UK's worst-case no-deal Brexit plan warns of food shortages, public disorder

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, CaptainNemo said:

Can you name a referendum in UK history that has been legally binding? Wasn't all that Gina Miller litigation aimed at asserting Parliament's supremacy over any referendum?

More to the point, if an attempt is made to make another referendum and one that is binding, it is almost certain to face a successful challenge in the courts, which will upend that notion of "should be".

 

The question you appeared to dodge was this:

If we have a second referendum to confirm our confirming that we want to leave, then it's unbalanced.

How do you reconcile that?

 

...one vote to join, then two votes to leave?

 

Do you get my point? Why is that reasonable or fair?

Would you expect two referendums to decide on joining or rejoining?

 

I would appreciate a response to the above.

 

 

 

As for the rest, these were semi-rhetorical, but I don't see why you can't respond to them.

Remainers should try to see Brexiteers not as a horde of orcs, but as people who they need to convince with facts and reason, because in the end, the country needs to be majority reconciled after Brexit.

 

are you able to describe anything specific about what you care about in terms of the imagined effects of Brexit on the British economy, or is just personal frustration with losing a benefit that affects you personally?

Why should it be a binding referendum?

Shouldn't parliament be sovereign?

Do you think the 2016 referendum should have been binding?

Do you think a simple majority is enough? Or do you want a higher threshold?

See the post following yours regarding a legally binding referendum.

 

I saw your post earlier, but did not have time to sit behind the computer, but do now.

 

IMO, a referendum should reflect the opinion of the people, I very much doubt it did so in 2016 and doubt so even more right now. Remain though they had won before they started and did not put in much effort, leave thought they had lost and did everything they could to convince. Too many people were convinced of the same and did not bother to go out and vote.

This means that IMO the referendum has failed, since it does not do what it set out to do: reflect the opinion of the people. Now that alone does not make it invalid, but does partly explain the difficult position of parliament, which has to act in the interest of the people. Also the setup of the referendum was badly thought out, and that includes the consequences of a leave vote.

 

I am not here to blame leave or remain.

 

With now much more information available and hopefully much more motivation, I think the only way to achieve the goal of the referendum is to have a new one, which would also mean it will reflects today's opinion, not that of 3 years ago. To change any policy a clear majority should be achieved, e.g. 60%, and IMO also something can be said about regional majorities required in order to prevent certain areas to dominate.

[DannyCarlton]

50 minutes ago, kingdong said:

The remainers,you were offered a general election and bottled it.How much further damage do they want to do to what I assume (at least in some cases ) is their country?

We control parliament now. We call the shots.

[DannyCarlton]

43 minutes ago, Forethat said:

I do have admit I'm not surprised to see that type of question from a remainer.

 

And, yes, we landed on the moon.

Wow! Not only are you TVs Mr Humphrys but you also landed on the moon. What a guy!

 

Fore!

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Slip said:

None of your little rant matters.  My point stands. Sorry that you wasted your time with one fingered typing.

 

EDIT: The fact that we are still talking about 'legally binding' is because of the brexiteers continued use of the phrase 'legally binding referendum' in reference to what happened in 2016.  If you could only persuade them to stop talking <deleted>, we could move on from it.

Whatever you personally think it is and has been happening for over 3 years now.

 

If you still don't like or agree with what has and still is happening then do something about it.

 

Whining and complaining on TVF achieves nothing. Take it up in the UK courts, and I wish you the best of luck.

 

It wasn't a rant , so sorry to disappoint you.

 

Actually I have graduated from one finger to two finger typing. I still have to proof read what I wrote though.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Yes.

 

 As it says, that para was a direct response to @kingdong saying that those who don't share his political beliefs should leave the country! Which is why I said "I hope you are not serious....."

 

Not that you are interested; taking remarks out of context is par for the course for you.

Didn,t say that at all as you well know,insert the passage I wrote instead of trying to put words in my mouth and taking them out of context,very childish when you have to use these type of arguments

 

Your post in full:

On 9/14/2019 at 1:52 PM, kingdong said:

Actually it wasn,t the" eu" in 1975 it was the common market,simply for trade agreements amongst the wealthiest country's in europe.now it's morphed into something far beyond that,how many countries in it now?how many are in massive debt?let's face it, it's finished now and we should follow the habits of rats and get off a sinking ship before it takes us down with it.if I was a remaine r I would personally be making plans to settle in the eu,haven,t seem much evidence of that,yet we,ve got 3 million eu citizens living in the uk,what do,'es that tell you?

