Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Guest]

Just now, Thracian said:

I never advocated joining the EU in the first place, nor a whole stack of things that the EU has done on the quiet.  

That's irrelevant. You never advocated joing Great Britain either.

[reynard]

14 minutes ago, Thracian said:

It's an affront to democracy. And if your approach to every problem is to run away from it, don't expect me to comply. 

I don't expect you to comply but we have a system of democracy that is parliamentary and not otherwise and has been so for many years. We have people in place who are supposed to be knowledgeable and informed and to base their decisions upon informed legally reasoned and balanced advice. If you think government by the masses is the way to go then fair enough. 

Quite how you can imply from my response to your post that my approach is to run away from things is incomprehensible.

[Thracian]

2 minutes ago, reynard said:

I don't expect you to comply but we have a system of democracy that is parliamentary and not otherwise and has been so for many years. We have people in place who are supposed to be knowledgeable and informed and to base their decisions upon informed legally reasoned and balanced advice. If you think government by the masses is the way to go then fair enough. 

Quite how you can imply from my response to your post that my approach is to run away from things is incomprehensible.

 

There's been quite enough instances of provenly false reasoning in the debate already. The mandate was clear and needs to be acted upon. As for your last sentence, you've entirely misunderstood the comment. You were suggesting that I run away.  

 

[reynard]

Just now, Thracian said:

 

There's been quite enough instances of provenly false reasoning in the debate already. The mandate was clear and needs to be acted upon. As for your last sentence, you've entirely misunderstood the comment. You were suggesting that I run away.  

 

I agree. Though you have to accept that under the democratic system we have the House of Lords has the right to debate bills and refer them back to the House of Commons. It is how our system works. Ultimately of course the House of Commons can force matters through.

How did you vote in 1975 by the way?

[Webbo]

 

Quote

 

The first offshore rupee bond was listed in London, easing concerns that the U.K.’s vote to leave the European Union may diminish the city’s global financial role.

Housing Development Finance Corp.’s 30 billion rupees ($450 million) of August 2019 notes will trade on the London Stock Exchange, according to a U.K. governmentstatement on Monday. The bonds, sold by India’s biggest mortgage lender, are the first rupee-denominated notes to be issued overseas by an Indian company.

The listing may open a new growth market for London as companies including NTPC Ltd., India’s largest power producer, and Rural Electrification Corp. have shown interest in selling Masala bonds following changes to Indian regulations last year. It also underscores the city’s position in financial markets amid uncertainty about what Brexit will mean for international issuers and investors.

 

“It represents a major vote of confidence in London as the leading global financial centre,” U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond said in the statement.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-01/london-eases-brexit-blues-with-world-s-first-indian-masala-bond

[Captain...]

44 minutes ago, Thracian said:

It's an affront to democracy. And if your approach to every problem is to run away from it, don't expect me to comply. 

Our whole electoral system is an affront to democracy, so why get all het up over this one.

 

The reason for a 2 house system is to prevent the House of Commons passing legislation that is not in the interest of the country.  The HoL exists as a sanity check, it is for this exact reason that we have them.

[IrememberBobHazell]

Difficulty being the House of Lords is constitutionally weak. It can only really object to things outside of a Government manifesto (the so called Salisbury Doctrine) and then under extreme pressure and to delay a bill for 6 months.

 Personally speaking I well understand the problems with our electoral system but I wouldn't change it. PR will in all probability lead to coalition governments which we had for 5 years recently. You can take the view that that government represented over 50% of the elecorate or that it came up with an amalgamation that neither the Libs Dem or Tories were happy with and a political fudge that precisely 0% of the electorate voted for.

 I doubt Mr Cameron or now Mrs May like to too much but I think a Government with a small majority works best. Yes, it gives enough power to make them responsible and accountable but not to big to make them invincible like Mr Blair was for 8 years or Mrs Thatcher was for 12. In this Parliament so far the opposition which has provided the best checks and balances have been errant Tory backbenchers.

[Webbo]

The HoL can only delay , if they have a genuine concern that they think could be amended fair enough but I can't see why they'd want to delay the inevitable. The sooner it's sorted the better for everyone.

[Thracian]

3 hours ago, Captain... said:

Our whole electoral system is an affront to democracy, so why get all het up over this one.

 

The reason for a 2 house system is to prevent the House of Commons passing legislation that is not in the interest of the country.  The HoL exists as a sanity check, it is for this exact reason that we have them.

 

If holding any referendum on which any of the possible outcomes would represent insanity or be contrary to the interests of the country it would be more than crazy to have it.

 

So, no, I'm not convinced and so much of what the Remain side of the recent referendum has put forward as argument - either from expert or other sources - has been discredited or shown to be alarmist.

 

Het up? I've been chilling the whole afternoon. I just don't like bad losers and that's how the Remainers are reacting.   

 

 

 

         

[Thracian]

4 hours ago, FIF said:

That's irrelevant. You never advocated joing Great Britain either.

