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

[mommysboy]

Here's the Remainer pin up gal- Gina Miller making the case for a fresh referendum:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-second-referendum-brexit-will-of-the-people-a8605726.html

 

Regardless of where we stand, we can all agree with the last sentence:

'This is not what the people want. The politicians need to listen – we are all sick and tired of throwing good money after bad.'

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The EU can already offer us any deal it wants - they know the gov is desperate to avoid no deal. 

 

No it can't. Completely untrue. A bad deal will hurt the EU too. The EU is trying to strike a balance between punishing us so other nations don't get any funny ideas about leaving too, whilst at the same time, not punishing itself. The problem for the EU is that it's hard to do both.

 

Any good deal we  get will only be through the EUs generosity, not our negotiators prowess 

 

The EU doesn't have any generosity. They are just trying to get the best possible deal for themselves. Perfectly understandable. We should be doing the same.

 

Not impossible but not easy when you've got all these cries of, "let's capitulate... we are weak... we are nothing without the EU", from not only the sidelines, but from within our own camp.

Somewhat wildly optimistic. The deal isn't really wanted by most of the electorate in my view.

[mommysboy]

Ronald's trundling along:

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/226071?fbclid=IwAR2u5Bc-C7lZyejv6DFUUy_mS8L046rDUDF4MYhqI3fm2rkE1IVLhGWIG1Y

 

78,000 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

'Yes, it's widely known that the history is written by those who win the wars. However the statistics, without political tendencies, do tell the own and real story.'

 

Have to ask - what 'real story' would that be then?

 

 

British Empire and Commonwealth

Total Armed forces: All branches of service

17,843,000

580,497

475,000

318,000

3.3

United States

Total U.S. Armed Forces

16,353,639

407,316

671,846

130,201

2.5

Soviet Union

Total Soviet Forces

34,476,700

10,725,345

14,915,517

5,750,000

31.1

Germany

Total (incl. conscripted foreigners)

18,200,000

5,318,000

6,035,000

11,100,000

29.2

 

 

You do realise that upwards of 6 million soviet troops and civilians died from famine and disease directly resulting from the war, right? The figure for Germany is also very high, including POW deaths, with a precise figure being unknown.

 

The USA and British E&C (incl. IND, AUS, NZ, CAN, SA) expended less in the way of troops or civillain deaths than both Germany or the USSR (for many reasons, not least because none were occupied), these two juggernauts fought bitterly over a huge land area throwing millions of men into the fray, destroying much of their human potential and nearly wiping out whole generations in the process. Do the smaller figures of military/civilian losses make the US or Brit E&C efforts less heroic, committed or necessary in combating the Axis aggressors internationally? No, of course not, but then anyone who knows the history of the period knows this.

With whom did Finland align themselves during the preliminary stages of WWII again, remind me, if you can?

 

'People in glass houses' pal. ????

 

 

 

You clearly know the basics but I suggest your read further

 

I guess you have never lived under threat of more a powerful neighbour

 

Look at Thailand's history

 

I think the Finns acted heroically throughout. Have your read the history? What do you know about Karelia? 

 

What about Sweden?

 

As I've explained before, WW2 was won with Russian blood, American money and British intelligence!

 

 

 

 

[tebee]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I remember the poll tax problems. But as far as the Tories were concerned the problem her swing against the European Community. Howe did not resign, then get his dagger out over the poll tax, it was because of the ERM and Europe.

From Wikipedia

 

After the poll tax was announced, opinion polls showed the Labour opposition opening a strong lead over the Conservative government. After the Poll Tax Riots, Conservative ministers contemplated abolition of the tax but knew that, as a flagship Thatcherite policy, its abolition would not be possible while Thatcher was still Prime Minister.[12] Kinnock had vowed to abolish the poll tax if he won the next general election.

 

It was Howe's resignation over disagreements about Europe( although some reckon it was his revenge for being forced  to give up his state residence at Chevening),  that was the immediate trigger for her downfall, but the catalyst was the poll tax.

 

Interesting that even then Europe was a poisonous subject for the Tories....

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

55 minutes ago, Grouse said:

You clearly know the basics but I suggest your read further

 

I guess you have never lived under threat of more a powerful neighbour

 

Look at Thailand's history

 

I think the Finns acted heroically throughout. Have your read the history? What do you know about Karelia? 

