The Brexit Thread

[Cray]

and they're most welcome to insert any such asinine measures into their own trade deals, but they'd certainly prefer not to add the asinine measures of other countries that they don't care about themselves

Asinine measures those other countries probably already follow if the have any kind of trade deal with the EU.

 

[Cray]

No it's not.

Having 2 referendums 40+ years apart makes sense, 100%, no one ever disputed that. If you are saying they need a new vote now because you don't agree with the outcome of two years ago (which hasn't even been implemented yet btw) you are wrong.

So again, I don't see the relevance for you even bringing it up

No one ever said there wasn't a vote on the subject before...

You know the British supreme court ruled that the referendum wasn't binding and had to be voted on in Parliament? You can say "done and dusted" as many times as you want, the reason article 50 is going ahead is because Parliament voted for it. If they chose to have another parliamentary vote on "no deal, bad deal and remain" then that would be binding action - not the referendum.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Changing goalposts. We speak of number of trade deals, you switch to GDP. If I ask you the interest rate on your car loan, you answer me with the number of cattle heads you have?

Both you and Cray and I suppose anyone with a brain make the point that the size of your economy (China vs UK or UK vs EU) improves your bargaining position on trade deals. You also specifically mentioned value of trade deals, which has a direct correlation to GDP. Which goalposts were moved exactly?!?

In a nutshell, you are saying that the UK would have more trade agreements than the EU has? Waiting happily to see that.

Never said more, you're the one holding onto this weird fascination that a number of anything without the context means anything at all. I'm saying the UK, overall, will be better off alone, IF they actually give it a real go. Being better off doesn't mean more trade deals than the EU, it means more favourable trade deals for them specifically than now. It means being able to trade with anyone that accepts their terms and not the entire EU's terms etc etc

Any proof that the negotiations of any trade deal that the UK would have had on its own fell down because of the UE? Historical example, not suppositions and guesses as you give since the beginning, the alcohol one didn't seem to impact any agreement being signed with the US.

Both the US and China have outright stated until brexit is bedded down discussions on bilateral trade can't proceed. Yes that is because of the EU, without the EU there would be no brexit required in the first place ... woops

We are speaking of trade deals and whether more companies will come after Brexit (still waiting any tangible proof about that), not self-determination here.

No you are speaking of "more companies" not once have I done so, in fact I just clarified that few posts ago. Brexit is, was, and always will be about self-determination. I've been quite consistent on that throughout this thread, go back in the history as far as you like. That's why all the lies and propaganda, from both sides, doesn't really matter to anyone who understands the principle. Self-determination, it simply does not exist within the EU, it only exists outside. You either want it or you don't, never mind the BS stats that everyone throws at you.

 

[rietrot]

So, in general, you are opposed to a decision being rescinded or retaken if it is later proved that decision was arrived at using proven lies, illegal means and/or corruption?

That’s a general question, not specifically aimed at the Brexit issue.

Generally if you're going with this stupid reasoning then no democratic election ever is valid because all politicians from the beginning of time are liars.

 

[Pitbull]

So, in general, you are opposed to a decision being rescinded or retaken if it is later proved that decision was arrived at using proven lies, illegal means and/or corruption?

That’s a general question, not specifically aimed at the Brexit issue.

No

Again, you are failing to understand the reason and legality of such a vote.

The people voted, that vote now needs to be applied. Losers will whine and cry. That is life. The will of the people needs to be actioned. If later on all fails, you can say I told you so. But as it stands, the vote has been cast.

 

[Pitbull]

You know the British supreme court ruled that the referendum wasn't binding and had to be voted on in Parliament? You can say "done and dusted" as many times as you want, the reason article 50 is going ahead is because Parliament voted for it. If they chose to have another parliamentary vote on "no deal, bad deal and remain" then that would be binding action - not the referendum.

And the Government will have to be responsible to the people for not acting on their will.

Not disputing that, I mentioned it earlier.

 

[Cray]

And the Government will have to be responsible to the people for not acting on their will.

Not disputing that, I mentioned it earlier.

fair enough.

 

[C4Cat]

If a country can repeat an election every 5 years they can most certainly repeat a referendum. People should always be free to change their minds as new information becomes available.

