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

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

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.

The very best of luck with that one. ?

[SheungWan]

4 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

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.

'Will of the people' is one of those phrases banged around by every UK politician going, but has no constitutional status. Right now only what Parliament decides counts. The opinions about 'will of the people' are purely arguments used to influence decisions made by MPs but it is what the MPs do which will decide. Theresa May is talking to Parliament which of course is her job. The donkeys are the ones who wave around the phrases like a flag.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, 3NUMBAS said:

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

It is important to note that it is not only Theresa May but also Jeremy Corbyn who have slapped down the possibility of having a second referendum, so I fail to see why some Remainers see the second referendum campaign as a straight anti_Tory position. The only possibility of a second referendum coming about is a last minute joint revolt by the majority wings of both Party MPs in the event of a crash out no-deal. It is precisely possibilities of such events happening which is keeping the Hard Brexiteer wing of the Tory Party in line. Well, most of them. The nutters never stop.

[aright]

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

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.

In the same way, no one knows the will of the people in Europe regarding the political and social future of the EU beyond knowing there are escalating right wing factions expressing their dissatisfaction with the euro and an undemocratic, inequitable system resulting in serious disorder on the streets.. I think many, don't  recognize, that by successive steps, each having a disguised economic purpose, they are being guided towards a superstate which will eventually, irreversibly lead to federation. Cooperation between friendly sovereign states is not a recipe for Federalism.

I had a vote which let me express my dissatisfaction with the EU. Beyond voting for extreme right wing parties resulting in possible civil disorder how can the Europeans change a system many don't like. Mr Macron refuses a referendum in France because he says the French will vote out......very democratic. Marine le Pen has agreed to one.  The EU made a big fuss this week about abolishing daylight summer time....is that as good as it gets from the EC? Why does the EC want to limit democracy? At every dissatisfaction turn the EC continues to sit on its hands and Remainers keep telling us they will change it from within. How?

 

 

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/migrant-crisis-haunts-eu-three-years-merkels-fateful-020048353.html

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, aright said:

In the same way, no one knows the will of the people in Europe regarding the political and social future of the EU beyond knowing there are escalating right wing factions expressing their dissatisfaction with the euro and an undemocratic, inequitable system resulting in serious disorder on the streets.. I think many, don't  recognize, that by successive steps, each having a disguised economic purpose, they are being guided towards a superstate which will eventually, irreversibly lead to federation. Cooperation between friendly sovereign states is not a recipe for Federalism.

I had a vote which let me express my dissatisfaction with the EU. Beyond voting for extreme right wing parties resulting in possible civil disorder how can the Europeans change a system many don't like. Mr Macron refuses a referendum in France because he says the French will vote out......very democratic. Marine le Pen has agreed to one.  The EU made a big fuss this week about abolishing daylight summer time....is that as good as it gets from the EC? Why does the EC want to limit democracy? At every dissatisfaction turn the EC continues to sit on its hands and Remainers keep telling us they will change it from within. How?

 

 

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/migrant-crisis-haunts-eu-three-years-merkels-fateful-020048353.html

First off, has there been pressure for a referendum in France? And what Macron also said in that interview was:

"In the full interview, Macron questioned the way the UK had chosen Brexit. Asked if the French would vote to leave the EU in the same way, he said: “Yes. Probably, in a similar context. But oIn the full interview, Macron questioned the way the UK had chosen Brexit. Asked if the French would vote to leave the EU in the same way, he said: “Yes. Probably, in a similar context. But our context was very different, so I don’t want to take any bets.ur context was very different, so I don’t want to take any bets."

It should also be noted that Macron was interviewed while he was pushing for EU reforms. So there was an angle to his statement.

 

And finally, history contradicts him. When anti EU fervor was at its height, he easily defeated Marine Le Pen. Shortly afterwards, Le Pen cut out the leadership of the faction that was in favor of leaving the Eurozone because the position was unpopular with her base. So, if leaving the Eurozone was unpopular, how much more so would leaving the EU be.