 

What about Sweden?

 

As I've explained before, WW2 was won with Russian blood, American money and British intelligence!

 

 

 

 

 

'You clearly know the basics but I suggest your read further'

 

Thanks for the compliment Grouse, I think....? It's a rare occurrence in any case. ????

 

I don't claim to be an expert, but am clearly more of one than our Finnish friend is. I do know about the winter war and a little bit about Karelia, though of course it pertains to a much earlier period. I am admittedly a WWII buff so I take great interest in that turbulent and formative period in our recent history. I am also definitely not attempting to denigrate the Finns as a people either, I am generally speaking, actually quite a fan. I know how bravely they fought against both the Nazis and the Soviets when put in an understandably difficult position... The Swedes were subjugated without much protest and used for their vital iron-ore, never mounting any kind of significant resistance to N.Germany unlike the Norwegians or Finns (albeit at a later stage of the conflict, unlike the UK).

 

The USSR unquestionably held the Nazis in check and both exhausted and fatally weakened their military capability as the bloody and super-scale battles of the central plains became wars of attrition. Stalingrad and Kursk were pivotal of course, and again I'm not trying to take anything away from the Red Army's crucial role in the victory within Europe, without this (and Hitler's foolish obsession with destroying them) the European theatre could have been a very different place. I'm not ignorant of that fact. They had over 30% of their population decimated in order to cut the head off the Nazi machine. How many more were thrown into the gulag after 1945 and how many countless 1000s more died post-war from factors caused by it? All terrible stuff, and the importance of their role is not to be underestimated, but neither should the Anglo-American / E&C efforts in both military victories in Europe, N.Africa or the Pacific, or likewise in their collection of intel / pioneering of vital intelligence systems. 

 

I'm simply calling Mr.Oili on his erroneous and highly partisan appraisal of the subject, particularly re: attacks on Jolly Old, and am providing correction and counter-argument with some veracity. Such comments begin to irk me, its a period of our history that shouldn't be called into question on a thread about Brexit, other than to perhaps elucidate the background behind the creation of the EEC.

 

And while the USSR's critical role shouldn't be downplayed, neither should Britain's withstanding of the Blitz / victory in the Battle of Britain and generally our sole stand against a more powerful enemy be, as - again, if things had gone the other way, Europe and indeed the whole western world might not be what it became. The EU is of course included in that legacy. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[vinny41]

44 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Here's the Remainer pin up gal- Gina Miller making the case for a fresh referendum:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-second-referendum-brexit-will-of-the-people-a8605726.html

 

Regardless of where we stand, we can all agree with the last sentence:

'This is not what the people want. The politicians need to listen – we are all sick and tired of throwing good money after bad.'

'Thanks to Gina Miller there's no going back!' Brexit now enshrined in law, says Rees-Mogg

LEADING Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees Mogg has revealed Leave campaigners must thank Gina Miller for pushing Article 50 past the point of no return.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has thanked Gina Miller on behalf of all Brexiteers, revealing that her efforts to stop Brexit has enshrined the country's departure from the EU into UK law.

The Conservative MP for North East Somerset joked that Gina Miller "did a lot for the Brexit cause" by pushing the process beyond the point of no return.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/821124/Brexiteer-MP-Remainer-Gina-Miller-Brexit-Rees-Mogg

[melvinmelvin]

7 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

'Thanks to Gina Miller there's no going back!' Brexit now enshrined in law, says Rees-Mogg

LEADING Brexiteer MP Jacob Rees Mogg has revealed Leave campaigners must thank Gina Miller for pushing Article 50 past the point of no return.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has thanked Gina Miller on behalf of all Brexiteers, revealing that her efforts to stop Brexit has enshrined the country's departure from the EU into UK law.

The Conservative MP for North East Somerset joked that Gina Miller "did a lot for the Brexit cause" by pushing the process beyond the point of no return.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/821124/Brexiteer-MP-Remainer-Gina-Miller-Brexit-Rees-Mogg

 

is this correctly presented?

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Here's the Remainer pin up gal- Gina Miller making the case for a fresh referendum:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-second-referendum-brexit-will-of-the-people-a8605726.html

 

Regardless of where we stand, we can all agree with the last sentence:

'This is not what the people want. The politicians need to listen – we are all sick and tired of throwing good money after bad.'