 

[rietrot]

If a country can repeat an election every 5 years they can most certainly repeat a referendum. People should always be free to change their minds as new information becomes available.

After a reasonable amount of time has passed. It hasn't even been implemented yet. Wait 40 years.

 

[Dave]

No

Again, you are failing to understand the reason and legality of such a vote.

The legality of the vote was that it was a purely advisory referendum, you do realise that parliament made it as such (as opposed to being a legally binding referendum like the Scottish independence Referendum).

 

[Pitbull]

The legality of the vote was that it was a purely advisory referendum, you do realise that parliament made it as such (as opposed to being a legally binding referendum like the Scottish independence Referendum).

Have you read any of my posts?

You came in here guns blazing and didn't read my posts...

I have already said it's up to the Government to do the will of the people. Again, it's not rocket science. We're all fully aware of that. Still doesn't give clarity on the relevance of the 1975 vote though

 

[Dave]

Have you read any of my posts?

You came in here guns blazing and didn't read my posts...

I have already said it's up to the Government to do the will of the people. Again, it's not rocket science. We're all fully aware of that. Still doesn't give clarity on the relevance of the 1975 vote though

People say you can’t have another referendum on the same question, no? Yet people like Farage have been campaigning for a second referendum for around 30 years...

So why is the 2nd referendum considered the ultimate endpoint in the referendum game?

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

If a country can repeat an election every 5 years they can most certainly repeat a referendum. People should always be free to change their minds as new information becomes available.

They don't have a re-vote before the new president is inaugurated though. That's what the losers are asking for in the brexit case, hell if only they were willing to give it 5 years, and note the clock only starts in April 2019 ...

 

[Dave]

They don't have a re-vote before the new president is inaugurated though. That's what the losers are asking for in the brexit case, hell if only they were willing to give it 5 years, and note the clock only starts in April 2019 ...

Legally they would if it was shown the [-]president[/-] MP-elect had conducted an illegal campaign.

PS
They don’t actually have presidents in the UK.

 

[Pitbull]

People say you can’t have another referendum on the same question, no? Yet people like Farage have been campaigning for a second referendum for around 30 years...

Yes, you can't. You voted now take action and after action has been taken you can vote again. You can't vote, not take action and vote again because you don't like the outcome of the first vote. It's stupid and moronic.

So why is the 2nd referendum considered the ultimate endpoint in the referendum game?

It's not, no one said to never ever vote for it again. We're saying, or I'm saying do Brexit, if it doesn't work in 5/10/15/20 years vote again. But don't vote again now because you don't like the result...

Surely even you can see how stupid that is.

 

[f2wohf]

They don’t actually have presidents in the UK.

Before the next queen is elected then.

 

[Pitbull]

Legally they would if it was shown the [-]president[/-] MP-elect had conducted an illegal campaign.

PS
They don’t actually have presidents in the UK.

No they won't, current Prime minister would be removed and a second one appointed by the winning party.

Just like in SA they don't vote for people they vote for parties.

 

[Dave]

No they won't, current Prime minister would be removed and a second one appointed by the winning party.

Just like in SA they don't vote for people they vote for parties.

No, not unless the MP concerned was the Prime Minister, if the MP concerned was not the PM then the PM would not be removed, the removal of the MP who was illegally elected could result in a minority government (if from the governing party) but it wouldn’t impact on the actual government directly.

 

[Pitbull]

No, not unless the MP concerned was the Prime Minister, if the MP concerned was not the PM then the PM would not be removed, the removal of the MP who was illegally elected could result in a minority government (if from the governing party) but it wouldn’t impact on the actual government directly.

How do you equate normal MP to his definition or "President"? The UK's "President" is the PM. So we're talking about the PM here, nothing more nothing less.

Sigh...

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Legally they would if it was shown the [-]president[/-] MP-elect had conducted an illegal campaign.

and which bit was "illegal"? overstating numbers to a hopelessly gullible electorate is questionable, but certainly not illegal, and BOTH sides did that ...

PS
They don’t actually have presidents in the UK.

prime minister, president, same shyte, different a-hole