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

[Mike Teavee]

2 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Which they did.

No arguments there, and by a large majority, but it had nothing to do with whether the Referendum was legal or not,

 

ironically, if the Referendum had of been legally binding then it could have been thrown out by the courts if it was deemed to be in anyway illegal, but as it was only advisory it's at Parliaments discretion whether to take the results on-board or not, which they did & invoked A50.

 

 

[transam]

15 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

I get sick of posters who keep banging on about, "Cameron promised us", "It's the democratic will of the people", "if we don't leave there will be a revolution" etc. etc.

 

Lawyers did challenge it in the courts, the action only failed because the referendum was deemed advisory not binding.

 

Remainers wouldn't keep banging on about it if Brexiteers accepted the fact that it was advisory and keep trying to make points that would only be valid if the referendum was binding. Do try and move on, the referendum was advisory and that's not going to change.

 

Well I hope you feel better soon....

[DannyCarlton]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Well I hope you feel better soon....

I doubt it. I'm sure that you'll keep banging on about "the democratic will of the people" and "Cameron promised" for a long time yet. I can't imagine your state of apoplexy when Article 50 gets revoked.

[transam]

1 minute ago, DannyCarlton said:

I doubt it. I'm sure that you'll keep banging on about "the democratic will of the people" and "Cameron promised" for a long time yet. I can't imagine your state of apoplexy when Article 50 gets revoked.

55555, I don't give a stuff, I am on these threads because I don't like the thought of the wishes of the UK voters being overturned by folk who want to become controlled by others across the channel. That's it, the vote that won are folk who do NOT want to be controlled by others. Folk could see where the EU was going, it took a few decades for it to become clear, and clear it is...

 

I read that our armed forces are now worried because of the one European army thing.....That is bad news....

[DannyCarlton]

1 minute ago, transam said:

I read that our armed forces are now worried because of the one European army thing.....That is bad news....

Don't worry, never going to happen, just more Dominic Cummings propaganda. Keep soaking it up.

[billd766]

12 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

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

Erm, I think it means Brexit in one form or another.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Slip said:

 

 

Sorry Bill.  I was out of line.

Not a problem. 

 

My problem is that I have fat typing fingers and I can easily hit 2 keys at once. Fortunately I have a spell checker running that hi lights most of the errors. At 75 I don't think I will improve any more.

[Nigel Garvie]

6 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

No arguments there, and by a large majority, but it had nothing to do with whether the Referendum was legal or not,

 

ironically, if the Referendum had of been legally binding then it could have been thrown out by the courts if it was deemed to be in anyway illegal, but as it was only advisory it's at Parliaments discretion whether to take the results on-board or not, which they did & invoked A50.

 

 

Precisely, and if Parliament want to un-ivoke A50, they can do that also. (I think un-invoke is probably not good English as she is spoke!)

[Laughing Gravy]

11 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

Precisely, and if Parliament want to un-ivoke A50, they can do that also. (I think un-invoke is probably not good English as she is spoke!)

Even sensible remainers don't believe that will or should happen, as democracy would be dead in the UK. Even the disgraceful MP's would know that there time would be up at the next GE.

[kingdong]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Even sensible remainers don't believe that will or should happen, as democracy would be dead in the UK. Even the disgraceful MP's would know that there time would be up at the next GE.

What next " general election " they were offered one and bottled it.had it occurred it w.could have been a 2 horse race brexi t vs remain and remain melted.

[wilcopops]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Even sensible remainers don't believe that will or should happen, as democracy would be dead in the UK. Even the disgraceful MP's would know that there time would be up at the next GE.

Yet again a Brexiteer invokes the "D" word without actually knowing what it means.

[nauseus]

32 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

Yet again a Brexiteer invokes the "D" word without actually knowing what it means.

Remainers only recently even caring to mention the word now come out with this. Hilarious.

[kingdong]

10 hours ago, DannyCarlton said:

Don't worry, never going to happen, just more Dominic Cummings propaganda. Keep soaking it up.

These colours don,t run

[Bruntoid]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

What next " general election " they were offered one and bottled it.had it occurred it w.could have been a 2 horse race brexi t vs remain and remain melted.

It doesn’t matter how many dozens of times it’s been clearly explained to you, you are still completely unable to comprehend simple facts. 