I can't agree with propaganda.

 

This bit was funny: 'Sir John Major, a One Nation Tory with a real understanding of working people struggling to make ends meet because that was how he started out, called Brexit “a colossal misjudgment” which would “damage [our] personal and national wealth.

 

Well Sir John should know - he's an expert on misjudgment and damage.  

[vinny41]

6 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

is this correctly presented?

Yes the judgement of the Supreme Court says Parliament must give Article 50 go-ahead which resulted in the Article 50 Bill

all these discussions about referendum was advisory and the Goverment didn't need to act on no longer apply once Article 50 Bill was made Law

 

 

[nauseus]

52 minutes ago, tebee said:

From Wikipedia

 

After the poll tax was announced, opinion polls showed the Labour opposition opening a strong lead over the Conservative government. After the Poll Tax Riots, Conservative ministers contemplated abolition of the tax but knew that, as a flagship Thatcherite policy, its abolition would not be possible while Thatcher was still Prime Minister.[12] Kinnock had vowed to abolish the poll tax if he won the next general election.

 

It was Howe's resignation over disagreements about Europe( although some reckon it was his revenge for being forced  to give up his state residence at Chevening),  that was the immediate trigger for her downfall, but the catalyst was the poll tax.

 

Interesting that even then Europe was a poisonous subject for the Tories....

Poisonous then and even more toxic now. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by nauseus

[melvinmelvin]

8 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

 

have probably looked through the bill in the past but have forgotten the details,

is it specific as to leave on the date that the A50 periode expires? ie 29 March?

no room for prolongation of any kind?

 

[nauseus]

23 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

have probably looked through the bill in the past but have forgotten the details,

is it specific as to leave on the date that the A50 periode expires? ie 29 March?

no room for prolongation of any kind?

 

Two years is specified. The European Council and exiting state may extend it.

 

Article 50 (2) also says:

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

 

But it seems that the European Council have refused to take account of the future framework while setting out the withdrawal arrangements. ????

 

It never was a negotiation in the intended sense of the word. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by nauseus

[vogie]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

I guess some people are more sensitive than others. I have moderated my tone over the last year.

 

I have no wish to insult anyone personally

 

I do feel that Brexit is idiotic from any rational angle. If you feel that comment insults you then I am sorry but that is my opinion.

 

 

I was not really implying yourself, you are quite tame compared with some of the new trolls that seem to have infiltrated this topic. Some of the posts mainly from so called remainers are just too rediculous for comprehension. 

 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

 

'You clearly know the basics but I suggest your read further'

 

Thanks for the compliment Grouse, I think....? It's a rare occurrence in any case. ????

 

I don't claim to be an expert, but am clearly more of one than our Finnish friend is. I do know about the winter war and a little bit about Karelia, though of course it pertains to a much earlier period. I am admittedly a WWII buff so I take great interest in that turbulent and formative period in our recent history. I am also definitely not attempting to denigrate the Finns as a people either, I am generally speaking, actually quite a fan. I know how bravely they fought against both the Nazis and the Soviets when put in an understandably difficult position... The Swedes were subjugated without much protest and used for their vital iron-ore, never mounting any kind of significant resistance to N.Germany unlike the Norwegians or Finns (albeit at a later stage of the conflict, unlike the UK).

 

The USSR unquestionably held the Nazis in check and both exhausted and fatally weakened their military capability as the bloody and super-scale battles of the central plains became wars of attrition. Stalingrad and Kursk were pivotal of course, and again I'm not trying to take anything away from the Red Army's crucial role in the victory within Europe, without this (and Hitler's foolish obsession with destroying them) the European theatre could have been a very different place. I'm not ignorant of that fact. They had over 30% of their population decimated in order to cut the head off the Nazi machine. How many more were thrown into the gulag after 1945 and how many countless 1000s more died post-war from factors caused by it? All terrible stuff, and the importance of their role is not to be underestimated, but neither should the Anglo-American / E&C efforts in both military victories in Europe, N.Africa or the Pacific, or likewise in their collection of intel / pioneering of vital intelligence systems. 

