Jump to content
David

The Politics Thread 2019

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Igorlegend11 said:

Will it include the minor reforms Cameron was offered. It's an endless list of options.  Which should all be irrelevant as my majority vote on a large turnout we voted to leave, against the wishes of the state and the government.  That it's now called a peoples vote is beyond humourous.  

I would not vote in any ref2 unless it asked the exact same question as the first ref.

People saying it was too simplistic a question, forget that the Electoral Commission had to reject Cameron's first attempt at a referendum question, because it was too vague.

I think you're right here. The question was clear and unambiguous, remain a member or leave.

It wasn't remain under these circumstances, or leave under different ones.

Straight yes in or out, simple question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Highgate said:

.

I don't think a dangerous precedent is set with the second referendum.   

Then you underestimate true democracy from a country that has had democracy for hundreds of years 

The people have only had the vote for around 100years so it's going to be a brave Parliament that votes against the people, especially as Parliament have already agreed to a hard brexit 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Igorlegend11 said:

It's not a fact that intelligence won't be shared after Brexit.

And whilst it's true I can't prove an EU army is a bad thing for the UK to join it's highly probable to be a bad thing

Also it's a fact the 2016 referendum voters were told there would be no EU Army, which was a lie 

Do you like the UK as a sovereign state?

If always liked us as a sovereign state, just like it as been for the last millennium. But didn't the leave campaigners tell us we weren't a sovereign state and we need to leave the EU to be one. Which was a clear cut lie. Our own government clearly stated on numerous occasions  that we have always been and will always be a sovereign state.

The last time I looked at our membership of the EU we had the power of veto on any major policy decisions made by the EU that could have an affect on our constitution. Meaning we could stop our military being used in any armed conflict. That if a EU army is ever formed in the first place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Highgate said:

Don't know how your reached that conclusion or what you consider the right or wrong reasons.  I'm not sure what's more popular to be honest, but i think the best way to sort it out would be a second referendum

People generally didn't consider a No Deal Brexit a realistic possibly during the first referendum debate so I don't see why that referendum result is especially relevant if a No Deal Brexit becomes the reality. 

 

 

What would people vote for in this second referendum?

Would it be Remain-- leave with a deal-- leave with no deal?

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Igorlegend11 said:

Then you underestimate true democracy from a country that has had democracy for hundreds of years 

The people have only had the vote for around 100years so it's going to be a brave Parliament that votes against the people, especially as Parliament have already agreed to a hard brexit 

What definition of democracy are you using if you state true democracy has been in place for hundreds of years, but we've only had the vote for the last hundred?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ossieram said:

What would people vote for in this second referendum?

Would it be Remain-- leave with a deal-- leave with no deal?

Heaven forbid, as if we chose to leave with a deal we'd lose another three years with the EU merely having to offer us a rubbish deal. 

Your point is valid, what would we vote on.  Indicative referendums 🙃🙃

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

Unfortunately there can be no "winners" in a second referendum, so even though my own view is that I'd like to have the chance to "test" whether the mood has indeed changed, I think the only way to stop the ridiculous levels of nationalism and hatred that is sprouting up, we simply HAVE to get out.

17m people (maybe less but couldn't possibly be more) would simply not shut up for years about the fact they were denied their democratic rights.  It would kill us as a country.

So even though leaving without a deal would be a huge leap into the unknown, for the sake of democracy we've got to see if they were right or not.

The biggest issue for me is IF in 1.2.3.5.10 or 20 years we realise we've dropped the huge bolllock I think we're dropping, there is literally nothing I can do about. there is no comeback and no consequences.

It would be like the banking crisis all over again. In the end everyone knew they'd ducked us all over but nothing could be done about it.

And again just in case there is any attempted twisting of what I'm saying.

I don't mean we should stay unconditionally but I certainly don't think we should leave in a "no deal" which will throw us into short term uncertainty. We literally have no idea what's going to happen and that's one hell of a gamble to take.

I understand and respect that viewpoint but I don't agree with it. 

Firstly I think there could be winners in the second referendum,  Imagine if a No Deal Brexit won.  That would be it surely. No more arguments, the path forward should be clear.  If Remain were to win, I agree with you that would be difficult.  Those, who voted leave, could argue with a great deal of legitimacy that even though a No Deal lost to Remain in a referendum that doesn't mean that a Brexit with a Deal would Lose to Remain ....so the debate and division would rumble on.  So certainly the simplest solution would be if No Deal were to win the Second Referendum.

