Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Nick]

[Wymsey]

Are you Ray McCooney?

[The Guvnor]

 

Remaining in the single market appears to be the main issue post Brexit result. When we voted to stay in or leave the EU did there really have to be detailed options available on the ballot paper. Surely it was common knowledge that immigration and getting control of our borders was a priority.  It was no secret that if you voted to leave having control of our borders and therefore not allowing free movement of EU residents would mean our membership in the single market would be untenable.

I would suggest having read and listened to countless debates on TV control of our borders and a reduction in immigration, having the authority to self govern without interference from outside bodies (EU) enabling us to repeal EU law as we saw fit, these were the main issues well discussed and no secrets so I am completely baffled by those who think there was such ambiguity. 

[GaelicFox]

29 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I'm beginning to think you're as thick as @ScouseFox

 

a welsh man .....the irony is splitting my side  

 

Nos da xxx

[Nick]

10 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Are you Ray McCooney?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEL4rDZkok

 

[Finnegan]

30 minutes ago, GaelicFox said:

a welsh man .....the irony is splitting my side  

 

Nos da xxx

 

Top banter. Thanks for proving my point. 

[ScouseFox]

don't even know what this thread is about finners being a typical forum bully mods any chance 

[Nick]

17 minutes ago, ScouseFox said:

don't even know what this thread is about finners being a typical forum bully mods any chance 

Nope, he's trying to raise some money for sick kids.

 

You toddle off and chalk the tipping thread up!

[Realist Guy In The Room]

On 06/11/2016 at 07:45, Nalis said:

Come on though, even though it didnt explicitly say 'we'll give £350m to the NHS guaranteed when we leave the EU' it clearly insinuates this to people who didnt know any better. The Vote Leave campaign were very clever in their wording of the message.

Shouldnt need to spoon feed people.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

12 hours ago, The Railway Man said:

THANK GOD SOMEONE HAS SAID THIS.

 

The arrogance of the remainers knows no bounds, they spent the whole campaign trying to tell people voting leave they didn't know what they voting for and now they are still doing it, I know exactly what I voted for and aside from one very confused MP it appears everybody else did. They should actually get out and actually speak to some leave voters.

 

I challenge anyone from Labour/REMAIN to actually write down what they think the Tories should actually put to the house to get the vote through and do it in a way that gives a guarantee and doesnt weaken the negotiating position by telling the EU exactly what we'll be asking for.

 

Go on.

All they need to answer is if they intend to keep us in the single market or not.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I'm too bloody angry to post my comments!

[Realist Guy In The Room]

7 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

I'm too bloody angry to post my comments!

Ah go on.

[Webbo]

28 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

All they need to answer is if they intend to keep us in the single market or not.

And what if they're not?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

11 hours ago, MattP said:

 

On a serious note if any MP seeks to block article 50 I think there has to be a concerted effort to remove them from parliament at the next election, I'd like to UKIP only challenge pro-EU MP's of any party and give a free walk to eurosceptics, be them Tories in the South or Labour in the North.

 

If Article 50 is blocked and the next election is turned into another referendum, which is possible at the minute it still should be easy for our side to win providing we don't make it complicated, 70%+ of constituencies voted to leave and the remain vote was highly concentrated in London, the Home Counties and Scotland.

 

(52%-48%) obviously looks close in a referendum, on FPTP leave won by a distance.

 

There is an argument that some MP's in certain areas have every right to vote against triggering Article 50 to correspond with their constituency position. 

 

11 hours ago, MattP said:

 

Were you watching This Week by any chance? I think so.

 

Michael Portillo said the same thing and then Andrew Neil pushed Liz Kendall on it and she couldn't, to me it's starting to look like some Labour MP's want to position themselves into an argument that they won't block Brexit unless it's a soft Brexit, a guarantee that we'll be staying inside the single market, if so they should just show some balls and block article 50, the end result will pretty much be the same thing. This must be the first time in history the losing side in a referendum is the one making the demands about how the winning side implements 

 

Anyone on here want to give it a go about how they would lay down their negotiating terms to parliament without giving away to the EU what we want?

 

What the opposition MP's ideally want is a vote over the final negotiated exit terms with the EU. There's a further argument to say the public might want this too, but the clear problem is there doesn't appear to be an obvious mechanism of being let back into the EU once Article 50 has been triggered (allow a agree/disagree vote), so this doesn't seem workable.

 

And so this leads to the argument on starting position for Article 50 negotiations, because quite rightly various sectors outside the government want their voices to be represented in negotiations - and to know that, not just hold blind faith. 

 

That's a perfectly reasonable position in my mind, because although 52% may have been on the winning side, the government then has to interpret that instruction in respect of all UK citizens, not only those that happened to be on the winning side of the vote.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

And what if they're not?

We know they're going hard times so we can prepare accordingly.  The finer details can follow but from that answer everyone gets the gist.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

We know they're going hard times so we can prepare accordingly.  The finer details can follow but from that answer everyone gets the gist.

