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

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Is that the 2016 will, or the 2018 will, which would appear to be somewhat different?

Oh, the cowardly lot that worry about their iPhone charger packing up...

[tebee]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

From the BBC news website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45385421

May vows no compromise with EU on Brexit plan

 

Ok, what about the compromises needed to get the rest of her own party to accept it ?

 

I still can't see that plan going anywhere...

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

From the BBC news website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45385421

 

interesting read

 

a question to you guys that know uk politicians;

this nick bole -mp -former minister chap; is he mostly daft and living in a world of his own ?

or up and going like any average uk mp?

 

I have asked this before;

 

it is not clear to me what a no deal brexit actually means,

no cu no sm no 4 freedoms , wto, I understand

 

but what about all the other areas that keep uk running

air traf

road traf

marin traf

rail traf

coop;

border checks

spooks

police

rnss

research

medical stuff

etc

etc

 

the list is VERY long

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

7 minutes ago, tebee said:

May vows no compromise with EU on Brexit plan

 

Ok, what about the compromises needed to get the rest of her own party to accept it ?

 

I still can't see that plan going anywhere...

yes, I also noted that,

a pretty awful way of starting final difficult negotiations, but very typical of UK

 

sounds a bit like the no no no no no lady in her haydays

 

 

[Grouse]

May will dig her heels in and then leave them stuck in the mud to put on another new pair with different red lines.

[tebee]

35 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

interesting read

 

a question to you guys that know uk politicians;

this nick bole -mp -former minister chap; is he mostly daft and living in a world of his own ?

or up and going like any average uk mp?

 

I have asked this before;

 

it is not clear to me what a no deal brexit actually means,

no cu no sm no 4 freedoms , wto, I understand

 

but what about all the other areas that keep uk running

air traf

road traf

marin traf

rail traf

coop;

border checks

spooks

police

rnss

research

medical stuff

etc

etc

 

the list is VERY long

 

 

No deal = no deal on anything 

 

No transition !

 

There is a possibility of No deal + deal  = No deal + separate deals on all or some of the above, but I don't see there being time to negotiate this.

[bristolboy]

50 minutes ago, tebee said:

May vows no compromise with EU on Brexit plan

 

Ok, what about the compromises needed to get the rest of her own party to accept it ?

 

I still can't see that plan going anywhere...

If the BBC précis of the article is to be believed what she said doesn't actually coincide with the headline:

 

"Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister says she will "not be pushed" into compromises on her Chequers agreement that are not in the "national interest"."

 

That leaves lots of wiggle room.

 

Edited September 2, 2018 by bristolboy

[aright]

49 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Is that the 2016 will, or the 2018 will, which would appear to be somewhat different?

The 2016 will was written in stone. The 2018 will is only arguable and only mooted by the people who won't accept the democratic will of the people in 2016, and the overwhelming voice of Parliament in triggering Article 50 or come to think of it Mrs May's declaration "There will be no Second Referendum"

 

 

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

16 minutes ago, tebee said:

No deal = no deal on anything 

 

No transition !

 

There is a possibility of No deal + deal  = No deal + separate deals on all or some of the above, but I don't see there being time to negotiate this.

 

if that is so,

in case no deal exit - 1.st April next year will bring some hefty surprises

 

[tebee]

23 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

if that is so,

in case no deal exit - 1.st April next year will bring some hefty surprises

 

 

 

Yes it's going to be ......interesting? isn't it...

[aright]

6 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

 

Yes it's going to be ......interesting? isn't it...

For both sides!

[Henryford]

Of course there will be a deal. Quisling May has already sold us out. She will agree to anything Merkel wants.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Henryford

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

Is that the 2016 will, or the 2018 will, which would appear to be somewhat different?

That is for EVERY election that is held in the UK.

 

Unless of course YOU know differently. For you to know differently there needs to be a poll.

 

Who will conduct the poll?

What will the questions be?

Who will select the questions?

How big a sample will there be? 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000?

How much will it cost and who will pay for it?

Do you think there should be a poll on EVERY decision that parliament makes?

 

Nobody has any real idea what ALL of the people in the UK want but that is why there are general elections every 5 yeaars maximum. 650 people are chosen from the population to make that decision on behalf of everybody so let them do their job.

 

As an alternative you could stand as a candidate at the next election and if you win you can make a very small contribution to changing the rules.

 

This is a small forum in Thailand that nobody in the UK government reads and 95% of the UK population has never heard of or could care about.

[tebee]

But how exactly are you sure the brexit we are getting is the will of the people?

 

It seems to be difficult to persuade convincingly that a customs facilitation common rulebook thingummybob represents the unanimous and unadulterated will of the people for example.

[dick dasterdly]

On 9/1/2018 at 2:03 PM, dick dasterdly said:

I agree to a certain extent -  apart from your view that "otherwise the status quo ante remains.".

 

My opinion on this is entirely the opposite!

 

i.e. If there isn't a super majority referendum result that agrees with the politicians' decision on the final deal - then the uk has to leave with no deal.

 

The referendum result was to leave - and if politicians are unable to come up with a deal that is able to command a super majority amongst the electorate, there is no reason to back-track from the original referendum result.

 

18 hours ago, Grouse said:

I'm afraid there is every reason to back track. No matter what Cameron said, wrote or implied, Parliament is sovereign.

 

IMO, best endeavors have been used to find a solution. That solution needs to be tested.

 

Parliament should decide and that decision be subject to ratification by a super majority. This is the way to avoid civil war and a continuation of this damaging situation.

Isn't that what I said in my post quoted above?

 

The only difference seems to be that you think if parliament is unable to obtain a super majority on their decision re. the 'the final deal'  - then the original referendum result should be ignored.

 

Whereas I think that the opposite.  If they are unable to obtain a super majority on 'the final deal'  in a second referendum, then the govt. has to honour the original referendum result - i.e. leave.

[aright]

28 minutes ago, tebee said:

But how exactly are you sure the brexit we are getting is the will of the people?

 

It seems to be difficult to persuade convincingly that a customs facilitation common rulebook thingummybob represents the unanimous and unadulterated will of the people for example.

In it's simplest terms the referendum instruction was take us out of the EU. Out is out and the detail is currently being negotiated. Each of us will have a view on the details of out. Even with no deal many of us will feel the Government have honored the electorates will.  As for the details they will be like political manifesto intents. I feel lucky if I get 25% of my party's  manifesto promises and the question as to are we sure we are getting the Brexit the will of the people wanted will be answered at subsequent elections. It's the democratic way.

To my mind there was no need for all this had Europe agreed to cooperation between independent sovereign states  not the undemocratic hubris of federal integration. A single State by 2025 I think the Commission said.

[My Thai Life]

3 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

but what about all the other areas that keep uk running

air traf  road traf  marin traf  rail traf coop  border checks spooks police rnss research medical stuff

It's a very good question. Some issues have more immediate impact than others. Some have limited impact on UK and EU operations short or long term. Naturally they will all be handled by relevant agencies, not by a couple of negotiators at loggerheads over a table. But they will all need the negotiators and the approving bodies of both the UK and the EU to set the framework.

 

But when they're all piled together it looks much more scary. We used to call this overwhelmed type of thinking "boiling the ocean".

 

One of the problems of the EU IMHO  is that so much has been bundled into the original Common Market that really would have been better off elsewhere. For example, there are other trans-European bodies, like the Council of Europe, which might be a better way of co-ordinating certain programmes.

 

The Research Programme that you refer to is one that I would like to see uncoupled from the EU. It could equally well be handled in a different way. Galileo might be another.

 

And this underscores one of the most important criticisms of the EU. It has become a huge monolithic body that wants to suck control over much more than is necessary and much more than is healthy.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Isn't that what I said in my post quoted above?

 

The only difference seems to be that you think if parliament is unable to obtain a super majority on their decision re. the 'the final deal'  - then the original referendum result should be ignored.

 

Whereas I think that the opposite.  If they are unable to obtain a super majority on 'the final deal'  in a second referendum, then the govt. has to honour the original referendum result - i.e. leave.

I understand your point of view.

 

My opinion is that a parliamentary decision is required and that, as this is a constitution issue, and because of the history, parliament should ask for ratification by a super majority. That, IMO, is the ONLY way to avoid civil war.

[SheungWan]

20 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

way to late to backtrack and change the whole interpretation of the referendum.

that would create mega havoc

I guess there are two lessons to learn from this mess;

1) do not vote Tory

2) create clear guidelines and rules re interpretation of results before arranging a ref.

There is no interpretation to be made. Parliament can if it so wishes run another referendum or not. As for the lesson to be learned not to vote Tory that is a nonsense when the alternative on the table is Corbyn.

[SheungWan]

20 hours ago, aright said:

I agree that Parliament can make, amend or cancel any law it wants to but it serves no purpose in the eye of the electorate if it ignores the will of the people as demonstrated by the triggering of Article 50 when it was obvious some MP's were voting against their own convictions. 

Only the first sentence makes sense until the "but...", and then it is just opinionated stuff of the typical variety. There is no defined 'will of the people' (which is conflated with Hard Brexit, still pushing that dead donkey), and as for MPs and 'convictions', just more second-rate junk.

Edited September 2, 2018 by SheungWan

[My Thai Life]

48 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

There is no defined 'will of the people' (which is conflated with Hard Brexit, still pushing that dead donkey),

Well the British Prime Minister disagrees with you on your 2 substantive points, as per her reported statements today in the Sunday Telegraph and the BBC: ie  the will of the people, and a hard bexit (which she is clearly not aiming for). She didn't have anything to say about donkeys though.

[My Thai Life]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

As an alternative you could stand as a candidate at the next election and if you win you can make a very small contribution to changing the rules.

 

This is a small forum in Thailand that nobody in the UK government reads and 95% of the UK population has never heard of or could care about.

Your 1st paragraph really makes me smile, it brings the many political pronouncements on this thread down a peg or 200, which has always been a great British tradition.

 

Agree with your 2nd para, with the minor amendment that the %age should be 99.9999. 

[aright]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

Only the first sentence makes sense until the "but...", and then it is just opinionated stuff of the typical variety. There is no defined 'will of the people' (which is conflated with Hard Brexit, still pushing that dead donkey), and as for MPs and 'convictions', just more second-rate junk.

I agree the will of the people gives only the right to petition the government but you have to ask yourself how can you have a mandate to govern without the will of the people. The Government would get short shrift (poll tax). Of the myriad laws in this country how many are not at the greater will of the people?

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

It's a very good question. Some issues have more immediate impact than others. Some have limited impact on UK and EU operations short or long term. Naturally they will all be handled by relevant agencies, not by a couple of negotiators at loggerheads over a table. But they will all need the negotiators and the approving bodies of both the UK and the EU to set the framework.

 

But when they're all piled together it looks much more scary. We used to call this overwhelmed type of thinking "boiling the ocean".

 

One of the problems of the EU IMHO  is that so much has been bundled into the original Common Market that really would have been better off elsewhere. For example, there are other trans-European bodies, like the Council of Europe, which might be a better way of co-ordinating certain programmes.

 

The Research Programme that you refer to is one that I would like to see uncoupled from the EU. It could equally well be handled in a different way. Galileo might be another.

 

And this underscores one of the most important criticisms of the EU. It has become a huge monolithic body that wants to suck control over much more than is necessary and much more than is healthy.

 

there aren't that many pan European bodies of treaty stature

the council, sure, could handle some programmes

 

then you have esf, European science foundation, pretty good body, non treaty though

could still handle some stuff

 

galileo, and pmtm's new sat baby, must be handled pretty much as today,

must be strongly linked to member states (not eu - but member states) if not they

would not enjoy uplink/donwlink/orbital resources

and would not be able to coordinate the birds

 

 

setting up new pan european bodies to handle the massive list of agencies? desirable? my guess is no

 

tricky shit this I'll have another belhaven

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, SheungWan said:

There is no interpretation to be made. Parliament can if it so wishes run another referendum or not. As for the lesson to be learned not to vote Tory that is a nonsense when the alternative on the table is Corbyn.

the alternative is Labour, not Corbyn,

there are numerous ways of making it crystal clear to Labour that Corbyn is not desirable in the cabinet - if that is important to the masses.

 

[melvinmelvin]

36 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

there aren't that many pan European bodies of treaty stature

the council, sure, could handle some programmes

 

then you have esf, European science foundation, pretty good body, non treaty though

could still handle some stuff

 

galileo, and pmtm's new sat baby, must be handled pretty much as today,

must be strongly linked to member states (not eu - but member states) if not they

would not enjoy uplink/donwlink/orbital resources

and would not be able to coordinate the birds

 

 

setting up new pan european bodies to handle the massive list of agencies? desirable? my guess is no

 

tricky shit this I'll have another belhaven

 

 

 

 

forgot,

there is a small radiocommunication/telecommunication treaty body in Copenhagen, could be considered

 

then you have well known, cen - cenelec - etsi, non treaty though

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

Britain’s leading role in evaluating new medicines for sale to patients across the EU has collapsed with no more work coming from Europe because of Brexit, it has emerged.

The decision by the European Medicines Agency to cut Britain out of its contracts seven months ahead of Brexit is a devastating blow to British pharmaceutical companies already reeling from the loss of the EMA’s HQ in London and with it 900 jobs.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/02/britain-loses-medicines-contracts-as-eu-body-anticipates-brexit

[sandyf]

7 hours ago, tebee said:

But how exactly are you sure the brexit we are getting is the will of the people?

Quite, no one has any idea what he will of the people actually was as it was never specified. It is not out of the question that a leave and remain scenario would be acceptable to the majority of the people. Just think of the benefit, billions available for essential services as no new 'sat nav' would be required.

[melvinmelvin]

surprise surprise

there are going to be MANY stories like this popping up during the next half year

 

[3NUMBAS]

theresa has stated this weekend there will be no more refs.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/02/europe/uk-brexit-theresa-may-referendum/index.html