The Brexit Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cray said:
Are politicians allowed to vote with their conscience? Surely an elected official has the right to vote for what he believes is right/best for the country even if it goes against the will of the people (which may or may not still be what it was when the referendum took place) ?

Isn't that how most democracies work, people aren't elected to do the direct will of the people on every decision, they are elected to make those decisions for the electorate who can't possibly vote on every decision. You don't like the decisions of the person you elected you vote him out but you can't moan that because he did what he felt was best for the country that its some kind of betrayal. Your window cleaning analogy is ridiculous, elected officials are not accountable to the public for their individual actions (if legal) except at the poles.
Click to expand...

There's that, but also the fact that the referendum was non-binding, and very ambiguous. Many top Brexiteers were very adamant that hard Brexit was not on the cards. So does doing that count as 'betrayal', as it wasn't what was promised? But then at the same time there are people who think anything less than hard Brexit is a 'betrayal'.

So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is why Parliament exists.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
There's that, but also the fact that the referendum was non-binding
Click to expand...

nothing special about that, the UK only has the one type of referendum, they're always "non-binding"

OrbitalDawn said:
and very ambiguous
Click to expand...
:ROFL::laugh::ROFL::laugh::ROFL: no it was clear as day:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?
- Remain a member of the European Union
- Leave the European Union​
Click to expand...
​
There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about that, unless you're drunk, biased, squinting while reading it and a thoroughbred remoaner with no hope of salvation.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
nothing special about that, the UK only has the one type of referendum, they're always "non-binding"


:ROFL::laugh::ROFL::laugh::ROFL: no it was clear as day:
​
There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about that, unless you're drunk, biased, squinting while reading it and a thoroughbred remoaner with no hope of salvation.
Click to expand...

No, it is ambiguous. Leave the EU and join EEA? Leave the EU and join EFTA? Leave the EU with a bilateral agreement aka Switzerland process? Leave the EU with a comprehensive alignment aka Canada+? Leave the EU but remain in the Single Market? Leave the EU and... etc etc.

The problem is there is no clear cut idea of what “leave the EU” entails, and from the referendum onwards every Leave spokesperson said something that made them all seem relevant.
 
Dave said:
No, it is ambiguous. Leave the EU and join EEA? Leave the EU and join EFTA? Leave the EU with a bilateral agreement aka Switzerland process? Leave the EU with a comprehensive alignment aka Canada+? Leave the EU but remain in the Single Market? Leave the EU and... etc etc.
Click to expand...
No it's not, to quote the campaign: "leave means leave", it is 100% unambiguous in the fact the leaving is the end goal. Not staying under another name, not delaying ad-infinitum, leaving.

Anyone with a pulse would know there are details to work out and risks involved, they chose "leave" despite those known unknowns.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
No it's not, to quote the campaign: "leave means leave", it is 100% unambiguous in the fact the leaving is the end goal. Not staying under another name, not delaying ad-infinitum, leaving.

Anyone with a pulse would know there are details to work out and risks involved, they chose "leave" despite those known unknowns.
Click to expand...

So lots of brain dead Brexiteers then
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
No it's not, to quote the campaign: "leave means leave", it is 100% unambiguous in the fact the leaving is the end goal. Not staying under another name, not delaying ad-infinitum, leaving.

Anyone with a pulse would know there are details to work out and risks involved, they chose "leave" despite those known unknowns.
Click to expand...

Yep, Vote Leave never made comments about staying in the Single Market when leaving the EU...

1553081819278.png

Nigel Farage would never make that sort of comment either.

4DB7E9DE-C383-4A89-8A13-C86BD751590F.jpeg



;)
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
the wording on the ballot was clear as day, the path to get there was not and never will be at the time of taking any referendum, so what?
Click to expand...

The point is that “leave means leave” has a different meaning to many people, and dependent on what they believed when voting. As I’ve already shown, leaving the EU can take many different paths, and many people who voted leave did so on the basis of it following their version of leave. It’s nowhere as simple as just saying “leave means leave” as the UK has discovered...
 
