Extreme Brexit could be worse than financial crisis for UK: BoE

[evadgib]

<deleted post, see below>

Edited January 1, 2019 by evadgib

[evadgib]

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If you did respond, I must have missed it; apologies.

 

Regarding your points:

 

a) If true, why are you so afraid of holding one?

 

b) The same could be said of each and every referendum ever held. After all, constitutionally it is parliament which is the supreme sovereign, not the people. Parliament ceded that sovereignty to the people in 1975 and again in 2016 when the then Prime Ministers promised that, although technically and legally advisory, the government would act on the results of the referendums. They could easily do so again.

 

c) I agree with you about PR, but not compulsory voting. To my mind the democratic right to vote includes the democratic right not to vote. The question of expats retaining their voting rights for life is a difficult one. How would it work for local elections? Which Parliamentary constituency would they vote in? Etc..

 

The bottom line is that a leading Brexiteer was actually a Remainer until he changed his mind a mere two weeks before the campaigning begun. To be kind, as he wrote two lengthy article just prior to this, one arguing for Remain, the other for Leave, I will conclude that he weighed up all the pros and cons of both sides before making a decisions.

 

If he is allowed to do so, then the British people should be given that chance.Especially now that the full effects of Brexit are far more widely known than they were then.

 

I have said before that I would have three questions on the ballot paper:

1. Accept and proceed with the deal agreed between the UK and EU (whatever that ends up being)?
2. Proceed with no deal.
3. Abandon Brexit and remain in the EU.

Using a single transferable vote system to eliminate the option with the lowest votes and transferring those votes to those people's second choice if there was no option with a clear majority after the first count.

 

Thoughts?

a) I have no fear of something that wont be happening & nor would i fear it if it were forced but I would be most surprised if yellow jackets didn't immediately appear if that threat materialized.  

 

b  ) If parliament has another say it'll be 3+ decades from now which I suspect will be after the EU has imploded.

 

c) I have proposed a tax incentive and/or 'Jedi' or similar in other threads to overcome this &

 

d) Your obsession with Boris is a Red Herring as most minds were made up long before he joined in & I suspect they remain unchanged.

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

The difference is Boris made his mind up before the Vote and not after the Vote

 

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

 

d) Your obsession with Boris is a Red Herring as most minds were made up long before he joined in & I suspect they remain unchanged.

 So there we have it; a Remainer is allowed to change his mind, Brexiteers aren't!

 

Boris changed his mind before the campaigning started. If that had no effect on how people voted, why have a campaign in the first place?

 

If the campaign had no effect on how people voted, why the obsession with the so called 'Project Fear' displayed by so many Brexiteers?

[evadgib]

27 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

So there we have it; a Remainer is allowed to change his mind, Brexiteers aren't!

Edited January 1, 2019 by evadgib

[vinny41]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 So there we have it; a Remainer is allowed to change his mind, Brexiteers aren't!

 

Boris changed his mind before the campaigning started. If that had no effect on how people voted, why have a campaign in the first place?

 

If the campaign had no effect on how people voted, why the obsession with the so called 'Project Fear' displayed by so many Brexiteers?

Most people I know made up their minds which way to vote themselves I don't know of anyone that voted either for remain or leave because someone well known declared the direction of how they were going to vote the only exception to that rule I do know many people that decided to vote leave after Tony stuck his oar in

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

a) I have no fear of something that wont be happening & nor would i fear it if it were forced but I would be most surprised if yellow jackets didn't immediately appear if that threat materialized.  

 

b  ) If parliament has another say it'll be 3+ decades from now which I suspect will be after the EU has imploded.

 

c) I have proposed a tax incentive and/or 'Jedi' or similar in other threads to overcome this &

a) So you are threatening violence in the streets if the people of the UK are allowed to have their democratic say and as a result you don't get your way. That is showing abject fear of a second referendum, not a logical argument against holding one!

