So what did the Brexit supporters gain?

[AlexRich]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And again, you could be right.  But somehow I suspect the individual countries would prefer not to apply tariffs - that the UK would apply in a retaliatory fashion.

 

You're making the mistake of thinking that the companies (in EU countries) would be concerned about EU free movement/EU contributions.  The companies are only concerned with their own profits.

 

This was always the brexiteer argument ... the "they need us more than we need them". But the EU will not just weigh up what companies want, they will also consider what principles they stand behind ... at the moment I see no shift on free movement, so if we don't accept that we will be penalised in some way ... to give free access and no free movement encourage others to seek referenda ... something they will want to avoid. We've overestimated our hand. 

[dick dasterdly]

11 minutes ago, GuestHouse said:

 

No what I have said all along is 'there is no plan' and 'nobody has any idea what deal is available or how a deal will be reached'.

 

What I added in my response to your last post are comments on the fact that Brexit and any deal that Brexit might obtain has huge constitutional implications for the UK .

The government are bound by parliamentary law to present such changes before parliament for debate and ratification.

 

Sovereignty resides with parliament, not with the government.

 

We need be neither Brexit or Remain supporters to see why this is necesary.

 

For example, if the negotiations are unable to deliver a key Brexit demand who then can accept the deal minus that demand when doing so would defy what Brexit claims to be 'the will of the people'?

Forgive me if I try to 'pin you down', but are you saying that those supporting brexit had any chance of formulating a planned leave - bearing in mind only the government had all the relevant information, and the EU (for obvious reasons) had no interest in pretending there could be anything other than a 'remain' vote?

 

The EU  certainly wasn't about to start talking or negotiating in the event of any 'leave' vote!

 

They're still saying that there will be no negotiations even now  .

Edited August 28, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[GuestHouse]

21 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Forgive me if I try to 'pin you down', but are you saying that those supporting brexit had any chance of formulating a planned leave - bearing in mind only the government had all the relevant information, and the EU (for obvious reasons) had no interest in pretending there could be anything other than a 'remain' vote?

 

The EU  certainly wasn't about to start talking or negotiating in the event of any 'leave' vote!

 

They're still saying that there will be no negotiations even now  .

 

No, I'm saying there was no plan and todate there is no plan.

 

Whatever plan develops and whatever negotiation develops must, because it impacts UK constitutioal law, be presented to parliament for debate and rattification.

Edited August 28, 2016 by GuestHouse

[phutoie2]

Quote

Whatever plan develops and whatever negotiation develops must, because it impacts UK constitutioal law, be presented to parliament for debate and ratification.

Unlikely to be a debate as May intends to Trigger article 50 without consulting parliament. Government lawyers have advised her on this.  All over UK press this morning, the tree huggers already accusing her of behaving like a Tudor monarch.  Which I find odd as she hasn't really done anything of substance yet. Well apart from appointing the three stooges.

[cumgranosalum]

9 hours ago, Ricardo said:

"they haven't a leg to stand on" ?

 

Perhaps it shows just how disconnected the UK-politicians are perceived to be, that so many people turned out to vote against their advice, a protest-vote which unexpectedly carried-the-day ?

 

Or perhaps it shows a level of concern about Immigration, which over-rides any rational thought, about the other consequences of Brexit ?

 

Or perhaps it demonstrates that, while the entry of the UK into the EEC forty-years-ago has produced many positive results, the recent steps to expand from Western-Europe into a much-larger block does not have sufficient support among the Brits ?

 

Or perhaps it shows that there are a number of serious divisions in the UK, which aren't being addressed sufficiently robustly, the economic need of Scotland & Northern-Ireland to stay within the socialist support-network, or the South-East vs the rest-of-England split ?

 

Or a perfect-wave combination of these & other factors ?

"tree-huggers" - really???

Edited August 28, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[billd766]

21 hours ago, GuestHouse said:

 

No, I'm saying there was no plan and todate there is no plan.

 

Whatever plan develops and whatever negotiation develops must, because it impacts UK constitutioal law, be presented to parliament for debate and rattification.

