Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

So even though we haven't invoked A50 yet, and even if we had we would still be a member of the EU for at least two years whilst continuing to pay the 'subs', you condone and support the behaviour of the EU.

Lots of assumptions built into this. You seem to think that the costs of an EU Army can be covered out of existing contributions. I don't. Existing contributoins cover existing outgoings, of which the EU Army amounts to 0%.

If the EU makes a cash call on us to fund the EU Army prior to A50 + 2 years, then I agree that they can whistle for that. But unlike you I don't think we will be paying for an EU Army at any time.

Once we invoke A50, I think you'd have to be pretty special to think that the EU would continue to act in our interests. We wouldn't continue to act in its interests (I'd hope) so why would we expect more from them? And yes, we have to pay our subs in the two year period, because that's the deal we signed up to. Read the small print, and all that.

Funkycoldribena said:

What a load of absolute garbage.
And if it had gone the other way and Farage was calling for a second referendum you'd be screaming the place down.

First, welcome to the dialogue.

Secondly, who the fk are you?

Thirdly, despite the expansiveness of your reply, you seemed to have stalled on the first point: the referendum rerun. If the vote had been to remain and Farage had called for a rerun, once I'd stopped laughing my head off, I'd have been of the view he could fk right off. But the talking point between me and don'tbesilly was whether it was possible to have a second vote, not whether it should be re-run. So thanks for playing but you seem to have missed the point.

dildoez said:

True.
Poor ol' Greggs. Talking out of his 'bake side' again.

When you think of something valuable to contribute, be sure to let everyone know. Thanks.

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

The UK ceased to be a democracy when the UK went through a democratic process to decide the future of the UK within the European Union.

Oh do be quiet. You're just making yourself look like a child now.

[anonymous-user]

AC43 said:

Derek Smith said:

AC43 said:

Derek Smith said:

It probably shows a weakness in my character to say I will enjoy her gradual destruction - in all probability, nothing is certain in politics, not even brexit - but I don't care. I'm going to relish it.

Quite understandable given what you've experienced - I'd feel the same way.

The trouble is, of course, who takes over that.

The snake in the grass Johnson of course is biding his time knowing that May's leadership will blow up under the strain. Them there are his even more swivel-eyed colleagues none of whom I'd ever want to see running the country.

And then of course you'll have the other wing of the party far more aligned with Flexit that the hard core stuff fighting their corner.

This topic has divided the nation it's surely going to be civil war for the Tories. Just a Labour split themselves into Trotskyites vs traitors.....

The place is going nuts.

Are you trying to ruin my enjoyment.

You are right, of course. Her replacement will be one of the 'swivel-eyed'.

We are in turbulent times. Old political certainties are dissolving. The worst thing for the tories has always been a lack of opposition. They turned on Major when they thought the labour movement posed no threat and look how well that turned out. Labour are suffering the same problems as those times and there's no Smith to drag them into something more sensible.

The lib/dems are keeping quiet. They have a powerful infrastructure that has enabled them to work their way back from the brink before. The bitterness over the self-inflicted wound of university fees might wear off a bit, but the new generation of youngsters looking for something to change the system might well look at their debt and blame the lib/dems rather than the tories.

I have no idea what changes will come, only that they must.

They'll write theses about the 2010s in years to come and, ironically, youngsters will study the period in history lessons.

Interesting analysis and good point about the Lib Dems. If the Tories rush to the right to fight off UKIP and Labour rush to the left because otherwise you get executed or something it does open a chasm in the middle which is where Smith so successfully prepared the ground for the Labour bus and where Cameron happily parked afterwards.

Yes it's going to be very interesting. And terrifying at times.

If I may jump into the more interesting dialogue in this thread...

If TM succeeds in Brexit without crashing the economy she will be locked in for a second term. By 2025 we will be firmly in a post Brexit world, and the old rivalry between left and right will have re-established itself. Corbyn will be long gone, and the winner will be determined by whether Labour have repositioned back to a Blarite centre position and made themselves palatable.