 

If that's your best argument I rest my case.  

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

The HoL can only delay , if they have a genuine concern that they think could be amended fair enough but I can't see why they'd want to delay the inevitable. The sooner it's sorted the better for everyone.

What if their genuine concern is that brexit doesn't reflect the current will of the nation and that if a referendum was held again the majority would vote to remain?

 

They could try and delay and force a second referendum.

 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

What if their genuine concern is that brexit doesn't reflect the current will of the nation and that if a referendum was held again the majority would vote to remain?

 

They could try and delay and force a second referendum.

 

That wouldn't be a genuine concern as there is no evidence that that is the case. Should we keep this/that link etc? That's the sort of thing I meant.

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That wouldn't be a genuine concern as there is no evidence that that is the case. Should we keep this/that link etc? That's the sort of thing I meant.

There is evidence, whether it is reliable or not, whether you choose to believe it or not, there have been polls that have shown a significant swing towards remain, enough to swing the vote albeit marginally.

 

If there was more/stronger evidence it was no longer the will of the people to leave the EU, would you support the Lords in blocking it to force another referendum?

[Guest MattP]

11 minutes ago, Captain... said:

What if their genuine concern is that brexit doesn't reflect the current will of the nation and that if a referendum was held again the majority would vote to remain?

 

They could try and delay and force a second referendum.

 

Be honest Captain, which one are you?

 

 

Please stop this "second referendum" nonsense, it really is silly, if anything now after a few weeks has passed and we have a stable government, the lies of being at the mercy of "Boris and Gove" (that was probably the most terrible lie of the lot in hindsight) trade deals being south from other nations and even the possibility a lot of the Labour party would campaign for Brexit to save their jobs I think the vote for a leave would probably be even bigger second time around, let only remain actually managing to close a gap of 1.3million odd.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

There is evidence, whether it is reliable or not, whether you choose to believe it or not, there have been polls that have shown a significant swing towards remain, enough to swing the vote albeit marginally.

 

If there was more/stronger evidence it was no longer the will of the people to leave the EU, would you support the Lords in blocking it to force another referendum?

There were polls before the referendum saying remain were going to win. You can't keep having votes until you get the result you want.

[Captain...]

Just now, MattP said:

Be honest Captain, which one are you?

 

 

Please stop this "second referendum" nonsense, it really is silly, if anything now after a few weeks has passed and we have a stable government, the lies of being at the mercy of "Boris and Gove" (that was probably the most terrible lie of the lot in hindsight) trade deals being south from other nations and even the possibility a lot of the Labour party would campaign for Brexit to save their jobs I think the vote for a leave would probably be even bigger.

 

It is not nonsense, it is what is being quoted as the motive behind the HoL  blocking or delaying the legislation (which  we still don't know if we need) to activate article 50.

 

I will ask you the same question, if there is strong evidence that the voice of the people has changed and that a second referendum would be strongly in favour of remain, would you agree with a second referendum?

 

I am not saying there is at the moment, but that is what is being quoted as the motive by the HoL.

[Captain...]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

There were polls before the referendum saying remain were going to win. You can't keep having votes until you get the result you want.

I'm not saying that, and the refusal to answer a simple question is telling.

[Webbo]

Just now, Captain... said:

I'm not saying that, and the refusal to answer a simple question is telling.

What question haven't I answered?  We've voted that's the end of it. We don't have an election halfway through a parliament just because the party in charge becomes unpopular. You have a mandate, you see it through.

[Thracian]

20 minutes ago, Captain... said:

What if their genuine concern is that brexit doesn't reflect the current will of the nation and that if a referendum was held again the majority would vote to remain?

 

They could try and delay and force a second referendum.

 

 

 

If, if, if...... and then a third, fourth, fifth referendum and none of them satisfying the other side. The referendum's been held. The majority was significant and the regional difference emphatic. All that matters now is sorting the terms and getting on with making our independence and trading versatility and reputation something to be envied.    

 

I'm with MattP too in thinking a second vote would be even more in favour but it doesn't matter. It's done.  

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Captain... said:

 

It is not nonsense, it is what is being quoted as the motive behind the HoL  blocking or delaying the legislation (which  we still don't know if we need) to activate article 50.

 

I will ask you the same question, if there is strong evidence that the voice of the people has changed and that a second referendum would be strongly in favour of remain, would you agree with a second referendum?

 

I am not saying there is at the moment, but that is what is being quoted as the motive by the HoL.

 

Even if there is clear evidence of a huge swing towards remain (which there isn't) then no I wouldn't have a second referendum, we have these things to decide things like this and the decision has now been made by the people fairly conclusively and with the biggest mandate of the British people in history.

 

If you start changing results of referendums you'll end up just having one after the other, let's say we have another one and we have a narrow vote to stay, what happens then in 3 months time if there is a shift to leave after we realise there is no change of reform and nothing is going to change, do we then have a third referendum again? Do you really think for a start the EU would even be happy to watch that happen? Of course they wouldn't.