 

I'm simply calling Mr.Oili on his erroneous and highly partisan appraisal of the subject, particularly re: attacks on Jolly Old, and am providing correction and counter-argument with some veracity. Such comments begin to irk me, its a period of our history that shouldn't be called into question on a thread about Brexit, other than to perhaps elucidate the background behind the creation of the EEC.

 

And while the USSR's critical role shouldn't be downplayed, neither should Britain's withstanding of the Blitz / victory in the Battle of Britain and generally our sole stand against a more powerful enemy be, as - again, if things had gone the other way, Europe and indeed the whole western world might not be what it became. The EU is of course included in that legacy. 

Thank you for that; I withdraw my earlier comment immediately. I apologise for doubting the depth of your knowledge ????

 

You will also understand my feelings toward the Coal and Steel Community roots of the early EU and how important that has been since the war.

 

My father, now dead, was involved with Bletchley through the Y service. The Government Code and Cipher School people were invisible and never spoke of their work. My mother did not know about this for 40 years. They were given some recognition by Gordon Brown - a plastic medallion stamped: "We Also Served". Astonishingly it was delivered by hand to his door by a Queen's messenger. Am I surprised they knew where he lived? Not in the slightest????

Edited October 29, 2018 by Grouse

[mommysboy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6328257/Philip-Hammond-unveil-special-50p-Brexit-coin.html

 

Game changer!

 

Ten bob????

[RuamRudy]

On 10/27/2018 at 7:24 PM, billd766 said:

I have to disagree with you Sandy.

 

Scotland is a nation and even the leading party is called the Scottish Nationalist Party. They voted as a nation to leave or remain in the union of 4 nations.

 

That they failed in their aim merely postponed another referendum for a few years probably until 2019 which is only 5 years and not 30 years. It does not matter to them that it was a once in a lifetime referendum. In fact they have had 4 and want another. 2 of them were for devolution, 1 for independence and they now want another. .

 

IMHO they are welcome to it but this time it should include ALL Scottish people who have the right to vote and NOT just those living in Scotland. The people who vote should be of voting age and there should be a super majority level set at (put your own figure in) %. If that majority is not reached then there must be no independence and no referendum for the next, say 10 years.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_referendum

 

Scottish referendum may refer to any one of several referendums in Scotland:

Scottish licensing referendum, 1920

Scottish devolution referendum, 1979

Scottish devolution referendum, 1997

Scottish independence referendum, 2014

2017 proposed independence referendum

Whilst disappointing, it is not overly surprising that you are unable to correctly name the second largest party by membership in the UK, and the dominant force in Scottish politics for over a decade. 

 

As for who should vote, if we were to restrict it to Scots only, we would have won independence in 2014; it was the non Scots-born who stole it from us. But we are not bitter that the franchise was extended to them - our country is inclusive and welcoming; we just need to work harder to explain to them that independence will be to everyone's gain. 

 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Here's the Remainer pin up gal- Gina Miller making the case for a fresh referendum:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/final-say-second-referendum-brexit-will-of-the-people-a8605726.html

 

Regardless of where we stand, we can all agree with the last sentence:

'This is not what the people want. The politicians need to listen – we are all sick and tired of throwing good money after bad.'

Gina Miller is a great bird!

 

Excellent article!

 

I'd vote for her; I'll bet she's a better dancer than May!!

 

What thought; anyone got a copy of The Exhange and Mart? ????????

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

29 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Thank you for that; I withdraw my earlier comment immediately. I apologise for doubting the depth of your knowledge ????

 

You will also understand my feelings toward the Coal and Steel Community roots of the early EU and how important that has been since the war.

 

My father, now dead, was involved with Bletchley through the Y service. The Government Code and Cipher School people were invisible and never spoke of their work. My mother did not know about this for 40 years. They were given some recognition by Gordon Brown - a plastic medallion stamped: "We Also Served". Astonishingly it was delivered by hand to his door by a Queen's messenger. Am I surprised they knew where he lived? Not in the slightest????

 

No problem at all!

 

The people involved in Bletchley are heroes just as much as any fighter pilot (both of my great uncles), infantryman, naval officer or commando.