If May fails in Brexit, it will be because the country has come to accept that the cold hard consequences of Brexit are not worth it. She has given ownership of Brexit to the Brexiteers, so it is possible that she could survive a failed Brexit and blame it on the over ambition of Johnson, Fox, Davies, et al. The Tory party becomes far more pro-EU, and she segues into a pro-EU British PM.

If she can't survive then she still drags the Brexiteers down with her. My long distance crystal ball says that by then UKIP would be long dead as a real force, some Tories might still be pro Brexit despite the reality, but the majority would see that pragmatism trumps idealism and accept an future in the EU. So the battleground has a universal pro-EU backdrop with the usual laft vs right fight for power.

In short, plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.

[don'tbesilly]

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

So even though we haven't invoked A50 yet, and even if we had we would still be a member of the EU for at least two years whilst continuing to pay the 'subs', you condone and support the behaviour of the EU.

Lots of assumptions built into this. You seem to think that the costs of an EU Army can be covered out of existing contributions. I don't. Existing contributoins cover existing outgoings, of which the EU Army amounts to 0%.

If the EU makes a cash call on us to fund the EU Army prior to A50 + 2 years, then I agree that they can whistle for that. But unlike you I don't think we will be paying for an EU Army at any time.

Once we invoke A50, I think you'd have to be pretty special to think that the EU would continue to act in our interests. We wouldn't continue to act in its interests (I'd hope) so why would we expect more from them? And yes, we have to pay our subs in the two year period, because that's the deal we signed up to. Read the small print, and all that.

Some perhaps not all are based on assumptions.

I take your point about existing contributions, however do you not think that given we will be a member of the EU for at least two years post A50 and be expected to pay our subs (obligations and all that etc), and because of the small print, we have to, that a percentage of those contributions could go towards the proposed EU armed force?

You state we can tell them to 'do one', but what about the small print, you know, the deal?

You seem to be saying 'do one' now to the EU, we haven't invoked A50, two years haven't passed, yet you've stated this:

Greg66 said:

If the EU makes a cash call on us to fund the EU Army prior to A50 + 2 years, then I agree that they can whistle for that.

Thats not very neighbourly now is it?

[Funkycoldribena]

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

So even though we haven't invoked A50 yet, and even if we had we would still be a member of the EU for at least two years whilst continuing to pay the 'subs', you condone and support the behaviour of the EU.

Lots of assumptions built into this. You seem to think that the costs of an EU Army can be covered out of existing contributions. I don't. Existing contributoins cover existing outgoings, of which the EU Army amounts to 0%.

If the EU makes a cash call on us to fund the EU Army prior to A50 + 2 years, then I agree that they can whistle for that. But unlike you I don't think we will be paying for an EU Army at any time.

Once we invoke A50, I think you'd have to be pretty special to think that the EU would continue to act in our interests. We wouldn't continue to act in its interests (I'd hope) so why would we expect more from them? And yes, we have to pay our subs in the two year period, because that's the deal we signed up to. Read the small print, and all that.

Funkycoldribena said:

What a load of absolute garbage.
And if it had gone the other way and Farage was calling for a second referendum you'd be screaming the place down.

First, welcome to the dialogue.

Secondly, who the fk are you?

Thirdly, despite the expansiveness of your reply, you seemed to have stalled on the first point: the referendum rerun. If the vote had been to remain and Farage had called for a rerun, once I'd stopped laughing my head off, I'd have been of the view he could fk right off. But the talking point between me and don'tbesilly was whether it was possible to have a second vote, not whether it should be re-run. So thanks for playing but you seem to have missed the point.

dildoez said:

True.
Poor ol' Greggs. Talking out of his 'bake side' again.

When you think of something valuable to contribute, be sure to let everyone know. Thanks.

Someone's got little man syndrome...

