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

[aright]

5 minutes ago, BwindiBoy said:

Jesus! What is it with people continuously trying to ram this one man's personal opinion down everyone's throat? It's been posted numerous times previously. Is this Rogers fella the new messiah or something?

 

Re the marriage analogy, it had context against the post I was responding to - your post takes it out of context.

No! He's just a naughty boy!

[tomacht8]

6 minutes ago, aright said:

No! He's just a naughty boy!

Well that's a bit below the belt.
The text of Rogers is so far one of the best documents I could read in Anglo-Saxon.
He is a scientist, EU practitioner and has decades of experience in drafting trade agreements.
And all this coupled with the ability to explain a super complex situation in a generally understandable way.

If not even the people of the UK listen to their own experts, or at least read the content.
Where should this lead?

[aright]

12 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Well that's a bit below the belt.
The text of Rogers is so far one of the best documents I could read in Anglo-Saxon.
He is a scientist, EU practitioner and has decades of experience in drafting trade agreements.
And all this coupled with the ability to explain a super complex situation in a generally understandable way.

If not even the people of the UK listen to their own experts, or at least read the content.
Where should this lead?

What experts? It helps to look at both sides of the coin

The only mystery about Sir Ivan Rogers is why he was still in his job

The Spectator

The wonder about Sir Ivan Rogers’s resignation as Britain’s ambassador to the EU is that he was still in the job. He may have possessed useful knowledge about the workings of the EU, but he was also heavily associated with a failed way of conducting negotiations with it. It was he who advised David Cameron last February on his unsuccessful renegotiations of Britain’s relationship with the EU, which failed to convince the British people to vote to remain in the union. It would have been better and less disruptive had he resigned in the wake of the referendum last June, along with the Prime Minister.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/mystery-sir-ivan-rogers-still-job/

[tomacht8]

13 minutes ago, aright said:

What experts? It helps to look at both sides of the coin

The only mystery about Sir Ivan Rogers is why he was still in his job

The Spectator

The wonder about Sir Ivan Rogers’s resignation as Britain’s ambassador to the EU is that he was still in the job. He may have possessed useful knowledge about the workings of the EU, but he was also heavily associated with a failed way of conducting negotiations with it. It was he who advised David Cameron last February on his unsuccessful renegotiations of Britain’s relationship with the EU, which failed to convince the British people to vote to remain in the union. It would have been better and less disruptive had he resigned in the wake of the referendum last June, along with the Prime Minister.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/mystery-sir-ivan-rogers-still-job/

Nice one.
Could you please give me a scientific source - of the same scientific level - where you think the author of a recent Brexit analysis is more correct, true, better.
Would be nice if you post a link from a scientific source (origin and intention should be verifiable, also vita from the author).
Blog ……….
is not enough!
In your link is not even an author named nor a date!!!
Is this an text from 2017/01 ?

Edited August 17, 2018 by tomacht8

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, Stupooey said:

So why not let the MPs, who were elected to represent these constituencies you care so dearly about, make the decision, seeing that you place so little faith in the popular vote.

They did and pulled the A50 trigger.

[aright]

6 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Nice one.
Could you please give me a scientific source - of the same scientific level - where you think the author of a recent Brexit analysis is more correct, true, better.
Would be nice if you post a link from a scientific source (origin and intention should be verifiable, also vita from the author).
Blog ……….
is not enough!
In your link is not even an author named!!!

No I can't give you a scientific source. Why do you prefer to think of his paper as having a scientific basis; to me it is conjecture , still valuable but no more so than conjecture from the opposing camp We are talking politics not science. If politics were an absolute science,I suspect most of our problems would have been solved by now. You say Rogers was a scientist...…...that doesn't qualify him to be a good politician in fact his qualification might not qualify him to be a good scientist either. Politics, philosophy and economics are the preferred subjects for people wanting a career in politics at preferably Oxford not science.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, david555 said:

ridiculous comparing , just like a cry baby who does not get the toy he like to have , you brexiteers have a hard skull seems to accept the leaving facts afterwards ,your way is not going to be as you like it ….you are free to do on yourself all you like , just only big 8 month's dont worry time go quick ...patience a little bit

Scoobie Doo.