[candide]

23 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And finally, history contradicts him. When anti EU fervor was at its height, he easily defeated Marine Le Pen. Shortly afterwards, Le Pen cut out the leadership of the faction that was in favor of leaving the Eurozone because the position was unpopular with her base. So, if leaving the Eurozone was unpopular, how much more so would leaving the EU be.

I confirm. Even if there are critics (which may make sense for some of them) against the EU policy, there is no significant opinion stream favoring leaving the EU in France. Actually, it has vanished after the problems that a brexiting UK may encounter became more evident.

[aright]

24 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, has there been pressure for a referendum in France? And what Macron also said in that interview was:

"In the full interview, Macron questioned the way the UK had chosen Brexit. Asked if the French would vote to leave the EU in the same way, he said: “Yes. Probably, in a similar context. But oIn the full interview, Macron questioned the way the UK had chosen Brexit. Asked if the French would vote to leave the EU in the same way, he said: “Yes. Probably, in a similar context. But our context was very different, so I don’t want to take any bets.ur context was very different, so I don’t want to take any bets."

It should also be noted that Macron was interviewed while he was pushing for EU reforms. So there was an angle to his statement.

 

And finally, history contradicts him. When anti EU fervor was at its height, he easily defeated Marine Le Pen. Shortly afterwards, Le Pen cut out the leadership of the faction that was in favor of leaving the Eurozone because the position was unpopular with her base. So, if leaving the Eurozone was unpopular, how much more so would leaving the EU be.

Yes it's true Macron defeated Le Pen 2:1 but my post referred to escalating right wing factions. Between the 2012 and 2017 national election she increased her vote from 17.9% to 34% almost double, which presumably you don't find significant. If this is not significant I assume you find the recent Italian , German, Hungarian,  Austrian, Polish etc electorate direction of travel insignificant and the recent street violence in Germany  nothing to worry about. These problems can be fixed as many Remainers tell us from within. My question remains....How?

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, aright said:

Yes it's true Macron defeated Le Pen 2:1 but my post referred to escalating right wing factions. Between the 2012 and 2017 national election she increased her vote from 17.9% to 34% almost double, which presumably you don't find significant. If this is not significant I assume you find the recent Italian , German, Hungarian,  Austrian, Polish etc electorate direction of travel insignificant and the recent street violence in Germany  nothing to worry about. These problems can be fixed as many Remainers tell us from within. My question remains....How?

You raised the French issue. Le Pen jettisoned the most anti-EU faction of her staff because it was unpopular with her supporters. There's no objective evidence that anything close to a majority of French voters even want out of the Eurozone, much less the EU.

[aright]

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You raised the French issue. Le Pen jettisoned the most anti-EU faction of her staff because it was unpopular with her supporters. There's no objective evidence that anything close to a majority of French voters even want out of the Eurozone, much less the EU.

I raised the French issue on the basis of escalating support for right wing parties which are generally anti EU not current values. Stop answering the question I didn't ask and try the ones I did ask.

" Beyond voting for extreme right wing parties resulting in possible civil disorder how can the Europeans change a system many don't like."?

"At every dissatisfaction turn the EC continues to sit on its hands and Remainers keep telling us they will change it from within. How?" 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, aright said:

I raised the French issue on the basis of escalating support for right wing parties which are generally anti EU not current values. 

It’s not the EU’s fault that fascists exist. They’ve existed before the EU and they would exist after the EU. They will exist after the U.K. has left the EU. 

 

If you’re buying into their EU hatred that’s your fault. You could as well blame refugees for your unemployment or Merkel for refugees. Fascists have always used scapegoats for their totalitarian agenda because that’s how they win their supporters. 

 

Maybe the EU could do more to fight racism. Leaving, bashing or removing the EU certainly won’t make that happen. 

