Theresa May (Vol.2)

[anonymous-user]

pgh said:

Bill said:

It's not as simple as remain wants one/leavers don't. Some leavers think it's the most democratic way to resolve this as well.

I'm all for another referendum. Once we've implemented the outcome of the last one of course.

How can we implement the last one? The government are about to reject the only deal available. Did leavers or the public vote for WTO? only one way to find out.

[alfaspecial]

We had the referendum in 2016. Why can't the result just be implemented, as per legislation already passed through Parliament (leave 29 March 2019)?
And if 'we' are unhappy with being an independent nation (again) then 'we' can campaign to (re)join.
Interestingly both main national parties (Conservatives & Labour), winning 84% of votes between them, campaigned to with a manifesto pledge to implement BREXIT. The LDs were the only national party to campaign against Brexit (new referendum) and their vote share fell from 7.9% of votes cast in 2015 to 7.4% of votes cast in 2017!


POINT 1.
The REMAIN side continuously go on about the narrow margin (4%) of a LEAVE win in the referendum.
(52% Leave 48% Remain )

But then again in 2017 the Conservatives 'won' with just 42% of the vote by a margin of 2.4% over Labour
(42.4% Cons, 40% Lab)
And won in 2015 'won' with just 36% of votes
(36.8% Cons, 30.4% Lab)
Even Labours 1997 'landslide' was achieved with just 43% of votes cast!
(43.4% Lab, 30.7 Cons)

Frankly speaking any political 'policy' with a mandate of over 50% should be enacted.


POINT 2.
Yes, in simple terms the referendum was 52:48 but had the referendum result been reported BY CONSTITUENCY then there was a far greater mandate for LEAVE.

By constituency only 230 out of 632 constituencies voted REMAIN
whereas 402 out of 632 voted LEAVE
That is a margin of 64:36

Source: Professor Chris Hanretty's analysis of the referendum result, if you'd care to check
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b71SDKPFbk... area

[johnxjsc1985]

alfaspecial said:

We had the referendum in 2016.

BY CONSTITUENCY then there was a far greater mandate for LEAVE.

By constituency only 230 out of 632 constituencies voted REMAIN
whereas 402 out of 632 voted LEAVE
That is a margin of 64:36

Source: Professor Chris Hanretty's analysis of the referendum result, if you'd care to check
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b71SDKPFbk... area

Sadly and importantly this is not reflected in the House of Commons by MP's they have by enlarge conspired to ignore the result and taken a personal view on the subject.

[alfaspecial]

johnxjsc1985 said:

alfaspecial said:

We had the referendum in 2016.

BY CONSTITUENCY then there was a far greater mandate for LEAVE.

By constituency only 230 out of 632 constituencies voted REMAIN
whereas 402 out of 632 voted LEAVE
That is a margin of 64:36

Source: Professor Chris Hanretty's analysis of the referendum result, if you'd care to check
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b71SDKPFbk... area

Sadly and importantly this is not reflected in the House of Commons by MP's they have by enlarge conspired to ignore the result and taken a personal view on the subject.

Unfortunately you are right. I thought I believed in parliamentary Democracy (us electing MPs to make decisions on our behalf). But the EU referendum was not so much a political choice but a constitutional one.
And our MPs voted, by a sizeable margin, to hold' the referendum.
And to back the Article 50 bill (498 votes to 114)

[saaby93]

johnxjsc1985 said:

alfaspecial said:

We had the referendum in 2016.

BY CONSTITUENCY then there was a far greater mandate for LEAVE.

By constituency only 230 out of 632 constituencies voted REMAIN
whereas 402 out of 632 voted LEAVE
That is a margin of 64:36

Source: Professor Chris Hanretty's analysis of the referendum result, if you'd care to check
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b71SDKPFbk... area

Sadly and importantly this is not reflected in the House of Commons by MP's they have by enlarge conspired to ignore the result and taken a personal view on the subject.

And is the huge problem May is trying to deal with.
Hence try to reach the public to get onto their MPs

[JagLover]

saaby93 said:

The feelings locally seems to be that the public just wants MPs to get on with it.
The vote was for Brexit but with a significant wanting stay
If Mays deal is near enough an exit while relating good links to Europe why not get on with it?

Naturally many leave voters are confused by what is on offer and the obscurification of the true issues by much of the media has not helped in this.

Tory MPs have read the WA in detail, they have received legal briefings, and they understand what it means. Following this most of those who backed Brexit are voting against and a number who backed remain. The media would have you believe that this is because they are "extremists", but it is most accurate that they have read the agreement, and the legal briefings, and understand what it means.

The backstop is the future arrangement, because it is either this, or an agreement based upon this. This is not a compromise, some way of keeping us half in and half out, it is a fundamentally unsatisfactory basis for a future relationship and all to leave, not to negotiate a FTA.

Furthermore it speaks only of trade in goods, so any supposed "gains" under this agreement will be traded away afterwards to keep trade in services close to how they are now.

