Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

As LD says, Verbal, you're making a fool of yourself. Time for you to lie down and calm down.

[Sheaf Saint]

Theresa so desperate to garner support for her atrocious deal that she is preparing to tell blatant, outright porkies in her Stoke speech today. Is anybody surprised?

 

https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1084602078419476482

[Unbelievable Jeff]

So, when her deal is voted down next week, which of the following we gonna see?

 

1. No deal Brexit

2. Article 50 extension

3. 2nd Referendum

4. No Brexit

5. General election

[Cabbage_Face]

So, when her deal is voted down next week, which of the following we gonna see?

 

1. No deal Brexit

2. Article 50 extension

3. 2nd Referendum

4. No Brexit

5. General election

 

5. With a very very very low turnout.

[Cabbage_Face]

Theresa so desperate to garner support for her atrocious deal that she is preparing to tell blatant, outright porkies in her Stoke speech today. Is anybody surprised?

 

 

Politicians telling porkies.........shock

[hypochondriac]

Politicians telling porkies.........shock

Also said that the letters from juncker and barnier were legally binding. Why bother telling such a blatant lie?

[aintforever]

So, when her deal is voted down next week, which of the following we gonna see?

 

1. No deal Brexit

2. Article 50 extension

3. 2nd Referendum

4. No Brexit

5. General election

 

2 and 3. The deal will be voted down, May will go to the EU for an extension and they will insist on a 2nd referendum. That way we get the second referendum and neither party gets labeled traitors.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

2 and 3. The deal will be voted down, May will go to the EU for an extension and they will insist on a 2nd referendum. That way we get the second referendum and neither party gets labeled traitors.

 

I was thinking that earlier - and the MPs taking control further plays into this - May looks like she's tried her hardest but that in the end the decision was taken out of her hands.

[Cabbage_Face]

The damage a 2nd Ref will do won't be great, same as a general election. But they are most likely to happen.

[aintforever]

I was thinking that earlier - and the MPs taking control further plays into this - May looks like she's tried her hardest but that in the end the decision was taken out of her hands.

 

Labour want a 2nd referendum but if they call for it officially they will get all the sh!t, that's why they are saying they want a general election which wont happen.

[hypochondriac]

I was thinking that earlier - and the MPs taking control further plays into this - May looks like she's tried her hardest but that in the end the decision was taken out of her hands.

Almost like it's been choreographed...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Labour want a 2nd referendum but if they call for it officially they will get all the sh!t, that's why they are saying they want a general election which wont happen.

 

Corbyn has no idea what he wants as he is at odds with most of the Labour party anyway when it comes to Europe.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Almost like it's been choreographed...

 

Perhaps - not initially, but maybe now.

 

Could this perhaps go down as the biggest political con in modern history?

[hypochondriac]

Perhaps - not initially, but maybe now.

 

Could this perhaps go down as the biggest political con in modern history?

I know quite few people who voted remain who are utterly dismayed at the attitude of many of those in Parliament who appear to have been determined to thrawt the democratic vote at every opportunity.

[Wes Tender]

The damage a 2nd Ref will do won't be great, same as a general election. But they are most likely to happen.

:lol:

 

The damage to our democracy will be incalculable, as the electorate will ask why Parliament ignored their previous vote. Furthermore, the Brexit campaign will continue for years, with the pressure to hold another referendum starting the day after the vote, and the economic uncertainty during that period causing havoc to our economy. Both the main Political Parties will suffer substantial loss of support in ensuing elections, as new factions will be formed, including those which are more populist.

 

And then there is the little problem of what the referendum options should be. Having had the choice between staying in or leaving, and having been instructed to leave, remaining in should not feature. If the reason for holding a loser's referendum is that they argue that the people didn't vote for the deal which May has got, then the options should be May's deal or no deal (or more correctly the WTO deal). If the vote includes May's deal, then shouldn't there be an option for Canada +++, or Norway? If remain is an option pitted against more than one alternative leave option, then it is unfair, as the leave vote is split. Should there be a transferable vote therefore? In any event, a further referendum would take a year to put in place, and the electorate are already fed up to the back teeth with the delay in implementing the decision they made over 30 months ago.