 

As we can see with intervening in Poland, or with the anti-discrimination laws, to make just two examples, having a strong EU is good. 

[My Thai Life]

10 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

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

I agree but I never suggested that. There are a few key points that I was trying to make:

 

> you made a good list of some of the areas needing detailed agreement, but conflating them into one big overwhelming problem is "boiling the ocean", and it's not the way that agreements are made; they will be made by specialist teams from the UK and EU once the overall framework is set, if it ever is! 

 

> Some areas have an immediate potential impact, like air transport, some have limited short or long term impact, like rail transport. They will be prioritised on urgency and importance, as in any project.

 

> The EU has become a large monolithic body which attempts to suck control of all pan-European intitiatives. This is unnecessary and unhealthy. And then the EU says take it all or leave it all. For example, there is no practical reason to insist that the Research Programme or Galileo or security can only be accessed via the EU. This is just politicking, and looks like spite.

 

> Of course, anything to do with trade should go through one co-ordinating body (the EU), and that body does need to have judicial oversight; and had the EU kept to this Common Market model we wouldn't be in this situation (probably). A split between trade issues and non-trade issues would have been a much better way to organise things imho, but that would not have been in the interests of "ever-closer union".

 

I'm off on my hols this week, so I won't be able to reply to your reply. Have a good day!

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, SheungWan said:

It is important to note that it is not only Theresa May but also Jeremy Corbyn who have slapped down the possibility of having a second referendum, so I fail to see why some Remainers see the second referendum campaign as a straight anti_Tory position. The only possibility of a second referendum coming about is a last minute joint revolt by the majority wings of both Party MPs in the event of a crash out no-deal. It is precisely possibilities of such events happening which is keeping the Hard Brexiteer wing of the Tory Party in line. Well, most of them. The nutters never stop.

It’s important to note the Party Conferences are approaching.

[BwindiBoy]

On ‎9‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 6:44 AM, Stupooey said:

...and 29 per cent were not sufficiently motivated to make the effort to vote, which implies that they were happy with the status quo. It is a lot easier to spur people into action to vote against something. Just look at the June protest marches in London where 100,000 turned out in favour of Remain (I.e. To engineer change) whereas only 'hundreds' joined the Leave rally (I.e. To maintain the status quo).perhaps voting in the Referendum should have been compulsory, as in Australia for example, since unlike in a General Election 'none of the above' was not really an option.

It means 29% ceded their votes to whichever way the vote went, meaning 66% were in favour of Leave.

[Bluespunk]

19 hours ago, aright said:

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"

 

 

 

 

 

Written in stone?

 

No it wasn’t. 

[Stupooey]

32 minutes ago, BwindiBoy said:

It means 29% ceded their votes to whichever way the vote went, meaning 66% were in favour of Leave.

Of course, I never thought of that, it's so obvious. Still not good enough though -you need a 2:1 majority to effect major constitutional changes.

[Stupooey]

20 hours ago, aright said:

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"

 

 

 

 

 

You may think the 2016 'will' was written in stone, others might disagree. Someone told me yestersay that over half a million Brexit voters had died since the Referendum. This seemed very high to me, so I thought I'd do some number crunching, based on official statistics and generally accepted Referendum vote analysis. The result showed that not only was the conjecture true, if anything it was an underestimate. Taking just the figures (rounded to the nearest 10,000) for over 65's in 2017:

 

No of deaths during the year according to Government statistics: 460,000

No who voted based on 90% turnout for this age group:  410,000

No who voted Leave based on 64% of the age group: 260,000

Extrapolating one year figure over 26 months: 560,000

 

This means that, sadly, about 560,000 Leavers have left us. They have been replaced on the electoral roll by the new 18 and 19 year olds who, if they follow the example of their predecessors, will mainly vote Remain. This helps explain  why four recent major polls have found that 52% of the electorate, and the majority of constituencies, now favour Remain (and before anyone says that the polls got it wrong last time, there is a good reason for this - the large number of serial non-voters, usually excluded in poll results, who voted in the Referendum - which the pollsters have now addressed).