What I can't agree with is the notion that a second referendum would be somehow anti-democratic. Given that the Brexit that people are now facing is quite unlike the Brexit they thought they were voting for, it may well be that public opinion is against a No Deal Brexit. For that reason I think the UK must be absolutely sure before it takes the decision of leaving the EU with No Deal that that is what the public wishes. Therefore I see a second referendum as a expression of democratic principles rather than a betrayal of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

What definition of democracy are you using if you state true democracy has been in place for hundreds of years, but we've only had the vote for the last hundred?

 

I did not say we've had true democracy for hundreds of years. It's amazing how poorly English is read nowadays. Not a criticism, just a recurring observation.

My words were  :

"Then you underestimate true democracy from a country that has had democracy for hundreds of years "

That a person liked your criticism thinking there is a flaw in what I wrote is even more telling as to the biasedness of humans and ability to think logically and impartially.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

I think you're right here. The question was clear and unambiguous, remain a member or leave.

It wasn't remain under these circumstances, or leave under different ones.

Straight yes in or out, simple question.

 

Agree, but the whole debate at the time was hijacked by the NHS bus and Farage scare tactics.

The remain campaign didnt bring up relevant issues, or if they did they didnt do it loud enough. 

I cant remember the detailed level of debate back then that we are having now. 

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Igorlegend11 said:

Then you underestimate true democracy from a country that has had democracy for hundreds of years 

The people have only had the vote for around 100years so it's going to be a brave Parliament that votes against the people, especially as Parliament have already agreed to a hard brexit 

Sort of. 

UK wide referendums have been conspicuous in their absence during the last 100 years too. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I understand and respect that viewpoint but I don't agree with it. 

Firstly I think there could be winners in the second referendum,  Imagine if a No Deal Brexit won.  That would be it surely. No more arguments, the path forward should be clear.  If Remain were to win, I agree with you that would be difficult.  Those, who voted leave, could argue with a great deal of legitimacy that even though a No Deal lost to Remain in a referendum that doesn't mean that a Brexit with a Deal would Lose to Remain ....so the debate and division would rumble on.  So certainly the simplest solution would be if No Deal were to win the Second Referendum.

What I can't agree with is the notion that a second referendum would be somehow anti-democratic. Given that the Brexit that people are now facing is quite unlike the Brexit they thought they were voting for, it may well be that public opinion is against a No Deal Brexit. For that reason I think the UK must be absolutely sure before it takes the decision of leaving the EU with No Deal that that is what the public wishes. Therefore I see a second referendum as a expression of democratic principles rather than a betrayal of them. 

I think i've agreed with everything you've posted on this subject highgate and I 100% agree with you on this one as well.

I think it will be a huge mistake to crash out with a no deal. I think it will be a huge mistake not to have a second vote.

Unfortunately pal, I'm not in charge.

I should probably have put my "for the sake of democracy" line in ironic speech marks.

In terms of anti democracy, that's one stick the leave voters would be able to beat the country over a stick with though.

A democracy SHOULD be allowed to change it's mind, hell we get the chance to vote for a new Prime Minister every 5 years so having another opportunity to vote for something you think you got wrong last time around is nothing new.

The stick that could legitimately be used is that the democratic will of the people was never implemented first time around.

That's why I think we've just got to bite whatever bullet we need to bite and get on with it. I am genuinely terrified at what we've been voted into doing to our own people though.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

If always liked us as a sovereign state, just like it as been for the last millennium. But didn't the leave campaigners tell us we weren't a sovereign state and we need to leave the EU to be one. Which was a clear cut lie. Our own government clearly stated on numerous occasions  that we have always been and will always be a sovereign state.

The last time I looked at our membership of the EU we had the power of veto on any major policy decisions made by the EU that could have an affect on our constitution. Meaning we could stop our military being used in any armed conflict. That if a EU army is ever formed in the first place.

 

I can't help you understand how the EU law is automatically able to be transcribed into our law.   Someone else may wish to try.   But believe me , they can pass laws straight into our law.

I can see now why remainers such as yourself see the real world differently. You don't understand and everything you are corrected on you say is a lie 

I'm learning a lot about human traits on this thread than I'd ever imagined. 

Perhaps a fellow remainer can at least correct your obvious misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Sort of. 

UK wide referendums have been conspicuous in their absence during the last 100 years too. 