 

It doesn't matter that much that the Brexit team had in your words "no plan". They could have had 10 or 20 plans but as they were not in power there was little they could do. The government however, were in power, had access to all the plans and how to develop the UK within the EU but actually lacked ANY plan or idea of what to do when the voters chose Brexit.

 

It must have come as a big shock for them to realise that more than 17,xxx,xxx voters actually wanted the UK to leave the EU. The world is full of if onlys, such as if only the former PM had said that there must be a 60, 70% more votes in favour of Brexit, if only both sides had told the truth etc but at the end of the day that it what was voted and the result must stand, like it or not.

 

Owen Smith who is trying to oust Jeremy Corbyn wants another referendum and perhaps more if he still loses and threatens that when/if he become the leader of the Labour party he will try to block Brexit. What gives HIM the right to challenge the Brexit vote?

 

It was a democratic vote and he and his side lost. Tough. In a simple yes/no vote one side will always lose.

[Khun Han]

There is nothing wrong with the Lower House debating the details/nitty gritty of brexit. But brexit itself is a fundamental given, not up for debate. That's why we had the referendum: to give the choice to the people, not parliament. We might just as well start reversing General Election results because certain people of power and influence think the people made the wrong choice.

 

On the subject of ThaiVisa posters' nationalities: I'm from the North West of England; I am of the opinion that Germany is far and away the dominant force in the EU, and would continue to be so in a federal Europe; I will gladly make sacrifices to stop Germany from gaining any kind of direct control of my country. Some of my forefathers made the greatest sacrifice for the same cause.

[ljd1308]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

There is nothing wrong with the Lower House debating the details/nitty gritty of brexit. But brexit itself is a fundamental given, not up for debate. That's why we had the referendum: to give the choice to the people, not parliament. We might just as well start reversing General Election results because certain people of power and influence think the people made the wrong choice.

 

On the subject of ThaiVisa posters' nationalities: I'm from the North West of England; I am of the opinion that Germany is far and away the dominant force in the EU, and would continue to be so in a federal Europe; I will gladly make sacrifices to stop Germany from gaining any kind of direct control of my country. Some of my forefathers made the greatest sacrifice for the same cause.

Are you not concerned that you don't know what you voted for? There is no outcome so the only people who actually knew what they voted for were the ones that voted remain.

 

For example, if 2m of the people who voted to leave voted on the basis they wanted to restrict free movement throughout Europe but then that isn't part of the agreement and free movement must remain....are they really getting what they wanted? And if they are not, can they change their vote? Or should it be upheld despite people not getting what they voted for?

Same as the people who voted because they thought 350m a week would go back to the NHS, given that it won't, are they getting what they want?

 

Most people will have an overriding reason why they voted to leave, yours appears to be a fear of Germany controlling your country. Something they were not doing before the vote and are unlikely to do after.....So what have you(or will you) really gain? Just alleviating some far off fear that somehow Germany would control Britain. Perversely Germany could have more control over Britain's future as they are one of the leader's of the EU who will determine the terms on which Britain exit.

 

Basically there was a vote to either keep the status quo or do something different(without knowing what exactly) and people voted for the unknown change.That would maybe make sense if Britain was an awful country to begin with, but Britain would still be one of the top 10 countries people would choose to live in.....so is the status quo all that bad?

 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

There is nothing wrong with the Lower House debating the details/nitty gritty of brexit. But brexit itself is a fundamental given, not up for debate. That's why we had the referendum: to give the choice to the people, not parliament. We might just as well start reversing General Election results because certain people of power and influence think the people made the wrong choice.

 

On the subject of ThaiVisa posters' nationalities: I'm from the North West of England; I am of the opinion that Germany is far and away the dominant force in the EU, and would continue to be so in a federal Europe; I will gladly make sacrifices to stop Germany from gaining any kind of direct control of my country. Some of my forefathers made the greatest sacrifice for the same cause.

Referendums are a very poor form of democracy ,basically they reduce complicated issues into a very simplistic yes/no option

It appears to me somewhat irrational to campaign for a leave vote without knowing what you actually want.

 

[Khun Han]

6 hours ago, ljd1308 said:

Are you not concerned that you don't know what you voted for? There is no outcome so the only people who actually knew what they voted for were the ones that voted remain.

 

For example, if 2m of the people who voted to leave voted on the basis they wanted to restrict free movement throughout Europe but then that isn't part of the agreement and free movement must remain....are they really getting what they wanted? And if they are not, can they change their vote? Or should it be upheld despite people not getting what they voted for?

Same as the people who voted because they thought 350m a week would go back to the NHS, given that it won't, are they getting what they want?

 

Most people will have an overriding reason why they voted to leave, yours appears to be a fear of Germany controlling your country. Something they were not doing before the vote and are unlikely to do after.....So what have you(or will you) really gain? Just alleviating some far off fear that somehow Germany would control Britain. Perversely Germany could have more control over Britain's future as they are one of the leader's of the EU who will determine the terms on which Britain exit.

 

Basically there was a vote to either keep the status quo or do something different(without knowing what exactly) and people voted for the unknown change.That would maybe make sense if Britain was an awful country to begin with, but Britain would still be one of the top 10 countries people would choose to live in.....so is the status quo all that bad?

 

 

Your reply uses pure speculation as rebuttal. My own speculation is that Germany can't afford (quite literally) to dictate the terms of brexit, and that is backed up by Merkel ordering the EU clowns to the Fatherland to reign them in immediately after their initial temper tantrums and threats.

 

I am also of the opinion that Theresa May will honour her pledges, and deliver a favourable brexit.

 

Time will tell, but, so far, the sky is not falling, despite the best efforts at scaremongering by the remainers.

[ljd1308]

Just now, Khun Han said:

 

Your reply uses pure speculation as rebuttal. My own speculation is that Germany can't afford (quite literally) to dictate the terms of brexit, and that is backed up by Merkel ordering the EU clowns to the Fatherland to reign them in immediately after their initial temper tantrums and threats.

 

I am also of the opinion that Theresa May will honour her pledges, and deliver a favourable brexit.

 

Time will tell, but, so far, the sky is not falling, despite the best efforts at scaremongering by the remainers.

I will give you that, it is atleast partially speculation....but as someone who voted to leave didn't you just vote based on speculation?

The only people who have not been speculating and voted with all the facts are the ones who voted to stay.

 

Unfortunately it is not up to any one person(or group) to decide, May can come up with all sorts of proposals that could be rejected by the EU. 

Now the vote has been cast, Brexit will happen.....but what if it isn't on the terms you(and others) wanted and voted for? Would you be happy with that?

 

It just seems very strange to me that you(and others) would vote for something without actually knowing what you were voting for. Now the whole country will have to accept whatever the agreement eventually is, for good and bad.

I personally think(with all the information i have) that the outcome will be worse than being part of the EU for the vast majority of the population, you obviously think otherwise(which is ok), but even you don't know why you voted that way.

 

As a test, why not ask around and see if remainers can give you a valid reason to vote that way and see if brexiters can do the same.....Only one group will be able to  as the other group are just guessing.

[Khun Han]

6 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Referendums are a very poor form of democracy ,basically they reduce complicated issues into a very simplistic yes/no option

It appears to me somewhat irrational to campaign for a leave vote without knowing what you actually want.

 

 

Referendums are the purest form of democracy, just like General Elections. The sides present their best arguments, and voters choose what's pertinent for them. The losing side invariably belittles and derides the winners, and think they know better. Just as the remainers are doing now.

[ThaiPauly]

I will say this and probably be damned by many for saying it, but it was only the old and the poorly educated that swung the vote for Brexit. 

 

All based on immigration and lies about the money we save from not being part of the EU .going into the NHS

 

They were conned, but having said that Osbourne and Cameron did not help matters by scaremongering.

 

I know this has all been said before...it's just my rant OK.

[lungbing]

If you mean that I am old enough to know my own mind and look at both sides, and if you mean I haven't been educated by Trotskyist lecturers to deride all things British then I agree with you.

 

I voted to join the Common MARKET, and to leave the European UNION.

[Red Parrot Fish]

4 hours ago, ThaiPauly said:

I will say this and probably be damned by many for saying it, but it was only the old and the poorly educated that swung the vote for Brexit. 

 

All based on immigration and lies about the money we save from not being part of the EU .going into the NHS

 

They were conned, but having said that Osbourne and Cameron did not help matters by scaremongering.

 

I know this has all been said before...it's just my rant OK.

 

100% correct TP.  I doubt that many will disagree with that.

 

The country is down the toilet because of ignorant old codgers and racists 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Red Parrot Fish

[Khun Han]

^ Oh dear, more condescention and insults from the bitter remainders. It's just these types of attitudes toward the long-suffering majority that are sending our country down the panhole. Shame on you  .

[Mojomor]

The German constitution apparently bans referendums, because Hitler abused them. So, they are not allowed.

 

On a small point of the use of the English language,  I thought the people who wished to Remain, were called Remainers, and not Remainders, as so many people here call them.

 

Then of course, there is the all embracing problem of whether Britain has a constitution or not. This looks like it will become the mother and father of all legal battles in October,  when some court will have to decide,  if Parliament can veto a referendum or not. IMHO  it should not have been called a referendum, but simply a Plebiscite, if one accepts Parliamentary Democracy. I am not British, simply a neutral observer,  but I wish all the British people well,  in the trials that will come.

[billd766]

17 hours ago, lungbing said:

If you mean that I am old enough to know my own mind and look at both sides, and if you mean I haven't been educated by Trotskyist lecturers to deride all things British then I agree with you.

 

I voted to join the Common MARKET, and to leave the European UNION.

 

I did exactly the same as you.

 

The difference between the Common Market and the European Union is like chalk and cheese.

[Lite Beer]

13 hours ago, Khun Han said:

^ Oh dear, more condescention and insults from the bitter remainders. It's just these types of attitudes toward the long-suffering majority that are sending our country down the panhole. Shame on you  .

 

At least he said it as it is.

Not sure what a Remainder is? 

 

Even Boris and his little gang in the Brexit team are squabbling amongst themselves as they have, and never did have a plan for leaving.

Easier to just scrap the June opinion poll result for the sake of the country.

[Khun Han]

18 hours ago, Mojomor said:

The German constitution apparently bans referendums, because Hitler abused them. So, they are not allowed.

 

On a small point of the use of the English language,  I thought the people who wished to Remain, were called Remainers, and not Remainders, as so many people here call them.

 

Then of course, there is the all embracing problem of whether Britain has a constitution or not. This looks like it will become the mother and father of all legal battles in October,  when some court will have to decide,  if Parliament can veto a referendum or not. IMHO  it should not have been called a referendum, but simply a Plebiscite, if one accepts Parliamentary Democracy. I am not British, simply a neutral observer,  but I wish all the British people well,  in the trials that will come.

 

PM May has been advised by government lawyers that brexit doesn't need the approval of the Lower House.

 

My use of 'remainders' was a combination of predictive text and a bloody useless WiFi connection here in Laos .

 

I think I can speak on behalf of all us Brit ThaiVisa members in thanking you for your good wishes.

[Khun Han]

6 hours ago, Lite Beer said:

 

At least he said it as it is.

Not sure what a Remainder is? 

 

Even Boris and his little gang in the Brexit team are squabbling amongst themselves as they have, and never did have a plan for leaving.

Easier to just scrap the June opinion poll result for the sake of the country.

 

And I replied 'as it is' .

[GuestHouse]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

PM May has been advised by government lawyers that brexit doesn't need the approval of the Lower House.

 

My use of 'remainders' was a combination of predictive text and a bloody useless WiFi connection here in Laos .

 

I think I can speak on behalf of all us Brit ThaiVisa members in thanking you for your good wishes.

 

You have not given anywhere near a fair representation of what the lawers advice to the PM was or the fact that other constitutional lawers are advising she that does not have the right to sign Article 50 without Parliamentry approval.

 

The lawers advice to the PM was that 'it may be argued that she has the right' and that 'legal challenge should be expected'.

 

So a legal mess.

 

What the PM does not have the power to do is make treaties or ammend the UK's constitution without debate in both houses and aproval by parliament (parliament not the government).