 

b) Why three decades from now? Parliament amends and abolishes and makes new laws all the time. If it didn't we'd still have slavery, women would not have the vote, homosexuality would still be illegal, etc., etc.. Parliament is sovereign; if it wills it we could have another referendum tomorrow.

 

c) So you'd bribe people to vote and punish those who didn't? How would you know? Part of having a secret ballot is not just keeping who an individual voted for secret, but whether or not they voted at all!

 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

So there we have it; a Remainer is allowed to change his mind, Brexiteers aren't!

If that's the best you can do it's pointless engaging any further.

+

 Translation: "I have no real argument to counter this, and know it."

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, tebee said:

 

 

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1079982832401960961/pu/vid/1280x720/t14nlAMpGScYvm1c.mp4?tag=6

not impressed  by her speech,

hope she wrote it herself and that #10 has better writers available

 

melodramatic stuff

 

who is she addressing?

new year show for those who bother listen - just another duty bound speech

trying to convince MPs listening in to  vote yes-deal

or  what?

 

[vinny41]

Blair: a no vote means no

Tony Blair today suggested that he would not seek another referendum on the EU constitution if it was rejected by the British people.
Under repeated questioning from reporters on whether the poll would be rerun if the answer came back negative, Mr Blair responded: "If the British people vote no, they vote no. You can't then start bringing it back until they vote yes.

Today he said if Britain voted no he would have to go back to the European council and discuss the way forward.

The PM said: "This is an issue which it is time for the British people to decide and let them have their say."

He stressed: "If the British people vote no in this referendum, that is their verdict. That is absolutely clear."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...2/eu.politics3

"Tony Blair said yesterday that he would not call an immediate second referendum on Europe if the British people throw out the proposed EU constitution in the vote expected next year."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pe-560931.html

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Most people I know made up their minds which way to vote themselves I don't know of anyone that voted either for remain or leave because someone well known declared the direction of how they were going to vote the only exception to that rule I do know many people that decided to vote leave after Tony stuck his oar in

 Ok , I agree; most people did make up their minds on how to vote by themselves. 

 

But on what did they base that decision if not the various arguments put forward by both sides during the campaign? Are you seriously telling us you believe the average voter ignored the campaigning and instead did in depth research into all the aspects of EU membership and Brexit. into the pros and cons of each before making up their minds? Really?

 

I am not saying that people voted Leave because Boris told them too. What I am saying is that he changed his mind, so the British people should be given the opportunity to do the same.

 

If you and your fellows are correct, the result will be the same; So why are you all running scared of a second referendum?

 

Apart from evadgib's vague threat of violence in the streets, presumably akin to the poll tax riots, no one has answered that question.

[7by7]

10 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

he only exception to that rule I do know many people that decided to vote leave after Tony stuck his oar in

 

3 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Blair: a no vote means no

Tony Blair today suggested that he would not seek another referendum on the EU constitution if it was rejected by the British people.

So are you a Blair fan or not?

 

 

[damascase]

29 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

The difference is Boris made his mind up before the Vote and not after the Vote

and there should be a 4th option on your ballot paper 

4) Remain in the EU and accept anything from the EU such as EU army, Joining the Euro, abolish house of commons, abolish house of Lords transfer of alll power and decision making to Brussels 

Your 4th option: are you just ignorant or are you knowingly spreading malicous misinformation?

[vinny41]

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Ok , I agree; most people did make up their minds on how to vote by themselves. 

 

But on what did they base that decision if not the various arguments put forward by both sides during the campaign? Are you seriously telling us you believe the average voter ignored the campaigning and instead did in depth research into all the aspects of EU membership and Brexit. into the pros and cons of each before making up their minds? Really?

 

I am not saying that people voted Leave because Boris told them too. What I am saying is that he changed his mind, so the British people should be given the opportunity to do the same.

 

If you and your fellows are correct, the result will be the same; So why are you all running scared of a second referendum?

