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

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Every time a nation signs a treaty it loses some sovereignty. So I'm guessing post-Brexit the UK will be signing deals which oblige it to do nothing except accept privileges.

Not so.

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Well it seems that many, most even, do not understand an MPs responsibilities.

and that "many" of yours surely includes the MPs in the Parliament bar?

 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

No, you are quite wrong there. Things are not as you may wish. Parliament can do anything it wishes. MPs are duty bound to vote "in the best interests" of their constituents. That may not be what constituents state.

I don't agree (of course). The main parties, along with their MPs, should be carrying on with the policies set out in their 2017 GE manifestos and, so, should not be obstructing Brexit.  

[aright]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

No, you are quite wrong there. Things are not as you may wish. Parliament can do anything it wishes. MPs are duty bound to vote "in the best interests" of their constituents. That may not be what constituents state.

 

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I don't agree (of course). The main parties, along with their MPs, should be carrying on with the policies set out in their 2017 GE manifestos and, so, should not be obstructing Brexit.  

The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and can propose new laws as well as raising issues that matter to you in the House. This includes asking government ministers questions about current issues including those which affect local constituents.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/mps/

 

I don't see any reference there to the MP's best interests. To get into the house the MP is voted in mainly on the basis of a manifesto. Why do you want to give him the right to  renegade on the principles for which he was elected?

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Here's one reason why sensible people can't take your arguments seriously:

economy and cost - at least 9 billion Euros net per year is paid into the EU coffers by the UK and even Maggie Thatcher's rebate is likely to disappear soon. If we stay in then it can only be a matter of time before the Euro is forced upon the UK in place of sterling. The Euro has already shown itself as being unfit for purpose for several of the countries with previously weaker national economies. The scale of money creation and bond buying by ECB is similar to that of the US after 2008. Many parts of the EU are still plagued by high debt and unemployment and the EU still has the worst economic performance in the developed world, despite attempts to slap some kind of tax on just about everything! Ultimately, if we stay in, the EU will no doubt request all of the assets of the B o E be transferred to the ECB - once the UK currency and assets are gone, then the UK economy is gone and there is no way back!

 

 

I particularly enjoy this piece of nonsense.

 

"If we stay in then it can only be a matter of time before the Euro is forced upon the UK in place of sterling."

Really? How does that work? What mechanism will be invoked to force the UK to adopt the Euro?

This is the kind of self indulgent paranoia that characterizes so much of what the Brexiters think.

 

This "nonsense" works because the EC wants all members to adopt the Euro, eventually - no secret - Barrosso and Juncker both said as much. The EC is quiet on this after the referendum of course but when the EU wants to force it then they will find the right time and method, probably while the victim is disabled in some way.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The same goes for the nonsense about turning the EU into a United States of Europe. Some bureaucrats write this stuff but even the Germans and the French aren't going to want to assume budgetary responsibility for the poorer nations of Europe. And nowhere have I seen by what mechanisms those dastardly federalist in the EU are going to impose this.

Well they don't just show them to anybody you know?

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

There was no misquote, get over it.

You first.

[nauseus]

49 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Because I would no longer see that persons posts on replies to other peoples posts. When People are put on my ignore list I don't see any of their post though there is a notification asking me if I want to see this post or all posts. If I don't see that and it is a thread where I have seen the poster before then either he has not responded to somebody elses thread or he has gone away.

 

I can also look up his name in my ignore list and see when he last posted.

Phew, glad that's sorted. 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Well they don't just show them to anybody you know?

Ah I see. We know they have secret mechanisms because none of us have seen them.

[nauseus]

40 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

and that "many" of yours surely includes the MPs in the Parliament bar?

 

They drink honourably and responsibly.

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Ah I see. We know they have secret mechanisms because none of us have seen them.