 

So the question is, is the 'will' of dead people more important than that of the living? Should MPs act according to the 2016 'will' of their constituents, or the 2018 'will'?

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

 

@stupooey

 

I am not saying that your crunch or logic is bogus.

But I do think that playing in this field you can argue support for very different scenarios.

 

anyway things change,

in the mid 70s I attended university in Scotland, a good mix of English, NIs, Scots and also Irish at that uni.

 

at the time UK  and  EEC was a rather hot topic,

as far as I remember it was the younger generation that was hardnosed against

 

 

[Grouse]

13 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

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

In which case there probably will be a ref.

 

This lady IS for turning. Frequently 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

anyway things change,

in the mid 70s I attended university in Scotland, a good mix of English, NIs, Scots and also Irish at that uni.

 

at the time UK  and  EEC was a rather hot topic,

as far as I remember it was the younger generation that was hardnosed against

Sounds like it's the same people who are still against EU? 60+ years old.

 

 

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, SheungWan said:

It is important to note that it is not only Theresa May but also Jeremy Corbyn who have slapped down the possibility of having a second referendum, so I fail to see why some Remainers see the second referendum campaign as a straight anti_Tory position. The only possibility of a second referendum coming about is a last minute joint revolt by the majority wings of both Party MPs in the event of a crash out no-deal. It is precisely possibilities of such events happening which is keeping the Hard Brexiteer wing of the Tory Party in line. Well, most of them. The nutters never stop.

As I have stated above, parliament alone must decide. However, as this is a constitutional issue of high sensitivity, they should have the decision ratified by a super majority of the electorate. Otherwise it's the status quo ante.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

Of course, I never thought of that, it's so obvious. Still not good enough though -you need a 2:1 majority to effect major constitutional changes.

If you want to impose super majorities to enable major constitutional changes then  think about this:

 

The Commons vote on the 1972 European Communities Act (after 3 readings) was just 301/284. That's 51.4%!

 

So in that case, we should never have joined The Onion Club in the first place! 

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, Grouse said:

In which case there probably will be a ref.

 

This lady IS for turning. Frequently 

Yes, she needs a G-suit. And a P45.

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, aright said:

Yes it's true Macron defeated Le Pen 2:1 but my post referred to escalating right wing factions. Between the 2012 and 2017 national election she increased her vote from 17.9% to 34% almost double, which presumably you don't find significant. If this is not significant I assume you find the recent Italian , German, Hungarian,  Austrian, Polish etc electorate direction of travel insignificant and the recent street violence in Germany  nothing to worry about. These problems can be fixed as many Remainers tell us from within. My question remains....How?

Because they have coalition governments. This allows freedom of expression without any real hope of power. A bag of fascists, a bag of communists, a bag of greens and the 5 star movement bag of nonsense. What fun!

 

Meanwhile, the right wing resurgence is ALL about immigration. Good, I hope the SD forces change in Sweden. But it will calm down.

 

I predict the EU will take action to resolve immigration issues at least in part. 

 

I see see no existential risk to the EU but they should show more flexibility to avoid brittle fracture as they morph into the European Onion.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, BwindiBoy said:

It means 29% ceded their votes to whichever way the vote went, meaning 66% were in favour of Leave.

Sorry, that doesn't fly.

 

Nice try....

