would need no more than a week. And then make your choice. Yes or No. | |||
"Because MPs know that every option leaves the British people worse off than we are today. It's their job to find these things out and act in our best interests. D'off the cap, m'lud
They don't know. No one does. If they knew the doomsday scenarios painted at the time of the referendum would have materialised.
No-one knows for absolute cast iron sure.
But pretty much every indecency economic experts and model indicated that we would be worse off.
"And how many independent economists predicted the UK would be one of the strongest performing economies in Europe post 2016 or that Germany would be in recession in 2019. My point is all predictions are fallible. | |||
"Because MPs know that every option leaves the British people worse off than we are today. It's their job to find these things out and act in our best interests. D'off the cap, m'lud
They don't know. No one does. If they knew the doomsday scenarios painted at the time of the referendum would have materialised.
No-one knows for absolute cast iron sure.
But pretty much every indecency economic experts and model indicated that we would be worse off.
And how many independent economists predicted the UK would be one of the strongest performing economies in Europe post 2016 or that Germany would be in recession in 2019. My point is all predictions are fallible."Making economic forecasts with little to go on is difficult. Add in an event like Brexit where for various reason there may be an significant impact to the economy then those predictions are a lot easier to make. | |||
"They can only act on the evidence presented to them by the hearings they take, of government, of industry, of academia. It is difficult for an MP to vote for a policy they know will harm their constituents. Higher food prices, fewer jobs, inflation, economic and social isolation. It ain't pretty. All of which may come to pass. Or may not. We were told 800,000 jobs would be lost simply by voting to leave. It hasn't happened. The future is uncertain and all predictions are only based on assumptions which are invariably wrong. The Treasury forecasts of job losses were for leaving the EU with no deal. Go and check your sources. There's the normal reply. Bad things might not happen because of "uncertainty". You might not get hit by a car if you step into the road with your eyes closed. It's "uncertain". We have enough knowledge to predict a different result is more likely." The treasury forecasts of job losses were for the 2 years immediately following a vote to leave - not once we have left ( either with or without a deal). Section one of the document says: 1.2 The long-term document did not consider the immediate economic shock of a vote to leave the EU. This document looks at the immediate effect from the point of a decision to two years later, as this is the period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement to leave the EU as set out in the Treaties. | |||
| |||
"So we seem to have gone to objecting to no deal, to objecting to get a deal agreed in a short time frame. What next, an objection to what font and colour the text is?
That’s a ridiculous analogy. Even pretty straightforward legislation would likely take a week or two to be read and discussed etc.
This bill is some of the most complex and significant legislation parliament will ever vote on. It is absolutely right and proper that parliament has a reasonable time to digest and review it.
It has been reviewed for months. A track changes would show that the only material changes relate to Northern Ireland. Perhaps a couple of days is too short, but in the commercial world this would need no more than a week. And then make your choice. Yes or No."Really? You have seen the document and know this do you? Is a week more or less than three days? | |||
"Because MPs know that every option leaves the British people worse off than we are today. It's their job to find these things out and act in our best interests. D'off the cap, m'lud
They don't know. No one does. If they knew the doomsday scenarios painted at the time of the referendum would have materialised.
No-one knows for absolute cast iron sure.
But pretty much every indecency economic experts and model indicated that we would be worse off.