 

Apart from evadgib's vague threat of violence in the streets, presumably akin to the poll tax riots, no one has answered that question.

And I stated that Boris changed his mind before the vote , Most leave voters I know had made there minds up as early as 2000 so the lies by both sides didn't make a any difference to the way they were going to vote

I have no problems with a 2nd referendum but it shouldn't  ask the same questions again so no option to remain on the ballot paper as we already have a referendum in 2016 where the options were leave or remain were on the ballot paper and we all know the outcome.

If there is a 2nd referendum the options on the ballot paper should be 

1. Accept and proceed with the deal agreed between the UK and EU (whatever that ends up being)?
2. Proceed with no deal.

[evadgib]

27 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

a) So you are threatening violence in the streets if the people of the UK are allowed to have their democratic say and as a result you don't get your way. That is showing abject fear of a second referendum, not a logical argument against holding one!

 

b) Why three decades from now? Parliament amends and abolishes and makes new laws all the time. If it didn't we'd still have slavery, women would not have the vote, homosexuality would still be illegal, etc., etc.. Parliament is sovereign; if it wills it we could have another referendum tomorrow.

 

c) So you'd bribe people to vote and punish those who didn't? How would you know? Part of having a secret ballot is not just keeping who an individual voted for secret, but whether or not they voted at all!

 

a) Predicting based on life experiences and whats going on in France.

 

b  ) As per precedent after previous referenda 

 

c) The proposal falls into the category of 'wishful thinking' and encourages maximum participation which in turn minimizes the chances of future silver medalists whinging as seen of late.

Edited January 1, 2019 by evadgib

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, damascase said:

39 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

The difference is Boris made his mind up before the Vote and not after the Vote

and there should be a 4th option on your ballot paper 

4) Remain in the EU and accept anything from the EU such as EU army, Joining the Euro, abolish house of commons, abolish house of Lords transfer of alll power and decision making to Brussels

Your 4th option: are you just ignorant or are you knowingly spreading malicous misinformation?

His comment is indicative of the general ignorance amongst Brexiteers on how the EU operates.

 

As you and I both know, damascase, for any of the things he lists to happen, or any other major decision, the unanimous agreement of all member governments via the Council of Ministers would be required. Therefore it would never happen if even one member, e.g. the UK should we remain in, were to say 'No.'

 

30 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Most people I know made up their minds which way to vote themselves

Did they base their decision on the ignorance you've displayed above?

 

All the more reason for a second referendum where people have all the true facts, both for Remain and Leave, presented to them so they can make an educated decision rather than one based on ignorance, myths and lies.

[evadgib]

44 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Translation: "I have no real argument to counter this, and know it."

Futile upon realizing I was pissing into wind.

Here's Pat:

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by evadgib

[melvinmelvin]

20 hours ago, oilinki said:

What was sovereign in UK? The prime minister or the parliament? 

sure looks like the PM is pretty sovereign

and the parliament is safely sidelined

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

20 hours ago, oilinki said:

What was sovereign in UK? The prime minister or the parliament? 

sure looks like the PM is pretty sovereign

and the parliament is safely sidelined

 

 

[vinny41]

11 minutes ago, damascase said:

Your 4th option: are you just ignorant or are you knowingly spreading malicous misinformation?

Do you have a crystal ball that can 100% guarantee that the Eu army question or the requirement for the UK joining the Euro isn't go to happen in the next 45 years

We already know the UK rebates are going in 2020 as the EU have already stated that 

[7by7]

7 minutes ago, evadgib said:

a) Predicting based on life experiences and whats going on in France.

 

b  ) As per precedent after previous referenda 

 

c) The proposal falls into the category of 'wishful thinking' and encourages maximum participation which in turn minimizes the chances of future silver medalists whinging as seen of late.

 

a) Forgive me, I thought the violent protests in France were about fuel tax rises threatened by the French government. Nothing to do with the EU. Besides, the French are notorious rioters. That's why Paris has all those wide boulevards; to stop the peasants building barricades across them!

 

Yes, a small number of die hard Brexiteers will protest a second referendum; but their protests will be similar to those of the Remainers outside Parliament who are demanding a second referendum; annoying but non violent.

 

Unless you know different and your mates in the Uk are already stoking up on petrol bombs and ski masks?

 

b) As explained; parliament is sovereign; precedent is meaningless. If it decides to do something, it will happen.

 

c) I agree that those who do not vote have no moral right to complain about the result. I do not believe that voting should be compulsory. But, based upon most opinion polls at the time, if voting in the referendum had been compulsory, incentivised or not, then Remain would have won!

 

Remember Farage's comment when he got the result the wrong way round? He called for a second referendum because the result was so close! Of course, he changed his mind as soon as someone corrected him on the result and called it a magnificent victory.

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Do you have a crystal ball that can 100% guarantee that the Eu army question or the requirement for the UK joining the Euro isn't go to happen in the next 45 years

We already know the UK rebates are going in 2020 as the EU have already stated that 

Do you have a crystal ball that can guarantee  that the current unanimity requirement amongst member governments will be removed?

 

Such a thing would of course require the unanimous agreement of all member governments; it'll never happen.

[nontabury]

29 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

a) So you are threatening violence in the streets if the people of the UK are allowed to have their democratic say and as a result you don't get your way. That is showing abject fear of a second referendum, not a logical argument against holding one!

 

b) Why three decades from now? Parliament amends and abolishes and makes new laws all the time. If it didn't we'd still have slavery, women would not have the vote, homosexuality would still be illegal, etc., etc.. Parliament is sovereign; if it wills it we could have another referendum tomorrow.

 

c) So you'd bribe people to vote and punish those who didn't? How would you know? Part of having a secret ballot is not just keeping who an individual voted for secret, but whether or not they voted at all!

 

We were lied/conned into voting to join a trading union in 1975.

The Democratic wish of the British people must be respected and acted upon. If it is ignored,as you and some other remoaners demand, do not be surprised if the British people,give up completely on what they would consider a sham Democracy. And resort to the alternative, civil disobedience,leading to violence.

 It took the British people 20-30 years to fully understand how they had been deceived, and another 25-15 years before they were allowed to re- vote on this issue. Personally I would be supportive if another referendum were to take place 20-15 years after Brexit. Then and only then would we know for certain if our desire for self determination, was justifiable or not.

[vinny41]

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

His comment is indicative of the general ignorance amongst Brexiteers on how the EU operates.

 

As you and I both know, damascase, for any of the things he lists to happen, or any other major decision, the unanimous agreement of all member governments via the Council of Ministers would be required. Therefore it would never happen if even one member, e.g. the UK should we remain in, were to say 'No.'

 

Did they base their decision on the ignorance you've displayed above?

 

All the more reason for a second referendum where people have all the true facts, both for Remain and Leave, presented to them so they can make an educated decision rather than one based on ignorance, myths and lies.

You can called my decision whatever way you want I call it choice, I wasn't allowed to vote in the 1975 EU referendum, if I was I would have voted against joining the common market

[evadgib]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

a) Forgive me, I thought the violent protests in France were about fuel tax rises threatened by the French government. Nothing to do with the EU. Besides, the French are notorious rioters. That's why Paris has all those wide boulevards; to stop the peasants building barricades across them!

 

Yes, a small number of die hard Brexiteers will protest a second referendum; but their protests will be similar to those of the Remainers outside Parliament who are demanding a second referendum; annoying but non violent.

 

Unless you know different and your mates in the Uk are already stoking up on petrol bombs and ski masks?

 

b) As explained; parliament is sovereign; precedent is meaningless. If it decides to do something, it will happen.

 

c) I agree that those who do not vote have no moral right to complain about the result. I do not believe that voting should be compulsory. But, based upon most opinion polls at the time, if voting in the referendum had been compulsory, incentivised or not, then Remain would have won!