Just prepare for hard times anyway, then you won't be disappointed.

[The Doctor]

13 hours ago, MattP said:

Who should decide? I'm sure plenty of people in the country on both sides fully understood the complexities of what staying in and leaving meant.

 

We certainly need a more representitive parliament though, when less than 20% of the house supports something 52% of the country do the system is wrong, it would probably have dissolved immediately after the referendum in any other century after it was found to be that out of touch with it's electorate.

 

Although I'm hazarding a guess the people who you would have decide would keep us in?

I highly doubt many understood at all - to properly understand you'd need to be well versed in EU law and how British law has been shaped by it. Most will have known what it meant for one particular issue they care about (remainers as well), but not the whole shebang. 

 

I'd have parliament have decided on it without ever putting it to the public, ultimately it's their job to understand things like this, while sections of the British public still believe the euro-myths printed by rags like the express. If they had kept us in, well that'd just be because staying in was the only sensible option.

[GazzinderFox]

What do remainers here think constitutes a good deal for the UK when we brexit? Is it simply a matter of clinging to as much of the EU as possible? Or are any of you thinking more radically now we're not going to be sitting at the table and having input into policy? If the EU play hardball during negotiations would you then get behind hard brexit?

 

I'm genuinely interested to know what you guys think the approach should be now it'll be going through parliament and assuming there's no funny business in the courts/commons/lords.

[RobHawk]

I've declined to comment much since the brexit vote, as a remainder I was obviously disappointed but I'm the kind of person who keeps that thems loves rather than bangs on about it.

 

but in the last few weeks a lot has happened and it's time for me to re-engage in the debate. So whilst I still think we will be worse off for it, I believe article 50 should happen - just getting that out there before I get accused of being a luvvie!

 

ultimately the main problem with the referendum is that the government asked the public a question that couldn't really be answered in a yes/no fashion. One of the few things I agreed with ed milliband on, was that the referendum should not have been the priority of any government as there were much bigger issues to tackle. If a referendum was to happen, it should be on something that can at least be answered in a clear yes/no fashion, the right to euthanasia for example, is a referendum I'd support. 

 

So so with that in mind it's absolutely right and constitutionally correct that MPs should have there say. Whether people agree with brexit or not, we will all be effected and should all be represented. All this crap I see abou remainders this and remainders that makes me think some people think only those who voted brexit should be allowed to have an opinion on brexit. Let's remember is was only 2% swing, a margin Farage himself said he would challenge for a new referendum had he been on the losing side. With this in mind, I'm fed up of reading about the overwhelming victory of brexit, 52-48 is a close run thing, so now the brexiters have won, the other 48% should still be represented via there MP's.

 

Finally, the lack of respect from the government and the press to the judges who made this decision is totally deplorable. It seems obvious to be that the whole reason that this is even an issue is because Cameron and his cabinet ****ed up. The referendum should have been legally binding too, but it's like Cam never considered he would lose. It's a total balls up, but nobody seems to have really called him and his government (including Theresa May) out on it. i seem to watch the news these days just wondering where the opposition is, as I honestly believe I could make a better argument against the government than the current shadow cabinet are!

[foxinexile]

8 hours ago, GazzinderFox said:

If the EU play hardball during negotiations would you then get behind hard brexit?

Personally, I would still be opposed to a hard Brexit whether the EU makes it difficult for us or not. We're choosing to leave and I think that's the important thing to remember. We're not being forced to depart (despite what a lot of people insist, Brussels hasn't pointed the proverbial gun at our head and given us no choice), we are doing this democratically and of our own free will (or of the free will of 17.4 million people at least).

 

I fail to see why we should expect the EU to make any particular concessions for us. The negotiations from the remaining EU countries will be in their best interests and likely to stem from a protectionist position - exactly what Britain will want/expect from our side too I suppose. But as a country we should not expect an easy ride, we're leaving, we're not being asked to leave, why should we have everything our way? It would be like announcing that you're going to leave a party and then grabbing a few bottles of wine to take home with you on your way out because you believe you're entitled to them purely due to your presence at the party in the first place!

 

When negotiations do become tough (and I think they will), that is when we will lay the blame at the EU's doorstep: They're punishing us; they never liked us in the first place; they're the ones being awkward etc. I have no doubt we will become the blameless and after seeing the vitriol vomited up by the right-wing press last week, this will be lamented by them day after day after day.

 

So no, personally I will have no issue with the EU playing tough. Our decision to leave; our consequences to face.

[Alf Bentley]

Bloody hell, some of you blokes yesterday....

 

You embarrassed me into silence. One way of shutting me up, I suppose. 

 

"Buzz of excitement"?! That's more than I've created in my own home for at least a decade, as my wife will tell you!

 

No, there are some good debates on here. Not all the time, but some of the time - and some good posters, some I agree with and some I don't, but people who can make you think.

Of course, there are other who make you think "what a brain-dead tosser", but we'll draw a veil over that. 

