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

[tebee]

7 hours ago, adammike said:

It was advisory untill the house of commons voted by a big majority to pass a law that made the  "leaving the EU bill" the law.

Equally then, they can vote to repeal that bill !

[My Thai Life]

8 hours ago, tebee said:

Anyone who knows how British democracy works  would know referendums have to be advisory, as parliament is supreme under our constitution.

 

And if you think we can change that constitution by sending out a leaflet then I don't think our democracy is worth fighting for.    

Tebee. It's fairly clear that this particular point is a non-issue for the vast majority of British politicians and the British electorate. And you are  wrongly attributing thoughts to me. I uploaded an image of the Gov't's promise to honour the result of the referendum and to implement the "decision". You may think that's a worthless promise, but clearly millions of people do not. Since then the bill has been passed and A50 has been triggered.

 

I actually agree with many of the comments you have made on this thread. The big difference between you and me is that I accept the result of the referendum and you don't. I also accept your wish to try and change the result, but I don't think you're going to succeed. I think any serious attempt to do so would create a political, legal, constitutional and operational nightmare. 

Edited August 23, 2018 by My Thai Life

[kwilco]

10 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Tebee. It's fairly clear that this particular point is a non-issue for the vast majority of British politicians and the British electorate. And you are  wrongly attributing thoughts to me. I uploaded an image of the Gov't's promise to honour the result of the referendum and to implement the "decision". You may think that's a worthless promise, but clearly millions of people do not. Since then the bill has been passed and A50 has been triggered.

 

I actually agree with many of the comments you have made on this thread. The big difference between you and me is that I accept the result of the referendum and you don't. I also accept your wish to try and change the result, but I don't think you're going to succeed. I think any serious attempt to do so would create a political, legal, constitutional and operational nightmare. 

The referendum has already created a " a political, legal, constitutional and operational nightmare. "

[kwilco]

9 hours ago, adammike said:

It was advisory untill the house of commons voted by a big majority to pass a law that made the  "leaving the EU bill" the law.

Really? Which bill was that? You don't know do you?

The truth is it is the right of  any democratic country to change their mind

 

 

[My Thai Life]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The referendum has already created a " a political, legal, constitutional and operational nightmare. "

Nah, this is just a pleasant daydream compared to what would happen if there was a serious attempt to overturn the referendum.

 

From The Guardian.

 

"A second referendum on Brexit could lead to social unrest and embolden the extreme right, a member of Labour’s shadow cabinet has said."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/21/labour-mp-says-second-brexit-vote-could-lead-to-social-unrest

 

 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Nah, this is just a pleasant daydream compared to what would happen if there was a serious attempt to overturn the referendum.

 

From The Guardian.

 

"A second referendum on Brexit could lead to social unrest and embolden the extreme right, a member of Labour’s shadow cabinet has said."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/21/labour-mp-says-second-brexit-vote-could-lead-to-social-unrest

 

 

Yes, let's not do anything that might embolden the extreme right. God forbid that they might be upset.

[welovesundaysatspace]

51 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 

From The Guardian.

No. It’s from a member of Labour’s shadow cabinet.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

You may think that's a worthless promise, but clearly millions of people do not.

It would be interesting to know whether that’s true or not. That would require another referendum though. 

 

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

The big difference between you and me is that I accept the result of the referendum and you don't.

Why do so many Brexit supporters confuse accepting with giving up? I think everyone is accepting the referendum result as a matter of fact. But why should the democratic process end with that and remainers being forced to give up their cause? Th result doesn’t change the cause and the arguments. Imagine gay people accepting being gay is illegal when the laws said so and the courts ruled so.

[rixalex]

It doesn't - all referendums are advisory in the UK .
 
I may be politically expedient to implement though, but if it's going to be a disaster it may be equally politically expedient not  to implement 

We've already been down this "advisory" road many times before. MPs are there to represent the people. The MPs voted in favour of a referendum to let the people decide and promised to carry out the result.

Now yes, technically speaking the MPs could backtrack on that promise and ignore the result of the vote, in much the same way as the Queen could read a bill send to her from Parliament and decide to not sign it into law, but the ramifications would be disastrous, particularly long term.

Not everything within an advanced democratic system is explicitly spelt out. It comes down to people following the spirit of democracy. What you support and argue for throws that spirit out the window.

Who knows, you may get your way. There are enough MPs who would love to do what you propose, if only they could cunningly do it in such a way as it looks like it was none of their doing. That's what a lot of them have been expending all their energy on over the last two years, and that's one of the reasons why Brexit is proving so difficult.

If you are trying to row your boat forwards towards land but half the crew, everyone at the back of the boat, is furiously rowing away from shore while at the same time grumbling and moaning about how long it's taking to get to anywhere, it's time that half of the crew did everyone a favour and jumped overboard.