Dave said:
The point is that “leave means leave” has a different meaning to many people, and dependent on what they believed when voting. As I’ve already shown, leaving the EU can take many different paths, and many people who voted leave did so on the basis of it following their version of leave. It’s nowhere as simple as just saying “leave means leave” as the UK has discovered...
Click to expand...
Agreed. We voted to leave, and I guess the logical next step would've been to consult the public again somehow to determine what exactly leaving meant to them. And then base the leaving strategy on the result. Instead, we got a bunch of politicians who voted to remain just running with it without a clue.
 
The Voice said:
Agreed. We voted to leave, and I guess the logical next step would've been to consult the public again somehow to determine what exactly leaving meant to them. And then base the leaving strategy on the result. Instead, we got a bunch of politicians who voted to remain just running with it without a clue.
Click to expand...

The problem is the politicians on both sides, it’s not just the remain supporters, many of the leave supporters (like Rees-Mogg) have their own agendas that mean they aren’t really negotiating or listening to anything that might not be exactly what they aim for and aren’t apparently capable of compromise, even with other leave supporters, let alone remain supporters.

People like Rees-Mogg don’t want a “soft” Brexit (EEA or EFTA, for example) as it would mean the UK would still need to sign up to the new tax evasion rules.
 
It’s official, May has asked for a delay.

EU commission opposes Theresa May request for Brexit extension until 30 June but will accept long delay

The European Commission opposes Theresa May’s plan to delay Brexit until 30 June, according to a leaked internal EU diplomatic note.

The review of the Brexit situation says EU leaders will face a “binary” choice of a short extension to Article 50 to before May 23, or a long delay to at least the end of this year.

“Any extension offered to the United Kingdom should either last until 23 May 2019 or should be significantly longer and require European elections,” the leaked document, obtained by the Reuters news agency, said.

“This is the only way of protecting the functioning of the EU institutions and their ability to take decisions.”

On Wednesday afternoon Theresa May wrote a letter to European Council president Donald Tusk formally requesting an extension past 29 March, the date Britain is currently set to leave the EU. She said she was ”not prepared to delay Brexit any further than the 30 June”.

The decision of whether to extend and by how long is not up to Brussels – but the 27 other EU member states, who must unanimously approve any delay. Throughout Brexit talks member states have however stuck close to the European Commission’s line, however.
Click to expand...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-theresa-may-request-commission-a8831556.html
 
Dave said:
The point is that “leave means leave” has a different meaning to many people, and dependent on what they believed when voting. As I’ve already shown, leaving the EU can take many different paths, and many people who voted leave did so on the basis of it following their version of leave. It’s nowhere as simple as just saying “leave means leave” as the UK has discovered...
Click to expand...
and yet, they all agreed that the end result should be a departure, not just continued subjugation
so the government has managed to deliver zero of the thing they were told to deliver, and plenty of the thing they were told not to deliver
 
buka001 said:
Fun times. All those pro-Brexit newspapers that predicted that the EU would be groveling at the feet of Britain during these negotiations, must have completely forgotten that all by now.
Click to expand...
They assumed that the UK government would actually be negotiating as well as they could have instead of colluding with the EU to sweep brexit under the rug.

The only mistake they made was in their assumption, the government takes the lion's share of the blame.
 
Pitbull said:
YES!

So now the PM has slit her own throat :D. My concern though is, does this mean they (UK) can now cancel the article 50 all together? Or does it mean there will be a no deal no matter what they voted and UK out of EU end of March?
Click to expand...

The UK can revoke unilterally, yes, but it would come at an astronomical political price, especially for the Tories (there are local elections in May this year). Payback at the ballot box would be swift. There is no functioning party to the right of the Conservative just yet (UKIP imploded after Farage left and now has some dodgy characters running it).

The EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, was saying the other day that No Deal is not off the table, regardless of what the UK parliament has voted on. And legally speaking, No Deal is not off the table yet (the motion they voted on was not legally binding).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X