[tomacht8]

1 minute ago, aright said:

No I can't give you a scientific source. Why do you prefer to think of his paper as having a scientific basis; to me it is conjecture , still valuable but no more so than conjecture from the opposing camp We are talking politics not science. If politics were an absolute science,I suspect most of our problems would have been solved by now. You say Rogers was a scientist...…...that doesn't qualify him to be a good politician in fact his qualification might not qualify him to be a good scientist either. Politics, philosophy and economics are the preferred subjects for people wanting a career in politics at preferably Oxford not science.

Understand.
What would you criticize the most on the text of Rogers?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, aright said:

Sounds like a reasonable analogy to me.  The only cry baby on this post is you. Whenever you disagree with anyone you don't address the issue or what they said  you just say ridiculous or similar and act like a big girls blouse. 

Speaking from experience of course! ?

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

You are ALL ‘economics’........ don’t you think the issues are deeper than that ?

 

Votes were not cast just on economics......yours might have been, did you vote?’

Yeah. All economics and no trousers.

[nauseus]

55 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Well that's a bit below the belt.
The text of Rogers is so far one of the best documents I could read in Anglo-Saxon.
He is a scientist, EU practitioner and has decades of experience in drafting trade agreements.
And all this coupled with the ability to explain a super complex situation in a generally understandable way.

If not even the people of the UK listen to their own experts, or at least read the content.
Where should this lead?

The pub.

[aright]

14 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

Understand.
What would you criticize the most on the text of Rogers?

Its difficult to criticize conjecture without using more conjecture. 

I have never said I don't respect him your comments to me were as a result of my poor attempt at humour.

I will however endorse one paragraph in his spiel because it accords with my own viewpoint. 

 

"I speak solely as one unaccountable individual, not elected to anything by anyone and with no aspiration ever to be. So my views are merely those of someone with, I hope, a bit of expertise, and a passionate interest in the future of my country."

[tebee]

"We will only sign up to deal that respects referendum result"

It’s worth considering (again) what this curious, but often stated assertion might mean. It would have been simplest (and smartest) to argue that the referendum provided a political mandate to leave but not to leave in any particular way.

 

Then we could have had a national debate about the different modes of leaving and their pros and cons.

 

But no. Instead the govt (and others) conflated their view of how to leave with the referendum result - ie the famous 3 red lines.

 

Unfortunately, this approach has a fatal flaw. A Canada style deal (it’s obvious implication) would be economically disruptive. And if we’re going to be prescriptive about what the referendum result meant it certainly didn’t mean, for many leave voters, economic disruption. In fact, they were promised the opposite.

 

And so the course was set for the failed policy of Brexit Third Wayism, represented by the tortuous contortions of Lancaster House, Mansion House and Chequers. The Chequers logic is interesting. EEA was rejected because it didn’t ‘respect’. Canada was rejected because of the Irish backstop (presumably that doesn’t ‘respect’ either. Conveniently, the Chequers deal, one assumes, does ‘respect’ though some people demon to think that it doesn’t (eg common rulebook etc).

 

We end up in the nonsensical and tactically inept position of eliminating most forms of deal as not ‘respecting’ (or, at least, not suitable) while advocating a deal that doesn’t work from the EU’s perspective, hence all the recent talk of No Deal. The implied message is, ‘We tried, really hard, but nothing available would have satisfied the referendum result, so we’re afraid there won’t be a deal.’

 

The logic of this, to use the Brexit parlance, is that all available deals are bad deals vs no deal, however this is also nonsense. Quite apart from the damage caused, if we’re going to be prescriptive about what the referendum meant, it certainly did not mean No Deal, and, furthermore, there is no political mandate for No Deal, certainly not after the govt has spent the last couple of years promising a good deal.

 

We’ve painted ourselves into a very small corner - there may by this point be paint on our shoes - where virtually all forms of deal either don’t ‘respect’, are otherwise unsuitable or not acceptable to the EU.

 

Ironically, a ‘Deal ex Machina’ aside, the logic of all this paint cornering is that the people will end up having to decide, again. 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, tebee said:

"We will only sign up to deal that respects referendum result"

It’s worth considering (again) what this curious, but often stated assertion might mean. It would have been simplest (and smartest) to argue that the referendum provided a political mandate to leave but not to leave in any particular way.

 

Then we could have had a national debate about the different modes of leaving and their pros and cons.

 

But no. Instead the govt (and others) conflated their view of how to leave with the referendum result - ie the famous 3 red lines.

