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

[tebee]

11 minutes ago, rixalex said:

......And that is what the government promised.

...
 

 

So you trust politicians promises ? 

 

 

12 minutes ago, rixalex said:

...

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.

 

 

They don't need to say that. It's implied by the system of democracy we live under in this country. 

[Stupooey]

30 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

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
 

Are you the Ivor Bigun of 'I'm a Winker' (misprint) fame, by any chance?

[ivor bigun]

Are you the Ivor Bigun of 'I'm a Winker' (misprint) fame, by any chance?

No i get lots of the real thing ,dont need to "wink" (misprint)

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

[rixalex]

 
They don't need to say that. It's implied by the system of democracy we live under in this country. 

Deary me. What a tangled web we weave.

Bet you never thought you'd see the day when you'd be defending the right for politicians to be duplicitous. Or maybe you did...

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

[tebee]

1 minute ago, rixalex said:

Deary me. What a tangled web we weave.

Bet you never thought you'd see the day when you'd be defending the right for politicians to be duplicitous. Or maybe you did...

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

It's not being duplicitous - it is their duty to do what they think is best  for their constituents, even if that differs from  the expressed preferences of those  constituents. This is how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

 

If anything it's Cameron who was duplicitous when he promised the referendum result would be implemented. 

 

Just supposing we get near the art 50 date and by then it has become obvious to all and sundry that it's going to be a disaster - Would you seriously expect any politician with an ounce of self preservation to turn to the masses and say " you voted for this, it's going to make you poor and unemployed, but  I'm giving to you anyway, because of what my predecessor promised"

[Stupooey]

24 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

No i get lots of the real thing ,dont need to "wink" (misprint)

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

Ah well, a nod's as good as a wink (misprint) to a blind horse, as the saying goes.

[Stupooey]

1 hour ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

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

 

Where have I heard that before? Lisbon treaty anyone? 

I'm amazed that people keep bringing up the Irish referenda on the Lisbon Treaty. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, they are a classic example of  a referendum result which was not a true reflection of the wishes of the people (due to ignorance of what they were voting for) being overturned massively by a further vote once this ignorance had been addressed. Certain parallels with the current situation, wouldn't you think?

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, tebee said:

 

So you trust politicians promises ? 

 

 

 

They don't need to say that. It's implied by the system of democracy we live under in this country. 

NOBODY trusts politicians promises ?!

 

BUT when they call a referendum (something that has rarely happened)/send a leaflet to every household encouraging everyone to vote 'remain' - but also stating that they 'promise to honour the result of the referendum and to implement the decision' - they know it's FAR more difficult to 'back out'!

 

Which (IMO) is precisely why the govt. was forced into the position of activating article 50 - even though the vast majority of MPs supported the remain cause.

 

If votes had been counted in line with GEs - the leave vote would have been even 'stronger'.....  MPs aren't entirely stupid, and knew that many/most were in serious trouble of losing their 'seats' if they had voted against activating article 50.

[aright]

3 hours ago, tebee said:

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.  

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

 

So if 80% of his constituents want plan A and he prefers and votes for plan B the majority(80%) haven't been represented have they. Is that what you call representative government?

Why as a constituent would anyone think the MP 's opinion is more valuable than their own?  

Edited August 23, 2018 by aright

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

38 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

I'm amazed that people keep bringing up the Irish referenda on the Lisbon Treaty. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, they are a classic example of  a referendum result which was not a true reflection of the wishes of the people (due to ignorance of what they were voting for) being overturned massively by a further vote once this ignorance had been addressed. Certain parallels with the current situation, wouldn't you think?

I'd say if you believe the above statement, then that tells me everything I need to know, really. I won't enter in to debate with you any further. 

 

'overturned massively by a further vote once this ignorance had been addressed' - translates into 'didn't make the right decision the first time around so the referendum question was dressed up to become more appealing, thus duping a larger enough percentage of the electorate'.

 

Most importantly, how have Ireland fared in the EEA? Celtic Tiger, hmmm...I'm not so sure that name fits these days. The more pertinent headline for me was: 'Exodus of over 500,000 people under the age of 35...' largely to seek work abroad, particularly in English speaking countries that are part of the commonwealth like AUS/NZ. 