And how many independent economists predicted the UK would be one of the strongest performing economies in Europe post 2016 or that Germany would be in recession in 2019. My point is all predictions are fallible."You are flat out wrong. https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-economic-growth-higher-europe/ The rate of UK GDP growth fell from best to worst performing and has remained consistently lower than the EU despite a global boom that lifted all economies. Most economic cycles follow 8 to 10 years. There is a global recession coming and as Germany is a big exporter of capital equipment to China which is the dynamo of the global economy a recession showing early there is not a surprise. Do you think that the UK will not be effected? Do you think that Germany face economic difficulty in isolation? You are no fool but you are only looking for and presenting one set of information. Not being able to definitely prove something does not make a prediction bases on existing data irrelevant. You listen to the weather forecast don't you? | |||
"They can only act on the evidence presented to them by the hearings they take, of government, of industry, of academia. It is difficult for an MP to vote for a policy they know will harm their constituents. Higher food prices, fewer jobs, inflation, economic and social isolation. It ain't pretty. All of which may come to pass. Or may not. We were told 800,000 jobs would be lost simply by voting to leave. It hasn't happened. The future is uncertain and all predictions are only based on assumptions which are invariably wrong. The Treasury forecasts of job losses were for leaving the EU with no deal. Go and check your sources. There's the normal reply. Bad things might not happen because of "uncertainty". You might not get hit by a car if you step into the road with your eyes closed. It's "uncertain". We have enough knowledge to predict a different result is more likely. The treasury forecasts of job losses were for the 2 years immediately following a vote to leave - not once we have left ( either with or without a deal). Section one of the document says: 1.2 The long-term document did not consider the immediate economic shock of a vote to leave the EU. This document looks at the immediate effect from the point of a decision to two years later, as this is the period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement to leave the EU as set out in the Treaties." It has been pointed out to you many times that the Treasury forecast was based on no action being taken following a Leave vote. That did not happen did it? There was massive spending by the Treasury. The medium term results have been very only slightly better than predicted except for unemployment. Happily in that case. The UK is worse off in every other way though. That is true isn't it? Are you arguing that because one item in a hugely complicated assessment was wrong then it is all wrong? Are you suggesting that economic modelling is pointless and we shouldn't bother? When big decisions are made we should just "get it done"? No other information is necessary to inform our course of action? | |||
"They can only act on the evidence presented to them by the hearings they take, of government, of industry, of academia. It is difficult for an MP to vote for a policy they know will harm their constituents. Higher food prices, fewer jobs, inflation, economic and social isolation. It ain't pretty. All of which may come to pass. Or may not. We were told 800,000 jobs would be lost simply by voting to leave. It hasn't happened. The future is uncertain and all predictions are only based on assumptions which are invariably wrong. The Treasury forecasts of job losses were for leaving the EU with no deal. Go and check your sources. There's the normal reply. Bad things might not happen because of "uncertainty". You might not get hit by a car if you step into the road with your eyes closed. It's "uncertain". We have enough knowledge to predict a different result is more likely. The treasury forecasts of job losses were for the 2 years immediately following a vote to leave - not once we have left ( either with or without a deal). Section one of the document says: 1.2 The long-term document did not consider the immediate economic shock of a vote to leave the EU. This document looks at the immediate effect from the point of a decision to two years later, as this is the period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement to leave the EU as set out in the Treaties." As we are quoting, you did read how the two scenarios were defined didn't you? They assumed that we would know what the final deal would look like at the end of two years and that we would definitely be leaving under one of them: "Assessing the transition effect A.12 The long-term document provided detailed analysis and estimates of the trade, FDI and productivity effects that would be expected to permanently lower UK output in the case of the UK leaving the EU. As Sections 1 and 2 set out, a proportion of these effects would begin to appear immediately as firms, households and financial markets begin to adjust to the UK’s new relationship with the EU. A.13 In the shock scenario, the modelling incorporates the long-term trade and productivity shocks from the negotiated bilateral agreement central estimate described in the long-term document. This leads to a long-term loss of 6.2% of GDP relative to the counterfactual case of remaining in the EU. In the severe shock scenario, the modelling is based on the World Trade Organization (WTO) central estimate, consistent with a long-term 7.5% loss of GDP." | |||
| |||
"if the Minister For Leaving The European Union was unaware that documentation would not be needed by firms transporting goods between Northern Ireland and mainland UK if the deal is passed , I feel MPs will need a lot more than 3 days to go through the deal to ensure they are fully aware of what they are agreeing to , when one of the "main men " clearly didn't " Yes, that is a very good point. Barclay contradicted himself before a lords committee. First he said trade between NI and GB would be unfettered. Then he said NI business would need to fill out a new set of declarations for stuff crossing the Irish Sea. Johnson did the same in Parliament. First he insisted there would be no checks on trade between NI and GB Then he told the Commons, to guffaws, it would "light touch regulation". Is it any wonder MPs want time to understand the truth of what they are being asked to pass into law, when those at the top seem spectacularly unable to articulate it clearly? | |||
"So we seem to have gone to objecting to no deal, to objecting to get a deal agreed in a short time frame. What next, an objection to what font and colour the text is?
i have zero issue with what happened today.... allowing the bill to 2nd reading means that more amendments can be put forward without the rush of being bullied to pass everything.....
3 days for a 250 page bill to be scrutinised was lunacy.....
