May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[Laughing Gravy]

The referendum happened. The people voted. Some people can't accept the outcome and that is the crux of the problem. The current PM has said she will get the UK out of the EU and do the will, of the majority. It is that simple. We will have to wait if she does. The rest is hearsay and speculation.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The referendum happened. The people voted. Some people can't accept the outcome and that is the crux of the problem. The current PM has said she will get the UK out of the EU and do the will, of the majority. It is that simple. We will have to wait if she does. The rest is hearsay and speculation.

Nothing is simple, the social division and weakened pound can hardly be classed as hearsay.

Is it 'brexit means brexit at any cost' or 'brexit means brexit at minimal cost'? - a question that the government is not prepared to answer.

[Laughing Gravy]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Nothing is simple, the social division and weakened pound can hardly be classed as hearsay.

Is it 'brexit means brexit at any cost' or 'brexit means brexit at minimal cost'? - a question that the government is not prepared to answer.

Actually Sandy that is not true. When David Cameron stated there would be a referendum, he made it quite clear and yes simple. We remain or we leave the EU. It is those who can't accept that decision who are causing the problems. There were no other stipulations on the referendum as to what costs or not. That is left to the politicians who are in charge. David Cameron jumped ship and Theresa May has taken over. If those are unhappy with what happens, they can vote in the next general election but the continual harping on about a soft brexit or hard brexit, or the referendum wasn't legal, is futile and quite irrelevant.

[ilostmypassword]

13 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So what are elections. I have to say you do say some strange statements and this just has gone to number one. Well done Grouse.

In the case of the UK, elections are about electing MPs. In other words, Parliamentary democracy. What's so difficult to understand about that?

[rockingrobin]

2 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The court's decision at least clarifies the legal process and timetable for Brexit if there was ever any misunderstanding or misrepresentation made by any politician.

Converse to "not a huge majority" was "a huge minority." At least UK voters chose to vote rather than remain silent. Democracy does notextend to  those who avoid participation. Perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to make the referendum binding if legally possible and require a "super majority" for passage.  More clarification might have unfolded for a better informed electorate.

When the 2015 Act was enacted by parliament they possessed the gift to make it binding or abrogate their authority to the government if they so wished.The fact that they did not do this suggests that it was parliaments wish to be involved.

[SheungWan]

54 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Actually Sandy that is not true. When David Cameron stated there would be a referendum, he made it quite clear and yes simple. We remain or we leave the EU. It is those who can't accept that decision who are causing the problems. There were no other stipulations on the referendum as to what costs or not. That is left to the politicians who are in charge. David Cameron jumped ship and Theresa May has taken over. If those are unhappy with what happens, they can vote in the next general election but the continual harping on about a soft brexit or hard brexit, or the referendum wasn't legal, is futile and quite irrelevant.

 

Obviously the High Court decision falls into the 'futile and quite irrelevant' harping slots. Should we put it in a bow on the same mantelpiece as the above 'referendum wasn't legal' misdirection effort?

Edited November 7, 2016 by SheungWan

[Laughing Gravy]

9 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

Obviously the High Court decision falls into the 'futile and quite irrelevant' harping slots. Should we put it in a bow on the same mantelpiece as the above 'referendum wasn't legal' misdirection effort?

Just accept the will of the majority. Nobody likes a sore loser. In todays papers even Labour is back tracking from blocking Brexit. it will happen just accept it.

[Grouse]

13 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

I have no issue with the UK wanting to extract itself from the EU , but to give some pretense of EU grievance is unfair

I found the following blog quite good 

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-case-for-brexit-lessons-from-1960s-and-1970s

 

 

Interesting read! Thanks!

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, lostinisaan said:

 

 Free Exit........

 

Sorry, I don't understand. Speak up!

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So what was all that in Bosnia and Serbia? Fisty cuffs? It was slaughter. The linking to Nazis and the EU (Brussels) is simple they were/are both dictators trying to control all of Europe. Nothing silly in that analogy.

 

Is there no limit to the nonsense?

[AlexRich]

5 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So what was all that in Bosnia and Serbia? Fisty cuffs? It was slaughter. The linking to Nazis and the EU (Brussels) is simple they were/are both dictators trying to control all of Europe. Nothing silly in that analogy.

 

EU gas chambers? If you are looking for Nazi propaganda look no further than Nigel Farage's poster campaign. Straight out of the third reich playbook.

[AlexRich]

3 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Actually Sandy that is not true. When David Cameron stated there would be a referendum, he made it quite clear and yes simple. We remain or we leave the EU. It is those who can't accept that decision who are causing the problems. There were no other stipulations on the referendum as to what costs or not. That is left to the politicians who are in charge. David Cameron jumped ship and Theresa May has taken over. If those are unhappy with what happens, they can vote in the next general election but the continual harping on about a soft brexit or hard brexit, or the referendum wasn't legal, is futile and quite irrelevant.

 

No one has said that the referendum was not legal. What the High Court has stated is that the "Royal Perogative" cannot be legally used by the Government to trigger Article 50, as that would be illegal. So Article 50 requires and Act of Parliament, which means scrutiny and debate. The problem for the "Mayhem" government is that will shine a light on their plans, if they exist, and will encourage wider debate on their implications. 

 

People did not vote for leave at any cost ... and that's why the leave campaigners made a great deal out of the 'fictitious' £350m per week that would be injected into the NHS ... so people, some at least, expect that they will be materially better off ... if this 'exit' does not live up to expectations May well have reason to fear an election. If the public's mind was 'fixed' we'd only ever have one political party in power ... but we don't, as they change their views based on experience.

[AlexRich]

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Just accept the will of the majority. Nobody likes a sore loser. In todays papers even Labour is back tracking from blocking Brexit. it will happen just accept it.

 

When there is a general election do the opposition vote with the government because they received more votes? Or do they hold them to account? The MPs will not block the exit from the EU but they will shine a light on what the government plan to do and make sure the other 16m + have a voice. A sensible approach and the only way that you will get peace and reconciliation in the UK. Also bear in mind those 16-17 year olds that did not vote will be eligible quite soon ... so if the 'exit' outcome looks bleak the political climate could change ... and very quickly.

[jpinx]

7 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

When there is a general election do the opposition vote with the government because they received more votes? Or do they hold them to account? The MPs will not block the exit from the EU but they will shine a light on what the government plan to do and make sure the other 16m + have a voice. A sensible approach and the only way that you will get peace and reconciliation in the UK. Also bear in mind those 16-17 year olds that did not vote will be eligible quite soon ... so if the 'exit' outcome looks bleak the political climate could change ... and very quickly.

 

At the risk of wandering off-topic a bit -- I have heard from several different sources that Germany (for one) is looking at the influx of young refugees as a lifeline for their state pension scheme. Hence the unseemly hurry to get them documented and into employment and paying taxes which will pay the aging local population   One wonders where Mrs May's thinking is on this score - given the way the pensions are being eroded at an alarming rate.  The free movement of labour actually can work *for* the UK, not against it, by producing more tax revenues.

[Laughing Gravy]

37 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

No one has said that the referendum was not legal.

 

Actually these articles and many more are saying that whether true or not.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683178/Brexit-is-EU-referendum-legally-binding-what-Article-50-legal-process-Britain-leave

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-can-still-be-blocked-say-constitutional-lawyers-eu-referendum-not-binding-a7107526.html

 

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[Laughing Gravy]

37 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

People did not vote for leave at any cost

Yes they did and I have said it many times. You disagree with me but I am one as many of my friends are. We wanted out. Still do and find the fact that people have the arrogance to tell us why and what we voted for. I do not tell you, if you voted to remain why, you did.

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

 

Actually these articles and many more are saying that whether true or not.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683178/Brexit-is-EU-referendum-legally-binding-what-Article-50-legal-process-Britain-leave

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-can-still-be-blocked-say-constitutional-lawyers-eu-referendum-not-binding-a7107526.html

 

 

The referendum was legal but the result was not legally binding.  Too much confusion here :)

[Laughing Gravy]

34 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

When there is a general election do the opposition vote with the government because they received more votes? Or do they hold them to account? The MPs will not block the exit from the EU but they will shine a light on what the government plan to do and make sure the other 16m + have a voice. A sensible approach and the only way that you will get peace and reconciliation in the UK. Also bear in mind those 16-17 year olds that did not vote will be eligible quite soon ... so if the 'exit' outcome looks bleak the political climate could change ... and very quickly.

It is not proportional representation in the UK although the referendum was a simple in or out. Don't count to much on the 16 and 17 year old to come out and vote. Many can't get out of bed, stop playing games, never mind vote. It will be the mature generation that will be reliable to vote and they are the ones who have the experience, patriotism to see what the EU has done to the UK. The younger generation have known nothing else. I am not saying that they shouldn't have an opinion, as they should. just don't count on them as a remain voter.

[Laughing Gravy]

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

The referendum was legal but the result was not legally binding.  Too much confusion here :)

Yes I agree so lets wait and see what happens. Either way people should respect the outcome, something that just isn't happening.

[AlexRich]

37 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

At the risk of wandering off-topic a bit -- I have heard from several different sources that Germany (for one) is looking at the influx of young refugees as a lifeline for their state pension scheme. Hence the unseemly hurry to get them documented and into employment and paying taxes which will pay the aging local population   One wonders where Mrs May's thinking is on this score - given the way the pensions are being eroded at an alarming rate.  The free movement of labour actually can work *for* the UK, not against it, by producing more tax revenues.