[don'tbesilly]

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

The UK ceased to be a democracy when the UK went through a democratic process to decide the future of the UK within the European Union.

Oh do be quiet. You're just making yourself look like a child now.

You have a nasty habit of editing peoples posts to change the context of what's written, perhaps you could be less condescending and act like an adult, you do see yourself as one I assume.

Perhaps you could go forth and multiply, I guess you have the tool to do it, you certainly act like one and are the other.

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

So even though we haven't invoked A50 yet, and even if we had we would still be a member of the EU for at least two years whilst continuing to pay the 'subs', you condone and support the behaviour of the EU.

Lots of assumptions built into this. You seem to think that the costs of an EU Army can be covered out of existing contributions. I don't. Existing contributoins cover existing outgoings, of which the EU Army amounts to 0%.

If the EU makes a cash call on us to fund the EU Army prior to A50 + 2 years, then I agree that they can whistle for that. But unlike you I don't think we will be paying for an EU Army at any time.

Once we invoke A50, I think you'd have to be pretty special to think that the EU would continue to act in our interests. We wouldn't continue to act in its interests (I'd hope) so why would we expect more from them? And yes, we have to pay our subs in the two year period, because that's the deal we signed up to. Read the small print, and all that.

Some perhaps not all are based on assumptions.

I take your point about existing contributions, however do you not think that given we will be a member of the EU for at least two years post A50 and be expected to pay our subs (obligations and all that etc), and because of the small print, we have to, that a percentage of those contributions could go towards the proposed EU armed force?

You state we can tell them to 'do one', but what about the small print, you know, the deal?

You seem to be saying 'do one' now to the EU, we haven't invoked A50, two years haven't passed, yet you've stated this:

Greg66 said:

If the EU makes a cash call on us to fund the EU Army prior to A50 + 2 years, then I agree that they can whistle for that.

Thats not very neighbourly now is it?

No, I don't think our contributions could go to an EU Army, because during the A50 two years we still have our veto over an EU Army. So the EU has to ignore that to start on the Army, and if it does I think we can legitimately say "ps off" if they ask us for money to fund the Army.

It'll be the EU that didn't read the small print in those circs.

[anonymous-user]

Funkycoldribena said:

Someone's got little man syndrome...

Yeah, but you'll work through it. Don't worry.

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

The UK ceased to be a democracy when the UK went through a democratic process to decide the future of the UK within the European Union.

Oh do be quiet. You're just making yourself look like a child now.

You have a nasty habit of editing peoples posts to change the context of what's written, perhaps you could be less condescending and act like an adult, you do see yourself as one I assume.

Perhaps you could go forth and multiply, I guess you have the tool to do it, you certainly act like one and are the other.

I'm very willing to hear how the parts of your post that I edited out provide a context that changes the meaning of what I quoted. If I've misunderstood you, I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced right now that I have misunderstood you.

[don'tbesilly]

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

So even though we haven't invoked A50 yet, and even if we had we would still be a member of the EU for at least two years whilst continuing to pay the 'subs', you condone and support the behaviour of the EU.

Lots of assumptions built into this. You seem to think that the costs of an EU Army can be covered out of existing contributions. I don't. Existing contributoins cover existing outgoings, of which the EU Army amounts to 0%.

If the EU makes a cash call on us to fund the EU Army prior to A50 + 2 years, then I agree that they can whistle for that. But unlike you I don't think we will be paying for an EU Army at any time.

Once we invoke A50, I think you'd have to be pretty special to think that the EU would continue to act in our interests. We wouldn't continue to act in its interests (I'd hope) so why would we expect more from them? And yes, we have to pay our subs in the two year period, because that's the deal we signed up to. Read the small print, and all that.

Some perhaps not all are based on assumptions.

I take your point about existing contributions, however do you not think that given we will be a member of the EU for at least two years post A50 and be expected to pay our subs (obligations and all that etc), and because of the small print, we have to, that a percentage of those contributions could go towards the proposed EU armed force?