 

No arthritis in my fingers, Garlic (yes, I know you were messing - as I am in calling you Garlic). One of the best little decisions I made, 24 years ago, was to learn to touch type.

An outdated technique in the era of texting by thumb, but allows me to make exceptionally long posts at high speed and to provide the community with a buzz of excitement. 

 

On the political substance re. Labour/Opposition: I reckon they need to think long-term. They probably can't risk either voting down Article 50 or giving Theresa cause to call a spring election.

They need to maximise their demands short of that: prioritise Single Market in negotiations, protect employment/social rights, measures to encourage investment, demand reinstatement of extra funds for regions particularly affected by immigration & measures to stop employers prioritising immigrant labour etc. Then, a lot can change in 2 years of negotiations. In 2 years time, the public might be a lot less confident about the economy, about May's ability to get a good deal, even about the wisdom of Brexit itself. Plus, the Opposition might be in a less vulnerable position by then - and May's Govt in a weaker position, in party political terms.

 

There also now seem to be people saying that the triggering of Article 50 could legally be reversed during the 2-year negotiating period? Apparently this is open to interpretation?

If so, that would certainly change a few strategies. In the short-term, let's have a parliamentary debate, demand a few Soft Brexit priorities, trigger Article 50 and let the global, multi-table, high-stakes two-year poker school begin! 

[bovril]

I'll be honest, I find Alf's posts tedious and get a sinking feeling whenever I see he's posted.

[Guest MattP]

14 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

There is an argument that some MP's in certain areas have every right to vote against triggering Article 50 to correspond with their constituency position.

 

What the opposition MP's ideally want is a vote over the final negotiated exit terms with the EU. There's a further argument to say the public might want this too, but the clear problem is there doesn't appear to be an obvious mechanism of being let back into the EU once Article 50 has been triggered (allow a agree/disagree vote), so this doesn't seem workable.

 

And so this leads to the argument on starting position for Article 50 negotiations, because quite rightly various sectors outside the government want their voices to be represented in negotiations - and to know that, not just hold blind faith. 

 

That's a perfectly reasonable position in my mind, because although 52% may have been on the winning side, the government then has to interpret that instruction in respect of all UK citizens, not only those that happened to be on the winning side of the vote.

On the top point, there is an argument for that, providing they all do it of course, which leaves us with no problem with Article 50 being triggered.

 

I don't really see any case whatsoever for MP's being allowed to vote on the final negotiated terms, no one called for a parimentary vote on the terms Cameron and the government negotiated with the European Union earlier this year for us to stay in, so why it would be different to leave I have no idea, the idea that the EU itself would allow 2 years of negotiations for us then to reject it and start a new deal to leave is fanciful as well (although I'd imagine you probably think a rejection of that means we stay in!)

This election is viewed as so different by people, I've never heard Labour supporters (or vice versa) claiming after a General Election that we have to implement some opposition policy because a lot of people voted for them despite losing.
 

13 hours ago, The Doctor said:

I highly doubt many understood at all - to properly understand you'd need to be well versed in EU law and how British law has been shaped by it. Most will have known what it meant for one particular issue they care about (remainers as well), but not the whole shebang. 

 

I'd have parliament have decided on it without ever putting it to the public, ultimately it's their job to understand things like this, while sections of the British public still believe the euro-myths printed by rags like the express. If they had kept us in, well that'd just be because staying in was the only sensible option.

Our membership of the European Union didn't and never has just boiled down to how EU law has shaped British law, we need no lecture nor guidance on things like that when you put the standards our nation has set compared to those on the continent over the last millenia.

As for the second line, parliament never gets it wrong do they? The problem with that sort of thinking is you allow them to vote on something a lot of them become directly involved in. How can some members of parliament (Stephen Kinnock springs to mind) have a completely unbiased viewpoint on something that has made his family very, very wealthy? There is no reason to believe some would vote in what was good for themselves rather than the people they represent, you can never be a judge in your own court case, to quote 'the Mogg', we need to indulge in the floccinaucinihilipilification of such practice.

 

History is littered with decisions parliament have made that the public wouldn't have that have been disastrous, for all we know this could have turned out to be another one had they not thrown it over to us.

 

Quote

There also now seem to be people saying that the triggering of Article 50 could legally be reversed during the 2-year negotiating period? Apparently this is open to interpretation?

I have absolutely no doubt the lawyers, judges and the European Union itself will be trying to find a way to make that so, then they can try to put us in a position where we either reverse it or they claim we'll have to suffer to a serious extent. We've een it all before with what they did to the Irish and the Dutch, just in a different way, we'll probably see it again over the next two years.

[Steven]

Even more worrying for the Brexiteers

 

https://pic.twitter.com/VWTRl2pdo5

[Steven]

Number of free trade agreements being signed at a 20-yr low, says Deutsche. All those UK deals coming down the pipe will fix that though..

 

 

https://twitter.com/ReutersJamie/status/795937444378120192/photo/1