(7by7 emphasis)

 

QED.

 

[7by7]

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

Its irrelevant as to whether the referendum was legally binding or not , it just the losers looking for a reason not to comply with the result

 If the 2016 referendum had been legally binding then all the delays and attempts to reverse the result would not have happened and we would have left last March!

 

Hardly irrelevant!

[StreetCowboy]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 If the 2016 referendum had been legally binding then all the delays and attempts to reverse the result would not have happened and we would have left last March!

 

Hardly irrelevant!

Luckily the hard-liners secured us a stay of execution. What I hear is that Boris is likely to put forward a deal that the DUP will block... and so it will go on.

But at least we agree that Brexit means Brexit, whatever that might mean

[StreetCowboy]

2 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Hang on, who's the losers? Are we still in the EU or not?

It’s scarcely the battle of Thermopylae but no-one celebrates a victory against a smaller enemy

[7by7]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

I agree with you that the referendum was badly written but try to understand that it was written by or on behalf of the government at the time and up to the point of putting it out to be acted upon the was a wealth of government legal advisors who could and should have done a final draft before releasing it onto the public.

 

Indeed, and many academics agree: The Brexit referendum question was flawed in its design.

Quote

Renwick et al. (2016) in an opinion in The Telegraph June 14 protested: ‘A referendum result is democratically legitimate only if voters can make an informed decision. Yet the level of misinformation in the current campaign is so great that democratic legitimacy is called into question’.

Their letter complains about the quality of information available to voters (an issue about which the RES has raised complaints with the BBC). It doesn’t make the point that the UK government, by ignoring voting theory, has posed a very misleading question given the complexity of the issue under decision. Quite unsettling is the Grassegger and Krogerus (2017) report about voter manipulation by Big Data, originally on Brexit and later for the election of Donald Trump. But the key point here concerns the referendum question itself.

 

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

Having said that, that was 3 or 4 years ago. That was then and this is now and what we have to work with which is reality.

 

What went on before is water under the bridge and cannot be undone. Anybody, MP or commoner could have challenged the referendum in the courts before the actual votes and they might have won but it appears nobody did. The last 3 years is a direct result of that.

 

If there is to be another referendum whoever draws it up had better make sure that it is word perfect, specify what the options are exactly, specify what the pass/fail mark is to be, specify what actions are to be taken on whatever choice is made and specify exactly.

what will happen is the pass mark is not achieved.

 

Whatever government will be in charge of that referendum must also clearly state that whatever option is chosen by the public, that is what will happen.

 

Agree; time has passed, attitudes have changed as more and more information has been made available to the public. Information previously kept hidden or dismissed by both sides of the campaign; but by Cummings in particular.

 

All major parties promised to abide by the result last time; hasn't happened yet! The only way to ensure that the referendum result does happen is to make that referendum legally binding.

 

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

If the Lib/Dems under Jo Swinson are not prepared to accept the result the result if it goes as Leave then tough on her. She speaks for the Lib/Dem party only.

 

Make the referendum legally binding and she and her party will have no choice other than to accept it. They may not like it, but accept it they must.

[david555]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/15/eu-officials-reject-boris-johnson-claim-huge-progress-brexit-talks

Jennifer Rankin and Daniel Boffey

Sun 15 Sep 2019 14.23 BST

EU officials reject Boris Johnson claim of 'huge progress' in Brexit talks

PM’s upbeat account dismissed as Jean-Claude Juncker warns time is running out

 

EU officials have rejected Boris Johnson’s claim that “a huge amount of progress” is being made in Brexit talks, as Jean-Claude Juncker warned that time is running out.

 

Juncker, who will stand down as European commission president on 31 October, is expected to ask Johnson to spell out his ideas for replacing the Irish backstop when the pair meet over lunch in Luxembourg on Monday.

 

more...

[kingdong]

24 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Your post in full:

 

QED.

 

I said " if I was a remainer "I would consider leaving the country,if it bothers you that much why not try and do something about it instead of whingeing all the time,well enjoyed conversing with you ,ps noticed how many government notiices are appearing on posters,and on the radio advising businesses to contact a government helpline for brexi t on the 31 at October? Perhaps they know something you don,t.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

The remainers,you were offered a general election and bottled it.How much further damage do they want to do to what I assume (at least in some cases ) is their country?