 

Unfortunately, this approach has a fatal flaw. A Canada style deal (it’s obvious implication) would be economically disruptive. And if we’re going to be prescriptive about what the referendum result meant it certainly didn’t mean, for many leave voters, economic disruption. In fact, they were promised the opposite.

 

And so the course was set for the failed policy of Brexit Third Wayism, represented by the tortuous contortions of Lancaster House, Mansion House and Chequers. The Chequers logic is interesting. EEA was rejected because it didn’t ‘respect’. Canada was rejected because of the Irish backstop (presumably that doesn’t ‘respect’ either. Conveniently, the Chequers deal, one assumes, does ‘respect’ though some people demon to think that it doesn’t (eg common rulebook etc).

 

We end up in the nonsensical and tactically inept position of eliminating most forms of deal as not ‘respecting’ (or, at least, not suitable) while advocating a deal that doesn’t work from the EU’s perspective, hence all the recent talk of No Deal. The implied message is, ‘We tried, really hard, but nothing available would have satisfied the referendum result, so we’re afraid there won’t be a deal.’

 

The logic of this, to use the Brexit parlance, is that all available deals are bad deals vs no deal, however this is also nonsense. Quite apart from the damage caused, if we’re going to be prescriptive about what the referendum meant, it certainly did not mean No Deal, and, furthermore, there is no political mandate for No Deal, certainly not after the govt has spent the last couple of years promising a good deal.

 

We’ve painted ourselves into a very small corner - there may by this point be paint on our shoes - where virtually all forms of deal either don’t ‘respect’, are otherwise unsuitable or not acceptable to the EU.

 

Ironically, a ‘Deal ex Machina’ aside, the logic of all this paint cornering is that the people will end up having to decide, again. 

You must have sooo many sources.

[Jip99]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

The pub.

 

 

..... and as Mel Gibson would say,............................FREEDOM !

[tebee]

59 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You must have sooo many sources.

Yes and they are all tooo right!

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, citybiker said:

HMG & PMTM made it emphatically clear the the UK will leave the customs union & single market, there's plenty of media statements and interviews which support this.

 

Maybe you can show people where these statements and interviews are replicated in the Chequers agreement, or are you saying that the Chequers agreement is not the UK's current answer to brexit put forward to the EU.

You can interpret the "Common Rulebook" any way you want, but it is nothing more than an attempt by TM to keep one foot in the single market to try and resolve the Irish border problem.

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, tebee said:

Yes and they are all tooo right!

Another great cut n paste.

[sandyf]

The brexiteers soundbite "Project Fear" is about to rise up and bite them, would make a good sitcom if it wasn't so serious.

 

Theresa May will hope the breadth of the reports highlights the risks of a no-deal Brexit, as she attempt to convince both Tory Brexiteers and EU leaders to support the plan agreed by ministers at Chequers last month.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-no-deal-government-parliament-driving-licence-final-say-a8495936.html

[nong38]

13 hours ago, Stupooey said:

Very confused as what you are referring to here - there are 632 UK Parliamentary constituencies and 11 European Parliamentary constituencies, so I'm not sure where your figure of 382 comes from. Does it matter anyway - the referendum was not carried out on a constituency basis, and any attempt to allocate votes is at best an estimate?

Under the European Referendum Act of 2015 there were 382 constituencies over 12 regions. There were no candidates standing, you went to vote to remain or to leave. In 263 of these constituencies the Leave vote one and in 119 the remain vote one, in Parliamentary term it would probably be classed as a landslide but all we hear is that 52% to 48% is very close, In General Elections its the constituencies won that matters, the popular vote is not taken as that important, so on that basis the vote to leave really won a resounding victory.

[sandyf]

14 hours ago, Orac said:

 

 

Can’t see this having any legs to be honest.

From a legal standpoint the referendum was advisory - the actual trigger point for us leaving was parliaments vote to enact Art 50 so, in effect, the referendum result could be classed as bad advice but the responsibility still lies with parliament to make any legal change to the current situation.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

Quite right, but if it is ruled that parliament acted on information that was obtained unlawfully then there may be a requirement to take the vote again. Should that happen I think it very unlikely they would reverse the original decision.

Far more likely that parliament will be faced with a different vote on how to leave the EU.