Oh, yes. But the general desire and intent is well broadcast, like Herr Schultz last year:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/07/martin-schulz-united-states-of-europe-germany-sdp

 

Wants it all tied together by 2025 with a lovely new constitution. 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2018 by nauseus
add link / comment

[melvinmelvin]

24 minutes ago, nauseus said:

They drink honourably and responsibly.

sure,

any politician would

 

[rixalex]

I respect the system as is, not how I would prefer. I have told you what an MPs responsibilities are in an article above. Representative democracy works well and provides a useful filter for obvious reasons. Read up on it [emoji846]

Fully aware of what representative democracy is thanks. It was representative democracy that took the decision to let the public decide.

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

[tebee]

6 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Fully aware of what representative democracy is thanks. It was representative democracy that took the decision to let the public decide.

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

It was representative democracy that took the decision to ask the public what they thought.

 

[vogie]

16 minutes ago, tebee said:

It was representative democracy that took the decision to ask the public what they thought.

 

It doesn't say that now does it?

[rixalex]

It was representative democracy that took the decision to ask the public what they thought.
 

That's such an embarrassing line of argument. Your checks must blush as you type it.

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

[tebee]

49 minutes ago, vogie said:

It doesn't say that now does it?

 

14 minutes ago, rixalex said:

That's such an embarrassing line of argument. Your checks must blush as you type it.

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

I state only the  legal facts 

 

Under our British Constitution parliament must be the supreme authority and make the final decision.  It can not be bound by the referendum. If you think sending out a leaflet is a way of amending that constitution I would suggest you are wrong. .   

[aright]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

They drink honourably and responsibly.

As does Juncker!

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

I state only the  legal facts 

 

Under our British Constitution parliament must be the supreme authority and make the final decision.  It can not be bound by the referendum. If you think sending out a leaflet is a way of amending that constitution I would suggest you are wrong. .   

Parliament voted for the right to have a referendum, the then foreign secretary said "the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall Beaurocrats, and certainly not by Brussel Eurocrats, not even by Government Ministers or Parliamenterians in this chamber."

Surely it can't be any simpler to explain, anybody disagreeing with that IMO is only doing so because they didn't get their own way. It is time to respect democracy.

 

[watcharacters]

 

 

is it true that once away from the UK for 10 years a person loses voting rights?

 

[rixalex]

I state only the  legal facts 
 
Under our British Constitution parliament must be the supreme authority and make the final decision.  It can not be bound by the referendum. If you think sending out a leaflet is a way of amending that constitution I would suggest you are wrong. .   

There's a situation in America currently in which the sitting President has stated that it is within his power to pardon himself. This may or may not be legally true. Until it is put to the test we probably won't know. The point however isn't whether or not it would be legally valid, it's that nobody in their sane mind would think to do so would be in the spirit of fair justice and democracy.

The same sort of principles apply in the UK with regards the disregarding of a referendum. Yes the politicians can do it but that's not the point. It would be completely against the spirit of democracy if they did, would set a precedent from which there would be no return, and nobody in their sane mind would think otherwise.

If you're a person who values democratic values at all, one day in the future you'll look back on how you argued in favour of this total democratic betrayal and feel ashamed. That is assuming you don't already.

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

[tebee]

14 minutes ago, vogie said:

Parliament voted for the right to have a referendum, the then foreign secretary said "the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall Beaurocrats, and certainly not by Brussel Eurocrats, not even by Government Ministers or Parliamenterians in this chamber."

Surely it can't be any simpler to explain, anybody disagreeing with that IMO is only doing so because they didn't get their own way. It is time to respect democracy.

 

 

9 minutes ago, rixalex said:

There's a situation in America currently in which the sitting President has stated that it is within his power to pardon himself. This may or may not be legally true. Until it is put to the test we probably won't know. The point however isn't whether or not it would be legally valid, it's that nobody in their sane mind would think to do so would be in the spirit of fair justice and democracy.

The same sort of principles apply in the UK with regards the disregarding of a referendum. Yes the politicians can do it but that's not the point. It would be completely against the spirit of democracy if they did, would set a precedent from which there would be no return, and nobody in their sane mind would think otherwise.

If you're a person who values democratic values at all, one day in the future you'll look back on how you argued in favour of this total democratic betrayal and feel ashamed. That is assuming you don't already.