 

Already explained several times why the HoC refused to give Boris his election at the time of his choosing. The opposition voting against it as they want to choose the timing. Tories voting against it as they feared they'd lose!

 

Already explained several times the difference between an election and a referendum.

 

Brexiteers keep calling a general election a 'People's Vote' on Brexit, when for reasons gone into at length previously it is nothing of the sort.

 

The real People's Vote would be a final, legally binding referendum.

 

I am in favour of Remain because for all it's faults I believe we are better in the EU than out. But if we decide to leave with an acceptable deal then leave we will. As we should have done last March; but Rees-Mogg et al blocked it.

 

But I firmly believe it is imperative that we avoid the disaster which I am sure would befall my country if we left without a deal! Talk to people you know (assuming you are in the UK) and you will find that many, Brexiteer and Remainer, agree with me on this.

 

 

[kingdong]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Already explained several times why the HoC refused to give Boris his election at the time of his choosing. The opposition voting against it as they want to choose the timing. Tories voting against it as they feared they'd lose!

 

Already explained several times the difference between an election and a referendum.

 

Brexiteers keep calling a general election a 'People's Vote' on Brexit, when for reasons gone into at length previously it is nothing of the sort.

 

The real People's Vote would be a final, legally binding referendum.

 

I am in favour of Remain because for all it's faults I believe we are better in the EU than out. But if we decide to leave with an acceptable deal then leave we will. As we should have done last March; but Rees-Mogg et al blocked it.

 

But I firmly believe it is imperative that we avoid the disaster which I am sure would befall my country if we left without a deal! Talk to people you know (assuming you are in the UK) and you will find that many, Brexiteer and Remainer, agree with me on this.

 

 

in other words you bottled it.

[7by7]

10 minutes ago, kingdong said:

I said " if I was a remainer "I would consider leaving the country,

Indeed you did; and I said you were "saying that those who don't share his political beliefs should leave the country."

 

Are you now saying that you share the opinions of Remainers?

 

12 minutes ago, kingdong said:

,if it bothers you that much why not try and do something about it instead of whingeing all the time,well enjoyed conversing with you ,

Nope, read this several times, still don't understand. Can you put it into English, please?

 

14 minutes ago, kingdong said:

ps noticed how many government notiices are appearing on posters,and on the radio advising businesses to contact a government helpline for brexi t on the 31 at October? Perhaps they know something you don,t.

Yes, advising on how to deal with a no deal Brexit on 31st October; something most Brexiteers are saying, and all Remainers are hoping, is a worst case scenario which is highly unlikely to happen.

 

Although we've wandered all over the place, it's that plan and those adverts which this topic is actually supposed to be about!

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, kingdong said:

in other words you bottled it.

 You obviously have no idea what that phrase means.

[SheungWan]

At least be honest , you have no concerns about the legality of the 2016 referendum , you are just using a technicality to try to get that vote overturned and to have another referendum which will hopefully go your way this time

A "technicality" [emoji1782]

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[SheungWan]

This will really upset the Brexiteers.
 
More and more MPs are coming round to just revoking article 50 unilaterally and putting an end to all this nonsense. Could be some interesting parliamentary sessions post party conferences.

Boris talking about cutting a deal with the EU (pause for signals of unease from the Hard Brexiteer claque) but nobody on the opposition side trusting him as far as they can spit.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sanemax]

On 9/15/2019 at 4:38 AM, SheungWan said:

A "technicality"

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yes ,a 'technicality '????????

[7by7]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes ,a 'technicality '????????

 Nevertheless an important one.

 

As mentioned many times, but always ignored by Brexiteers, had the referendum been legally binding the High Court would have declared the result null and void due to the illegal activities of the leave campaigns.

 

As it was only advisory they had no basis in law for doing that.

 

Had the referendum been legally binding then MPs could not legally have delayed and delayed; we would have left the EU last March. Which is what I thought you Brexiteers wanted!

 

Make the final referendum legally binding and there will be no more ifs, buts and maybes; the government will have to abide by and implement the result; whatever that result is.

 

 

[sanemax]

On 9/15/2019 at 4:53 AM, 7by7 said:

 Nevertheless an important one.

 

As mentioned many times, but always ignored by Brexiteers, had the referendum been legally binding the High Court would have declared the result null and void due to the illegal activities of the leave campaigns.

 

As it was only advisory they had no basis in law for doing that.

 

Had the referendum been legally binding then MPs could not legally have delayed and delayed; we would have left the EU last March. Which is what I thought you Brexiteers wanted!

 

Make the final referendum legally binding and there will be no more ifs, buts and maybes; the government will have to abide by and implement the result; whatever that result is.

 

 

I give up .

Remainers won the referendum , everything is Tory/brexiteers fault  and they are all lying racists and you can have another referendum if you want .

  

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I give up .

Remainers won the referendum , everything is Tory/brexiteers fault  and they are all lying racists and you can have another referendum if you want .

  

I guess since you've got nothing, putting words in someone else's mouth is all you can do.

[sanemax]

On 9/15/2019 at 5:07 AM, bristolboy said:

I guess since you've got nothing, putting words in someone else's mouth is all you can do.

Whose mouth did I put those words into ?

[nauseus]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

As shown many times, the future aims of the community finally embodied in the Maastricht treaty were not only well known and publicised at the time of the 1975 referendum, but well before.

 

The last time being post 623 of this topic

 

Maybe Major should have held a referendum on Maastricht, maybe Thatcher should have held a referendum on the Single European Act; but they didn't.

 

You can't show it many times. It didn't happen.  

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

. Take it u

 

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

Indeed, and many academics agree: The Brexit referendum question was flawed in its design.

 

 

Agree; time has passed, attitudes have changed as more and more information has been made available to the public. Information previously kept hidden or dismissed by both sides of the campaign; but by Cummings in particular.

 

All major parties promised to abide by the result last time; hasn't happened yet! The only way to ensure that the referendum result does happen is to make that referendum legally binding.

 

 

Make the referendum legally binding and she and her party will have no choice other than to accept it. They may not like it, but accept it they must.

Boring as ever.

[Nigel Garvie]

5 hours ago, kingdong said:

in other words you bottled it.

If your enemy DESPERATELY wants something, that's the one thing you don't give him. Why should they, they have him exactly where they want him. The huge pleasure it is giving millions of people to see the lying fat porker slowly turning on the roasting spit, as he thrashes about wildly trying to escape the total mess he has made of things, is a pleasure few want to end prematurely. 

In many grim years of the Brexit fiasco this is one of the few times I just want to sit back, pour myself a large one, and enjoy the spectacle while it lasts!!

 

The big laugh would be if Boris gets someone to propose a vote of no confidence in him, and the opposition vote against the no confidence motion. It would be nice to see him remain in office, but not in power, for a while. ????????

[SheungWan]

I give up .
Remainers won the referendum , everything is Tory/brexiteers fault  and they are all lying racists and you can have another referendum if you want .
  

Well thank you. But it is Parliament that will decide not the vague speculations of myriad Brexiteers.

Sent from my SM-N935F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Slip]

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

Whatever you personally think it is and has been happening for over 3 years now.

 

If you still don't like or agree with what has and still is happening then do something about it.

 

Whining and complaining on TVF achieves nothing. Take it up in the UK courts, and I wish you the best of luck.

 

It wasn't a rant , so sorry to disappoint you.

 

Actually I have graduated from one finger to two finger typing. I still have to proof read what I wrote though.

 

Quote

It wasn't a rant , so sorry to disappoint you.

 

Actually I have graduated from one finger to two finger typing. I still have to proof read what I wrote though.

 

Sorry Bill.  I was out of line.

[kingdong]

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Nevertheless an important one.

 

As mentioned many times, but always ignored by Brexiteers, had the referendum been legally binding the High Court would have declared the result null and void due to the illegal activities of the leave campaigns.

 

As it was only advisory they had no basis in law for doing that.

 

Had the referendum been legally binding then MPs could not legally have delayed and delayed; we would have left the EU last March. Which is what I thought you Brexiteers wanted!

 

Make the final referendum legally binding and there will be no more ifs, buts and maybes; the government will have to abide by and implement the result; whatever that result is.

 

 

If the referendum wasn,t legal why w.as parliament allowed to invoke article 50?

[Mike Teavee]

Just now, kingdong said:

If the referendum wasn,t legal why w.as parliament allowed to invoke article 50?

Parliament is sovereign & so could invoke Article 50 without a referendum if enough MPs voted to do so.

 

 

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, Mike Teavee said:

Parliament is sovereign & so could invoke Article 50 without a referendum if enough MPs voted to do so.

 

 

Which they did.