You state we can tell them to 'do one', but what about the small print, you know, the deal?

You seem to be saying 'do one' now to the EU, we haven't invoked A50, two years haven't passed, yet you've stated this:

Greg66 said:

If the EU makes a cash call on us to fund the EU Army prior to A50 + 2 years, then I agree that they can whistle for that.

Thats not very neighbourly now is it?

No, I don't think our contributions could go to an EU Army, because during the A50 two years we still have our veto over an EU Army. So the EU has to ignore that to start on the Army, and if it does I think we can legitimately say "ps off" if they ask us for money to fund the Army.

It'll be the EU that didn't read the small print in those circs.

We've just gone around in a circle!

The whole point of my original post was about the veto, and the EU ignoring it.
So no they didn't read the small print, do they ever, they will ignore the deal, you know the obligations on all EU members, they are telling the UK 'to do one' despite the f.....ing veto

[Funkycoldribena]

Greg66 said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Someone's got little man syndrome...

Yeah, but you'll work through it. Don't worry.

How old are you?

[Derek Smith]

Fastdruid said:

Derek Smith said:

If you look at our history, we were not a democracy before 1918, and some, including me, would argue not before 1928, so ours is less than 100 years old.

Although of course others would argue with equal merit that we've been a democracy for over 300 years.

Pre 1832 we were an autocracy with voting. The vast majority of the population had no say.

The form of government, not without its merits, was a sort of menage of interest groups, although at that time the most productive, the industries developing from the industrial revolution, had little influence.

Post 1832, despite the hype, very little changed. Some borders were moved, some of the boroughs were dispensed with but in essence it was more of more or less the same. The subsequent reform acts moved things forward slightly but until the turn of the century the prime house of government was the HoL. That could not be described as democratic.

The very interesting developments around the turn of the century, with riots and reaction from the government, led to the population at large gaining the vote, although not until 1918. Women under 30 were denied the vote not by the HoC but by the unelected HoL. There was a majority in favour of universal female suffrage in line with that of males in the HoC in the late 19thC, but attempts to push for it were thwarted, mainly by the HoL.

The unequal distribution of suffrage was remedied in 1928, dreadfully late but the damage done by the war to the economy, and more so by the inept financial management of the HoC got people thinking of survival.

So whilst some might think we were a democracy before the majority of the population got the vote, I wonder at their logic.

don'tbesilly said:

Some historians maintain that democracy in Britain can be traced back to the Magna Carta of 1215, but some like to rewrite history.

I'd like to know the name of these historians.

Magna Carta, which of course was binned by John days after it was signed, is the most overrated document in England. It patently did not impose democracy, mere said that the king should run some ideas past tribal leaders. It tried, and failed, to limit the power of the monarch. There was no voting. It was not a democracy.

If you were to suggest that parliament can trace its ancestry back to MC, then OK, certainly more logical but no more correct. MC was without issue. It was a blip. It was a first, but failed, attempt.

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

We've just gone around in a circle!

The whole point of my original post was about the veto, and the EU ignoring it.
So no they didn't read the small print, do they ever, they will ignore the deal, you know the obligations on all EU members, they are telling the UK 'to do one' despite the f.....ing veto

Err, no:

don'tbesilly said:

We now know where the EU stands on veto's, our alleged veto on the EU army is being laughed at despite the UK still being a full member with a veto.

don'tbesilly said:

however do you not think that given we will be a member of the EU for at least two years post A50 and be expected to pay our subs (obligations and all that etc), and because of the small print, we have to, that a percentage of those contributions could go towards the proposed EU armed force?

Your point was that the EU would ignore our ability to veto an EU Army and still expect us to pay for something we had lawfully tried to veto. Which I disagree with.

[Derek Smith]

Greg66 said:

If I may jump into the more interesting dialogue in this thread...