 

A good point. Something that many Brits fail to appreciate is that we will soon have more people retired who are being funded off the taxes of those in work. The population increase reduced that burden, and may well have been a problem solver longer term. 

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Actually Sandy that is not true. When David Cameron stated there would be a referendum, he made it quite clear and yes simple. We remain or we leave the EU. It is those who can't accept that decision who are causing the problems. There were no other stipulations on the referendum as to what costs or not. That is left to the politicians who are in charge. David Cameron jumped ship and Theresa May has taken over. If those are unhappy with what happens, they can vote in the next general election but the continual harping on about a soft brexit or hard brexit, or the referendum wasn't legal, is futile and quite irrelevant.

You are spot on, David Cameron created a very simple ballot paper in respect of an extremely complex issue. In simple terms he screwed up.

How many would have voted to leave if they had been aware that Nissan and all the other Japanese motor manufacturers could potentially pack their bags and move elsewhere. 

How many would have voted to leave if they had been aware that London's financial hub could move to Europe.

How many would have voted to leave knowing that their vote could potentially break up the UK.

Unfortunately the campaign got out of hand and the real issues got sidelined by outlandish claims on both sides.

 

It seems to me that all those that are raising some point are being grouped together and branded as unable to accept a decision. That is not the case, there are those that want to remain in the EU, there those that want to see the withdrawal conducted in line with the constitution, and there are those that want to remain in the single market, big difference between them.

[AlexRich]

20 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

 

Actually these articles and many more are saying that whether true or not.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-nigel-farage-forced-to-admit-the-eu-referendum-was-only-advisory-a7401151.html

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/683178/Brexit-is-EU-referendum-legally-binding-what-Article-50-legal-process-Britain-leave

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-can-still-be-blocked-say-constitutional-lawyers-eu-referendum-not-binding-a7107526.html

 

 

 

The phrase used is not "binding", not that it was illegal. Which means that, theoretically at least, parliament can reject the result of what is an 'advisory', albeit legal, referendum. 

 

What chances of that happening? I'd say none whatsoever ... however, we will get a rigorous debate about what form Brexit will take ... at the moment we have no idea and no say in the matter. The referendum was not about handing a blank cheque to Davis, Johnson and Fox to do what they like without reference to the populace. 

 

 

[AlexRich]

18 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It is not proportional representation in the UK although the referendum was a simple in or out. Don't count to much on the 16 and 17 year old to come out and vote. Many can't get out of bed, stop playing games, never mind vote. It will be the mature generation that will be reliable to vote and they are the ones who have the experience, patriotism to see what the EU has done to the UK. The younger generation have known nothing else. I am not saying that they shouldn't have an opinion, as they should. just don't count on them as a remain voter.

 

Only old people are patriotic? I'm guessing that 16m + voters (and younger people who did not or could not vote) are unpatriotic? The word xenophobic would have been more appropriate I think. The younger generations are less so and take a more inclusive stance ... they care about their country but also want close ties with our neighbours, and the opportunity to collaborate and cross borders ... they don't want your Little England. The UK has prospered within the EU, and we'll be poorer out of it. As for proportional representation, do you really think that the generations coming through to voting age will thank you if Brexit turns out to be contrary to their interests? You might find that there is a backlash ... especially if half the population is forced into a 'hard' brexit with no say in the matter. A move that is likely to backfire.

[Laughing Gravy]

16 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Only old people are patriotic? I'm guessing that 16m + voters (and younger people who did not or could not vote) are unpatriotic? The word xenophobic would have been more appropriate I think. The younger generations are less so and take a more inclusive stance ... they care about their country but also want close ties with our neighbours, and the opportunity to collaborate and cross borders ... they don't want your Little England. The UK has prospered within the EU, and we'll be poorer out of it. As for proportional representation, do you really think that the generations coming through to voting age will thank you if Brexit turns out to be contrary to their interests? You might find that there is a backlash ... especially if half the population is forced into a 'hard' brexit with no say in the matter. A move that is likely to backfire.

Read it again. patriotism to see what the EU has done to the UK. The younger generation was not mentioned. You are trying (poorly) to put words down that I have not said. I am also happy to be friends with our European neighbors I just don't believe that  the EU Brussels, should be telling the UK what to do, or the other EU countries come to that. Please don't use the race card, it is demining and in poor taste.

As for the UK has prospered within the EU, yes I agree, it has in some areas and in others it hasn't I am not against the French, Germans or any other EU country. It is the EU federalization that I am against. The whole concept of what the EU has become. There is a huge difference.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Laughing Gravy

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

 

At the risk of wandering off-topic a bit -- I have heard from several different sources that Germany (for one) is looking at the influx of young refugees as a lifeline for their state pension scheme. Hence the unseemly hurry to get them documented and into employment and paying taxes which will pay the aging local population   One wonders where Mrs May's thinking is on this score - given the way the pensions are being eroded at an alarming rate.  The free movement of labour actually can work *for* the UK, not against it, by producing more tax revenues.

The free movement of labour is viewed in the UK as a detriment, the PM has a tendency to address the public's misconceptions as opposed to reality .

The following is a legal perspective of FOM

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/eu-free-movement-law-in-10-questions.html 

[jpinx]

35 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You are spot on, David Cameron created a very simple ballot paper in respect of an extremely complex issue. In simple terms he screwed up.

How many would have voted to leave if they had been aware that Nissan and all the other Japanese motor manufacturers could potentially pack their bags and move elsewhere. 

How many would have voted to leave if they had been aware that London's financial hub could move to Europe.

How many would have voted to leave knowing that their vote could potentially break up the UK.

Unfortunately the campaign got out of hand and the real issues got sidelined by outlandish claims on both sides.

 

It seems to me that all those that are raising some point are being grouped together and branded as unable to accept a decision. That is not the case, there are those that want to remain in the EU, there those that want to see the withdrawal conducted in line with the constitution, and there are those that want to remain in the single market, big difference between them.

 

Wrong -- the government-promoted publicity machine was trumpeting these and other misconceptions of the results of Brexit, but the voters voted to leave anyway.  Now that the cat is out of the bag and Nissan and others are actually increasing investment in UK in one way or another, those who reluctantly voted to remain have a good chance of being reprieved

[jpinx]

12 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The free movement of labour is viewed in the UK as a detriment, the PM has a tendency to address the public's misconceptions as opposed to reality .

The following is a legal perspective of FOM

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/eu-free-movement-law-in-10-questions.html 

 

There is a gap between the intention of the EU free-movement of labour policy, and the reality of what happens.  If the UK rules for benefits were not so wide open to abuse the free-loaders would move out.  Why do you think they come all the way across europe to UK?  They don't stop in Italy or Spain so much because they know UK is a soft touch with a system of benefits that is easy to "play". Whilst border contol is in place, the tendency is to allow folks in with conditions on living and  reporting, but it's so easy to disappear in the ghettos around the country and almost impossible for officials to winkle out ill-intended aliens without bringing on a storm of protest about bias, racism, etc.  There is no easy solution to this and I am very glad to not have the job of sorting it out.

[jpinx]

33 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Read it again. patriotism to see what the EU has done to the UK. The younger generation was not mentioned. You are trying (poorly) to put words down that I have not said. I am also happy to be friends with our European neighbors I just don't believe that  the EU Brussels, should be telling the UK what to do, or the other EU countries come to that. Please don't use the race card, it is demining and in poor taste.

As for the UK has prospered within the EU, yes I agree, it has in some areas and in others it hasn't I am not against the French, Germans or any other EU country. It is the EU federalization that I am against. The whole concept of what the EU has become. There is a huge difference.

 

Terminology is tricky, but federalism would have been preferable to the mess the EU actually is. A federation of independent countries sharing trade, labour and other advantages but running their own affairs under skinny umbrella of federation.  What we actually got is an indescribable mess of beaurocracy held together by treaties which have no restrictions on the amount of future central governance.  Look to the USA where the resentment of the federal government is widespread and each state has considerable differences - even to the extent of the death penalty.  That could not happen in the EU as it exists today.

 

P.S. --  it'd also make Mr Tusk subject to election -- it'd be funny to see that play out,,,,,  

Edited November 7, 2016 by jpinx

[rockingrobin]

12 minutes ago, jpinx said:

 

There is a gap between the intention of the EU free-movement of labour policy, and the reality of what happens.  If the UK rules for benefits were not so wide open to abuse the free-loaders would move out.  Why do you think they come all the way across europe to UK?  They don't stop in Italy or Spain so much because they know UK is a soft touch with a system of benefits that is easy to "play". Whilst border contol is in place, the tendency is to allow folks in with conditions on living and  reporting, but it's so easy to disappear in the ghettos around the country and almost impossible for officials to winkle out ill-intended aliens without bringing on a storm of protest about bias, racism, etc.  There is no easy solution to this and I am very glad to not have the job of sorting it out.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed, to obtain benefits you have to apply and the application processed , if you do not meet the requirements you get no benefits.

[jpinx]

6 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Your argument is fundamentally flawed, to obtain benefits you have to apply and the application processed , if you do not meet the requirements you get no benefits.

 

Technically flawed, maybe, but the reality is that benefit fraud is a huge problem in UK - far moreso than in Germany (for example).  The UK does not police it's benefit system much at all, mostly going for soft targets -- but let's not continue that train of thought and focus on the means of getting Brexit done. 

 

As an aside - it is quite illuminating to see the disconnect between the technicalities of the various laws, regulations, etc -- and the people that promote them, and, on the other hand, what actually happens in the streets.   Basically, some people need to get out more