This will not be "settled" therefore if the WA were signed. Those who have not been paying much attention will come to realise that we are locked into a relationship with the EU that is worse than what we had before, with no means of escape. I would hazard a guess that the feelings of many at that point will not be relief they "got on with it" but a deep rage against the whole establishment.

If the WA were ever signed it would only be the beginning.

[saaby93]

JagLover said:

If the WA were ever signed it would only be the beginning.

Of course
We're at a turning point and need to move on from here
It needs a beginning, otherwise we stay where we are

[olimain]

bhstewie said:

I'm no economist but let's go with something basic like household costs so groceries, energy bills, mortgage etc.

What percentage increase would you be comfortable with to achieve the things you believe leaving will deliver?

I don’t believe leaving will deliver an increase in the cost of those things (exiting with no deal and the ensuing short term panic aside).

[alfaspecial]

JagLover said:

saaby93 said:

The feelings locally seems to be that the public just wants MPs to get on with it.
The vote was for Brexit but with a significant wanting stay
If Mays deal is near enough an exit while relating good links to Europe why not get on with it?

Naturally many leave voters are confused by what is on offer and the obscurification of the true issues by much of the media has not helped in this.

Tory MPs have read the WA in detail, they have received legal briefings, and they understand what it means. Following this most of those who backed Brexit are voting against and a number who backed remain. The media would have you believe that this is because they are "extremists", but it is most accurate that they have read the agreement, and the legal briefings, and understand what it means.

The backstop is the future arrangement, because it is either this, or an agreement based upon this. This is not a compromise, some way of keeping us half in and half out, it is a fundamentally unsatisfactory basis for a future relationship and all to leave, not to negotiate a FTA.

Furthermore it speaks only of trade in goods, so any supposed "gains" under this agreement will be traded away afterwards to keep trade in services close to how they are now.

This will not be "settled" therefore if the WA were signed. Those who have not been paying much attention will come to realise that we are locked into a relationship with the EU that is worse than what we had before, with no means of escape. I would hazard a guess that the feelings of many at that point will not be relief they "got on with it" but a deep rage against the whole establishment.

If the WA were ever signed it would only be the beginning.

We voted to be out of the single market etc
eg David Cameron's Chatham House Speech
https://youtu.be/z7qZhlrbcB8
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-minis...

Quote
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…
…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…
…I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
End Quote

[bitchstewie]

olimain said:

bhstewie said:

I'm no economist but let's go with something basic like household costs so groceries, energy bills, mortgage etc.

What percentage increase would you be comfortable with to achieve the things you believe leaving will deliver?

I don’t believe leaving will deliver an increase in the cost of those things (exiting with no deal and the ensuing short term panic aside).

I'm sure most people would have thought "What if the things I need to buy to live cost more?" when weighing up how to vote.

You did say "If it's horrendous we then campaign to rejoin" which suggests you acknowledge there could be an impact.

Belief doesn't pay bills

[saaby93]

Although the country voted to leave, it left it up to parliament to choose the best way to leave

[Vaud]

alfaspecial said:

We voted to be out of the single market etc
eg David Cameron's Chatham House Speech
https://youtu.be/z7qZhlrbcB8
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/prime-minis...

Quote
And it will be the final decision.
So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave…
…would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and then a second referendum in which Britain would stay…
…I say think again.
The renegotiation is happening right now. And the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice.
An in or out referendum.
When the British people speak, their voice will be respected – not ignored.
If we vote to leave, then we will leave.
There will not be another renegotiation and another referendum.
End Quote

Speeches and manifestos are not suicide notes. If you held every politician to every speech and every statement (in the modern system)

[Halb]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

4. Noel Edmunds for PM/Prez

[frisbee]

saaby93 said:

JagLover said:

If the WA were ever signed it would only be the beginning.

Of course
We're at a turning point and need to move on from here
It needs a beginning, otherwise we stay where we are

Flapping your arms and running face first into a 6 foot spike mounted on the wall next to the door isn't leaving.

May's deal is a turd, it is the worst parts of leaving and staying and will mire the UK in a stinking swamp for years, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

[saaby93]

frisbee said:

saaby93 said:

JagLover said:

If the WA were ever signed it would only be the beginning.

Of course
We're at a turning point and need to move on from here
It needs a beginning, otherwise we stay where we are

Flapping your arms and running face first into a 6 foot spike mounted on the wall next to the door isn't leaving.

May's deal is a turd, it is the worst parts of leaving and staying and will mire the UK in a stinking swamp for years, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

Nice rant but youd have to make a case for it

[alfaspecial]

frisbee said:

Flapping your arms and running face first into a 6 foot spike mounted on the wall next to the door isn't leaving.

May's deal is a turd, it is the worst parts of leaving and staying and will mire the UK in a stinking swamp for years, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

You are (unfortunately) right in your assessment. They don't call her "Threason" May for nothing.
Her deal is a sell out. Chaining us to the EU, loss of sovereignty, - NI etc at a cost of £39bn

I think her (although she's not clever enough to think it up.....) tactic is to negotiate such a bad deal that the whole country will unite around (we can do it now, legally - according to our masters the EU) withdrawing Article 50.

My prediction, a couple of years down the line:
"Seemingly the Elites (and their 'Progressives' pawns) have won. The UK has, in practice, not left the EU.
But there has been a price to pay for their pyrrhic victory
The country is divided as never before.
There is a chasm between the 'EU supporting haves' and the 'UK have-nots'

Because the result was overturned people no longer trust the democratic process

Any pretence that the country is a democracy is long gone - the politically dispossessed refer to the political system as an exo-democracy
Taxes have risen to pay for the new EU army, which, ironically is now in action for the first time: suppressing riots in hundreds of British towns.


Meanwhile.........
Jean-Claude Junker, speaking from an address in Luxembourg's Rue de Gasperich, congratulated his successor, Tony Blair on his appointment as President of the European Commission.
And in reply Tony Blair was quoted as saying
"Defeating Brexit has made us stronger....... the will of the European Elite ..... is now the will of the British people."
And
"I have taken it upon myself, on your behalf, to democratically decide that from now on the European Union will be known as the United States of Europe .... and you can all be proud to address me as Mr President, Sir."

[paulrockliffe]

saaby93 said:

frisbee said:

saaby93 said:

JagLover said:

If the WA were ever signed it would only be the beginning.

Of course
We're at a turning point and need to move on from here
It needs a beginning, otherwise we stay where we are

Flapping your arms and running face first into a 6 foot spike mounted on the wall next to the door isn't leaving.

May's deal is a turd, it is the worst parts of leaving and staying and will mire the UK in a stinking swamp for years, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

Nice rant but youd have to make a case for it

Come on, the case for that point of view has been made by numerous people on this thread already and there's three days worth of it in Hansard too. That May didn't even bring her stinking swamp to be voted on is pretty conclusive.

[saaby93]

paulrockliffe said:

Come on, the case for that point of view has been made by numerous people on this thread already and there's three days worth of it in Hansard too. That May didn't even bring her stinking swamp to be voted on is pretty conclusive.

Or as other posters have said it could say more about the preferences of MPs in the house, than the outcome of the referendum

[B'stard Child]

alfaspecial said:

You are (unfortunately) right in your assessment. They don't call her "Threason" May for nothing.
Her deal is a sell out. Chaining us to the EU, loss of sovereignty, - NI etc at a cost of £39bn

I think her (although she's not clever enough to think it up.....) tactic is to negotiate such a bad deal that the whole country will unite around (we can do it now, legally - according to our masters the EU) withdrawing Article 50.

My prediction, a couple of years down the line:
"Seemingly the Elites (and their 'Progressives' pawns) have won. The UK has, in practice, not left the EU.
But there has been a price to pay for their pyrrhic victory
The country is divided as never before.
There is a chasm between the 'EU supporting haves' and the 'UK have-nots'

Because the result was overturned people no longer trust the democratic process

Any pretence that the country is a democracy is long gone - the politically dispossessed refer to the political system as an exo-democracy
Taxes have risen to pay for the new EU army, which, ironically is now in action for the first time: suppressing riots in hundreds of British towns.


Meanwhile.........
Jean-Claude Junker, speaking from an address in Luxembourg's Rue de Gasperich, congratulated his successor, Tony Blair on his appointment as President of the European Commission.
And in reply Tony Blair was quoted as saying
"Defeating Brexit has made us stronger....... the will of the European Elite ..... is now the will of the British people."
And
"I have taken it upon myself, on your behalf, to democratically decide that from now on the European Union will be known as the United States of Europe .... and you can all be proud to address me as Mr President, Sir."

[Derek Smith]

Tuna said:

Bill said:

s2art said:

Nope. Everyone was told in no uncertain terms that we would be leaving the EU, the SM, the CU and the remit of the ECJ. It couldnt have been clearer, and that precludes the Norway option (but not Canada+)

That's irrelevant as it was dismissed as project Fear.

No. That was agreed and accepted by most Leavers as a fact. The Leave campaign agreed that leaving meant SM, CU and specifically the ECJ. Even the EU made it clear that you cannot 'cherry pick' from the four freedoms. No-one called leaving the CU etc. project fear.

Project Fear was the claim that choosing that route would mean an instant 'cliff edge' recession the moment the vote was called, 100,000 job losses and an emergency budget. Leave said that such predictions were 'made up' to scare people into voting to Remain.

So the leavers believed the remain propaganda and not the lies of the leave campaign. It's logic captain, but not as we know it.

I didn't believe the rubbish Johnson et al put out. If I had I might suggest I would only have myself to blame. I didn't believe that Johnson and Farage wanted the Norwegian option that they mentioned, not through any deep political inside information but because they had a history of saying things they did not believe in.