If TM succeeds in Brexit without crashing the economy she will be locked in for a second term. By 2025 we will be firmly in a post Brexit world, and the old rivalry between left and right will have re-established itself. Corbyn will be long gone, and the winner will be determined by whether Labour have repositioned back to a Blarite centre position and made themselves palatable.

If May fails in Brexit, it will be because the country has come to accept that the cold hard consequences of Brexit are not worth it. She has given ownership of Brexit to the Brexiteers, so it is possible that she could survive a failed Brexit and blame it on the over ambition of Johnson, Fox, Davies, et al. The Tory party becomes far more pro-EU, and she segues into a pro-EU British PM.

If she can't survive then she still drags the Brexiteers down with her. My long distance crystal ball says that by then UKIP would be long dead as a real force, some Tories might still be pro Brexit despite the reality, but the majority would see that pragmatism trumps idealism and accept an future in the EU. So the battleground has a universal pro-EU backdrop with the usual laft vs right fight for power.

In short, plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.

I've got the feeling that May will not be able to succeed as there are too many factions in her party. If she goes soft, then she might get parliament behind her but Mogg and his mob have already said that they don't want that. If she goes hard then I doubt the economy will be steady.

Her best hope, I would suggest, is if exit is delayed until after 2020 elections. That will defer her problems, solve none, and probably make the final outcome even less helpful for her tenure.

But then, a week is supposedly a long time in politics.

[anonymous-user]

Funkycoldribena said:

How old are you?

You're funny!

[don'tbesilly]

Greg66 said:

don'tbesilly said:

We've just gone around in a circle!

The whole point of my original post was about the veto, and the EU ignoring it.
So no they didn't read the small print, do they ever, they will ignore the deal, you know the obligations on all EU members, they are telling the UK 'to do one' despite the f.....ing veto

Err, no:

don'tbesilly said:

We now know where the EU stands on veto's, our alleged veto on the EU army is being laughed at despite the UK still being a full member with a veto.

don'tbesilly said:

however do you not think that given we will be a member of the EU for at least two years post A50 and be expected to pay our subs (obligations and all that etc), and because of the small print, we have to, that a percentage of those contributions could go towards the proposed EU armed force?

Your point was that the EU would ignore our ability to veto an EU Army and still expect us to pay for something we had lawfully tried to veto. Which I disagree with.

Gregg you may well disagree with it,as I do, but the point is,it would appear that despite ignoring any veto the UK attempted and possibly fails to enforce, the EU would no doubt expect the members 'subs'.

We seem to be agreeing on this point yet you resort to petty insults, is there any need?

[AC43]

Derek Smith said:

Greg66 said:

If I may jump into the more interesting dialogue in this thread...

If TM succeeds in Brexit without crashing the economy she will be locked in for a second term. By 2025 we will be firmly in a post Brexit world, and the old rivalry between left and right will have re-established itself. Corbyn will be long gone, and the winner will be determined by whether Labour have repositioned back to a Blarite centre position and made themselves palatable.

If May fails in Brexit, it will be because the country has come to accept that the cold hard consequences of Brexit are not worth it. She has given ownership of Brexit to the Brexiteers, so it is possible that she could survive a failed Brexit and blame it on the over ambition of Johnson, Fox, Davies, et al. The Tory party becomes far more pro-EU, and she segues into a pro-EU British PM.

If she can't survive then she still drags the Brexiteers down with her. My long distance crystal ball says that by then UKIP would be long dead as a real force, some Tories might still be pro Brexit despite the reality, but the majority would see that pragmatism trumps idealism and accept an future in the EU. So the battleground has a universal pro-EU backdrop with the usual laft vs right fight for power.

In short, plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.

I've got the feeling that May will not be able to succeed as there are too many factions in her party. If she goes soft, then she might get parliament behind her but Mogg and his mob have already said that they don't want that. If she goes hard then I doubt the economy will be steady.