 

Again, I'm not blaming all of Ireland's problems on the EEA, Ireland has plenty of domestic problems as does the UK. For me the point you're trying to make above is totally erroneous. The EEA is no different to any other big faceless bureaucracy. It doesn't give a toss for the people of the constituent nations now (if it ever did?), it is there to serve big business, donors/backers and the upper echelons of its power structure - just like nearly any other federation/large bureaucracy.  Why does anyone think it is a project for the people by the people when the decision makers in power in the commission and presidency are unelected and answer to no one, and when it has time and again been shown to ignore the wishes of the people of the countries it supposedly represents. 20 years down the line it will most likely be dead anyway, so hey, we're just pushing the first brick out of the wall.

Edited August 23, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

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.

 

Not according to the action being taken by the government.

 

"Yesterday, (July 24th) both the UK and the EU filed documents in Geneva outlining the terms they will use to trade with the rest of the world after Brexit - and the two submissions are fundamentally different."

"It needs to have that(Schedule) if it's going to strike trade deals. And the way that its approach is different from that of the EU is the UK wants to replicate its current trade WTO commitments(EU Schedule) by making just a few technical changes and then submitting it to the WTO for certification."

"He continued: "The rest of the WTO membership now have 90 days to raise their objections. As WTO members, everyone has a right to say whether their trade would be affected. I'm told several major countries are already planning to object to the UK's approach."

"All of this means that if and when they object and ask for a better deal, Britain will be simultaneously be negotiating a trade deal with the EU and the WTO."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/experts-explanation-trading-wto-rules-means/

 

In a nutshell the government wants to effectively retain the EU schedule so existing tariff levels would remain in place.

It is effectively 30 days since the documents were filed so another 2 months before we know how difficult the WTO option will be. Every chance that Nov will see the 11th hour, UK remaining in the SM under some guise of being out.

Edited August 23, 2018 by sandyf

[candide]

32 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

when the decision makers in power in the commission and presidency are unelected and answer to no one

They are not the decision makers.

[Henryford]

We decided 2 years ago, accept it Remoaners.

[sandyf]

5 minutes ago, Henryford said:

We decided 2 years ago, accept it Remoaners.

Yes, a decision based on a ballot paper, anything else means as much as the big red bus, that is what should be accepted by one and all.

[welovesundaysatspace]

9 minutes ago, Henryford said:

We decided 2 years ago, accept it Remoaners.

Everyone is accepting it. But people won’t give up. Accept that. 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Yes, a decision based on a ballot paper, anything else means as much as the big red bus, that is what should be accepted by one and all.

Spoken like a true democrat! 

[dick dasterdly]

5 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Yes, a decision based on a ballot paper, anything else means as much as the big red bus, that is what should be accepted by one and all.

The referendum result was based on ballot paper votes, and yet many are still trying to overturn the result - so I'm not sure of your point?

[sandyf]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

The referendum result was based on ballot paper votes, and yet many are still trying to overturn the result - so I'm not sure of your point?

I have seen very few proposing to overturn the result. The majority of the discussion has been on how to implement the result of the ballot paper in a sensible manner.

Leaving the EU(as per the vote) and remaining party to the SM I believe would be acceptable to the majority of the population.

[dick dasterdly]

10 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Everyone is accepting it. But people won’t give up. Accept that. 

And quite right too, as that is democracy in action.

 

But the democratic referendum resulted in a majority 'leave' result.

 

Consequently, I have zero 'time' for those advocating (not to mention spending vast sums of money - obviously only those that have the money to do so....) trying to overturn that democratic vote.

 

If/when brexit actually happens, then yes - fair enough, start a party to campaign to rejoin.  It took the rise of UKIP to force a referendum to leave, and I'd have no problem at all with remainers pursuing the same path.  Again, it would be democracy in action.

[sandyf]

To the average brexiteer, standards mean very little, just more EU bureaucracy. 

 

CE marking is followed by several non-EU European countries to demonstrate that certain products are safe to be placed in local markets. The UK has benefited from mutual recognition agreements between the EU and ‘third countries’, such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, USA and Israel. The EU has led the world in many ways on product safety and quality and CE marking has driven up standards outside of the EU. At a time when global supply chains and international markets are becoming essential, the UK will be at a disadvantage if it was to move away from such EU legislation that is now a leading global standard.

https://www.theiabm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/TechUK-Position-Paper-CE-marking-good-for-consumers-and-business.pdf

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, sandyf said:

I have seen very few proposing to overturn the result. The majority of the discussion has been on how to implement the result of the ballot paper in a sensible manner.