 

Even if after a legal challenge the PM has the right to sign Article 50 without parliamentary aproval, no part of the following treaties or changes to the constitution may proceed without parliament's aproval.

 

The absence of a plan is becoming something of a problem.

Edited August 30, 2016 by GuestHouse

[Khun Han]

^ So it's a legal minefield, but you've managed to make a perfect assessment of the route .

 

Germany can hope.....

[rockingrobin]

20 hours ago, lungbing said:

If you mean that I am old enough to know my own mind and look at both sides, and if you mean I haven't been educated by Trotskyist lecturers to deride all things British then I agree with you.

 

I voted to join the Common MARKET, and to leave the European UNION.

If you are referring to the 1975 referendum, then the UK was already a member of the common market, the 1975 referendum was either to continue or leave

[rockingrobin]

23 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Referendums are the purest form of democracy, just like General Elections. The sides present their best arguments, and voters choose what's pertinent for them. The losing side invariably belittles and derides the winners, and think they know better. Just as the remainers are doing now.

They maybe regarded as  pure , it does not equal that they are a good form of democracy. In the UK we elect MPs to make decisions on our behalf. The debates held in parliament are far superior to anything that you will get from arguments in a referendum. 

You would not get away with making a claim such as ' we send £350m every week would that be better spent on the nhs', in parliament

[i claudius]

I will say this and probably be damned by many for saying it, but it was only the old and the poorly educated that swung the vote for Brexit. 

 

All based on immigration and lies about the money we save from not being part of the EU .going into the NHS

 

They were conned, but having said that Osbourne and Cameron did not help matters by scaremongering.

 

I know this has all been said before...it's just my rant OK.

Yes and its bullshit

[i claudius]

 

100% correct TP.  I doubt that many will disagree with that.

 

The country is down the toilet because of ignorant old codgers and racists 

Or you could say its down the toilet because of left wing idiots ,tree huggers and multicultural believers ,all backed up by the young snowflake generation

[ThaiPauly]

You don't like it when someone has a different opinion to you do you Cladius? 

 

Why can't you just accept that not everyone feels the same way as you instead of just blowing them off

 

 

[Khun Han]

On 8/29/2016 at 11:04 AM, ljd1308 said:

I will give you that, it is atleast partially speculation....but as someone who voted to leave didn't you just vote based on speculation?

The only people who have not been speculating and voted with all the facts are the ones who voted to stay.

 

Unfortunately it is not up to any one person(or group) to decide, May can come up with all sorts of proposals that could be rejected by the EU. 

Now the vote has been cast, Brexit will happen.....but what if it isn't on the terms you(and others) wanted and voted for? Would you be happy with that?

 

It just seems very strange to me that you(and others) would vote for something without actually knowing what you were voting for. Now the whole country will have to accept whatever the agreement eventually is, for good and bad.

I personally think(with all the information i have) that the outcome will be worse than being part of the EU for the vast majority of the population, you obviously think otherwise(which is ok), but even you don't know why you voted that way.

 

As a test, why not ask around and see if remainers can give you a valid reason to vote that way and see if brexiters can do the same.....Only one group will be able to  as the other group are just guessing.

 

We knew exactly what we were voting for: to leave a club that we don't like before it got to the stage where we wouldn't be allowed to leave.

 

You remainers keep harping on about us not being allowed to leave on favourable terms, even claiming that we don't hold any boss cards. But, other than the initial daft rants by the EU goons (who were immediately put straight by Merkel), I see no evidence of this whatsoever. On the contrary, we hold the trump card in our trade balance with Germany, and Merkel's behaviour confirms this.

[Khun Han]

9 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

They maybe regarded as  pure , it does not equal that they are a good form of democracy. In the UK we elect MPs to make decisions on our behalf. The debates held in parliament are far superior to anything that you will get from arguments in a referendum. 

You would not get away with making a claim such as ' we send £350m every week would that be better spent on the nhs', in parliament

 

"The debates held in parliament are far superior to anything that you will get from arguments in a referendum."

 

 

If you had any inside low-down on Parliament you would know that, in both houses, most debate is fuelled by long sessions in the members' bars.