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

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, GeorgeCross said:

if there is no deal then i as a brexiteer have gotten what i voted for all this soft brexit stuff is a betrayal of our vote.

 

vote leave means leave. 

 

then it's time to rebuild a better nation with our own trade deals of which the EU is welcome to come to the table OR NOT if they come with their current sh*tty attitude.

Lamentable

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

The problem we have is that a majority of our politicians do not have the fortitude to act according to what they really believe.

 

I agree, apart from the "believe" part.  Politicians have no desire to leave as it suits them financially for various reasons.

 

And please - let's not get back on the 'politicians are more knowledgable' merry-go-round....

 

Edit - You tried it recently with the 'referendums are only advisory' route, and I'm sure that most of us who have been following these threads for a LONG time (and like myself, you have been a regular on these threads since at least the day before the referendum) - we are sick and tired of going over the same ground time and time again....

 

So I've no idea why you keep dragging up the same old, tired arguments that have been frequently discussed previously ☹️.

Maybe for the reason that you keep going on about money and about how others earn.

 

The new point about referendums is that I have no realised that even a slim majority against Brexit would allow our strong politicians to pull the plug on Brexit for good

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Even if the people and politicians were to jump to your bidding, which, let's face it, is pie in the sky, would it all be signed and sealed before March 29 2019? More pie in the sky.

 

British MPs voting down a deal won't klll Brexit, it will just provide a no deal Brexit.

The March deadline will be extended.

[rixalex]

Good points.
 
I think the Lib Dems failed to gain traction because our ridiculous FPTP system means that unless the two main parties are tied, then a Lib Dem vote is wasted.
 
I do believe that there is a substantial majority of people who on balance would prefer to remain
 
I have changed my position on referendums after research. The referendum was indeed advisory and not legally binding. A super majority is therefore unnecessary as parliament can ignore the result

Doesn't really explain the LDem's disastrous election results. If people really felt that strongly against Brexit they would have voted for the party that campaigned to scrap it. They didn't. I can guarantee that had Labour and Con campaigned to scrap Brexit, and only the LDems campaigned to carry it through, Brexit supporters would have voted their way.

Why didn't remainers really vote LDem? I suspect it's because, unlike you, most believe the referendum result has to be respected and have a greater appreciation than you of the damage that will be caused by ignoring it or trying to overturn it.

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

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Doesn't really explain the LDem's disastrous election results. If people really felt that strongly against Brexit they would have voted for the party that campaigned to scrap it. They didn't. I can guarantee that had Labour and Con campaigned to scrap Brexit, and only the LDems campaigned to carry it through, Brexit supporters would have voted their way.

Why didn't remainers really vote LDem? I suspect it's because, unlike you, most believe the referendum result has to be respected and have a greater appreciation than you of the damage that will be caused by ignoring it or trying to overturn it.

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

Nice idea but totally incorrect. 

 

There are multiple issues which I won't debate here as they would be off topic.

 

There will never be a crash out, no deal Brexit. Only the criminally insane would allow such a thing.

 

A Nash equilibrium would be logical but I can see May calling a people's referendum to get out of the mess and avoid a GE which would finish off The stories.

 

Ha, I meant Tories but I like the autocorrect version!

Edited October 15, 2018 by Grouse

[mommysboy]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

The March deadline will be extended.

It would without a shadow of a doubt.  There would also be all sort of consequences that none of us could be predict, but let's just say they would be disruptive. It could even lead to no Brexit at all.

 

Brexit is seen by some as the ultimate victory, but to others it's the ultimate failure.

 

[vinny41]

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

I think May is on the ropes now

 

She was trying to protect the UK from as much damage as possible due to Brexit but it hasn't worked

 

If there is an election, she will definitely lose. What would the Cons put in their Manifesto about Brexit? It could result in a break up of the Tory Party

 

Best thing she can do is call for a peoples vote. If Labour speaks to DUP they could force it.

 

I believe that this would result in a majority in favour of remaining. Super majority is not required. These referendums are opinion polls only.

 

That would allow MPs to vote as they surely believe and bury brexit

 

She can then fall on her sword and the Tory party would survive in tact

 

I think a deal on restricting free movement IS possible for the whole of the EU

 

I think UK can negotiate to retain the rebates and opt outs.

 

If they can't, Ill do it.

 

 

Britain would lose EU rebate even if it decided to ditch Brexit - EU official

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-rebate/britain-would-lose-eu-rebate-even-if-it-decided-to-ditch-brexit-eu-official-idUKKCN1MM1PV

And more than likely any opt out and a requirement to join the euro with 24 months

[mommysboy]

21 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Doesn't really explain the LDem's disastrous election results. If people really felt that strongly against Brexit they would have voted for the party that campaigned to scrap it. They didn't. I can guarantee that had Labour and Con campaigned to scrap Brexit, and only the LDems campaigned to carry it through, Brexit supporters would have voted their way.