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, nong38 said:

Under the European Referendum Act of 2015 there were 382 constituencies over 12 regions. There were no candidates standing, you went to vote to remain or to leave. In 263 of these constituencies the Leave vote one and in 119 the remain vote one, in Parliamentary term it would probably be classed as a landslide but all we hear is that 52% to 48% is very close, In General Elections its the constituencies won that matters, the popular vote is not taken as that important, so on that basis the vote to leave really won a resounding victory.

Which is basically a very good argument that in the UK decisions like this should be made by parliament not a referendum.

[billd766]

12 hours ago, oilinki said:

Aren't most of the immigrants coming to UK from the old UK colonies? I understood that UK has given the permission for people of old colonies to live in UK.

 

AFAIR very few if any come from old UK colonies which we gave back decades ago. They seem to be from northern Africa and around the Red Sea area. I have no link to prove it but only memories of a few years ago.

 

If the UK had given permission for them to enter they would not be illegals and would enter the UK by a legal route.

 

I did a quick Google search after I had posted originally and there are more links should anyone else care to check. These figures are from only 1 or 2 camps.

 

From Wikipedia and not necessarily 100% correct.

 

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

 

A July 2016 survey of the population of the "Calais Jungle" by Help Refugees counted 7,307 migrants, of which 761 were minors: the largest number to date. At that time, the population was increasing by an average of 50 people per day.[6] After the Brexit vote on 23 June 2016, the population had reportedly increased to nearly 10,000.[7]

An estimated 62 percent of the migrants are young men; the migrants' average age is 33.[8] The mix of nationalities has changed over time, with Kurdish Iraqis being the largest group initially,[9] but by 2014 many people had begun to arrive from the Horn of Africa and Sudan.[10] Many of the Kurdish Iraqis later moved to similar camps near Calais and Dunkirk.[9][11][12][13][14][15] Most of them do not speak French.[16]

 

From the Independent and also not necessarily 100% correct.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/calais-crisis-first-ever-quantitative-survey-in-the-jungle-reveals-thousands-of-refugees-still-a7041541.html

 

Of the 6,000 migrants estimated to be living in the Jungle and Jules Ferry Centre, the largest group were found to be from Sudan, at around a third, followed by Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Eritrea and Pakistan.

Around 95 per cent of respondents were men and the mean age was 25, with half of those questioned having completed secondary or further education.

A fifth gave their occupation as “student”, followed by traders, agricultural and construction workers, engineers or IT specialists, teachers and soldiers or police. 

Edited August 18, 2018 by billd766
added extra text

[kwilco]

I don't believe that thethe referendum is a vslid argument to change what is essentially a constitutional situation.

However let's be clear it was advisory only....whatI weyou need to know now ia the status of the next one....

If this time it is to be legally binding, then it should be based on a2 thirds majority

[kwilco]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

AFAIR very few if any come from old UK colonies which we gave back decades ago. They seem to be from northern Africa and around the Red Sea area. I have no link to prove it but only memories of a few years ago.

 

If the UK had given permission for them to enter they would not be illegals and would enter the UK by a legal route.

You seem to be confusing iimmigrants, refugees and permanent resettlers.....very few are illegal...and of course Britainsvobligations are hardly affected at by the EU as they are by international world or UN treaties....

Edited August 18, 2018 by kwilco

[kwilco]

20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

AFAIR very few if any come from old UK colonies which we gave back decades ago. They seem to be from northern Africa and around the Red Sea area. I have no link to prove it but only memories of a few years ago.

 

If the UK had given permission for them to enter they would not be illegals and would enter the UK by a legal route.

 

I did a quick Google search after I had posted originally and there are more links should anyone else care to check. These figures are from only 1 or 2 camps.

 

From Wikipedia and not necessarily 100% correct.

 

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

 

A July 2016 survey of the population of the "Calais Jungle" by Help Refugees counted 7,307 migrants, of which 761 were minors: the largest number to date. At that time, the population was increasing by an average of 50 people per day.[6] After the Brexit vote on 23 June 2016, the population had reportedly increased to nearly 10,000.[7]

An estimated 62 percent of the migrants are young men; the migrants' average age is 33.[8] The mix of nationalities has changed over time, with Kurdish Iraqis being the largest group initially,[9] but by 2014 many people had begun to arrive from the Horn of Africa and Sudan.[10] Many of the Kurdish Iraqis later moved to similar camps near Calais and Dunkirk.[9][11][12][13][14][15] Most of them do not speak French.[16]

 

From the Independent and also not necessarily 100% correct.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/calais-crisis-first-ever-quantitative-survey-in-the-jungle-reveals-thousands-of-refugees-still-a7041541.html

 

Of the 6,000 migrants estimated to be living in the Jungle and Jules Ferry Centre, the largest group were found to be from Sudan, at around a third, followed by Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Eritrea and Pakistan.

