May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[RuamRudy]

27 minutes ago, jpinx said:

There are some simple questions that you need to ask yourself.

1) Was the majority of votes cast in favour of Brexit?

2) Was there anything preventing non-voters from actually going to vote?

3) Was the turnout more than the previous General election?

4) Was the question simple and clear?

5) Was the vote conducted in an open and fair way?

6) Was the count challenged?

 

No cherry-picking -- you have to answer *all* those questions

 

Firstly, apologies but in the interest of making my reply clearer, I amended your post by putting numbers in front of each of your questions.

 

1) Yes

2) No - other than the soma-like lethargy that has been creeping into our society in recent years

3) Yes

4) Yes

5) When you say vote, do you mean the execution of the voting per se, or the whole campaign? If the former, yes, if the latter , no.

6) No

 

I am not denying that the majority of those who voted chose to leave the EU, however I object to the much repeated posit that the country is behind Brexit. That is far from correct.

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by RuamRudy

[CharlieK]

As much as I would like to see the UK leave the EU, it isn't going to happen! First there is only one kind of brexit, that is to leave. A hard or soft exit is just splitting hairs. Leaving and then negotiating would be a stronger position for the UK to take. It would also allow the UK to negotiate trade deals with other nations at the same time. 

 

IMO Theresa May is the wrong person to take us out of the EU, she is hedging her bets, and at the end of the day it is the same old politicians promising something they do not want to do, even with all the shouting of respecting the vote. Left to the politicians it will not happen anytime soon. 

 

They are dumb enough to hold on even in the face of a wider EU collapse. It is interesting to note that the only other alternative would be a total reform of the EU, which the UK could possibly force on the EU, But that was not one of the options on offer. 

 

 

[Orac]

Representation in the various EU bodies is worthless when there is a right to veto new laws.  It ranks up there with Moscow as "lip-service to democracy"

No idea what you mean by that - those EU bodies have no right of veto over UK law however the UK does currently have the ability to either ratify or reject new agreements.

[jpinx]

42 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

No idea what you mean by that - those EU bodies have no right of veto over UK law however the UK does currently have the ability to either ratify or reject new agreements.

As I understand it, the EU can not pass any laws without ratification from *all* members, thus creating  a right of veto by any one country.  Is this not what a lot of the current posturing is about regarding Brexit -- everyone has to agree?  Now - if member countries input was weighted by something like population of GDP or whatever, then Germany France and UK would have been able to run the EU as they wanted, but no -- the EU communists wanted everything to be equal, so now the EU can be held to ransom by its smallest member ---  really?

[jpinx]

55 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

As much as I would like to see the UK leave the EU, it isn't going to happen! First there is only one kind of brexit, that is to leave. A hard or soft exit is just splitting hairs. Leaving and then negotiating would be a stronger position for the UK to take. It would also allow the UK to negotiate trade deals with other nations at the same time. 

 

IMO Theresa May is the wrong person to take us out of the EU, she is hedging her bets, and at the end of the day it is the same old politicians promising something they do not want to do, even with all the shouting of respecting the vote. Left to the politicians it will not happen anytime soon. 

 

They are dumb enough to hold on even in the face of a wider EU collapse. It is interesting to note that the only other alternative would be a total reform of the EU, which the UK could possibly force on the EU, But that was not one of the options on offer. 

 

 

You are seriously wrong -- the referendum was to leave the EU, not the free trade area. Your attitude to TM as "hedging her bets" only proves that she's doing the right thing since to declare a hand at this early stage would be tantamount to rolling over for Junkers and Tusk --  I'd include Shultz, but he's gone/going home If you are unhappy with your MP's performance - take it up with your constituency office - it's got nothing to do with the Brexit vote. 

 

TM is astute enough to play along for now while we see what happens in the various european elections.  Things are not going to stay the same and she will be dealing with a different set of people regarding Brexit next year -- assuming France does not actually vote Le Penn in and they jump ship from the EU first.  It's all to play for -- so sit back and watch how the cards come out. 

 

Meantime -- who is suffering?

Edited December 1, 2016 by jpinx

[jpinx]

58 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Firstly, apologies but in the interest of making my reply clearer, I amended your post by putting numbers in front of each of your questions.

 

1) Yes

2) No - other than the soma-like lethargy that has been creeping into our society in recent years

3) Yes

4) Yes

5) When you say vote, do you mean the execution of the voting per se, or the whole campaign? If the former, yes, if the latter , no.

