Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2022 8:41:09 GMT
All this rubbish about when the public will have a new referendum is down to the MPs and public opinion not about time between them. Are people really saying that if a party wins a GE on a ticket of having a new referendum, we should ignore it? No im not sure anyone is saying that , im certianly not and im saying the opposite.
The problem arises with your labour parties duplicity. If labour win with starmer ambiguously saying lets make brexit work , and start taking the uk back into the EU by tieing us up to customs unions , ECJ jurisdiction and all the rest , then of course that will be where the trouble starts.
Lets remind ourselves of labour and starmers duplicity the last time. Hardcore brexiters were a minority , and many who voted brexit would have been open to listening to a moderate deal with the eu to leave where we could have possibly had a better brexit than what we have now. Starmer and labour/remoners willingness to attempt to overturn democracy scuppered that between 2016 to 2019 , and here we are.
Honesty is always the best policy , but the labour party dimwits wont accept that. I had more respect for dizzy jo swinson and her policy of overturning brexit if she got into power than starmer and labours 2019 brexit dogs breakfast.
Just more whatifery. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 28, 2022 8:41:57 GMT
We had a vote to leave the EU, but "HOW" wasn't on the ballot paper.
We should have had a referendum on "HOW".
Democratically, it's still alright to discuss our current relationship and our future relationship. I just got sick of the back biting bitter remoaning that there was on the previous site.
If someone wants customs union with the EU (I really fucking don't) but if someone does, it's ok to.
If someone wants something akin to the EFTA EEA agreement, it's ok to (that doesn't involve ECJ jurisdiction btw, it has it's own arbitrator/ dispute mediator).
If someone wants something akin to the Swiss bilateral relationship, it's ok to.
You're right, Starmer was duplicitous, he tried courting leavers and remainers at the same time, an impossible strategy.
60% of Labour constituencies and 70% of Conservative constituencies voted leave in the EU referendum.
There weren't enough votes in the remain well to get a party into government but there were enough votes in the leave well, to get the Tories the majority they craved.
What we needed in 2019, was a government of national unity committed to honouring the referendum, but asking HOW we leave, rather than IF.
It's not healthy to have too much power in the hands of government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 28, 2022 10:46:50 GMT
What we needed in 2019, was a government of national unity committed to honouring the referendum, but asking HOW we leave, rather than IF. No - we needed that in 2016. 3 years of shifty politicians trying to overthrow the result led us to where we are. Had we had a government of national unity committed to honouring the referendum in 2016 I suspect the country would currently be in a lot better place than it is now. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2022 10:50:35 GMT
We had a vote to leave the EU, but "HOW" wasn't on the ballot paper. We should have had a referendum on "HOW". . . . Think it through, what if the public rejected all the 'how' options but you didn't give them an option to think again? |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 28, 2022 11:20:35 GMT
How about we do a deal, to finally get a Referendum on staying in the EU or leaving it took many years far too many to come about, how about we leave things as they are for the same amount of time to elapse then have another Referendum?  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 28, 2022 11:29:57 GMT
We had a vote to leave the EU, but "HOW" wasn't on the ballot paper. We should have had a referendum on "HOW". . . . Think it through, what if the public rejected all the 'how' options but you didn't give them an option to think again? The public already rejected the in option too Steve. What happens in a "how" referendum, is the option with the most votes wins. For the public to reject any option, would be basically for nobody to vote in the referendum at all. And that simply wouldn't happen because some people wanted WTO terms. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Oct 28, 2022 11:30:32 GMT
How about we do a deal, to finally get a Referendum on staying in the EU or leaving it took many years far too many to come about, how about we leave things as they are for the same amount of time to elapse then have another Referendum? How about we have a referendum to decide whether we have a referendum.....ad infinitum. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Oct 28, 2022 12:05:47 GMT
No im not sure anyone is saying that , im certianly not and im saying the opposite.
The problem arises with your labour parties duplicity. If labour win with starmer ambiguously saying lets make brexit work , and start taking the uk back into the EU by tieing us up to customs unions , ECJ jurisdiction and all the rest , then of course that will be where the trouble starts.
Lets remind ourselves of labour and starmers duplicity the last time. Hardcore brexiters were a minority , and many who voted brexit would have been open to listening to a moderate deal with the eu to leave where we could have possibly had a better brexit than what we have now. Starmer and labour/remoners willingness to attempt to overturn democracy scuppered that between 2016 to 2019 , and here we are.
Honesty is always the best policy , but the labour party dimwits wont accept that. I had more respect for dizzy jo swinson and her policy of overturning brexit if she got into power than starmer and labours 2019 brexit dogs breakfast.
Just more whatifery. You insinuate people are allegedly refusing to respect a democratic mandate in future elections and accuse me of "whatifery"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2022 12:43:28 GMT
Think it through, what if the public rejected all the 'how' options but you didn't give them an option to think again? The public already rejected the in option too Steve. What happens in a "how" referendum, is the option with the most votes wins. For the public to reject any option, would be basically for nobody to vote in the referendum at all. And that simply wouldn't happen because some people wanted WTO terms. Would be undemocratic. But then you know full well you were always frit of a 3 option referendum because you can con most of the people some of the time but not all the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 28, 2022 12:45:45 GMT
How about we do a deal, to finally get a Referendum on staying in the EU or leaving it took many years far too many to come about, how about we leave things as they are for the same amount of time to elapse then have another Referendum? How about we have a referendum to decide whether we have a referendum.....ad infinitum. If some had their way, they would until they get the result they want |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Oct 28, 2022 13:09:21 GMT
How about we have a referendum to decide whether we have a referendum.....ad infinitum. If some had their way, they would until they get the result they want Well quite. We operate a representative democracy so after a referendum it's up to elected politicians to work out how best to proceed. But some here haven't been happy with that calling them traitors etc for questioning the deal May came up with. Had the outcome of negotiations been 'no deal' (the so called WTO outcome then that would have been so different from the promises made at the referendum that morally that would have to have gone for a further referendum. Similar had the MPs decided 'actually it's best to remain'. In the end we got a deal that is a second best to what was promised and the swivel eyed still want to change that to the far far worse 'no deal'. To do that without further democratic endorsement would be very wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 28, 2022 13:46:18 GMT
It is very difficult to make any deal with another party especially if the other party did not want too in the first place
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 28, 2022 14:06:50 GMT
Why would this set of choices be undemocratic?
Once membership was ruled out, the other options should have been on the table with a follow on referendum, not a repeat referendum, a follow on.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 28, 2022 14:46:20 GMT
I would like to see a block on a second referendum for at least 25 years. At such time it would be more likely that people will understand the good and the bad arising from Brexit and will be in a better position to make an assessment. Along with that I am convinced that because of 2016 Brexit, something will have been done to make a second referendum more honest, focusing more on facts than on emotions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 28, 2022 15:02:39 GMT
I won't be around in 25 years, nor do I think will the EU a lot of people in countries that are in the EU now are not happy at all, some may well leave the UK in the next 5 years or possibly even sooner
|
|