 

The GE attempts failed as Johnson can’t be trusted - take a few minutes to digest that so you don’t have to keep making the same errors. 

 

However your absurd 2 horse analogy makes me doubt it will get through. 

[Bruntoid]

22 minutes ago, kingdong said:

These colours don,t run

Is that some sort of football violence mantra ? 

[Bruntoid]

On 9/15/2019 at 6:20 PM, DannyCarlton said:

Personally, I think the nation should be allowed a referendum on whether Boris buys a comb or not.

Most would prefer if he just bought a condom!!

 

How many kids has this role model abandoned now ? 

[stevenl]

33 minutes ago, Bruntoid said:

Is that some sort of football violence mantra ? 

No, just trolling.

[7by7]

23 hours ago, nauseus said:

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

 I provided this link to the Telegraph before; didn't you read it?

 

No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into.

 

See also this Wikipedia article

 

Quote

Apart from the ideas of federation, confederation, or customs union such as Winston Churchill's 1946 call for a "United States of Europe", the original development of the European Union was based on a supranational foundation that would "make war unthinkable and materially impossible"^[1][2] and reinforce democracy amongst its members^[3] as laid out by Robert Schuman and other leaders in the Schuman Declaration (1950) and the Europe Declaration (1951). This principle was at the heart of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) (1951), the Treaty of Paris (1951), and later the Treaty of Rome (1958) which established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC). The ECSC expired in 2002, while the EAEC maintains a distinct legal identity despite sharing members and institutions

 

I suspect, though, that you wont read either of those as you find explanations of the facts, which are by their very nature lengthy, to be 

23 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Boring as ever.

 

What a master debater you are!

[7by7]

14 hours ago, kingdong said:

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

 

The referendum was legal. No one has said it wasn't; have they?

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

12 hours ago, transam said:

I read that our armed forces are now worried because of the one European army thing.....That is bad news....

 Really?

 

Where did you read that?

 

The 'European Army thing' has been a dream of a few in Europe for over 50 years; hasn't happened yet.

 

It wont either, without the unanimous consent of all member states!

 

I refer you to item 14 in  There’s a lot wrong with this viral list about the Lisbon Treaty

 

[CaptainNemo]

On 9/15/2019 at 8:01 PM, stevenl said:

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.

That is as bogus an argument as the Chinese case for annexing Tibet... that you do a thing, then drag it out so long to try and stop any change, and say, oh well it's different now. Your whole position rests on your unsupported opinion that you doubt the referendum reflected the opinion of people.

 

Frankly, I doubt that the result of the 1997 election reflected the opinion of people, but we can't re-run that. Just because Remain failed, does not mean that the referendum failed. People don't want the EU, and that is not news to people outside the strongholds of Remain, it's very old news and to quote a favourite of Remainers, an "inconvenient truth".

 

We don't want it, we never did, Europhiles railroaded Europe onto the people and acted like they were ill or stupid or less informed for simply disagreeing with them - it's so unbelievably arrogant and conceited a position, and it's part of why the Remain campaign was poor, and why the majority of voters don't like Remain. Remain is a weak idea, because is a weak idea, you can't force it on people and make them think it's good when it's weak.

I know it suited a lot of middle class people, who had nice jobs and holidays/second homes out of it, and I know that the Labour party is a middle class party now, but most of the voters haven't shifted much, they're still working class and see the world and Britain's place in it differently from Europhiles/Remainiacs.

 

The debate about EU membership itself goes back decades, and the notion that people don't know anything is specious. Leavers have been campaigning to leave since 1992. Remainers were certainly campaigning to remain long before the campaign started. The truth is, and LSE research supports this, that Remain was always behind Leave, because Remain as a concept is unambitious, fearful, and protectionist, and those are European Union values, not British values, Britain is a uniquely global country and fencing it into some corner of the world for geographic convenience doesn't work, for Europe or Britain.

 

The only reasonable course of action is for a second referendum to be one after the UK has left, to vote on whether to rejoin.

It's not reasonable to undermine the concept of national votes by ignoring results, it sets a dangerous precedent that can be abused by autocrats, as is the case when Parliament refuses to go to the people to obtain a mandate... if parliament opposes the result of the referendum, it has no mandate, no legitimacy, and must be dissolved immediately. The Queen should dissolve parliament, regardless of what the Labour Party and the Remainer faction wants.

 

On 9/15/2019 at 6:35 PM, 7by7 said:

The precedent has been set; no reason why we cannot have another, legally binding referendum.

Well yes there is, the simple fact that all referenda on this subject have been non-binding, and also that you can't have one vote on joining and two (or more) votes on leaving. The Miller case has asserted Parliamentry sovereignty, and Parliament has lost legitimacy because it is at odds with the expressed will of the people, and refuses to hold a General Election. It's an untenable situation.

There is no democratic mandate to try and create a binding referendum, if the Remain Faction wants to form an unholy alliance and campaign for that in a General Election, then that is reasonable.

To try and create a binding referendum with no electoral mandate to do so, goes against the Miller ruling about parliamentary sovereignty, and it would be challenged in the courts. Wrecking the constitution is not the way to stop Brexit: it will backfire badly.

The grounds used to challenge prorogation in the Scottish court cite an ancient law that talked about the will of the people and stymying of parliament - well they can't have it both ways - Labour must vote for a General Election.

 

On 9/15/2019 at 3:40 PM, tebee said:

You may know precisely what you want, I doubt the general leave voting population did.

...and you may doubt it, but that has absolutely no bearing on anything, especially because you don't really appear to take any interest in what the "general leave voting population" thinks.

Quote

 

Only one third of Leave voters thought they were voting to leave the single market in 2016.

Untrue. There has been a consistent amount of support for leaving the EU ever since we joined it.

Many people have been politically active in 1992 when we left the EEC and joined the EU without any public consultation (Farage being one of the more recently notable ones).

That's when the Campaign for an Independent Britain started, a forerunner of the Referendum and UKIP.

 

Quote

 

Do you not think no deal has serious economic risks?

No I think remaining in the EU has serious economic risks, and we should have left 3 years ago, 27 years ago, or never joined. Germany is in recession, and the Italian banks are in a precarious state. There is persistent lower-than-inflation growth, persistent high-unemployment, unwanted mass-immgration, and rising cost of living across the EU. The UK needs to escape this sinking ship as a matter of urgency, and start reforming and trading with the parts of the world that are actually growing economically.

 

UK democracy has been attacked and sabotaged by every part of the Remain-infested establishment, from the BBC, to the Speaker of the House, the courts, the Civil Service, and a Parliament that doesn't represent the people and refuses to hold a General Election.

Today we had the "Libidinous Demagogues" on today saying that they would simply and glibly dismiss Brexit out of hand, without even a second refendum... this is a party that calls itself "liberal" and "democratic", and wants to behave like an autocratic party, it's a party that promised not to raise tuition fees, and did the exact opposite, a party that appears to have no moral principles that will say anything for a vote, and accept anyone as a member. The contempt for democracy is outrageous; and the cries of "dictator" farcical.

Ireland, if it has any sense, will leave the EU too, as it does more trade with the UK than with the rest.

 

 

On 9/15/2019 at 3:02 PM, Mike Teavee said:

Yes... 

 

An exception was the 2011 referendum on changing the electoral system to alternative vote, where the relevant legislation obligated the government to change the law to reflect a “yes” vote had that occurred.

 

 

Fair enough, I was away for ages for that one, it totally passed me by like ships in the night... it was a LibDem referendum wasn't it... very selective about referenda, aren't they?

 

Nevertheless, all that effort in the courts to ensure that parliament has the final say does change things, as described above. You either go to the courts or have a general election, and I don't think the Judiciary wants to be confused with the Executive or the Legislature.

 

Still deafening silence on this one:

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

How do you reconcile that?"

 

1 hour ago, Bruntoid said:

The GE attempts failed as Johnson can’t be trusted

No, the GE attempts failed because the Labour Party abstained en masse, and they did that because they don't have a coherent policy on Brexit, and they know they will lose, and the Rotten Remain parliament will be purged and filled with MPs that the electorate want. If MPS won't call an election, if they won't respect the result, then they have lost their mandate, their legitimacy, and it's they who can't be trusted.

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

No, just trolling.

no,just quoting a prominent remainer.

[7by7]

25 minutes ago, CaptainNemo said:

On 9/15/2019 at 12:35 PM, 7by7 said:

The precedent has been set; no reason why we cannot have another, legally binding referendum.