 

If it weren't for their efforts the war may have dragged on for many more years and undoubtedly many more lives would have been lost, particularly at sea from U-boat attacks, as I'm sure you're aware. Hence my mentioning of the gathering of intel / pioneering of it in my last comment on this subject. They never received the credit they deserved at the time, in part because of the clandestine nature of their engagements - espionage isn't celebrated for its successes as other fields are, I guess. Look no further than the shameful treatment of Turing after the war as an example of the lack of appreciation or credit given, and he got a lot more than anyone else - being the most famous name/face. Nice then, that your father was honoured, if only in some small way, many years later - the government (and, I feel, the gen. public of the UK from adolescents up) owe it to those who served to both know and understand that period of history inside out and of course honour & appreciate those who did their duty - across the board.

 

This has all gotten a bit off topic I feel, but I didn't care for the jibes made earlier is all. Especially when the foundation for them is utterly erroneous. I've said my piece.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Gina Miller is a great bird!

 

Excellent article!

 

I'd vote for her; I'll bet she's a better dancer than May!!

 

What thought; anyone got a copy of The Exhange and Mart? ????????

I knew you'd like that piece, Grouse. ????

[Guest]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6328257/Philip-Hammond-unveil-special-50p-Brexit-coin.html

 

Game changer!

 

Ten bob????

Cool! Should we call it as the new English pound. Half of the value it used to be, but bravely nationalistic currency. 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

Two years is specified. The European Council and exiting state may extend it.

 

Article 50 (2) also says:

A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

 

But it seems that the European Council have refused to take account of the future framework while setting out the withdrawal arrangements. ????

 

It never was a negotiation in the intended sense of the word. 

never mind a50,

what does the newly enacted law based on the a50 bill say?

 

is  it exit on 29 March for sure as retro mug says

or can it be changed as a50 allows for?

 

what does the UK act allow for?

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by melvinmelvin

[Orac]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

Cool! Should we call it as the new English pound. Half of the value it used to be, but bravely nationalistic currency. 

 

 

 

Already getting a big awkward now real pound coins are worth less than chocolate ones.

 

 

[Grouse]

Brexiters should hope there is no second referendum; Paddy Power has Remain at 1/7 and leave at 4/1!

[Jip99]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Brexiters should hope there is no second referendum; Paddy Power has Remain at 1/7 and leave at 4/1!

 

 

Weren't they 1/11 for Remain last time................????????

[Jip99]

20 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Brexiters should hope there is no second referendum; Paddy Power has Remain at 1/7 and leave at 4/1!

 

 

 

You forgot to mention (SURPRISE, SURPRISE!) that Paddy Power also quote 9/4 against a second referendum before April 1st 2019.

[mommysboy]

48 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Brexiters should hope there is no second referendum; Paddy Power has Remain at 1/7 and leave at 4/1!

Time for my cliche of the day: they're usually right (guv).

[vinny41]

Did 670,000 march for a People’s Vote on Brexit?

Claim

670,000 people marched for a People’s Vote in London on Saturday 20 October

Conclusion

This is an estimate by the organisers of the march. We can’t say for sure if it’s accurate or not, but it may be on the high side

Last Saturday, protestors marched in London to call for a ‘People’s Vote’ on the final Brexit Deal. The organisers claimed that an estimated  670,000 people marched, and we’ve been asked by readers to check this claim.

The reality is that it’s really hard to accurately measure crowd sizes at non-ticketed events. That said, our crude estimate is that, based on available evidence, it looked like around 450,000 people were present at the start of the march.

https://fullfact.org/news/did-670000-march-peoples-vote-brexit/

[mommysboy]

2 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Did 670,000 march for a People’s Vote on Brexit?

Claim

670,000 people marched for a People’s Vote in London on Saturday 20 October

Conclusion

This is an estimate by the organisers of the march. We can’t say for sure if it’s accurate or not, but it may be on the high side

Last Saturday, protestors marched in London to call for a ‘People’s Vote’ on the final Brexit Deal. The organisers claimed that an estimated  670,000 people marched, and we’ve been asked by readers to check this claim.

The reality is that it’s really hard to accurately measure crowd sizes at non-ticketed events. That said, our crude estimate is that, based on available evidence, it looked like around 450,000 people were present at the start of the march.

https://fullfact.org/news/did-670000-march-peoples-vote-brexit/

Keep going- I'm sure you'll have it down to half a dozen before long.

[vinny41]

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Keep going- I'm sure you'll have it down to half a dozen before long.

I am sure your figures are correct if you only count eligible voters