 

And then of course, if there is a losers' referendum, a substantial percentage of disgruntled leavers might well mount a campaign to boycott it. What validity would a turnout of less than 50% have, with a 90% majority to remain? And just to put the icing on the cake, the whole exercise would give the EU the green light to forge full steam ahead with their Federal United States of Europe project.

[Cabbage_Face]

Dunno why you are laughing Wes. Speaking the truth.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I know quite few people who voted remain who are utterly dismayed at the attitude of many of those in Parliament who appear to have been determined to thrawt the democratic vote at every opportunity.

 

I think the problem is, the initial vote was an absolute con, through the lies, funding issues, the bus, no proper framework for the actual vote, the fact it wasn't legally binding etc, that maybe some MPs feel that it shouldn't be allowed through.

 

Whatever happens, the biggest issue is that the national vote, and those in parliament, was and is so close, that it is almost impossible to get anything through parliament.

 

I think something like this is virtually unimplementable.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Dunno why you are laughing Wes. Speaking the truth.

 

I can't understand why he'd think it's funny. This is serious ****.

[Cabbage_Face]

I can't understand why he'd think it's funny. This is serious ****.

 

He laughed and then just wrote what I said. But in greater and boring length. Odd.

[shurlock]

Dunno why you are laughing Wes. Speaking the truth.

 

Les is crashing out again.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

:lol:

 

The damage to our democracy will be incalculable, as the electorate will ask why Parliament ignored their previous vote. Furthermore, the Brexit campaign will continue for years, with the pressure to hold another referendum starting the day after the vote, and the economic uncertainty during that period causing havoc to our economy. Both the main Political Parties will suffer substantial loss of support in ensuing elections, as new factions will be formed, including those which are more populist.

 

I don't really get what you're saying here. I thought Brexit didn't effect the economy - that's what we've been told numerous times by leavers, so why would it cause economic issues? In addition to that, are you presuming that a second vote would be lost (and that after more informed discussion the British electorate decides as a whole it's better for us to stay), as why would there need to ba a Brexit campaign of they won?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

He laughed and then just wrote what I said. But in greater and boring length. Odd.

 

:lol:

 

Careful, he got very offended when I called him boring the other day.

[Wes Tender]

Perhaps - not initially, but maybe now.

 

Could this perhaps go down as the biggest political con in modern history?

 

Yes, the whole thing stinks. And within the past few days, we have had the Speaker proving his bias towards Remain, not that there was much doubt about that before, and disregarding the precedents of Parliamentary rules going back centuries. Is there any procedure to have a vote of no confidence in the Speaker, or to have a motion that he has brought the House into disrepute? If not, why not?

 

And now there is plotting to tear up the Commons Rule Book and establish the principle of giving backbench MPs the power to propose legislation instead of the Government. If any of this comes to pass, then the constitutional implications for our Parliamentary democracy are going to be very dire indeed.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Yes, the whole thing stinks. And within the past few days, we have had the Speaker proving his bias towards Remain, not that there was much doubt about that before, and disregarding the precedents of Parliamentary rules going back centuries. Is there any procedure to have a vote of no confidence in the Speaker, or to have a motion that he has brought the House into disrepute? If not, why not?

 

And now there is plotting to tear up the Commons Rule Book and establish the principle of giving backbench MPs the power to propose legislation instead of the Government. If any of this comes to pass, then the constitutional implications for our Parliamentary democracy are going to be very dire indeed.

 

It's whether it's seen as a necessity of not. Maybe it is worth changing the very constitution to stop this happening. I would presume that is what is being done. Don't also forget that this is political suicide for many of these MPs, going against constituents wishes. These people may well be seen as heroes in the future.

[Wes Tender]

He laughed and then just wrote what I said. But in greater and boring length. Odd.