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

As I've said before , the problem we have now is nobody knows how to "do" Brexit. We have 7 months to think of a plan, get everybody to agree, implement it , recruiting all the staff we need and build all the necessary infrastructure. It's not going to happen.

 

There is not even enough agreement to implement the transition period.

 

So the choice is going to come down to crashing out  with no deal or abandoning it.

 

No deal will cause chaos . Peoples jobs will be lost, business destroyed. If it comes down to a choice of honoring an advisory referendum or letting the country disintegrate into anarchy  which do you think the politicians will choose? Which do you think the politicians should choose?

 

Ending up in a chaotic brexit were people suffer will cause that party to be unelectable for a generation or more. I can't see any party choosing willful oblivion, though I can see the current shower letting it happen by inaction and paralysis. 

 

Surely anybody who wants Brexit can't want this chaotic mess as all it will do is strengthen the hand of those that want to rejoin. 

[Jim1000]

Can we just wake up and realize this is all a bad dream?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

That's such an embarrassing line of argument. Your checks must blush as you type it.

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

True, who cares what the public thinks?

[CG1 Blue]

29 minutes ago, Jim1000 said:

Can we just wake up and realize this is all a bad dream?

Yes, wouldn't that be nice.  Waking up and realising that all these attempts to derail Brexit were just a bad dream...

[tebee]

3 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Yes, wouldn't that be nice.  Waking up and realising that all these attempts to derail Brexit were just a bad dream...

The Brexiters are managing to derail Brexit all by themselves, without any help from us. 

[tomacht8]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

True, who cares what the public thinks?

I sometimes feeling the same.

unbelievable how far from reality the self-actors (politicians) act.
Let's just think what is the best for the UK.
for the young (various options) and for the old (safe pensions) there is full gambling (all in) on the black jack brexit playing table.

irresponsible.

[CG1 Blue]

39 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

As I've said before , the problem we have now is nobody knows how to "do" Brexit. We have 7 months to think of a plan, get everybody to agree, implement it , recruiting all the staff we need and build all the necessary infrastructure. It's not going to happen.

 

There is not even enough agreement to implement the transition period.

 

So the choice is going to come down to crashing out  with no deal or abandoning it.

 

No deal will cause chaos . Peoples jobs will be lost, business destroyed. If it comes down to a choice of honoring an advisory referendum or letting the country disintegrate into anarchy  which do you think the politicians will choose? Which do you think the politicians should choose?

 

Ending up in a chaotic brexit were people suffer will cause that party to be unelectable for a generation or more. I can't see any party choosing willful oblivion, though I can see the current shower letting it happen by inaction and paralysis. 

 

Surely anybody who wants Brexit can't want this chaotic mess as all it will do is strengthen the hand of those that want to rejoin. 

"crashing out "

"will cause chaos"

"business destroyed"

"letting the country disintegrate into anarchy"

"willful oblivion"

 

I took a long break from the Brexit debate.  It's nice to see the fear mongering is still going strong

The day after we leave will feel just the same. Businesses always find a way to carry on, and they will after Brexit.

 

 

[tomacht8]

15 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

"crashing out "

"will cause chaos"

"business destroyed"

"letting the country disintegrate into anarchy"

"willful oblivion"

 

I took a long break from the Brexit debate.  It's nice to see the fear mongering is still going strong

The day after we leave will feel just the same. Businesses always find a way to carry on, and they will after Brexit.

 

 

on the manslaughter argument: Project fear we are already far over in the debate here.
ok, you have not been active for a long time.

what would be a realistic solution for this brexit thing then? 

[welovesundaysatspace]

14 hours ago, rixalex said:

This disingenuous path (to put it politely) you are other remainers are taking that seeks to twist and convolute the past, will come back to bite you one day, you can be sure of that if nothing else.

I’m just reminding you and other Brexiteers of the facts, because you seem to be rather economical with the truth. 

 

The referendum: leave the EU

The Brexiteer: leave the EU + XYZ