6) No

 

I am not denying that the majority of those who voted chose to leave the EU, however I object to the much repeated posit that the country is behind Brexit. That is far from correct.

 

You don't "like" the result -- therefore the result is "wrong"  ????  What cradle did you just crawl out of? If you felt so strongly about it, I presume you were out on the streets encouraging everyone to turn out and vote.  You are happy with the previous general election with a lesser turnout and put Camoron into power -- but you take exception to this result.  Cherry-picking doesn't begin to describe the mindset here.......

[Loeilad]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Without wishing to sound churlish, it was not 52% of the electorate who voted for Brexit. In fact, only 37% of the UK electorate supported Brexit - representing only 25% of the UK population.

However the outcome was clear, no matter how unrepresentative it is of the UK public.

So you'd accept a flat earth vote?

 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

You don't "like" the result -- therefore the result is "wrong"  ????  What cradle did you just crawl out of? If you felt so strongly about it, I presume you were out on the streets encouraging everyone to turn out and vote.  You are happy with the previous general election with a lesser turnout and put Camoron into power -- but you take exception to this result.  Cherry-picking doesn't begin to describe the mindset here.......

 

There has been a distinct reduction in the levels of aggression on this thread in the past couple of days - is it too much to request that we all post in a civil manner?

 

I never stated anywhere that the result is wrong - I regret very much that it has passed but I certainly never suggested that it was wrong. As for cherry picking, can you point to the particular cherry I picked and what I overlooked in doing so?

[RuamRudy]

14 minutes ago, Loeilad said:

So you'd accept a flat earth vote?

 

 

What is acceptance? I will support those who try to limit the effects of Brexit or even prevent it from taking place through lawful means, but if I believe in democracy, I cannot object to it moving forward. That doesn't mean that I have to support the concept - I am still allowed to sit on the sidelines and shake my head in disbelief.

Edited December 1, 2016 by RuamRudy

[Orac]

As I understand it, the EU can not pass any laws without ratification from *all* members, thus creating  a right of veto by any one country.  Is this not what a lot of the current posturing is about regarding Brexit -- everyone has to agree?  Now - if member countries input was weighted by something like population of GDP or whatever, then Germany France and UK would have been able to run the EU as they wanted, but no -- the EU communists wanted everything to be equal, so now the EU can be held to ransom by its smallest member ---  really?

Actually it goes further than that. The CETA deal was blocked by Belgian regional parliament rather than the national one however this is the compromise that needs to be made so as countries retain their sovereignty over decisions effecting them unless they specifically delegate them to the EU - imagine if the rest of the EU ganged up on the UK and forced the euro on us because there were more of them.

There are some areas where qualified majority voting has been agreed to such as acceptance of the UK brexit deal however extension of negotiation over the two year period needs unanimous agreement from all members.

Not sure anyone is saying that the EU is perfect by any means but just that the other options available are less attractive.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

Sandy AFAIR big business was NOT elected to run the country. Big business is in business to make the maximum profits for their shareholders and not for what is the best for the people of the UK. It is fairly obvious to me at least that big business people are not listening that much either.

 

If they want to run the country their way, fair enough. Quit your business and stand as an MP under (for example) The New Business Party. If your party wins then then you get to run the country. BTW for really big businessmen that would mean a large cut in salary having to live on an MPs salary and expenses. Of course if your wife and family were rich as one previous PMs family was, then no problem.

Bill there is a certain validity in your initial comment but is it really in anyones interest to put business under pressure so they put prices up or start relocating.

Every indication is that the most viable way forward would be the 'soft' option but TM appears to be doing everything she can to close that door.

[AlexRich]

13 hours ago, SheungWan said:

 

You are unfortunately, arguing with two different sets of Brexiteers. The first set are the nasty nationalist hard Brexiteers who want no deal at all and for the moment think that Theresa May is one of them. One of their distinguishing traits is to completely deny the existence of a soft Brexit option and always, but always pose the argument in terms of Brexit Vs Remain. The second set pose the argument in terms of an achievable deal but would rather not attend to too much detail other than a little rah-rah. Just to confuse things a little, each group is quite happy to steal each other's clothes when it suits them on economic matters as this is not what really rocks their boat.

 

I watched an interesting Vox Pop video on the Guardian web page last night ... the guy went to interview people in a place called Sleaford ... all the oldies couldn't wait to leave. I think they thought they could get back to the England of their childhood? Was also watching a video hosted by Stephen Hawking called "Genius", were ordinary people ask questions and are led through some science to get to the answer. The episode on time travel was interesting. Apparently it would be impossible to go back in time, but potentially we could propel ourselves into the future ... something the old dears are yet to learn ... you can't go backwards. 