 

You said that the damage a second referendum would cause would not be great

 

I laughed because that is a risible opinion. I clearly did not write what you said, I totally disagreed with it.

[shurlock]

Yes, the whole thing stinks. And within the past few days, we have had the Speaker proving his bias towards Remain, not that there was much doubt about that before, and disregarding the precedents of Parliamentary rules going back centuries. Is there any procedure to have a vote of no confidence in the Speaker, or to have a motion that he has brought the House into disrepute? If not, why not?

 

And now there is plotting to tear up the Commons Rule Book and establish the principle of giving backbench MPs the power to propose legislation instead of the Government. If any of this comes to pass, then the constitutional implications for our Parliamentary democracy are going to be very dire indeed.

 

Stop getting flustered Les -and stop being a hypocrite, you big girl's blouse

 

 

The sound of UK government ministers complaining that they cannot get their way, and of the outrage of the government-supporting press, is one of a working constitution.

 

The recent decision by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, to allow a vote on an amendment on a government business motion has prompted Tory unhappiness and screaming front page headlines in the rightwing press. Even on its own merits, the subject is arcane. One suspects that few of those supposedly upset by this development knew or cared whether such votes were possible before a few days ago.

 

In fact, there is little to be genuinely concerned about in what happened. All the Speaker did was to allow MPs to vote on how the business of the House should be conducted. The government’s real problem is not that the vote took place, but that it no longer has a working majority on Brexit issues. And the outcome of the vote was sensible: it obliges the government to act swiftly if, as is expected, it loses the “meaningful” vote next week on accepting the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Only a knavish or foolish partisan could be vexed by this.

 

The artificial nature of this uproar is underlined by the fact that there have been many constitutional trespasses over the past three or so years, almost all of which have received little more than a shrug from government-supporting MPs and pundits.

 

Theresa May’s government prolonged the current parliamentary session over two years, so that there would not be a Queen’s Speech on which they could lose a vote. The government packed the standing committees (which scrutinise legislation) with Conservative majorities by procedural sleight of hand, despite there being a hung parliament. A secretary of state repeatedly misled the House and its committees over the extent and existence of Brexit sector analyses reports. The government deliberately broke the Commons’ “pairing” convention when an opposition MP was on maternity leave so that the government could win a vote.

 

And there are more. The government repeatedly ignored and does not even participate in votes on opposition motions. The government committed itself to billions of pounds of public expenditure in a blatant bribe to the Democratic Unionist party for support in a supply and confidence arrangement. The government repeatedly seeks to circumvent or abuse the Sewell convention in its dealings with the devolved administrations. The government seeks to legislate for staggeringly wider “Henry VIII powers” so that it can legislate and even repeal Acts without any recourse to parliament.

 

The government even sought to make the Article 50 notification without any parliamentary approval and forced the litigation to go all the way to the Supreme Court (where it lost). The government employed three QCs to oppose the litigation on whether Article 50 could be revoked unilaterally (which it also lost).

 

There are even more serious examples. This government became the first administration in parliamentary history to be held to be in contempt of parliament. This government even stood by as there were nasty and unfair public attacks on the independent judiciary and the independent civil service.

 

Each of these were instances of a government wanting to get its way. But a constitution is not there to make it easy for the executive to do as it wishes. Instead, a constitution should provide checks and balances so that no one element of the state has absolute power.

 

Mr Bercow did more in allowing that vote to “bring back control” than any single leave-supporting MP has done since the referendum. The popular press should be celebrating that an over-mighty executive was halted and that the people’s representatives got to have their say. But so government-minded have many commentators and politicians become that it seems to them like constitutional carnage when the government hears “no”. They should have been more worried by the possibility that parliament would not have prevailed

 

https://www.ft.com/content/c47e7ee4-14e6-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e

Edited 14 January, 2019 by shurlock

[Cabbage_Face]

You said that the damage a second referendum would cause would not be great

 

I laughed because that is a risible opinion. I clearly did not write what you said, I totally disagreed with it.

 

So a 2nd referendum would be great then? Man i'm confused. This is above my IQ level.

[Wes Tender]

I don't really get what you're saying here. I thought Brexit didn't effect the economy - that's what we've been told numerous times by leavers, so why would it cause economic issues? In addition to that, are you presuming that a second vote would be lost (and that after more informed discussion the British electorate decides as a whole it's better for us to stay), as why would there need to ba a Brexit campaign of they won?

 

Brexit has not happened yet, has it? The predictions of doom and gloom in the run up to the referendum that constituted project fear didn't affect the economy to any great extent. What does affect the economy is uncertainty over the future and continually kicking the can into the long grass as May had done, and a losers' referendum would do, is not helping.

 

Regarding a loser's referendum the result very much depends on the parameters I already laid out. Clearly the options available, the way they are phrased, whether the leave vote is split, whether the leave vote campaigns to boycott it, all could swing it remain's way, especially with a further £9 million of Government propaganda spent on promoting the remain side. If there was a remain v leave vote as before, leave would probably increase its vote.

[Wes Tender]

So a 2nd referendum would be great then? Man i'm confused. This is above my IQ level.

 

Clearly. The damage would be great. If you meant to imply that the damage that a second referendum would cause would not be good, then you need to express yourself more clearly.

[shurlock]

Brexit has not happened yet, has it? The predictions of doom and gloom in the run up to the referendum that constituted project fear didn't affect the economy to any great extent. What does affect the economy is uncertainty over the future and continually kicking the can into the long grass as May had done, and a losers' referendum would do, is not helping.

 

Regarding a loser's referendum the result very much depends on the parameters I already laid out. Clearly the options available, the way they are phrased, whether the leave vote is split, whether the leave vote campaigns to boycott it, all could swing it remain's way, especially with a further £9 million of Government propaganda spent on promoting the remain side. If there was a remain v leave vote as before, leave would probably increase its vote.

 

Les - the markets have been pretty clear. Any indication, however speculative, that Brexit might be softened, delayed, reversed or indeed called off has seen sterling rise. This has happened each and every time. Even someone has economically illiterate as you can't have missed this.

 

By contrast, what would cause economic havoc -in your words- is the type of hard Brexit you and your fellow nihilists are pining for.

Edited 14 January, 2019 by shurlock

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Brexit has not happened yet, has it? The predictions of doom and gloom in the run up to the referendum that constituted project fear didn't affect the economy to any great extent. What does affect the economy is uncertainty over the future and continually kicking the can into the long grass as May had done, and a losers' referendum would do, is not helping.

 

Regarding a loser's referendum the result very much depends on the parameters I already laid out. Clearly the options available, the way they are phrased, whether the leave vote is split, whether the leave vote campaigns to boycott it, all could swing it remain's way, especially with a further £9 million of Government propaganda spent on promoting the remain side. If there was a remain v leave vote as before, leave would probably increase its vote.

 

So has the Brexit vote affected the economy? If we had a second vote, and the vote was to remain, I don't think it would matter how much campaigning was done, there wouldn't be another referendum for a long time.

[saint si]

May's deal or no deal (or more correctly the WTO deal).

 

Just calling it a deal doesn't make it a deal.

[shurlock]

Just calling it a deal doesn't make it a deal.

 

The WTO deal

[Wes Tender]

Stop getting flustered Les -and stop being a hypocrite, you big girl's blouse

 

https://www.ft.com/content/c47e7ee4-14e6-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e

 

I'm not the hypocrite here. Show me where I supported any examples given by the remoaner FT? It seems that their argument is that two wrongs make a right, that just because the untrustworthy, devious May got away with some underhand things, that the supposedly impartial Speaker of the House should be excused for going against centuries of Parliamentary precedent and the express advice of the Commons Clerks, having apparently conspired to do so with Dominic Grieve in a private meeting beforehand.

 

As for their last paragraph, that really is laughable. People's representatives, my arse! The popular press are quite right to condemn any and all MPs who represented constituencies that voted to leave and have decided that they know better than their thick constituents what is best for them, so have decided to do the opposite of what they wanted.

[Wes Tender]

By contrast, what would cause economic havoc -in your words- is the type of hard Brexit you and your fellow nihilists are pining for.

 

 

Stop making things up. No doubt you will happy to identify the post where I said there would be economic havoc.

[LGTL]

I know quite few people who voted remain who are utterly dismayed at the attitude of many of those in Parliament who appear to have been determined to thrawt the democratic vote at every opportunity.

 

It's funny because I genuinely know quite a few people who voted to leave and who would now change their mind in a second referendum.

 

I'm not sure anyone is particularly happy with any of it, to be honest.

[Wes Tender]

So has the Brexit vote affected the economy? If we had a second vote, and the vote was to remain, I don't think it would matter how much campaigning was done, there wouldn't be another referendum for a long time.

 

So when Leave won, the Remain side press for a referendum before the decision is even implemented, yet if Remain won the loser's second referendum, the third one would not be held for along time? Right.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

So when Leave won, the Remain side press for a referendum before the decision is even implemented, yet if Remain won the loser's second referendum, the third one would not be held for along time? Right.

 

Can you answer the question please, because I still don't understand your point from the previous posts?

 

You say the economy has not been affected since the vote, yet in future if there was another Brexit campaign it would cause a lot of economic damage?

[shurlock]

Stop making things up. No doubt you will happy to identify the post where I said there would be economic havoc.

 

You said that the uncertainty arising from remain winning and the campaign for a new referendum would cause havoc to the economy I.e. economic havoc.

[Sheaf Saint]

So when Leave won, the Remain side press for a referendum before the decision is even implemented, yet if Remain won the loser's second referendum, the third one would not be held for along time? Right.

 

The circumstances are somewhat different though aren't they.

 

Potentially two referendums should always have been the way to approach it from the beginning. Even arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg said so in a speech to parliament a number of years ago.

 

Had remain won by a landslide (as I presume Cameron expected) then that would have been the end of it, at least for a few years anyway.

 

A win for leave, or a marginal result either way (like 52v48 in favour of remain, for instance) should have then lead to a consultation period where all the options are assessed, and when the actual implications of leaving were as well understood as possible, take it back to another referendum so that people could vote based on much more solid information.

 

If we had followed this process, and the end result was leave, I would have no problems accepting that result.

 

Brexiteers can perhaps rightly point to the moaning and complaining about remainers not respecting the result, but in many cases the desperate attempts to cling on to this very small majority that was achieved in an extremely flawed process are just as nauseating as the protests from the remain side.

 

If it goes to a second referendum, and the result is still leave, then that's it - we leave. I won't be happy, of course, because I still stand by my decision to vote remain, but I will fully accept that this is truly the will of the people. If the result is a marginal win for remain, then it's important that we acknowledge there are still a lot of people in the UK who are unhappy about our EU membership, and we need to find a way to work together to overcome the deep division that this issue has caused.

 

FWIW, I think the result of a 2nd referendum would be very different. Last time, it was the leave side who had everything to gain and had more motivation to vote. I know a few people who didn't bother voting because they were so complacent and sure that remain would win, they didn't think it was even worth it. That won't happen again. We also have to consider the average ages of people on each side and that a lot of people who voted leave in 2016 will have since died, and a lot of teenagers who were prevented from voting last time will now be old enough to vote.

[badgerx16]

So has the Brexit vote affected the economy?.

It obviously didn't affect JLR's decision to move production to Slovakia, nor that of the German ball bearing manufacturer that is closing it's factory in Llanelli.

[Plastic]

I think the problem is, the initial vote was an absolute con, through the lies, funding issues, the bus, no proper framework for the actual vote, the fact it wasn't legally binding etc, that maybe some MPs feel that it shouldn't be allowed through.

 

Whatever happens, the biggest issue is that the national vote, and those in parliament, was and is so close, that it is almost impossible to get anything through parliament.

 

I think something like this is virtually unimplementable.

 

This is entirely accurate.

[Wes Tender]

You said that the uncertainty arising from remain winning and the campaign for a new referendum would cause havoc to the economy I.e. economic havoc.

 

Shurlock:

By contrast, what would cause economic havoc -in your words- is the type of hard Brexit you and your fellow nihilists are pining for.

 

Everybody will note the disparity in the two posts. The second one above is what he said first.

 

His second post changes his tune somewhat. Of course there is a great deal of difference between the scenario whereby economic havoc could be caused by a lengthy period of uncertainty following another referendum, the result of it, and the repercussions of continuous campaigning to hold yet another one, and the economic situation following a departure under WTO terms.

[Wes Tender]

So when Leave won, the Remain side press for a referendum before the decision is even implemented, yet if Remain won the loser's second referendum, the third one would not be held for along time? Right.

 

Just admit that along with all those others campaigning for a loser's referendum, you aren't a democrat, as you are not prepared to abide by the democratic decision of the electorate, taken on 23rd June 2016.

[shurlock]

Shurlock:

 

Everybody will note the disparity in the two posts. The second one above is what he said first.

 

His second post changes his tune somewhat. Of course there is a great deal of difference between the scenario whereby economic havoc could be caused by a lengthy period of uncertainty following another referendum, the result of it, and the repercussions of continuous campaigning to hold yet another one, and the economic situation following a departure under WTO terms.

 

Les you can’t read. You’re all over the place today. Everything OK pal?

[badgerx16]

Stop making things up. No doubt you will happy to identify the post where I said there would be economic havoc.

 

QUOTE=Wes Tender;2702187

 

The damage to our democracy will be incalculable, as the electorate will ask why Parliament ignored their previous vote. Furthermore, the Brexit campaign will continue for years, with the pressure to hold another referendum starting the day after the vote, and the economic uncertainty during that period causing havoc to our economy. Both the main Political Parties will suffer substantial loss of support in ensuing elections, as new factions will be formed, including those which are more populist.

./QUOTE

 

[Wes Tender]

Les you can’t read. You’re all over the place today. Everything OK pal?

 

Fine thanks Shurlock, and looking forward with keen anticipation to the defeat of May's worst "deal" in history tomorrow.

 

But as I proved by showing both of your posts, your first one was not what I said at all. As usual twisting things into something different and then when caught out doing it, deflecting attention to it by going off in a tangent.

[badgerx16]

But as I proved by showing both of your posts, your first one was not what I said at all. As usual twisting things into something different and then when caught out doing it, deflecting attention to it by going off in a tangent.

Wes, you said that the economic uncertainty after a second vote would cause 'havoc to our economy'. Shurlock countered by saying that a 'hard' Brexit would do the same thing.

Your next prod at him said "Stop making things up. No doubt you will happy to identify the post where I said there would be economic havoc.", and Shurlock then posted "You said that the uncertainty arising from remain winning and the campaign for a new referendum would cause havoc to the economy I.e. economic havoc. ", which is an accurate quotation from your original post.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Potentially two referendums should always have been the way to approach it from the beginning. Even arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg said so in a speech to parliament a number of years ago.

 

 

Correct. Some Brixiters, including Boris wanted 2 referenda, but it’s entirely disingenuous to compare that to the re-run remoaners “people’s” vote.

 

Their suggestion was a vote to leave or remain and then if Leave won, a vote on how we leave.

 

The leader of the Remain campaign specifically ruled this out during the campaign.

 

I can’t see how any can complain if offered a choice of May’s deal or no deal. It’s not a re run, and that’s a crucial difference.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Fine thanks Shurlock, and looking forward with keen anticipation to the defeat of May's worst "deal" in history tomorrow.

 

But as I proved by showing both of your posts, your first one was not what I said at all. As usual twisting things into something different and then when caught out doing it, deflecting attention to it by going off in a tangent.

 

Have you even read what you wrote? This is getting painful now, watching you embarrass yourself, over and over.