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

[stevenl]

" Now yes, technically speaking the MPs could backtrack on that promise and ignore the result of the vote, in much the same way as the Queen could read a bill send to her from Parliament and decide to not sign it into law, but the ramifications would be disastrous, particularly long term. "

And the ramifications of Brexit are not disastrous, particularly long term. ?

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

12 hours ago, Grouse said:

0.4% of GDP for the benefits received is not excessive

OK, is 34 billion euros?

[vogie]

34 minutes ago, stevenl said:

" Now yes, technically speaking the MPs could backtrack on that promise and ignore the result of the vote, in much the same way as the Queen could read a bill send to her from Parliament and decide to not sign it into law, but the ramifications would be disastrous, particularly long term. "

And the ramifications of Brexit are not disastrous, particularly long term. ?

Ah, I see you are clairvoyant, you are very lucky to born with such a gift, now put it to good use and stop spreading alarm and desponcency.?

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

22 hours ago, rixalex said:

You're right, an easy and prosperous Brexit didn't exist (I don't think any voter was naive enough to believe it would be easy or would result in instant prosperity); however, an EASIER Brexit DID exist. It didn't have to be THIS difficult. If everyone had accepted the result and got on with delivering it, as was promised prior to the vote, the country wouldn't be in the mess that it is, having spent two years getting nowhere fast.

It would have also been much EASIER had the person leading the country been a passionate supporter of Brexit who believed in what they were trying to achieve. Had remain won it's unthinkable to imagine a leave supporter succeeding Cameron. It would never have happened. May was therefore completely the wrong choice, and not just because she's a remainer, but because she has all the charm and charisma of a common warthog, at a time when the country most needed a talisman (or taliswoman).

So much of the blame for the difficult Brexit lies not with Brexit itself, but with the Tories who have made a hash of it. It also lies with remainers in the establishment at large who spend all their time and effort putting obstacles in the way of a successful Brexit and generally trying to derail it, and then sagely and smugly declare, "see, we told you how difficult Brexit would be".

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

Well said, my thoughts exactly.

[tebee]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

We've already been down this "advisory" road many times before. MPs are there to represent the people. The MPs voted in favour of a referendum to let the people decide and promised to carry out the result.

......
 

Once again you are misunderstanding how a representative democracy works. The representatives act as thinking individuals(hard as it is to imagine some MPs in this role) not as mere pawns of their electorate. 

 

Their role is to do what is best for their constituents, not what the constituents want. 

 

There is a political imperative to follow the constituents wishes,but nothing more. If they feel the constituents views have changed since the referendum or the term for leaving are so dire as to adversely affect the constituents, they could quite legitimately abandon plans to leave.  

[stevenl]

52 minutes ago, vogie said:

Ah, I see you are clairvoyant, you are very lucky to born with such a gift, now put it to good use and stop spreading alarm and desponcency.?

So somebody posts ramifications are disastrous, I don't agree so I must be the clairvoyant one. Why not question the person that made the original post? Unless of course you agree with that poster, so you're clairvoyant yourself.

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Hahaha! Yep, definitely a paid up shill, my guess is 'sandyf's' real moniker would appear on Soros' payroll.

 

I can only assume that you think that is constructive support on your brexit position.

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

The referendum in 2016 was one about being for in or out....nothing about trade deals or soft brexit etc. which is just what the remoaners are trying to attach it all to in desperation. Many current politicians (from all parties) are traitors and a couple of generations ago would have been arrested for treason due to denying the will of the people.

 

And where would the current will of the people fit into that scenario.

 

One can only assume that if you had a test for diabetes that was ok, you wouldn't see the need for any subsequent testing.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

OK, is 34 billion euros?

GBP 8.6 B net contribution in 2016

 

GDP for 2016 was 2,619 B

 

so 0.32%

 

 

[My Thai Life]

Yesterday there was a bit of talk about tariffs post-brexit, and a quote from a supermarket exec saying the tariff for cheese imports to the UK would be 44%.

 

As far as I can make out, the exec is assuming that in a “no deal” scenario without a replacement free trade agreement, WTO rules will require the UK to take the current tariffs which the EU at present forces us to impose on imports from the rest of the world, and impose them on imports from the EU as well.

 

This is simply not the case, UK tariffs can be lower than the current EU tariffs or zero if we want.

 

It’s a long time since I studied International Trade, Tariffs and Finance on my Master’s and it’s not an area that I’ve specialised in since then, but the more I look into it, the more it seems that a “no deal” will be quite workable, and in some situations preferable economically.

 

It will also mean that we will be free to use the UK’s “divorce settlement” in negotiations much effectively than we are at present. And it would also render an interim period unnecessary.

 

So this has been quite an eye opener for me. I didn’t get a vote as I’ve been an expat so long. But I’ve maintained that, had I voted, it would have been Leave for Politics, and Remain for Economics.

 

Although there is a good economics case for remain, and this what the MSM usually hammers on about. There are plenty of good economic reasons for leave too.