I suspect 95% of it is the same as what was debated before. By the same Mps. By the same Parliament. It's as though Parliament simply does not want to leave. On any basis."not true i am afraid ... and this is where the common fallacy lies.... I am going to use a lot of acronyms now so i do apologise this was always going to be a 2 part process..... the meaningful vote (MV) on the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) the 545 page document..... and the Withdrawal Agreement Bill (WAB) itself the way that May tried to do it was to get the MV done 1st.... then to do the WAB 3 times tried.... 3 times failed then what "saturday" was originally about was Johnsons attempt to do it the same way (which actually also meant he could get around the Benn Act) but what Letwins amendment did was to say they would not do the MV until all parts of the WAB had gone thru (which meant that because nothing had been passed by saturday night, it triggered the extension request in Benn) so johnson is being forced to do it the other way round.... WAB first... then MV so the 1st time that anyone had seen the actual WAB was 8pm on monday night! 110 pages of bill with 130 pages of supporting notes... and remember that the govt wanted to force it thru (1st committee stage would have been 8pm last night.... with final vote on 8pm thursday night) | |||
| |||
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
""One of the advantages of EU membership is that we get to negotiate wider and deeper trade deals from a position of strength. If we leave, the boot will be on the other foot – and that will put Britain at a serious disadvantage." - Javid "But that's ok. We get the blue passports (which we could have reverted to at any point), control our borders (which the government chose not to), avoid sending our young men and women to join the EU Army (which we have the power to veto) and avoid the Euro been forced on us because the Lisbon treaty (which is a lie). | |||
| |||
"And if we have another vote will remainers accept that if it goes against them ? I doubt it very much so what is the point of a vote if ppl arnt going to accept the result absolutely no point at all " | |||
| |||
"Some of the usual suspect tabloids have been really annoying... talk of MPs “dithering” when the reality is that two days is nowhere near long enough to scrutinise such complex and important legislation. " The European Communities Act 1972 - the bill that took us into the EU - was approved by 309 votes to 301 on 17th Feb 1972..... After 3 days of debate. | |||
"Some of the usual suspect tabloids have been really annoying... talk of MPs “dithering” when the reality is that two days is nowhere near long enough to scrutinise such complex and important legislation. The European Communities Act 1972 - the bill that took us into the EU - was approved by 309 votes to 301 on 17th Feb 1972..... After 3 days of debate." However it hadn't been thrown together in 2 days by a bunch of shysters that had deliberately and consistently lied in every single statement they made since forming a cabinet. There was no danger of a hidden paragraph on page 296 saying that Boris Johnson is king and everyone has to bow down to him. Or the bit on page 364 where hospital treatment for working classes is abolished, commoners can just go die in a ditch. This is why any legislation put forward by this government, this prime minister, requires studying under a microscope and the precise legal meaning of every word be examined. Because there is no expectation of honest intent, indeed there is every expectation of dishonerable behaviour. If Boris Johnson was asked what time of day it was, he would lie. This is the most important and far reaching legislation of the past 50 years. It is admitted even by those trying to push it through that it will have an adverse effect on the lives of millions of people. Yet they want it to be given less scrutiny than a bill about what typeface should be used for labelling pre-packaged cheese. | |||
I'm sure people didn't know what they were letting (voting) themselves in for 40 years prior ....
| |||
"Ah got to love the old, people didn't know what they were voting for excuse
I'm sure people didn't know what they were letting (voting) themselves in for 40 years prior ....
"All binary referendums are dangerous and should not be foisted on us ever again. They are a fundamentally flawed way of deciding a policy. | |||
| |||
"Some of the usual suspect tabloids have been really annoying... talk of MPs “dithering” when the reality is that two days is nowhere near long enough to scrutinise such complex and important legislation. The European Communities Act 1972 - the bill that took us into the EU - was approved by 309 votes to 301 on 17th Feb 1972..... After 3 days of debate. However it hadn't been thrown together in 2 days by a bunch of shysters that had deliberately and consistently lied in every single statement they made since forming a cabinet. There was no danger of a hidden paragraph on page 296 saying that Boris Johnson is king and everyone has to bow down to him. Or the bit on page 364 where hospital treatment for working classes is abolished, commoners can just go die in a ditch. This is why any legislation put forward by this government, this prime minister, requires studying under a microscope and the precise legal meaning of every word be examined. Because there is no expectation of honest intent, indeed there is every expectation of dishonerable behaviour. If Boris Johnson was asked what time of day it was, he would lie. This is the most important and far reaching legislation of the past 50 years. It is admitted even by those trying to push it through that it will have an adverse effect on the lives of millions of people. Yet they want it to be given less scrutiny than a bill about what typeface should be used for labelling pre-packaged cheese." I suggest you do a bit of research about it, there were lots of lies told then as well, and things hidden from cabinet, government, parliament and the people. | |||
" I suggest you do a bit of research about it, there were lots of lies told then as well, and things hidden from cabinet, government, parliament and the people. " 2 wrongs don't make a right..... so what do you tell the people and business's of northern ireland.... so where the prime minister. the foreign sec, the home sec and the brexit sec all lying to them... or did they not know what was in the agreement either ooops.... my bad........ well, you are the sacrifical lambs and you just have to take it! | |||
"Some of the usual suspect tabloids have been really annoying... talk of MPs “dithering” when the reality is that two days is nowhere near long enough to scrutinise such complex and important legislation. The European Communities Act 1972 - the bill that took us into the EU - was approved by 309 votes to 301 on 17th Feb 1972..... After 3 days of debate." 50 years of integration since. Takes a while to unpick. | |||
"Some of the usual suspect tabloids have been really annoying... talk of MPs “dithering” when the reality is that two days is nowhere near long enough to scrutinise such complex and important legislation. The European Communities Act 1972 - the bill that took us into the EU - was approved by 309 votes to 301 on 17th Feb 1972..... After 3 days of debate. 50 years of integration since. Takes a while to unpick." Indeed, document FCO30/1048, locked away under the Official Secrets Act in 1971, not released until 2002, advised Ted Heath to keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership meant (loss of sovereignty, federalism, political and economic union etc), predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening, by which time it would be too late to leave. It advised that if the public were to find out the contents and conclusions of the report that it would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to join the EEC. | |||
"Some of the usual suspect tabloids have been really annoying... talk of MPs “dithering” when the reality is that two days is nowhere near long enough to scrutinise such complex and important legislation. The European Communities Act 1972 - the bill that took us into the EU - was approved by 309 votes to 301 on 17th Feb 1972..... After 3 days of debate. 50 years of integration since. Takes a while to unpick. Indeed, document FCO30/1048, locked away under the Official Secrets Act in 1971, not released until 2002, advised Ted Heath to keep the British public in the dark about what EEC membership meant (loss of sovereignty, federalism, political and economic union etc), predicting that it would take 30 years for voters to realise what was happening, by which time it would be too late to leave. It advised that if the public were to find out the contents and conclusions of the report that it would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to join the EEC." Daily Express much?
It's actually a very balanced document.
Boring as hell but balanced.
There is nothing about keeping the public in the dark. It's about not oversimplifying a complex matter.
Quite precient in many ways:
"4. The technical legal aspects of sovereignty, both internal and external (particularly the
latter), must not be confused with the realities of power. Ultimately it is the latter which
count. There may be a tendency that, in proportion as the facts about the realities of power
are unpalatable, so emphasis on and interest in the comforting and reassuring legal aspects
of sovereignty increases,"
"Sovereignty in external relations still includes formal equality of status with other states, A
striking expression is in voting arrangements in the UN General Assembly, where, for
example, Mauritius has the same vote as the US (but the realities of power are reflected by
the veto in the Security Council, and by systems of weighted voting in many organisations,
not least the European Communities), it involves also the absence of any formally superior
source of authority external to the State. It does not mean equal power or influence, or
freedom of action in the international scene, or even within the state itself, though these ideas
naturally spring to mind in the context of sovereignty. To take an extreme example, while the
Central American republics are sovereign states recognised as such by other states, in
practice they are limited by their relations with the US Government, and perhaps more
critically with private US interests, both in their freedom of international action and in their
ability to regulate affairs within their own boundaries. All states are under some degree of
external constraint and most have deliberately limited their freedom of action in pursuit of
national interests, for example by military alliances, entry into international organisations or
even by the conclusion of routine treaties."
"It is right to say that the question of the retention of the international status of a sovereign
State is a matter of assessing in each case the degree to which a State’s external
independence, equality and capacity to conduct its own international relations are restricted,
we could nevertheless fairly conclude that although the implications for our freedom of
independent action are considerable no substantial impairment of our international status
would follow immediately upon our membership of the European Communities."
"(iv) National Power
As explained in paragraph 6 above, questions of power and influence have a close popular
connection with ideas of sovereignty. The British have long been accustomed to the belief
that we play a major part in ordering the affairs of the world and that in ordering our own
affairs we are beholden to none. Much of this is mere illusion. As a middle power we can
proceed only by treaty, alliance and compromise. So we are dependent on others both for the
effective defence of the United Kingdom and also for the commercial and international
financial conditions which govern our own economy. But this fact though intellectually conceded, is not widely or deeply understood; instinctive attitudes derive from a period of
greater British power. Joining the Community does strike at these attitudes: it is a further
large step away from what is thought to be unfettered national freedom and a public
acknowledgement of our reduced national power; moreover, joining the Community
institutionalises in a single, permanent coalition the necessary process of accommodation
and alliance over large areas of policy, domestic as well as external. Even though these
areas may be less immediately relevant to survival than defence, as covered by NATO, the
form of the Community structure and the intentions explicit in the preamble to the Treaty of
Rome emphasise the merging of national interests"
Have a look at the news headlines at the time of the referendum.
There's plenty about closer union. | |||
| |||