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

You may think the 2016 'will' was written in stone, others might disagree. Someone told me yestersay that over half a million Brexit voters had died since the Referendum. This seemed very high to me, so I thought I'd do some number crunching, based on official statistics and generally accepted Referendum vote analysis. The result showed that not only was the conjecture true, if anything it was an underestimate. Taking just the figures (rounded to the nearest 10,000) for over 65's in 2017:

 

No of deaths during the year according to Government statistics: 460,000

No who voted based on 90% turnout for this age group:  410,000

No who voted Leave based on 64% of the age group: 260,000

Extrapolating one year figure over 26 months: 560,000

 

This means that, sadly, about 560,000 Leavers have left us. They have been replaced on the electoral roll by the new 18 and 19 year olds who, if they follow the example of their predecessors, will mainly vote Remain. This helps explain  why four recent major polls have found that 52% of the electorate, and the majority of constituencies, now favour Remain (and before anyone says that the polls got it wrong last time, there is a good reason for this - the large number of serial non-voters, usually excluded in poll results, who voted in the Referendum - which the pollsters have now addressed).

 

So the question is, is the 'will' of dead people more important than that of the living? Should MPs act according to the 2016 'will' of their constituents, or the 2018 'will'?

 

 

 

Another issue of The Morbid Report. But to answer the question...mmmm the 2016 will..because that's when the long awaited referendum was held...some of the poor people recently passed on might have lived on for it. Bless them.

[Grouse]

53 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

@stupooey

 

I am not saying that your crunch or logic is bogus.

But I do think that playing in this field you can argue support for very different scenarios.

 

anyway things change,

in the mid 70s I attended university in Scotland, a good mix of English, NIs, Scots and also Irish at that uni.

 

at the time UK  and  EEC was a rather hot topic,

as far as I remember it was the younger generation that was hardnosed against

 

 

I would have thought that you, like me, being at university in the 70s wouldn't remember bloody thing ?

[Grouse]

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you want to impose super majorities to enable major constitutional changes then  think about this:

 

The Commons vote on the 1972 European Communities Act (after 3 readings) was just 301/284. That's 51.4%!

 

So in that case, we should never have joined The Onion Club in the first place! 

No, we're talking about ratification referendums.

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

No, we're talking about ratification referendums.

I know. This is just an example of where a simple commons majority can be inappropriate!

 

 

[adammike]

51 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I would have thought that you, like me, being at university in the 70s wouldn't remember bloody thing ?

I voted in favour of the EU but for the life of me I can't remember what was on the ballot paper,don't remember any debate in the Peterborough hotel kitchen where I was working at the time.look on the bright side it's the political party's conferences coming up.

[aright]

2 hours ago, Stupooey said:

You may think the 2016 'will' was written in stone, others might disagree. Someone told me yestersay that over half a million Brexit voters had died since the Referendum. This seemed very high to me, so I thought I'd do some number crunching, based on official statistics and generally accepted Referendum vote analysis. The result showed that not only was the conjecture true, if anything it was an underestimate. Taking just the figures (rounded to the nearest 10,000) for over 65's in 2017:

 

No of deaths during the year according to Government statistics: 460,000

No who voted based on 90% turnout for this age group:  410,000

No who voted Leave based on 64% of the age group: 260,000

Extrapolating one year figure over 26 months: 560,000

 

This means that, sadly, about 560,000 Leavers have left us. They have been replaced on the electoral roll by the new 18 and 19 year olds who, if they follow the example of their predecessors, will mainly vote Remain. This helps explain  why four recent major polls have found that 52% of the electorate, and the majority of constituencies, now favour Remain (and before anyone says that the polls got it wrong last time, there is a good reason for this - the large number of serial non-voters, usually excluded in poll results, who voted in the Referendum - which the pollsters have now addressed).

 

So the question is, is the 'will' of dead people more important than that of the living? Should MPs act according to the 2016 'will' of their constituents, or the 2018 'will'?

 

 

 

Have you submitted your number crunching to the Guardian. The only reason I mention it is because they are irrelevant. If you put together  some constitutional and political reality ……….both Mrs May and Mr Corbyn have said there will not be a second referendum...…...to change that would be political suicide.

As for Should MPs act according to the 2016 'will' of their constituents, or the 2018 'will'?  I feel they should act on the will of the people in the next election following Brexit. It's all about outcomes dear boy.