Edited August 23, 2018 by My Thai Life

[Stupooey]

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Nah, this is just a pleasant daydream compared to what would happen if there was a serious attempt to overturn the referendum.

 

From The Guardian.

 

"A second referendum on Brexit could lead to social unrest and embolden the extreme right, a member of Labour’s shadow cabinet has said."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/21/labour-mp-says-second-brexit-vote-could-lead-to-social-unrest

 

 

You keep telling us you are neutral in this matter, but your thinking and logic are pure Brexiteer. In this instance you reference one person's opinion as to what could happen and use it to justify your own opinion of what would happen.

[BwindiBoy]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

" Now yes, technically speaking the MPs could backtrack on that promise and ignore the result of the vote, in much the same way as the Queen could read a bill send to her from Parliament and decide to not sign it into law, but the ramifications would be disastrous, particularly long term. "

And the ramifications of Brexit are not disastrous, particularly long term. ?

Nope. Let's discuss it in 11 years and see, since I voted Brexit anticipating it might take as long as 10 years before we notice improvements.

[Stupooey]

18 minutes ago, BwindiBoy said:

Nope. Let's discuss it in 11 years and see, since I voted Brexit anticipating it might take as long as 10 years before we notice improvements.

I wonder if the over 65's voted Brexit for the same reason.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

GBP 8.6 B net contribution in 2016

 

GDP for 2016 was 2,619 B

 

so 0.32%

 

 

The 34b figure is what is being touted as our payment to the EU on (and after) divorcing from them next year. Not related to historic contributions in 2016. The point is, isn't it unreasonable for the EU to expect us to pay a sum as huge as 34b euros (or more) once we have left (fingers x'd) next March? Payment into schemes like CAP, Foreign Aid funds and The 'cohesion' fund ?, which make up a large percentage of the overall payments, why would we be required to continue paying those - it shouldn't even be considered by any UK government, even one as obviously weak and split as the current one. Schemes like the Erasmus exchange etc. are a different story, but the 'big ticket' item payments we should unequivocally eschew. It's scandalous. And to think we had staunch remainers echoing the sentiments of Barnier et al, that leaving would be 'a snip' only to then be served with a bill (yet to be finalised) that may exceed 30+ billion euros. If you didn't laugh you'd cry.

Edited August 23, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[ivor bigun]

When we leave,will this thread stop?

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tebee]

'Leaving - It’s a bloody disaster. It’s like separating Siamese twins, often one dies and it won’t be Europe.'

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

2 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

When we leave,will this thread stop?

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Let's hope so! My fingers are red raw. ? 

[rixalex]

Once again you are misunderstanding how a representative democracy works. The representatives act as thinking individuals(hard as it is to imagine some MPs in this role) not as mere pawns of their electorate. 
 
Their role is to do what is best for their constituents, not what the constituents want. 
 
There is a political imperative to follow the constituents wishes,but nothing more. If they feel the constituents views have changed since the referendum or the term for leaving are so dire as to adversely affect the constituents, they could quite legitimately abandon plans to leave.  

What you say is true for the most part, but with regards the EU referendum, just as in the case of the Scottish Independence referendum, and referendums in general, the politicians take the decision, as agreed by a democratic Parliamentary vote, to hand the decision over directly to the people. And that is what we were told countless times was happening, prior to the vote. And that is what the government promised.

If what the government meant to say was, "We are turning the decision over to you. We'll do as you instruct. Unless we decide your decision was wrong. In which case we'll simply ignore the vote and make our own decision", then that is what they should have said. They didn't.

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

[Stupooey]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

 

Who knows, you may get your way. There are enough MPs who would love to do what you propose, if only they could cunningly do it in such a way as it looks like it was none of their doing. That's what a lot of them have been expending all their energy on over the last two years, and that's one of the reasons why Brexit is proving so difficult.

 

 

I think you'll find that the reson Brexit is proving so difficult is far more down to the vagaries of the UK electorate - don't you just love 'em? When May called an election with the express purpose of obtaining a stronger mandate for the Brexit negotiations, she got just the opposite. This in itself should have set alarm bells ringing, that the referendum result did not truly represent the wishes of the people (as has been demonstrated by almost every survey since).

The one positive of the 2017 Election is that it ushered in a new Government, with no obligation to implement the promises or mistakes of a previous one.

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

2 minutes ago, rixalex said:

We'll do as you instruct. Unless we decide your decision was wrong. In which case we'll simply ignore the vote and make our own decision

or....we'll make you vote again, until we get the answer we want.

 

Where have I heard that before? Lisbon treaty anyone? 

[ivor bigun]

'Leaving - It’s a bloody disaster. It’s like separating Siamese twins, often one dies and it won’t be Europe.'

Most of it is already dead,Germany and its French poodle can give it the kiss of life.lol

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app