 

You lost the referendum, I cannot believe you are still whinging on about this in August.

[reynard]

4 hours ago, IrememberBobHazell said:

Difficulty being the House of Lords is constitutionally weak. It can only really object to things outside of a Government manifesto (the so called Salisbury Doctrine) and then under extreme pressure and to delay a bill for 6 months.

 Personally speaking I well understand the problems with our electoral system but I wouldn't change it. PR will in all probability lead to coalition governments which we had for 5 years recently. You can take the view that that government represented over 50% of the elecorate or that it came up with an amalgamation that neither the Libs Dem or Tories were happy with and a political fudge that precisely 0% of the electorate voted for.

 I doubt Mr Cameron or now Mrs May like to too much but I think a Government with a small majority works best. Yes, it gives enough power to make them responsible and accountable but not to big to make them invincible like Mr Blair was for 8 years or Mrs Thatcher was for 12. In this Parliament so far the opposition which has provided the best checks and balances have been errant Tory backbenchers.

The scenario you say is true  but only if there is a valid and strong opposition which at present and for the foreseeable future there is not.

[ousefox]

If there needs to be legislation to trigger article 50, who is to say it would get past the Commons let alone the Lords? That would be an interesting vote. I bet a fair few MPs would go against the referendum result .

[reynard]

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

 

 

If, if, if...... and then a third, fourth, fifth referendum and none of them satisfying the other side. The referendum's been held. The majority was significant and the regional difference emphatic. All that matters now is sorting the terms and getting on with making our independence and trading versatility and reputation something to be envied.    

 

I'm with MattP too in thinking a second vote would be even more in favour but it doesn't matter. It's done.  

The referendum is over and we need to get on with it now. However, there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny as those who voted to leave do not really know exactly what they voted for. I don't mean to be patronising here but what for eg did you personally vote for? Yes you voted to leave the Eu but what does that mean to you? What it means to you it won't mean to others.

For eg did you vote to leave the Eu at all cost. ie no deal on free trade available or did you vote for a position of free trade in return for free movement but without any political ties or did you vote for free trade with partial free movement of people and no political ties? Do you want to continue to enjoy the benefits of European health care free of charge or even things like free entry to museums for EU citizens. Do you want our students to enjoy reciprocal university education and research and so on and so on? All of these need to be negotiated and hundreds more issues as well. I bet you that many who voted to leave did so for many different reasons and that illustrates the sheer complexity of where we are now. Those who voted to remain had a fairly simple choice those who voted to leave didn't. Listening to radio phone ins the reasons for leaving were mainly given as immigration but there were some truly bizarre reasons from believing the Eu undermined Christian fundamental values in this country to the fact that all the drunks in Bradford were immigrants and wasters and even some believing it would "save" our national health service. The practicalities and detail and legal intricacies now required are far beyond the ordinary sod like me and that is why parliament must debate it all in detail and why the House of Lords is duty bound to study everything and to ask the House of Commons to look again if needs be.

As the terms of our trading deals, I'm afraid they are largely at the whim of other nations now.

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, Watson said:

If there needs to be legislation to trigger article 50, who is to say it would get past the Commons let alone the Lords? That would be an interesting vote. I bet a fair few MPs would go against the referendum result .

It would take a brave MP to vote against their constituents. I'd actually like to see how this turns out, the backlash would be monumental. 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, reynard said:

The referendum is over and we need to get on with it now. However, there needs to be parliamentary scrutiny as those who voted to leave do not really know exactly what they voted for. I don't mean to be patronising here but what for eg did you personally vote for? Yes you voted to leave the Eu but what does that mean to you? What it means to you it won't mean to others.

For eg did you vote to leave the Eu at all cost. ie no deal on free trade available or did you vote for a position of free trade in return for free movement but without any political ties or did you vote for free trade with partial free movement of people and no political ties? Do you want to continue to enjoy the benefits of European health care free of charge or even things like free entry to museums for EU citizens. Do you want our students to enjoy reciprocal university education and research and so on and so on? All of these need to be negotiated and hundreds more issues as well. I bet you that many who voted to leave did so for many different reasons and that illustrates the sheer complexity of where we are now. Those who voted to remain had a fairly simple choice those who voted to leave didn't. Listening to radio phone ins the reasons for leaving were mainly given as immigration but there were some truly bizarre reasons from believing the Eu undermined Christian fundamental values in this country to the fact that all the drunks in Bradford were immigrants and wasters and even some believing it would "save" our national health service. The practicalities and detail and legal intricacies now required are far beyond the ordinary sod like me and that is why parliament must debate it all in detail and why the House of Lords is duty bound to study everything and to ask the House of Commons to look again if needs be.

As the terms of our trading deals, I'm afraid they are largely at the whim of other nations now.

I voted to leave so Boris would nuke Germany, like most people.