Absolutely rare.  It's government of the day we allow to make and pass laws.  Rarely we will ask the people.   That's why it's so important to enact the people's wish when they vote.

A lot of people won't realise we only had a referendum to join the EEC after we had joined .....amazing but true. 

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, ossieram said:

What would people vote for in this second referendum?

Would it be Remain-- leave with a deal-- leave with no deal?

Good question.  if it were those 3 options then Remain would surely be the most popular.  I suppose you could run the first round and see which 2 were the most popular and then run them off against each other.  It would have been better to start with that system at the first referendum stage however, rather than have the one that was held.

What i had envisaged was if the UK opts for a Brexit with no deal, then to run a referendum Remain vs No Deal before the No Deal Brexit is implemented.  Or if the UK does manage to agree a deal with the EU, to run a second referendum as Brexit Deal vs Remain  (in my view the necessity for this referendum is somewhat less that in the No Deal scenario as it's closer to what people thought they were actually voting for when the voted Leave in 2016., although i still think it would be a good idea)

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Igorlegend11 said:

Absolutely rare.  It's government of the day we allow to make and pass laws.  Rarely we will ask the people.   That's why it's so important to enact the people's wish when they vote.

A lot of people won't realise we only had a referendum to join the EEC after we had joined .....amazing but true. 

It wasn't a referendum on whether to join...it was a referendum on whether to remain in the EEC.   You are making it sound like the UK joined secretly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Uptherams said:

So first, you look at our market. The more companies and people and countries that can access it and sell to it, the better. Consumers end up with more choice. It also means more competition, so lower prices overall. As the world economy is vastly larger than our own. This along with lower prices, due to less tariffs.

In order to sell to and in this country these people and companies will require a multitude of services. Jobs created in the UK. For example, marketing, advertising, logistics, banking and financial services. 

Many of these companies will then require these same services to grow their businesses in other markets. 

Jobs will be lost in the UK too. But take the banking sector, people don't seem to care about all those job loses. They love online banking and contactless payment. Times change, jobs in sectors come and go. 

Are we to shed a tear over all of those coal mining jobs that have been lost? Even though eco warriors don't actually care, only when it benefits them? 

 

Yip, jobs come and go.

The only problem with your model is that the jobs that will come will be minimum wage in large warehouses that stock these cheap forgein goods, and the ones lost will be our manufacturing industry.  

Logistics companies will lose from the manufacturing decline but will pick up transporting the new influx of overseas products. They will be squeezed because they will have no option but to accept the powerful new supplier terms.

Consumers will have more choice, true, but with less £ in their pocket. 

Actually, some people do care about other peoples jobs. Shed a tear isnt the best phrase to use, there was many tears shed. 

I know you won't agree, polar opposite beliefs. 

Thats me out of this thread. Its no good for my blood pressure..... 😊

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, eddie said:

It's come to this, has it? If you are a Remainer, you are anti-British? Don't you actually mean 'traitor'?

I can see from your last sentence that you haven't got a clue as to how defence is funded - it's about net spend as a percentage of GDP. Now net spend does not mean just 'buying stuff from the USA' - money doesn't change hands. Britain doesn't pay the USA, or even put a percentage of GDP which is set aside for the armed forces into a big pot, so how on earth can anybody demand 'back-payments'?

No wonder nobody ever takes anything you say seriously, because it's by-and-large totally ill-informed garbage.

I only used your logic that people who voted leave are anti EU therefore people who voted remain must be anti British, have you heard of the phrase pot kettle black?  (others colours are available)

What on earth are you going on about buying stuff from the USA????

The NATO agreement is that each member country pays 2% net spend of their GDP on defence, because this is NOT legally binding member countries can get away with not paying their full share, so when I mean Trump will demand back payments this means countries not paying their fair share over the years will have spend more than 2% on their own defence in the coming years to stay in NATO this is why the EU wants it's own army to stop this happening as it would cost billions. 

Currently only five EU member countries pay the correct contributions, too many countries in the EU want the protection of NATO but do not want to pay for it and I totally I agree with Trump on this subject.

 

Edited by cstand

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, ronnieronalde said:

A democracy SHOULD be allowed to change it's mind, hell we get the chance to vote for a new Prime Minister every 5 years so having another opportunity to vote for something you think you got wrong last time around is nothing new.

The correct procedure would be to campaign to rejoin once we have left. 

Then maybe you'll get another referendum in about forty years time. 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.