Leaving the EU(as per the vote) and remaining party to the SM I believe would be acceptable to the majority of the population.

Really?

 

You've missed all the 'the referendum was only advisory/can be overturned by govt/another referendum is required as the electorate has changed it's mind' comments?

[sandyf]

27 minutes ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

Spoken like a true democrat! 

Of course, we live in a parliamentary democracy and governed by the rule of law, something brexiteers want to ignore.

[sandyf]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Really?

 

You've missed all the 'the referendum was only advisory/can be overturned by govt/another referendum is required as the electorate has changed it's mind' comments?

Taken out of context. The majority of comments were in response to pedantic views by leavers. The talk of a new referendum is based on how to leave the EU, not an attempt to overturn as is being made out.

About a week ago the Norway option was mentioned and most of the remainers on the forum seemed to be in favour.

There has been several different arguments at cross purposes which have muddied the waters.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, sandyf said:

Of course, we live in a parliamentary democracy and governed by the rule of law, something brexiteers want to ignore.

Except parliament consists of MPs, that are only voted in by their constituents....

 

How many MPs do you think genuinely stand for idealistic beliefs (as opposed to self-serving....) - and therefore likely to put anything ahead of their own interests?

 

It needs to be remembered that the vast majority of constituencies voted to leave, even though their MPs supported remain....

 

Hence the ratification in parliament of article 50....

[tebee]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

....

 

Which (IMO) is precisely why the govt. was forced into the position of activating article 50 - even though the vast majority of MPs supported the remain cause.

 

If votes had been counted in line with GEs - the leave vote would have been even 'stronger'.....  MPs aren't entirely stupid, and knew that many/most were in serious trouble of losing their 'seats' if they had voted against activating article 50.

Yes, but that flag-waving early invocation of art 50 without a plan may be the very undoing of Brexit.

 

We are still now without a plan 18 months later and it's becoming more likely every day that the only brexit available to us will be a disastrous no deal one. Politicians will be faced with the choice of facing the wrath of half the country   if they back out of it at the last minute or the wrath of most of the country if we brexit into chaos. My guess is they will chose the former.

 

If we had stopped, thought about our options  and come up with a sensible plan first, maybe something some of the remainers could have got behind, we might have be able to successfully brexit.  But no, they chose to ride the patriotic tiger,  which now threatens to devour them. Kama. 

 

Time is running out.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

The referendum result was based on ballot paper votes, and yet many are still trying to overturn the result - so I'm not sure of your point?

No one is trying to overturn it. People just moved on and campaign for the next vote. That’s how democracy goes. 

[melvinmelvin]

37 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Taken out of context. The majority of comments were in response to pedantic views by leavers. The talk of a new referendum is based on how to leave the EU, not an attempt to overturn as is being made out.

About a week ago the Norway option was mentioned and most of the remainers on the forum seemed to be in favour.

There has been several different arguments at cross purposes which have muddied the waters.

? Please keep UK way outside of EFTA/EEA, not desirable.

 

UK should look at the Swiss approach- would also suit the uk better

 

 

otherwise, totally agree with what you say about schedules/profiles in OMC/wto, high time the UK starts to work on this,

it takes time.

I said many pages and threads ago that it ain't sure that the OMC/wto gang will accept UK just dressing up with the EU clothes

 

[BwindiBoy]

5 hours ago, tebee said:

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

We'll, that's the Ying and the Yang of it ? 

[vogie]

I heard a new brexit expression on the news earlier on, apparently if there is a no deal, politicians are looking to do a 'No Deal...Deal. ??

[rixalex]

It's not being duplicitous - it is their duty to do what they think is best  for their constituents, even if that differs from  the expressed preferences of those  constituents. This is how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
 
If anything it's Cameron who was duplicitous when he promised the referendum result would be implemented. 
 
Just supposing we get near the art 50 date and by then it has become obvious to all and sundry that it's going to be a disaster - Would you seriously expect any politician with an ounce of self preservation to turn to the masses and say " you voted for this, it's going to make you poor and unemployed, but  I'm giving to you anyway, because of what my predecessor promised"

The premise of your argument falls down when you say about, "if it becomes obvious to all and sundry as being a disaster". That's the thing. Nobody knows what the long term future prospects will be like whether we stay in or leave. It's an unknown. Of course people make predictions but predictions can and often are wrong.

We won't know what things are like until we get there.

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