Well yes there is, the simple fact that all referenda on this subject have been non-binding, and also that you can't have one vote on joining and two (or more) votes on leaving. The Miller case has asserted Parliamentry sovereignty, and Parliament has lost legitimacy because it is at odds with the expressed will of the people, and refuses to hold a General Election. It's an untenable situation. The grounds used to challenge prorogation in the Scottish court cite an ancient law that talked about the will of the people and stymying of parliament - well they can't have it both ways - Labour must vote for a General Election.

I have selected just this part of your post to reply to as it is a response to a comment by me.

 

Parliament can legislate for as many referendums as it wishes, advisory or binding. It is, as you rightly say, sovereign! Being sovereign it can also ignore the result of an advisory referendum; which is why any final one on Brexit must be made legally binding. But will Parliament have the courage to do this?

 

Johnson has already silenced Parliament for 5 weeks with his disgraceful prorogation. Others have explained why Johnson's attempt to silence Parliament for even longer by holding a general election failed.

 

I have previously explained how a general election is different to a referendum and would almost certainly produce a different result. 

 Following the conference resolution by the LibDems, I can't help wondering how those Brexiteers calling for a general election would react if we had one before Brexit and the LibDems won!

 

Personally, for reasons already explained, I'd prefer a final, legally binding referendum; no matter who won any election and what their Brexit policy was.. 

[nauseus]

58 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 I provided this link to the Telegraph before; didn't you read it?

 

No, Britain wasn't lied to when we joined the EU. We knew what we were getting into.

 

See also this Wikipedia article

 

 

I suspect, though, that you wont read either of those as you find explanations of the facts, which are by their very nature lengthy, to be 

 

What a master debater you are!

Same old from the master winker. The fact is that most people were not informed as you say. No internet then and how many people read the Tellywag? Powell was unpopular at the time, Heath had the ears of most of us and he lied through his damn teeth.  

[kingdong]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I have selected just this part of your post to reply to as it is a response to a comment by me.

 

Parliament can legislate for as many referendums as it wishes, advisory or binding. It is, as you rightly say, sovereign! Being sovereign it can also ignore the result of an advisory referendum; which is why any final one on Brexit must be made legally binding. But will Parliament have the courage to do this?

 

Johnson has already silenced Parliament for 5 weeks with his disgraceful prorogation. Others have explained why Johnson's attempt to silence Parliament for even longer by holding a general election failed.

 

I have previously explained how a general election is different to a referendum and would almost certainly produce a different result. 

 Following the conference resolution by the LibDems, I can't help wondering how those Brexiteers calling for a general election would react if we had one before Brexit and the LibDems won!

 

Personally, for reasons already explained, I'd prefer a final, legally binding referendum; no matter who won any election and what their Brexit policy was.. 

the lib dems with their pledge to rip up the article 50 could be a party of fresh air,after all they abolished student tuition fees,sorry as you were,it was comrade corbyn that promised that.same as we,'re all going to only have to work a 4 day week at no loss of wages.

[wilcopops]

13 hours ago, transam said:

don't like the thought of the wishes of the UK voters being overturned by folk who want to become controlled by others across the channel.

What an inaccurate and paranoid assessment.

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

What an inaccurate and paranoid assessment.

No it's not.

[wilcopops]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The fact is that most people were not informed as

No....because they were twelve.....i suppose you want to rip up the Magna Carta because you weren't unformed about that either.

 

[kingdong]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Same old from the master winker. The fact is that most people were not informed as you say. Not internet then and how many people read the Tellywag then? Powell was unpopular at the time, Heath had the ears of most of us and he lied through his damn teeth.  

Powell was not unpopular amongst the working classes,there wer e marches by Dockers in support of him just like the working classes who have suffered through our membership to the eu. And voted leave.

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Same old from the master winker. The fact is that most people were not informed as you say. No internet then and how many people read the Tellywag? Powell was unpopular at the time, Heath had the ears of most of us and he lied through his damn teeth.  

 

Powell was very popular; particular with the right of his party.

 

How was Heath telling us that joining the EC would require some loss of sovereignty lying through his teeth?

 

But it wasn't just Heath and Powell who were telling us all this at the time; as the Telegraph article makes clear.

 

BTW, the Telegraph is not known as the Torygraph for nothing. Plus it supported Brexit before the referendum and still does.

 

If you can't believe what your own side tells you, what can you believe?