Why didn't remainers really vote LDem? I suspect it's because, unlike you, most believe the referendum result has to be respected and have a greater appreciation than you of the damage that will be caused by ignoring it or trying to overturn it.

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

A very fair posting in my view.  It's the reason why I don't support a second referendum.  But really the debate is more about how it is to be done.  Here, we have seen the government is at an impasse both with the electorate, its own party, Parliament, and the EU.  That tells us something has gone very wrong.

 

There is one scenario that does allow for the vote to be ignored- simple frustration as defined by law and this is by no means an outside chance now, but it is not likely either.

[vogie]

1 hour ago, bomber said:

nobody wants it the tories know they have little chance of winning the next GE,I give you JC 

I hope not, when I see Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnall and Raynor it reminds me of The four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Britain would lose EU rebate even if it decided to ditch Brexit - EU official

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-rebate/britain-would-lose-eu-rebate-even-if-it-decided-to-ditch-brexit-eu-official-idUKKCN1MM1PV

And more than likely any opt out and a requirement to join the euro with 24 months

The rebates are going to take from all the members which enjoy those in the next EU budget period, not just UK.

 

The article didn't mention anything about UK joining Euro.

 

Did I mention something about Pro Kremlin propaganda earlier, oh I did already? 

 

Btw the next Brexit article about Nissan was interesting. Could it indicate that Nissan could be withdrawing from UK if hard brexit happens?

[vinny41]

24 minutes ago, oilinki said:

The rebates are going to take from all the members which enjoy those in the next EU budget period, not just UK.

 

The article didn't mention anything about UK joining Euro.

 

Did I mention something about Pro Kremlin propaganda earlier, oh I did already? 

 

Btw the next Brexit article about Nissan was interesting. Could it indicate that Nissan could be withdrawing from UK if hard brexit happens?

just because the article doesn't contains anything about the UK joining the euro doesn't mean that the EU has abandoned the idea

Meanwhile I see some of your countrymen are not happy bunnies they objected to paying a bit extra

Finland warns EU it will not help fill the €15bn Brexit budget black hole

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/24/finland-warns-eu-will-not-help-fill-15bn-brexit-budget-black/

 

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Britain would lose EU rebate even if it decided to ditch Brexit - EU official

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-rebate/britain-would-lose-eu-rebate-even-if-it-decided-to-ditch-brexit-eu-official-idUKKCN1MM1PV

And more than likely any opt out and a requirement to join the euro with 24 months

It's all speculation, isn't it?  And very unlikely anyway.

 

Certainly when Britain leaves it could not be expected to rejoin on the same terms. Currently, new member states must meet certain budgetary requirements, and are required to adopt the Euro as their currency.

 

I would have thought that if the UK doesn't leave, then it would simply be business as usual.  However the sequence of events that would lead to cancellation would be momentous indeed.

[Jip99]

30 minutes ago, oilinki said:

The rebates are going to take from all the members which enjoy those in the next EU budget period, not just UK.

 

The article didn't mention anything about UK joining Euro.

 

Did I mention something about Pro Kremlin propaganda earlier, oh I did already? 

 

Btw the next Brexit article about Nissan was interesting. Could it indicate that Nissan could be withdrawing from UK if hard brexit happens?

 

 

You do understand that hard Brexit was never going to happen, don’t you?

[vinny41]

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

It's all speculation, isn't it?  And very unlikely anyway.

 

Certainly when Britain leaves it could not be expected to rejoin on the same terms. Currently, new member states must meet certain budgetary requirements, and are required to adopt the Euro as their currency.

 

I would have thought that if the UK doesn't leave, then it would simply be business as usual.  However the sequence of events that would lead to cancellation would be momentous indeed.

 The European Union’s budget chief Guenther Oettinger said on Friday Britain would lose its rebate even in the “pleasant but improbable” event of it staying in the bloc.

And Regarding the Euro 

'All members states are OBLIGED to join the euro!' EU boss issues TROUBLING warning

THE VICE-PRESIDENT of the European Commission said the EU ultimate goal is for all member states to join the eurozone and accept the troubled single currency.

Valdes Dombrovskis, EU Commissioner for the Euro and Social Dialogue, told France 24 that all member states of the European Union have to join the Eurozone eventually. 

He said: “That’s the ultimate goal. If you look at the Treaty, all member states excluding Denmark are actually obliged to join the Euro. 

“There is no strict deadline associate do this, so members still can choose their pace, but ultimately all member states should be joining the Eurozone.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/891253/European-Union-Member-States-Eurozone-European-Commission-Euro-Vladis-Dombrovskis

 

[mommysboy]

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

 The European Union’s budget chief Guenther Oettinger said on Friday Britain would lose its rebate even in the “pleasant but improbable” event of it staying in the bloc.

And Regarding the Euro 

'All members states are OBLIGED to join the euro!' EU boss issues TROUBLING warning

THE VICE-PRESIDENT of the European Commission said the EU ultimate goal is for all member states to join the eurozone and accept the troubled single currency.

Valdes Dombrovskis, EU Commissioner for the Euro and Social Dialogue, told France 24 that all member states of the European Union have to join the Eurozone eventually. 

He said: “That’s the ultimate goal. If you look at the Treaty, all member states excluding Denmark are actually obliged to join the Euro. 

“There is no strict deadline associate do this, so members still can choose their pace, but ultimately all member states should be joining the Eurozone.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/891253/European-Union-Member-States-Eurozone-European-Commission-Euro-Vladis-Dombrovskis

 

There is no specific conclusion to be drawn from something which in any case is very unlikely to happen.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

You do understand that hard Brexit was never going to happen, don’t you?

I'd give no-deal brexit 50% chance at the moment. This is simply because UK parliament can't agree on any deal for various reasons. 

 

We might see Jeremy Corbyn in power before the end of the year. Or perhaps May calls for People's vote to save her position as PM. Time is running thin.

 

Tick, tock, tick, tock.. 

[aright]

8 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The EU is a democratic body with rules for the election of officials that governments of countries who are members have agreed upon.

The EU's law-making process is fundamentally undemocratic. Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws - in secret - to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Multinationals achieve their preferential status by spending enormous sums of money on lobbying. They create a complicated regulatory framework, which only large companies with their Human Resources departments can comply with. This drives small competitors out of business, destroys competition and encourages monopolies, forcing the consumer to pay a higher price for poorer quality goods and services.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/eu-referendum_b_9514608.html

[damascase]

14 minutes ago, aright said:

The EU's law-making process is fundamentally undemocratic. Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws - in secret - to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Multinationals achieve their preferential status by spending enormous sums of money on lobbying. They create a complicated regulatory framework, which only large companies with their Human Resources departments can comply with. This drives small competitors out of business, destroys competition and encourages monopolies, forcing the consumer to pay a higher price for poorer quality goods and services.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/eu-referendum_b_9514608.html

Why is the process fundamentally undemocratic, when the decisions are taken by elected governments of the Member States? Because you don’t like the outcome, or because your MP tells you ‘sorry, Brussels makes us do this’? 

Of course there is lobbying, but do you think that that is typically ‘Brussels’ and does not happen in London?

[Bluespunk]

31 minutes ago, aright said:

The EU's law-making process is fundamentally undemocratic. Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws - in secret - to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Multinationals achieve their preferential status by spending enormous sums of money on lobbying. They create a complicated regulatory framework, which only large companies with their Human Resources departments can comply with. This drives small competitors out of business, destroys competition and encourages monopolies, forcing the consumer to pay a higher price for poorer quality goods and services.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/eu-referendum_b_9514608.html

The civil service in the UK is not an elected body.

 

It is an enormously influential institution.

 

It is under the control of those elected to power, but in itself, it is not an voted into position.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Bluespunk

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, aright said:

The EU's law-making process is fundamentally undemocratic. Power is vested in the unelected and unaccountable elite who make laws - in secret - to preserve the status of large multinationals at the expense of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Multinationals achieve their preferential status by spending enormous sums of money on lobbying. They create a complicated regulatory framework, which only large companies with their Human Resources departments can comply with. This drives small competitors out of business, destroys competition and encourages monopolies, forcing the consumer to pay a higher price for poorer quality goods and services.

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/eu-referendum_b_9514608.html

The opposite is true. EU is creating common rules so that all parties can play equally in the common market. 

 

EU also quite often campaign against for example tech giants, to protect our privacy rights etc.

 

 

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

I'd give no-deal brexit 50% chance at the moment. This is simply because UK parliament can't agree on any deal for various reasons. 

 

We might see Jeremy Corbyn in power before the end of the year. Or perhaps May calls for People's vote to save her position as PM. Time is running thin.

 

Tick, tock, tick, tock.. 

 

 

Plenty of time left.

 

The Tories may play an internal political game - as will others. But once Barnier et al have signaled agreement we are all systems go and such antics will only be a minor diversion en route to the end game.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Britain would lose EU rebate even if it decided to ditch Brexit - EU official

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-rebate/britain-would-lose-eu-rebate-even-if-it-decided-to-ditch-brexit-eu-official-idUKKCN1MM1PV

And more than likely any opt out and a requirement to join the euro with 24 months

I'll bet its negotiable!

[aright]

36 minutes ago, oilinki said:

The opposite is true. EU is creating common rules so that all parties can play equally in the common market. 

 

EU also quite often campaign against for example tech giants, to protect our privacy rights etc.

 

 

September 2018                "This report examines the extreme and undue influence of big business on  European Union (EU) and member state decision-making processes. It has been produced by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) as a response to the distortions  we witness  in policy and law making at EU-level and across a wide number of member states."

 

https://www.alter-eu.org/corporate-capture-in-europe-when-big-business-dominates-policy-making-and-threatens-our-rights-0

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, aright said:

September 2018                "This report examines the extreme and undue influence of big business on  European Union (EU) and member state decision-making processes. It has been produced by the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation (ALTER-EU) as a response to the distortions  we witness  in policy and law making at EU-level and across a wide number of member states."

 

https://www.alter-eu.org/corporate-capture-in-europe-when-big-business-dominates-policy-making-and-threatens-our-rights-0

Do you understand that the report condemns not only the EU but "a wide number of member states."? Care to speculate how likely it is that the a UK headed by the Tories is a one of those states?

[aright]

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Do you understand that the report condemns not only the EU but "a wide number of member states."? Care to speculate how likely it is that the a UK headed by the Tories is a one of those states?

The opposite is true. EU is creating common rules so that all parties can play equally in the common market. 

  

EU also quite often campaign against for example tech giants, to protect our privacy rights etc.

 

I will leave the speculation to you, Remainers enjoy that but  I accept what you say and the  response was as a result of oilinkis comments  which made the EU seem squeaky clean and beyond reproach and small business friendly.

It's a long report and some case studies are member specific Germany and Netherlands I speed read it and only had everyday recognition of Vodaphone but that's not to say I didn't miss some.

[aright]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The civil service in the UK is not an elected body.

 

It is an enormously influential institution.

 

It is under the control of those elected to power, but in itself, it is not an voted into position.

More importantly the Civil Service  neither proposes or enacts legislation and is politically impartial and independent of government so what is your point? 

[melvinmelvin]

29 minutes ago, aright said:

More importantly the Civil Service  neither proposes or enacts legislation and is politically impartial and independent of government so what is your point? 

can hardly be independent of government

would assume they work for the government

 

who proposes 2ndary legislation?

 

[aright]

36 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

can hardly be independent of government

would assume they work for the government

 

who proposes 2ndary legislation?

 

The Positive Neutrality of Civil Servants

 

civil servants are recruited by competitive examination and promoted within a system designed to reward merit and be independent of political or other external influence. They expect to retain their roles when Ministers and Governments change. They do not take part in political debate, although they clearly influence its outcome by their advice and effectiveness.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-positive-neutrality-of-civil-servants

 

 

Secondary legislation is law created by ministers  under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament.

Parliament can either approve or reject an SI, but cannot amend it. Parliament’s role in considering an SI varies depending on what is stated in its parent Act.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) checks SIs to make sure the law they contain is clear and follows the powers given by the parent Act.

[melvinmelvin]

19 minutes ago, aright said:

The Positive Neutrality of Civil Servants

 

civil servants are recruited by competitive examination and promoted within a system designed to reward merit and be independent of political or other external influence. They expect to retain their roles when Ministers and Governments change. They do not take part in political debate, although they clearly influence its outcome by their advice and effectiveness.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-positive-neutrality-of-civil-servants

 

 

Secondary legislation is law created by ministers  under powers given to them by an Act of Parliament.

Parliament can either approve or reject an SI, but cannot amend it. Parliament’s role in considering an SI varies depending on what is stated in its parent Act.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) checks SIs to make sure the law they contain is clear and follows the powers given by the parent Act.

right legislation proposed by and developed by civser or hired consultants and signed off by the relevant minister

 

re independence, you quote from a speech not from reality

 

it would be impossible to run a country like UK with an independent civser

civser works for the gov and pretty much does what the gov tells them to do

 

now, with a Tory gov,

how on earth could Tory implement their manifesto or political program with an independent civser?

 

having a civser that is not independent is one of the more important elements that makes UK a democracy

the civser is pretty much by far the most important tool any government in UK has in order to realise its policies and manifesto

it would not work if civser was independent

with an independent civser you could just do away with political parties and GEs.

 

civser is not independent but a well organized prostitute-ring that does what the minister request them do, for money.

it happens in several countries, I would think also in the UK, that occasionally the minister requests things

that are questionable moral wise and legal wise - and you will see some high level civser quit his job

rather than being forced to do it against his moral and ethical compasses.

 

 

 

[tebee]

43 minutes ago, aright said:

The Positive Neutrality of Civil Servants

 

 

......

 

 

 

Tell that to Sir Ivan Rogers, who was fired from the civil service for telling the government Brexit could not be done in 2 years