 

Remember Farage's comment when he got the result the wrong way round? He called for a second referendum because the result was so close! Of course, he changed his mind as soon as someone corrected him on the result and called it a magnificent victory.

You're welcome to it ????

 

[7by7]

17 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Futile upon realizing I was pissing into wind.

Here's Pat:

 

Quoting the failed comic Condell as an authoritative source?

 

Dear God, man; you are really scraping the barrel!

 

Edit:

Done it again. Your desperation knows no limit.

Edited January 1, 2019 by 7by7
Addendum

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, nontabury said:

We were lied/conned into voting to join a trading union in 1975.

The Democratic wish of the British people must be respected and acted upon. If it is ignored,as you and some other remoaners demand, do not be surprised if the British people,give up completely on what they would consider a sham Democracy. And resort to the alternative, civil disobedience,leading to violence.

 It took the British people 20-30 years to fully understand how they had been deceived, and another 25-15 years before they were allowed to re- vote on this issue. Personally I would be supportive if another referendum were to take place 20-15 years after Brexit. Then and only then would we know for certain if our desire for self determination, was justifiable or not.

Indeed, the democratic (not Democratic; that's an American political party) will of the people must be respected.

 

Which is why they should be given a say on the final deal; as I suggested earlier.

 

As you are so much in favour of democracy, why are you so afraid of giving them that democratic choice?

 

A question oft asked, but each and every one of you Brexiteers never answer it.

 

Don't waffle on, yet again, about time scales; answer the simple question.

 

Why are you afraid of holding a second referendum now, or rather after a final deal has been reached between the UK and EU?

[evadgib]

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Quoting the failed comic Condell as an authoritative source?

 

Dear God, man; you are really scraping the barrel!

 

Edit:

Done it again. Your desperation knows no limit.

He's not alone...

 

Edited January 1, 2019 by evadgib

[malagateddy]

And exactly why is a imo..sociopath and war criminal mouthing off when neither he nor his views are not wanted..
Mind you..as a Brexiteer..once again imo..the more mouthing off he does..the more damage he does.
He's do arrogant and pretentious..he simply does not realise that HE IS UTTERLY TOXIC.

Blair: a no vote means no
Tony Blair today suggested that he would not seek another referendum on the EU constitution if it was rejected by the British people.
Under repeated questioning from reporters on whether the poll would be rerun if the answer came back negative, Mr Blair responded: "If the British people vote no, they vote no. You can't then start bringing it back until they vote yes.
Today he said if Britain voted no he would have to go back to the European council and discuss the way forward.
The PM said: "This is an issue which it is time for the British people to decide and let them have their say."
He stressed: "If the British people vote no in this referendum, that is their verdict. That is absolutely clear."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...2/eu.politics3
"Tony Blair said yesterday that he would not call an immediate second referendum on Europe if the British people throw out the proposed EU constitution in the vote expected next year."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...pe-560931.html

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

and what of...?

 Very pretty, and it does bear a faint resemblance to the EU flag; if the EU had expanded to 32 members! But one small part of the whole display.

 

Yes, the mayor did say that the fireworks would celebrate London's connections to Europe, not just the EU, as part of the London is open campaign.

 

Why not? 

 

What is wrong with trying to attract international business to the capital?

 

Why are you and the failure Condell and the Brexit media afraid of that?

 

Do you really think a firework display will influence how people would vote?

[damascase]

58 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

Do you have a crystal ball that can 100% guarantee that the Eu army question or the requirement for the UK joining the Euro isn't go to happen in the next 45 years

We already know the UK rebates are going in 2020 as the EU have already stated that 

No, I have no crystal ball, but none of this is going to happen if a Member State does not want it. If you understand how the EU works, you should now that such major decisions require unanimity.

The rebates: quite a different matter, like the other opt-outs and waivers the UK managed to get.

Edited January 1, 2019 by damascase