[AlexRich]

4 hours ago, jpinx said:

That's the kind of statement that shows a closed mind.  Soft Brexit is possible with some willingness on all side --  including a bit less hindrance from extremists like yourself

 

I don't think that 'soft' brexit' is possible given the position of the Mayhem government.

 

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

As I understand it, the EU can not pass any laws without ratification from *all* members, thus creating  a right of veto by any one country.  Is this not what a lot of the current posturing is about regarding Brexit -- everyone has to agree?  Now - if member countries input was weighted by something like population of GDP or whatever, then Germany France and UK would have been able to run the EU as they wanted, but no -- the EU communists wanted everything to be equal, so now the EU can be held to ransom by its smallest member ---  really?

EU laws generally are subject to a voting process and do not require unanimity.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

What makes it unrepresentative?

Unrepresentative of the views of citizens from the UK.

Gibralter voted to remain

Northern Ireland voted to remain

Scotland voted to remain

Wales voted to leave

England voted to leave.

 

A result based on regional dominance can hardly be described as representative.

[SaintLouisBlues]

10 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Unrepresentative of the views of citizens from the UK.

Gibralter voted to remain

Northern Ireland voted to remain

Scotland voted to remain

Wales voted to leave

England voted to leave.

 

A result based on regional dominance can hardly be described as representative.

No such entities voted. The population of the UK as a whole voted. The population of, say, Scotland is something less than 10% of the population of the UK. Gibraltar is 1%, if that. It's an entirely spurious argument since the UK is a single polity as far as the EU is concerned

Edited December 1, 2016 by SaintLouisBlues

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, jpinx said:

Here we go again - same old  "I'm cleverer than you"  arguments.  Time you became an adult and took responsibility for your place in a democratic society, providing constructive support to enable the will of the people to be enacted.  At the moment the hardline remainers are just a deadweight that has to be carried.  You say "... Nevertheless I reluctantly but unequivocally accept the result of the referendum...."  but your actions speak otherwise.    You also say  " Now, if someone comes up with any piece of wisdom that changes things, I will of course reconsider. "  but you carefully reserve the judgement of wisdom to yourself, thereby proving your intransigence.  If you accepted the democratic wisdom of the result of the vote - we would not be embroiled in this discussion.

 

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything other than their public duty to back the government in power during a tricky transition with an awkward set of treaties to unravel.  The rights and wrongs are really not interesting -- what *is* interesting is the persistence in the hardline remainers attempts to subvert the course of a democratically selected course of action.  You can feel its a wrong course, but it is *the* course, so your choices are simple -- either get on the bike and start pedalling along with everyone else, or get off and walk your own way in some other country whose choices better fit your personal agenda.

 

 

 

I have liked your post, jpinx, because it is a reasoned argument ?

 

I do do not agree that the electorate should all come together. It's not (yet) a totalitarian state!

 

I have NEVER said that I am cleverer than you. I have admittedly had a first class education, but you may have had a better one!

[Orac]

 
I watched an interesting Vox Pop video on the Guardian web page last night ... the guy went to interview people in a place called Sleaford ... all the oldies couldn't wait to leave. I think they thought they could get back to the England of their childhood? Was also watching a video hosted by Stephen Hawking called "Genius", were ordinary people ask questions and are led through some science to get to the answer. The episode on time travel was interesting. Apparently it would be impossible to go back in time, but potentially we could propel ourselves into the future ... something the old dears are yet to learn ... you can't go backwards. 

Sleaford are having a by election next week after their tory MP resigned over Theresa May's handling of brexit despite being for brexit himself. UKIP have alleged ex National Front member Victoria Ayling standing for the seat so might be interesting to see how the voting goes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523883/National-Front-past-UKIP-star-centre-race-row--police-probe-abuse-transvestite-husband.html

[sandyf]

4 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

No such entities voted. The population of the UK as a whole voted. The population of, say, Scotland is something less than 10% of the population of the UK. Gibraltar is 1%, if that. It's an entirely spurious argument since the UK is a single polity as far as the EU is concerned

This was the original comment.

" However the outcome was clear, no matter how unrepresentative it is of the UK public. "

I responded to a query over the word but as par for the course you want to take it out of context.

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, jpinx said:

What makes it unrepresentative?

 

The numbers ?

[rockingrobin]

8 hours ago, jpinx said:

Here we go again - same old  "I'm cleverer than you"  arguments.  Time you became an adult and took responsibility for your place in a democratic society, providing constructive support to enable the will of the people to be enacted.  At the moment the hardline remainers are just a deadweight that has to be carried.  You say "... Nevertheless I reluctantly but unequivocally accept the result of the referendum...."  but your actions speak otherwise.    You also say  " Now, if someone comes up with any piece of wisdom that changes things, I will of course reconsider. "  but you carefully reserve the judgement of wisdom to yourself, thereby proving your intransigence.  If you accepted the democratic wisdom of the result of the vote - we would not be embroiled in this discussion.

 

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything other than their public duty to back the government in power during a tricky transition with an awkward set of treaties to unravel.  The rights and wrongs are really not interesting -- what *is* interesting is the persistence in the hardline remainers attempts to subvert the course of a democratically selected course of action.  You can feel its a wrong course, but it is *the* course, so your choices are simple -- either get on the bike and start pedalling along with everyone else, or get off and walk your own way in some other country whose choices better fit your personal agenda.

 

 

 

It is not the remainers attempting to subvert democracy , it is the government.The vote to leave is accepted and now that process and the new deal needs to be carried out for the UK citizens and nations benefit. It is only through the democratically elected representatives that the public concerns and interests can be heard.  

[sandyf]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

The numbers ?

Many tend to forget that a large number were excluded from voting based on a rule born out of inadequate government records.

I didn't see the judiciary being called 'enemies of the people' over that judgement.

[jpinx]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Many tend to forget that a large number were excluded from voting based on a rule born out of inadequate government records.

I didn't see the judiciary being called 'enemies of the people' over that judgement.

Tell us more.  This is a new story for me.....

Edited December 1, 2016 by jpinx

[sandyf]

10 minutes ago, jpinx said:

Tell us more.  This is a new story for me.....

You must be the only one.

 

Expats lose Supreme Court bid for EU referendum vote

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36370522

 

The 15 year ruling was based on the way the government keeps records. Since the court case there has been a change in policy.

 

Fifteen-year limit to be scrapped in wake of Brexit vote to strengthen ties with Britons living permanently overseas

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/expats-given-vote-for-life-uk-elections-government-says

 

The numbers are hardly insignificant.

 

More than two million British expats are affected by the decision, which marks the end of the legal battle for an expat's right to vote.

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, sandyf said:

You must be the only one.

 

Expats lose Supreme Court bid for EU referendum vote

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36370522

 

The 15 year ruling was based on the way the government keeps records. Since the court case there has been a change in policy.

 

Fifteen-year limit to be scrapped in wake of Brexit vote to strengthen ties with Britons living permanently overseas

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/07/expats-given-vote-for-life-uk-elections-government-says

 

The numbers are hardly insignificant.

 

More than two million British expats are affected by the decision, which marks the end of the legal battle for an expat's right to vote.

An expat is just that "ex-" and he made the decision to leave, leaving voting, residential, healthcare and all other "rights" behind. 

[Loeilad]

EU Bureacracy???

Those thinking that leaving the EU will reduce bureaucracy are in for a nasty surprise 

Quite apart from the extra civil servants needed, anyone who has shipped  goods to Europe in the 70s or 80s will tell you.

[Orac]

EU Bureacracy???
Those thinking that leaving the EU will reduce bureaucracy are in for a nasty surprise 
Quite apart from the extra civil servants needed, anyone who has shipped  goods to Europe in the 70s or 80s will tell you.

And from Europe -the good old days of sitting in a customs office for hours on end with a pile of invoices, C10s and T2s. Used to make loadsamoney out of it till those pesky EUropeans took down the border controls and eventually made it a declaration after the fact for stats.

[AlexRich]

David Davis reported in the BBC confirming that the UK may well continue contributing to the EU budget in exchange for market access. A tweet from Laura Kuensberg on BBC news app. 

 

That will go down well! 

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

David Davis reported in the BBC confirming that the UK may well continue contributing to the EU budget in exchange for market access. A tweet from Laura Kuensberg on BBC news app. 

 

That will go down well! 

Yes - it's called a Soft Brexit

[Johnyo]

David Davis reported in the BBC confirming that the UK may well continue contributing to the EU budget in exchange for market access. A tweet from Laura Kuensberg on BBC news app. 

 

That will go down well! 

Please please just for the fun of it can it be 350 million pounds a week!!

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect