The people's vote
Discussion
oh look yet another brexit related yipeee!
in all seriousness though is anyone else getting pissed off with "the people's vote" b
ks? All I hear on the radio is "the people's vote" - we had one of those 2 years ago, that's what's led to the current mess/situation/whatever. The referendum WAS the people's vote, surely whatever we get now is more like the "regret vote" or "politician's vote"?
in all seriousness though is anyone else getting pissed off with "the people's vote" b
ks? All I hear on the radio is "the people's vote" - we had one of those 2 years ago, that's what's led to the current mess/situation/whatever. The referendum WAS the people's vote, surely whatever we get now is more like the "regret vote" or "politician's vote"?Ghibli said:
And how many people do you think would vote Brexit again because of what 'slasher ' wrote and what was written on the Guardian message board.
Is it really a reason to vote for Brexit again. How did they manage to vote for Brexit before the referendum.
It just doesn't make sense, hence asking where this abuse happens.
Just do a Google search there seems to be more of it about than I thought Is it really a reason to vote for Brexit again. How did they manage to vote for Brexit before the referendum.
It just doesn't make sense, hence asking where this abuse happens.
Ghibli said:
irocfan said:
Just do a Google search there seems to be more of it about than I thought
Would that be your reason to vote Brexit again. Or would you look at what Brexit will actually end up being.Believe it or not there is abuse from leave voters but we don't need to go down that road unless someone feels they would vote remain because of something someone said on a message board.
FWIW I was a reluctant leaver - I am now a full-on paid-up member of leave at all costs
Ghibli said:
irocfan said:
Ghibli said:
I'm asking why people say they are being accused of being racist and where they are accused.
well I did suggest you look on google for various utterances of this - if you KBA to look that's hardly something we can help....
Biker 1 said:
And now the latest 'democratic' tactic from labour/momentum to force the issue: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-45648081...
what a total fknuggetalfaspecial said:
David Cameron (with the connivence of all opposing party leaders - Milliband/Farron) spent £9 million of our money telling the 'costs' of leaving. But we voted Leave anyway.
This is interesting: Leave means leaving the single market. Please watch senior Remain politicians telling us what would happen if we voted Leave. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
So to say we didn't have an idea of what would happen is erroneous.
The £9m leaflet said, and I quote. " A once in a generation decision. The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
David Cameron said, on the Andrew Marr Show, when asked if he would continue as Prime Minister and implement the result that he would.
The failing with BREXIT was not the vote but the way the government (as in politicians from all parties) have tried to deny/delay/disown the result. Obviously the main fault is with the Conservatives but then again the House of Commons must take collective responsibility because they voted for the referendum to be held and they voted to implement the result.
The biggest lie of the BREXIT debate was not the 'Big Red Bus / £350m week' claim but David Cameron clearly stating that; if the country voted LEAVE, then he would stay in Office and implement the LEAVE vote.
(In response to direct question(s)- on several occasions - such as Andrew Marr Show, 10 January 2016)
But of course after 24th June 2016, by obtaining appointment as the 'Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' he effectively 'did a Blair' (who had invoked the resignation procedure known as the Chiltern Hundreds) and presumably - like Blair - after shredding dubious expense claims he rushed off to exploit the city contacts he had nurtured whilst in Office........
Rather than leaving the country in leaderless, in a constitutional limbo and without creating any BREXIT policies / suitable Civil Service Institutions what should he have done?
I believe he should have appointed a new political position that of DPM/PMIW (a rather complicated acronym for Deputy Prime Minister / Prime Minister In Waiting!).
Whom should Cameron have appointed to the role? Well, after consultation with the party, it would have been his decision, But he might of chosen George Osborne, or Phillip Hammond, or Boris Johnson or Michael Grove but, lets say - for the sake of argument - he selected Theresa May.
Theresa May as DPM/PMIW would have taken over the day to day running of the country. She would have focused on the Party, PM Questions and on issues of the economy, health, education etc. But would have nothing to do with the BREXIT process. Her 'reward' for being PM in all but name, money & status for two years would be to inherit the position of Prime Minister after BREXIT.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would have been able to focus all his energies on getting the best possible BREXIT deal. As Prime Minster, he would have an existing electoral mandate to do this. And as Prime Minister his position would give him real 'clout' in negotiations. No need to dither until a new PM had been selected, no delay before invoking article 50.
Party politics would suggest David Cameron, technically still PM, would take political responsibility for some of the Government's 'unpopular' policies, in order to give Theresa May a clear run at the next (post BREXIT) election. But equally Parliamentary time could have been made available in order that he had the opportunity to introduce a couple of 'Legacy' policies?
There are parallels between David Cameron after the EU referendum and Theresa May now, after the 2017 Election debacle? Perhaps Theresa May should take a good long, hard look at how she damaged her own political credentials.
My suggestion is that she should appoint a DPM/PMIW to 'run the country for the period until BREXIT and use her political office, as Prime Minister to focus solely on BREXIT? That way political impetus for BREXIT could continue and the Conservative Party would be able to fight the next election unencumbered with the sort of political baggage that TM has now burdened herself with.
glad someone else "gets it". DC's refusal to start work on an exit strategy prior to the vote and then running off after the referendum with no policies in place makes him (IMO) possibly the worst PM this country has ever had. Detestable little sThis is interesting: Leave means leaving the single market. Please watch senior Remain politicians telling us what would happen if we voted Leave. But we voted Leave anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
So to say we didn't have an idea of what would happen is erroneous.
The £9m leaflet said, and I quote. " A once in a generation decision. The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union."
David Cameron said, on the Andrew Marr Show, when asked if he would continue as Prime Minister and implement the result that he would.
The failing with BREXIT was not the vote but the way the government (as in politicians from all parties) have tried to deny/delay/disown the result. Obviously the main fault is with the Conservatives but then again the House of Commons must take collective responsibility because they voted for the referendum to be held and they voted to implement the result.
The biggest lie of the BREXIT debate was not the 'Big Red Bus / £350m week' claim but David Cameron clearly stating that; if the country voted LEAVE, then he would stay in Office and implement the LEAVE vote.
(In response to direct question(s)- on several occasions - such as Andrew Marr Show, 10 January 2016)
But of course after 24th June 2016, by obtaining appointment as the 'Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead' he effectively 'did a Blair' (who had invoked the resignation procedure known as the Chiltern Hundreds) and presumably - like Blair - after shredding dubious expense claims he rushed off to exploit the city contacts he had nurtured whilst in Office........
Rather than leaving the country in leaderless, in a constitutional limbo and without creating any BREXIT policies / suitable Civil Service Institutions what should he have done?
I believe he should have appointed a new political position that of DPM/PMIW (a rather complicated acronym for Deputy Prime Minister / Prime Minister In Waiting!).
Whom should Cameron have appointed to the role? Well, after consultation with the party, it would have been his decision, But he might of chosen George Osborne, or Phillip Hammond, or Boris Johnson or Michael Grove but, lets say - for the sake of argument - he selected Theresa May.
Theresa May as DPM/PMIW would have taken over the day to day running of the country. She would have focused on the Party, PM Questions and on issues of the economy, health, education etc. But would have nothing to do with the BREXIT process. Her 'reward' for being PM in all but name, money & status for two years would be to inherit the position of Prime Minister after BREXIT.
David Cameron, as Prime Minister, would have been able to focus all his energies on getting the best possible BREXIT deal. As Prime Minster, he would have an existing electoral mandate to do this. And as Prime Minister his position would give him real 'clout' in negotiations. No need to dither until a new PM had been selected, no delay before invoking article 50.
Party politics would suggest David Cameron, technically still PM, would take political responsibility for some of the Government's 'unpopular' policies, in order to give Theresa May a clear run at the next (post BREXIT) election. But equally Parliamentary time could have been made available in order that he had the opportunity to introduce a couple of 'Legacy' policies?
There are parallels between David Cameron after the EU referendum and Theresa May now, after the 2017 Election debacle? Perhaps Theresa May should take a good long, hard look at how she damaged her own political credentials.
My suggestion is that she should appoint a DPM/PMIW to 'run the country for the period until BREXIT and use her political office, as Prime Minister to focus solely on BREXIT? That way political impetus for BREXIT could continue and the Conservative Party would be able to fight the next election unencumbered with the sort of political baggage that TM has now burdened herself with.
t that he is - I'm not convinced that his Integroo said:
Joe Public made a catastrophically bad decision - shock!
so just to get this right - we (the great unwashed) are ok to be trusted to vote for people to make decisions on our behalf, but not to make actual decisions (though given the calibre of the show in the HoP you may well have a point!)TTwiggy said:
I imagine he means that if the UK were to somehow get a deal which offered 99% of the benefits of being in the EU with only 1% of the costs/issues, every other country would be mad not to demand the same.
Now ask yourself the question: of the EU countries which are net contributors? Of the remaining 4(?) How many does the euro help massively WRT exports etc? Of the remaining 3 how many are very happy with the current situation?Terminator X said:
Kermit power said:
Firstly, it wasn't a binding referendum, it was an advisory one. I believe it's right that the government have chosen to view it as binding, bit that's all.
Secondly, when we voted to join the EEC, we did so knowing what we were signing up to. Well, that's the theory at least. There are a lot of people who voted back then who have subsequently claimed they never signed up to ever increasing political union, despite that being pretty much the first words in the Treaty of Rome. The main difference with leaving is that we know we don't know what that actually means.
It was as binding as every Ref to date and previously whatever the people voted for stood.Secondly, when we voted to join the EEC, we did so knowing what we were signing up to. Well, that's the theory at least. There are a lot of people who voted back then who have subsequently claimed they never signed up to ever increasing political union, despite that being pretty much the first words in the Treaty of Rome. The main difference with leaving is that we know we don't know what that actually means.
They didn't know what leave meant back in 1975 either other than the binary in or out albeit "fortunately" decided to remain. If they voted leave back then it is no different to people voting leave in 2016. Just the same decision each time, leave or stay.
TX.
Edit - PS I appreciate you staying around generally to reply as you're making many interesting points. Refreshing certainly vs Facebook where every time people just want to shout down any disagreement.
Edited by Terminator X on Friday 28th September 13:03
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff