UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[mommysboy]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

Can I just say I am no way againgst a Labour Government, my family voted Labour all their lives, but if they were alive today to see (especially the top three stooges) I would imagine they would vote for the monster raving loony party first. Whether they are negotiating brexit or running the country I feel they would be a total disaster.

But that's what we have anyway in my view. Truly, I can't imagine worse- look at that Chequer's deal!  It's the worst of all worlds.  I truly believe they have lost the plot.  And judging by the latest opinion polls, the majority are beginning to feel the same.

 

I would honestly like to see nationalisation, and the reclaiming of public property that belongs to the country  Yes, I could rely on Corbyn et al to do that.  I also thinks it fits in with the century we live in, where there will be tens of millions of people who are poor.  I do honestly think the Capitalist model that has prevailed since the mid 80's is dead in the water.  It just doesn't fit anymore.

 

Being pragmatic, and knowing that the Brexit vote must be respected, I think there are 2 clear options and this has always been the case: The Norway option, or no deal at all.  The third option, which in any case is pure fantasy, is the worst of both worlds.

 

Now given this choice, which is invidious to me though, I would go for hard Brexit and be damned.

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, vogie said:

Can I just say I am no way againgst a Labour Government, my family voted Labour all their lives, but if they were alive today to see (especially the top three stooges) I would imagine they would vote for the monster raving loony party first. Whether they are negotiating brexit or running the country I feel they would be a total disaster.

I wonder what they’d have to say about your support for this rightwing coup lead by Old Etonians / Hedge Fund Managers and funded by rightwing Billionaires and Multimillionaires?

 

The question is rhetorical. 

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

But that's what we have anyway in my view. Truly, I can't imagine worse- look at that Chequer's deal!  It's the worst of all worlds.  I truly believe they have lost the plot.  And judging by the latest opinion polls, the majority are beginning to feel the same.

 

I would honestly like to see nationalisation, and the reclaiming of public property that belongs to the country  Yes, I could rely on Corbyn et al to do that.  I also thinks it fits in with the century we live in, where there will be tens of millions of people who are poor.  I do honestly think the Capitalist model that has prevailed since the mid 80's is dead in the water.  It just doesn't fit anymore.

 

Being pragmatic, and knowing that the Brexit vote must be respected, I think there are 2 clear options and this has always been the case: The Norway option, or no deal at all.  The third option, which in any case is pure fantasy, is the worst of both worlds.

 

Now given this choice, which is invidious to me though, I would go for hard Brexit and be damned.

And under hard Brexit you almost certainly will be.

[rixalex]

Not masquerading as anything. I have never hidden the fact I think brexit is going to be an economic disaster. 
 
I, however, do not live in the U.K. so I would not vote in any referendum. That should be reserved only for those who live there. 
 
There is is absolutely no justification for denying another vote on a final deal in my view and nothing you say changes that. 
 
There are others who would do so and I have given you two posts doing so in a post following the one you just quoted. 

I've explained the issues that make another referendum so soon problematic (countless times now) and all you can answer is, "no, there are no problems", as if the mere fact that you've said it, makes it true. Until you can actually explain why those issues aren't a problem, pointless "discussing" this with you any further.

Re your unsubstantiated claim that there are many on the thread who favour there never be a referendum again on the matter, the two posts you refer to by way of evidence, don't prove that sentiment at all - they merely state that the Brexit vote must be respected and followed through on accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder what they’d have to say about your support for this rightwing coup lead by Old Etonians / Hedge Fund Managers and funded by rightwing Billionaires and Multimillionaires?

 

The question is rhetorical. 

 

[My Thai Life]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder what they’d have to say about your support for this rightwing coup lead by Old Etonians / Hedge Fund Managers and funded by rightwing Billionaires and Multimillionaires?

Living in Thailand we all know the difference between a coup and the UK referendum.

[candide]

21 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

But that's what we have anyway in my view. Truly, I can't imagine worse- look at that Chequer's deal!  It's the worst of all worlds.  I truly believe they have lost the plot.  And judging by the latest opinion polls, the majority are beginning to feel the same.

 

I would honestly like to see nationalisation, and the reclaiming of public property that belongs to the country  Yes, I could rely on Corbyn et al to do that.  I also thinks it fits in with the century we live in, where there will be tens of millions of people who are poor.  I do honestly think the Capitalist model that has prevailed since the mid 80's is dead in the water.  It just doesn't fit anymore.

 

Being pragmatic, and knowing that the Brexit vote must be respected, I think there are 2 clear options and this has always been the case: The Norway option, or no deal at all.  The third option, which in any case is pure fantasy, is the worst of both worlds.

 

Now given this choice, which is invidious to me though, I would go for hard Brexit and be damned.

As far as I understand, the hard Brexit option is associated with free trade agreements worldwide, and possibly low taxes. How do you think it is compatible with a "socialist" policy?

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, rixalex said:

I've explained the issues that make another referendum so soon problematic (countless times now) and all you can answer is, "no, there are no problems", as if the mere fact that you've said it, makes it true. Until you can actually explain why those issues aren't a problem, pointless "discussing" this with you any further.

Re your unsubstantiated claim that there are many on the thread who favour there never be a referendum again on the matter, the two posts you refer to by way of evidence, don't prove that sentiment at all - they merely state that the Brexit vote must be respected and followed through on accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You’ve explained your reasons. I do not accept them.

 

They do not justify taking away the right of people to vote on whether they are acceptable or not. 

 

As to your second paragraph...I disagree. 

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And under hard Brexit you almost certainly will be.

I think any way we will be damned, but at least this affords the greatest latitude for recovery. 

 

 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Because that would just be an underhand way of having a second Brexit referendum.  And that puts us in to another endless wrangle- What's to stop the leave side then demanding best of 3?

 

Like it or lump it the country voted to leave.  As someone who doesn't think that's a very good idea that sickens me quite frankly, but democracy has to be respected. 

 

The upshot is that I think the unintended consequence will be Conservatives out of power for 30 years or more, possibly the end of said party, and quite possibly Britain's first truly Socialist government- and that might well suit the millions of people who really don't have a shot at what might be termed middle class aspiration. 

 

At the least I think the majority of youngsters will conclude democracy sucks, if it just leads to old people making dumb decisions, and then moaning because they can't bring about their desired ends.

 

What many young people forget or don't understand is that old people were also young once.

 

In the modern world of instant communication they simply cannot understand that when we were young there was NO internet, no mobile phones, no social media. If you wanted the news you either bought a paper or a magazine, listened or watched the BBC or ITV. 

 

It is beyond their comprehension level.

 

If you wanted to talk to a friend you either met them or called them up assuming that you both had access to a landline telephone, or you wrote a letter, usually by hand and put it in a letter box to be delivered at some time in the future.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Double post. Sorry.

[rixalex]

A second referendum would be about the nature of the deal- which sadly wasn't clarified in the original vote.  Thus, it does not interfere with the integrity of the Brexit vote which still has to be respected.  Anyone purporting to support democracy would surely agree with this.
 
 

If the integrity of the first vote is intact (ie the decision to leave isn't reversed before it has been implemented), then I agree, that would deal with my first concern. My second concern, as to how you prevent the 2nd referendum from tying British negotiators hands behind their back, almost guaranteeing the EU don't bother trying to meet us halfway on anything, remains.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[billd766]

1 hour ago, whatsupdoc said:

Like it or not, but Juncker was elected to his position.

But what else can we expect? The whole of Brexit was based on lies.

 

But on lies from BOTH sides.

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, whatsupdoc said:

Like it or not, but Juncker was elected to his position.

But what else can we expect? The whole of Brexit was based on lies.

 

 

Here we go again, off on the magic roundabout ..............your lie was bigger than ours.....

 

 

No it wasn't..

 

 

 

Yes it was...........................

 

 

Nowhere did that bus say that 350m Quid would go to the NHS.... it said we could better fund the NHS instead....... I got it...

 

Time for bed said Zebedee............zzzzzzzzzzz

[whatsupdoc]

13 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

But on lies from BOTH sides.

Remain means nothing changes. Leave means a lot changes. 

I'll leave it up to you to decide which one is more suitable for telling porky stories to the electorate.

 

But, really, I do not care who told the most lies. Whatever happens, my main interest is to get the best (or least bad) outcome for the EU. And seeing how hopelessly divided the UK is, that might even be a hard Brexit. Time to cool down, realize what was voted for (and what is lost by doing so) and hopefully rejoin the EU later.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, whatsupdoc said:

Remain means nothing changes. Leave means a lot changes. 

I'll leave it up to you to decide which one is more suitable for telling porky stories to the electorate.

 

But, really, I do not care who told the most lies. Whatever happens, my main interest is to get the best (or least bad) outcome for the EU. And seeing how hopelessly divided the UK is, that might even be a hard Brexit. Time to cool down, realize what was voted for (and what is lost by doing so) and hopefully rejoin the EU later.

If you are not bothered about people telling lies, why did you bring it up.

[whatsupdoc]

Just now, vogie said:

If you are not bothered about people telling lies, why did you bring it up.

Learn to read.

[mommysboy]

42 minutes ago, candide said:

As far as I understand, the hard Brexit option is associated with free trade agreements worldwide, and possibly low taxes. How do you think it is compatible with a "socialist" policy?

I imagine it wouldn't. As soon as the Socialists get in I think they would mould Brexit to suit their agenda as it is effectively a blank slate.

 

Low taxes are probably a thing of the past unfortunately. 

[mommysboy]

39 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

What many young people forget or don't understand is that old people were also young once.

 

In the modern world of instant communication they simply cannot understand that when we were young there was NO internet, no mobile phones, no social media. If you wanted the news you either bought a paper or a magazine, listened or watched the BBC or ITV. 

 

It is beyond their comprehension level.

 

If you wanted to talk to a friend you either met them or called them up assuming that you both had access to a landline telephone, or you wrote a letter, usually by hand and put it in a letter box to be delivered at some time in the future.

Not exactly sure that this is at all connected with my post?

[SteveB2]

What BREXIT meant was made crystal clear to the electorate...