Around 95 per cent of respondents were men and the mean age was 25, with half of those questioned having completed secondary or further education.

A fifth gave their occupation as “student”, followed by traders, agricultural and construction workers, engineers or IT specialists, teachers and soldiers or police. 

All countries that Britain has either had a militday presence in or colonised tothe some degree.......doI you see a pattern emerging?

[stephenterry]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

The brexiteers soundbite "Project Fear" is about to rise up and bite them, would make a good sitcom if it wasn't so serious.

 

Theresa May will hope the breadth of the reports highlights the risks of a no-deal Brexit, as she attempt to convince both Tory Brexiteers and EU leaders to support the plan agreed by ministers at Chequers last month.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-no-deal-government-parliament-driving-licence-final-say-a8495936.html

Far better of her to heed legal advice in that the Article 50 notification can be withdrawn by government before 29th March 2019. It is continued intransigence by the PM not to accept her plans are failing, and to seek a better route for the UK populus. For her, it's all about the Tory party not the people who voted them in - and who will vote her out in due course.

 

Quote from Nick Clegg (10 months ago) :“As countless EU leaders have said in private and in public – most recently [French] President Macron – there remains a route back for the UK into a reformed EU. This does not mean simply turning the clock back to the day before the referendum, but forging a new status for the UK in an outer circle of EU membership as the core countries proceed with deeper integration.”

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Which is basically a very good argument that in the UK decisions like this should be made by parliament not a referendum.

Yes, especially if you don't like the result of the referendum.

[dick dasterdly]

4 hours ago, nong38 said:

Under the European Referendum Act of 2015 there were 382 constituencies over 12 regions. There were no candidates standing, you went to vote to remain or to leave. In 263 of these constituencies the Leave vote one and in 119 the remain vote one, in Parliamentary term it would probably be classed as a landslide but all we hear is that 52% to 48% is very close, In General Elections its the constituencies won that matters, the popular vote is not taken as that important, so on that basis the vote to leave really won a resounding victory.

 

Just now, stephenterry said:

Far better of her to heed legal advice in that the Article 50 notification can be withdrawn by government before 29th March 2019. It is continued intransigence by the PM not to accept her plans are failing, and to seek a better route for the UK populus. For her, it's all about the Tory party not the people who voted them in - and who will vote her out in due course.

 

Quote from Nick Clegg (10 months ago) :“As countless EU leaders have said in private and in public – most recently [French] President Macron – there remains a route back for the UK into a reformed EU. This does not mean simply turning the clock back to the day before the referendum, but forging a new status for the UK in an outer circle of EU membership as the core countries proceed with deeper integration.”

As 263 constituencies voted brexit (compared to 119 voting to remain) - I am pretty sure that the majority of MPs are very aware that they could well lose their seats at the next GE if they support any govt. motion to withdraw the article 50 notification!

 

Which, presumably, is precisely why MPs voted to enact article 50 in the first place - even though the vast majority supported remain!

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

I don't believe that thethe referendum is a vslid argument to change what is essentially a constitutional situation.

However let's be clear it was advisory only....whatI weyou need to know now ia the status of the next one....

If this time it is to be legally binding, then it should be based on a2 thirds majority

Regretably, kwilco, the referendum header included a proviso the the government would act on the result.  As to holding another referendum , the result will be as close as last time, mostly because people do not readily change their minds, and unfortunately couldn't be bothered to understand the implications. 

 

The typical 'leaving' voter, based on information garnered  at constituencies voting centres, would be uneducated and unemployed in a depressed area north of the Watford gap, and facing being usurped by EU immigrants for any low-paid menial work. Standard response, 'leaving must be better than what we have now'. Similarly, at run-down housing estates outside major cities where working-class housewives and their families 'mistrust anything European.

 

Absolutely nothing to do with regaining our sovereignty, or freeing everyone from the repressive ECJ, or even about EU civil servants living the high-life on tax-free expenses, bearing in mind that 80% of the EU budget gets returned to the member countries to 'waste' on internal country projects, like building a new runway at Bristol docks or filling the pension pots of their own civil servants.