Her best hope, I would suggest, is if exit is delayed until after 2020 elections. That will defer her problems, solve none, and probably make the final outcome even less helpful for her tenure.

But then, a week is supposedly a long time in politics.

I agree - May is in an impossible place because of divisions/expectations/realities/timings. It'll take a purge or two and some national convulsions to sort this out.

[anonymous-user]

don'tbesilly said:

Gregg you may well disagree with it,as I do, but the point is,it would appear that despite ignoring any veto the UK attempted and possibly fails to enforce, the EU would no doubt expect the members 'subs'.

That's where we disagree - I don't think the EU would expect us to pay "subs" insofar as those subs would go to fund an EU Army that we had vetoed and the EU had gone ahead with despite our veto. It's all obviously highly speculative, but I don't really see why you think the EU would expect us to pay his, other than "because the EU is horrid" kind of argument.

don'tbesilly said:

We seem to be agreeing on this point yet you resort to petty insults, is there any need?

Have I? Not on this point, I think. The other point about the UK ceasing to be a democracy when it became part of the EU, yes. But that was such silly hyperbole (the UK isn't a democracy? Really? You may have missed it, but pre-referendum the foreign minister of one of the Baltic states wrote an open letter to us imploring us to vote to stay. One of his points was that it was a nonsense to call the EU a dictatorship - the Baltic states had lived under a genuine dictatorship when they were part of the Soviet Union, and the EU is no dictatorship) that I thought it was amply deserving of a dig.

[don'tbesilly]

AC43 said:

Derek Smith said:

Greg66 said:

If I may jump into the more interesting dialogue in this thread...

If TM succeeds in Brexit without crashing the economy she will be locked in for a second term. By 2025 we will be firmly in a post Brexit world, and the old rivalry between left and right will have re-established itself. Corbyn will be long gone, and the winner will be determined by whether Labour have repositioned back to a Blarite centre position and made themselves palatable.

If May fails in Brexit, it will be because the country has come to accept that the cold hard consequences of Brexit are not worth it. She has given ownership of Brexit to the Brexiteers, so it is possible that she could survive a failed Brexit and blame it on the over ambition of Johnson, Fox, Davies, et al. The Tory party becomes far more pro-EU, and she segues into a pro-EU British PM.

If she can't survive then she still drags the Brexiteers down with her. My long distance crystal ball says that by then UKIP would be long dead as a real force, some Tories might still be pro Brexit despite the reality, but the majority would see that pragmatism trumps idealism and accept an future in the EU. So the battleground has a universal pro-EU backdrop with the usual laft vs right fight for power.

In short, plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.

I've got the feeling that May will not be able to succeed as there are too many factions in her party. If she goes soft, then she might get parliament behind her but Mogg and his mob have already said that they don't want that. If she goes hard then I doubt the economy will be steady.

Her best hope, I would suggest, is if exit is delayed until after 2020 elections. That will defer her problems, solve none, and probably make the final outcome even less helpful for her tenure.

But then, a week is supposedly a long time in politics.

I agree - May is in an impossible place because of divisions/expectations/realities/timings. It'll take a purge or two and some national convulsions to sort this out.

Fascinating insight Fella's, if I didn't know better, one would think you were dinner guests of TM and party to her inner most thoughts.

I bet TM is not overly concerned at all, she doesn't show any signs of weakness or turmoil, if anything it's the complete opposite.

I'd imagine most of the gloomy documents that tumble out of the despatch boxes whilst she has brekkers, end up in the recycling bin.

The highlight of her morning is reading about the clown Corbyn along with the puppet Farron, and once she's composed herself and adjusted the Tena pad, she carries on planning her next orienteering holiday with Philip whilst sipping Earl Grey.

[AC43]

don'tbesilly said:

Fascinating insight Fella's,

Thankyou for your support.

(although I guess from the tone of your post that you perhaps haven't noticed the massive division in the Tory party over the last 30 years over Europe and the huge repercussions that's it's had)