 

For those who are interested in how it happened, this short 15 minute documentary explains all - in particular why 'Project Fear' didn't work and why making EU economic arguments with Brexiters is utterly pointless. 

 

 

[brewsterbudgen]

What BREXIT meant was made crystal clear to the electorate...
 
For those who are interested in how it happened, this short 15 minute documentary explains all - in particular why 'Project Fear' didn't work and why making EU economic arguments with Brexiters is utterly pointless. 
 
[/url]  

The ramifications of a hard Brexit were certainly not made clear. The people should be asked to choose between this, the Chequers plan, or stay where were are. Let the people decide.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[dick dasterdly]

25 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Remain means nothing changes. Leave means a lot changes. 

I'll leave it up to you to decide which one is more suitable for telling porky stories to the electorate.

 

But, really, I do not care who told the most lies. Whatever happens, my main interest is to get the best (or least bad) outcome for the EU. And seeing how hopelessly divided the UK is, that might even be a hard Brexit. Time to cool down, realize what was voted for (and what is lost by doing so) and hopefully rejoin the EU later.

"Whatever happens, my main interest is to get the best (or least bad) outcome for the EU."

 

Thank you for being so honest.

[whatsupdoc]

6 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

The ramifications of a hard Brexit were certainly not made clear. The people should be asked to choose between this, the Chequers plan, or stay where were are. Let the people decide.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

What is the point of putting the Chequers plan to a vote? Its core is totally unacceptable to the EU.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, candide said:

As far as I understand, the hard Brexit option is associated with free trade agreements worldwide, and possibly low taxes. How do you think it is compatible with a "socialist" policy?

 

24 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I imagine it wouldn't. As soon as the Socialists get in I think they would mould Brexit to suit their agenda as it is effectively a blank slate.

 

Low taxes are probably a thing of the past unfortunately. 

I think (?) candide was referring to even lower taxes for the wealthy, rather than lower taxes for everyone else?

 

But of course, I could be wrong about this as "socialist" policy is probably less inclined to lower taxes for the wealthy, whilst increasing taxes for everyone else?

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, whatsupdoc said:

Remain means nothing changes. Leave means a lot changes. 

If only!

 

Voting remain means voting for an "ever closer union", the end point of which has never been defined. It's a bit like jumping on a conveyor belt to an unknown destination.

 

I wonder what destination individual remain voters envisaged when they voted. This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested to know whether remain voters considered this when they voted, and what endpoint they had in mind, if any.

 

 

[vogie]

1 hour ago, whatsupdoc said:

Learn to read.

I say again you said "the whole of Brexit was based on lies."

 

So you brought up the subject of lying, then you go on to say "I am not bothered who tells lies" 

Well it would seem you are bothered or you wouldn't have said it in the first place.

[whatsupdoc]

1 minute ago, My Thai Life said:

If only!

 

Voting remain means voting for an "ever closer union", the end point of which has never been defined. It's a bit like jumping on a conveyor belt to an unknown destination.

 

I wonder what destination individual remain voters envisaged when they voted. This isn't a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested to know whether remain voters considered this when they voted, and what endpoint they had in mind, if any.

 

 

The future is unknown. But what is known is that EU members can influence the direction the union is going. So that 'ever closer union' is not unavoidable (if so desired by the members).

And as one of the bigger members, the UK used to have quite some influence.

 

Having said that, an 'ever closer union' might well lead to more efficiency and thus be more beneficial for its members.

[whatsupdoc]

12 minutes ago, vogie said:

I say again you said "the whole of Brexit was based on lies."

 

So you brought up the subject of lying, then you go on to say "I am not bothered who tells lies" 

Well it would seem you are bothered or you wouldn't have said it in the first place.

Problem with reading comprehension?

I said: "But, really, I do not care who told the most lies."

Understand the difference? I do care about lies but it is rather irrelevant to me whether leavers or remainers lied more. And I gave a reason for that.

[citybiker]

What is the point of putting the Chequers plan to a vote? Its core is totally unacceptable to the EU.

Because it’s part of the democratic process, virtually any deal that doesn’t allow Brussels authority over the U.K. & affects the EU core principles was going to be unacceptable, that’s been pretty clear from the start as Barnier & the EU will only accept a deal which both deters others from leaving and despite what Barnier says will penalise a leaving MS.

Westminster still has its protocols, is accountable and as it currently stands Barnier et al have shown no compromise at all, unless his orders & directive gets changed from his Bosses.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aright]

10 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

The future is unknown. But what is known is that EU members can influence the direction the union is going. So that 'ever closer union' is not unavoidable (if so desired by the members).

And as one of the bigger members, the UK used to have quite some influence.

 

Having said that, an 'ever closer union' might well lead to more efficiency and thus be more beneficial for its members.

But what is known is that EU members can influence the direction the union is going. 

 

By member states do you mean Germany? How are member states, disadvantaged by the euro, going to influence direction other than by voting in extreme right wing governments who threaten to leave if change doesn't happen. 

Many member states are extremely unhappy as evidenced by the voting patterns and the EU Commission continues to sit on its hands. Having a mind of your own doesn't suit the EU federal Project.