Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

And therein lies the irony.

 

If there were another referendum and remain won, surely that is the democratic "will of the people"?

 

I suspect that Brexiteers feel they would lose such a referendum.  That's why they don't want one.  Very democratic!

Why would a second "people's vote" (whatever the outcome) have any more validity than the first, or be any more "respected"?

[Boris]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Why would a second "people's vote" (whatever the outcome) have any more validity than the first, or be any more "respected"?

Because as Brexit has evolved the electorate are in a more informed position to make a choice. 

 

Imo. 

[scott herbertson]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Why would a second "people's vote" (whatever the outcome) have any more validity than the first, or be any more "respected"?

 

 

Same validity, much easier to deliver on the result though!

[Francis Albert]

20 hours ago, Cade said:

Govt finally releases the No Deal impact analysis.

It's fairly apocalyptic.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/781768/Implications_for_Business_and_Trade_of_a_No_Deal_Exit_on_29_March_2019.pdf

I don't see anything very new in all that. The headline news of 6% to 9% of GDP reduction over 15 years is at the higher end the same as the Bank of England prediction last year. The forecast is an average lower annual GDP growth (not a decline) of somewhat less than one half of one percent per annum. That is well within the margin of error of GDP forecasts even one year ahead let alone 15 years ahead.

And whatever happens in the next 15 years many factors other than Brexit will have a bigger impact on GDP and more importantly the prosperity and quality of life of most people in the UK. The extent of ongoing "austerity", welfare spending as proportion of GDP, the extent of further concentration of wealth (or reversal of that seemingly inexorable trend) etc etc.

[Francis Albert]

8 minutes ago, Boris said:

Because as Brexit has evolved the electorate are in a more informed position to make a choice. 

 

Imo. 

Not in my opinion.  We were told by the Government of the day (in a leaflet distributed at our expense to every household) of the damage that Brexit would do.

[Boris]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Not in my opinion.  We were told by the Government of the day (in a leaflet distributed at our expense to every household) of the damage that Brexit would do.

Perhaps, although the side of a bus seemed to be a better medium to get a point across. 

 

As it happens, I don't remember getting my leaflet, but no doubt I did. 

[Francis Albert]

17 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

Same validity, much easier to deliver on the result though!

Absolutely. The fundamental problem is that while 85% of MPs voted to hold the first "people's vote" there is and never has been a majority in Parliament to deliver any form of what the people voted for.

That wouldn't have been a  problem if those pesky voters had given the right answer, and of course won't be if they get another chance and do the decent thing this time.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Francis Albert

[scott herbertson]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

Absolutely. The fundamental problem is that while 85% of MPs voted to hold the first "people's vote" there is and never has been a majority in Parliament to deliver any form of what the people voted for.

That wouldn't have been a  problem if those pesky voters had given the right answer, and of course won't be in they get another chance and do the decent thing this time.

 

 

Exactly. Those 85% were so arrogant they underestimated the risks and we are all paying a price as they bumble about and evidence their incompetence by failing to progress the most important piece of parliamentary business this century.

[Jamboelite]

3 hours ago, Victorian said:

 

They even portray any postponement as some kind of Trojan Horse device to facilitate overturning Brexit.     Complete and utter paranoia.

 

But yeah,    why would an up-to-date referendum result be undemocratic compared to one from 2-3 years ago.    It isn't.     It's just a dishonest,  redundant dogma peddled by zealots.

And arguably with people getting to vote with alot more knowledge this time compared to the shit lies last time.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Jamboelite

[Victorian]

44 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Why would a second "people's vote" (whatever the outcome) have any more validity than the first, or be any more "respected"?

 

Because it would be current.

Because it would be derived via infinitely better information / implications.

Because it would be a say on the withdrawal agreement (did not exist in any form during previous campaign).

 

Ignore or deny these things until the cows come home but they are real,  practical, rational and logical.     The vast majority of people who do deny these things have an ingrained ulterior motive.

[Jamboelite]

40 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Not in my opinion.  We were told by the Government of the day (in a leaflet distributed at our expense to every household) of the damage that Brexit would do.

I dont remember any leaflet.

 

Like it or not some of the lies pedalled have been laid out to bare as has the consequences of this vote.

 

The electorate have taken much more interest in this shit show than they did before and in my opinion peope have changed their minds.....which should be their democratic right.

 

Certainly more people have looked for more information amid this chaos, so any decision they make is at least taking into account the current withdrawal agreement thats on the table, that wasnt before.

 

if the people have changed their mind based on the proposal should they not be entitled to have that represented in government action as the will of the people?

 

I dont go with the point of view that the vote was to leave but people then don't get a say when the terms of the withdrawal are on the table.

 

The people should be offered the option to say yes to the deal, no we want a better one or actually now we have the information to hand we change our mind.

 

That is democracy.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Jamboelite

[Victorian]

Do you think people like Liam Fox,  JRM and Peter Bone care one iota about the notion of democratic trust / integrity?

 

If you do then please do share the drugs around.      

[Don Dan]

19 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

I dont remember any leaflet.

 

Like it or not some of the lies pedalled have been laid out to bare as has the consequences of this vote.

 

The electorate have taken much more interest in this shit show than they did before and in my opinion peope have changed their minds.....which should be their democratic right.

 

Certainly more people have looked for more information amid this chaos, so any decision they make is at least taking into account the current withdrawal agreement thats on the table, that wasnt before.

 

if the people have changed their mind based on the proposal should they not be entitled to have that represented in government action as the will of the people?

 

I dont go with the point of view that the vote was to leave but people then don't get a say when the terms of the withdrawal are on the table.

 

The people should be offered the option to say yes to the deal, no we want a better one or actually now we have the information to hand we change our mind.

 

That is democracy.

 

So at what point do you stop asking the people? 

The current who ha that is happening is only over the transition deal and not a future trading relationship deal. 

In essence we could never be done voting on a furture trade deal if the deal on offer at ant given point is not acceptable to the majority of voters.

And after this current shambles of trying to get a transition deal agreed I would not (ever) trust Government/Parliament again to be left to sort it out. 

 

 

[Don Dan]

ScottishPower has announced it will spend up to £2billion in the UK in 2019, the company’s biggest ever investment in the country in a single year. The announcement came as ScottishPower updated its investment plans following the sale of its thermal generation business and transition to 100% renewable energy in 2018.

ScottishPower CEO, Keith Anderson, said: “Our first investment plan since leaving coal and gas behind is a historic milestone for ScottishPower and is a vote of confidence in the UK’s commitment to decarbonising the economy. In a time of uncertainty the UK needs to deliver its Industrial and Energy strategy and that’s what we’re providing with our biggest ever investment in a single year.

"Consumers want and need access to reliable, clean and affordable energy. That is what ScottishPower is focused on delivering and as long as Government climate change commitments stay firm, with sensible policies to support them, this investment will continue.

"Now that we have sold our gas power stations our growth plans are about cleaner and smarter power that will help the UK to decarbonise faster and we have set out the part we will play in the transition to electrify the economy where it matters most now – in transport and in heating."

[Jamboelite]

8 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

So at what point do you stop asking the people? 

The current who ha that is happening is only over the transition deal and not a future trading relationship deal. 

In essence we could never be done voting on a furture trade deal if the deal on offer at ant given point is not acceptable to the majority of voters.

And after this current shambles of trying to get a transition deal agreed I would not (ever) trust Government/Parliament again to be left to sort it out. 

 

 

Its a fair and valid point, i do think this is a fairly acceptable time before we go beyond the point of no return to stop and say, with this deal(albeit a transition one) is this what we expected and wanted based on the vote to leave.

 

The issue is that others could argue that this was a possible consequence they should have known before they voted or they want to be asked on every turn but for me its an opportunity to at least have clarity after the mess that Westminster has created to actually ask if its what people were asking for.

 

At least then it is a very clear line that says yes or no and stops some of the bluster.

Edited February 27, 2019 by Jamboelite

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Its a fair and valid point, i do think this is a fairly acceptable time before we go beyond the point of no return to stop and say, with this deal(albeit a transition one) is this what we expected and wanted based on the vote to leave.

 

The issue is that others could argue that this was a possible consequence they should have known before they voted or they want to be asked on every turn but for me its an opportunity to at least have clarity after the mess that Westminster has created to actually ask if its what people were asking for.

 

At least then it is a very clear line that says yes or no and stops some of the bluster.

The fact that even people interested enough to read this thread and contribute to it seem not have read the most widely circulated document issued before the last vote suggests that a much more informed electorate second time around is wishful thinking.

 

Let's be honest the second people's vote is not about democracy or greater awareness about life beyond Brexit but is aimed simply at stopping Brexit, the stated aim of the losers since the day after the first peoples vote.

[Jamboelite]

32 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

The fact that even people interested enough to read this thread and contribute to it seem not have read the most widely circulated document issued before the last vote suggests that a much more informed electorate second time around is wishful thinking.

 

Let's be honest the second people's vote is not about democracy or greater awareness about life beyond Brexit but is aimed simply at stopping Brexit, the stated aim of the losers since the day after the first peoples vote.

Patronising much ? what i said was that i didnt get the leaflet it doesnt mean i didnt engage in gaining my own information to make my decision.

 

Your belief that nothing has changed since the original vote, in terms of peoples understanding,  is either very naive (and that isnt you) or a typical line trotted out because prople dont want to hear it and would prefer to carry on regardless. 

 

This shit show if nothing else made more people go and question what is happening and what they were told.

 

 

[CJGJ]

FA and a few(oh so few now) still  living in his fantasy Brexit world where all was clear prior to the vote, there were no lies told and all would be fine with the UK trading as a super power with the rest of the world as if were 100 years ago when they would doff their caps to the UK and fall into line

 

Fear is all over his posts these days knowing voters will not  fall for the  con again

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

WTO agrees terms to keep Britain in procurement deal post-Brexit

 

On the surface, that sounds great, but if you read the small print there's a catch.  The GPA provides that countries must treat other GPA country suppliers no less favourably than their own domestic suppliers....

 

 

 

.....except as regards.....

 

 

 

......customs duties, import charges and customs procedures needed to impose them.

[Francis Albert]

14 hours ago, CJGJ said:

FA and a few(oh so few now) still  living in his fantasy Brexit world where all was clear prior to the vote, there were no lies told and all would be fine with the UK trading as a super power with the rest of the world as if were 100 years ago when they would doff their caps to the UK and fall into line

 

Fear is all over his posts these days knowing voters will not  fall for the  con again

Since I was a (albeit unenthusiastic)  Remain supporter I am not sure why I should be afraid as we stagger towards Remain or Brexit In Name Only.

I have never suggested there were no lies or that all was clear before the vote. And I have certainly never had the view of UK's position in the world you attribute to me.

By making things up (lying?) on this scale you weaken whatever your argument is.

 

If I am afraid of anything it is what this whole farce will do to whatever tiny shreds of respect for our political system and politicians remain.

 

PS I wouldn't be quite as confident as you seem to be that a second vote would give the "right" result.

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Taffin]

I'd love nothing more than a second referendum and the chance to stay in the EU from a personal perspective. It makes sense to have it now that it is clear what Brexit means and under what terms it would occur.

 

However, the electorate voted and we shouldn't go back on it now. Is it a shame some people voted leave out of spite? Yes. Is it a shame some people voted leave out of stupidity? Yes. Unfortunately they did and they (and all of us) have to live with the consequences now. 

 

I'll never forgive those who voted leave but it was their right to do so and it should be respected.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Taffin

[Mikey1874]

21 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

WTO agrees terms to keep Britain in procurement deal post-Brexit

Britain has agreement at the World Trade Organization to remain within the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement after it leaves the European Union, Britain's mission said.

Britain is a member of the GPA, whose members open up their combined $1.7 trillion (£1.3 trillion) government procurement markets to each other's firms, by virtue of its EU membership.

Diplomats agreed Britain's continuing membership post-Brexit in principle in November, saying few changes would be needed and GPA members had an interest in keeping Britain within the club.

"Today’s decision underlines our determination to minimise any disruption, however we leave the European Union," British Ambassador Julian Braithwaite said.

He said the European Union, Montenegro and Switzerland had had to amend their own membership terms to ensure continuity.

Members of the agreement have to buy their way in by opening up their procurement markets sufficiently to persuade the rest of the club to reciprocate.

Membership would "ensure that British taxpayers and public sector organisations, including government departments, continue to benefit from increased choice and value for money on contracts which are open to international competition. The agreement will continue to protect vital public services such as the NHS (National Health Service)," the British mission's statement said.

There are 47 GPA members, including all EU countries. Australia is joining and China wants to become a member. 

Staying in the GPA is important so that British companies can bid for government work in the United States, the European Union and Japan, and their firms can retain access to Britain's procurement market.

U.S. Ambassador Dennis Shea said the United States welcomed the decision. 

"In 2013, the United Kingdom accounted for over a quarter of the EU’s total procurements covered by the GPA," Shea said.

"The importance of the UK is even more significant when you look at just central government entities where the UK accounts for 46 percent of the EU’s covered procurements." 

 (Reporting by Tom Miles; Editing by Catherine Evans and Janet Lawrence)

 

 

Norway wealth fund shrugs off Brexit, plans rise in UK investments

Norway's $1 trillion (£753 billion) sovereign wealth fund, the world's biggest, said on Wednesday it planned to keep increasing its investments in Britain, and it shrugged off uncertainties about Brexit.

The fund, built from Norway's oil and gas revenues and one of the biggest investors in Britain, said 8.5 percent of its portfolio was in British equities, bonds and real estate at the end of 2018.

"We will continue to be significant" investors in Britain, the fund's CEO Yngve Slyngstad told Reuters after the fund reported a loss in market value for 2018. "And we foresee that over time that our investments in the UK will increase."

"With our time horizon, which is 30 years plus, current political discussions do not change our view of the situation," he said when asked about the risks caused by Britain's plans to quit the EU on March 29.

Even so, Britain's share of the fund's portfolio slipped below Japan's to third from its usual spot in second behind the United States. Slyngstad said the dip was caused by a strengthening of the yen against the pound.

And he said Britain was included in a broad-based global equities buying spree worth about $30 billion from November to January when the fund reckoned it was buying shares on the cheap amid turmoil on markets.

The fund is one of the biggest foreign investors in Britain, as a co-owner of London's Regent Street, as a top five owner in firms such as HSBC and BP among others, and as a holder of roughly 6 billion pounds of UK government debt.

Slyngstad also reaffirmed commitment to Britain even in the case of a 'no-deal' Brexit. Norway is not a member of the EU, although it is bound by many of its rules.

"We see no operational consequences of any possible outcomes," he said. He said that the fund had almost 250 staff in London and would stay at that level regardless of the outcome of the Brexit talks.

Worldwide, the fund owns about 1.4 percent of all equities.

Falls in stock markets meant that the fund, equivalent to $193,000 for every Norwegian man, woman and child, had a negative return on investment of 6.1 percent in 2018, down from a positive 13.7 percent in 2017. 

And it lagged its benchmark index by 0.3 percentage point.

"This is the first time that the fund has had a considerable decline in value," Slyngstad told a news conference. "The only other time was a slight decline in 2002."

The fund's value slipped to 8.26 billion crowns (£728.28 million) at the end of 2018 from 8.49 billion in 2017. But Slyngstad said that market gains so far in 2019 had wiped out last year's losses.

At the end of 2018, the fund's biggest equity holdings were in Microsoft (64.7 billion crowns), Apple (62.7 billion), Alphabet (57.6 billion), Amazon (54.8 billion), Nestle (53.9 billion) and Royal Dutch Shell (51.3 billion).

 (Reporting by Gwladys Fouche and Alister Doyle; Editing by Terje Solsvik, Larry King and Hugh Lawson)

 

 

Ineos to spend 1 billion pounds on UK energy business

Billionaire Jim Ratcliffe's petrochemicals company Ineos said on Wednesday it would spend 1 billion pounds on UK energy assets, including the Forties pipeline, which carries almost half of Britain's oil and gas from the North Sea.

Ineos said it would invest 500 million pounds on overhauling its ageing Forties pipeline, which has been in service since 1975 and can carry up to 600,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil.

Founder and chairman Ratcliffe, Britain's richest man, said the investment underscored the company's commitment to its UK-based businesses.

"Ineos is a supporter of British manufacturing and this 1 billion pounds investment underlines our confidence in our business in the UK," Ratcliffe said.

The company bought the pipeline from BP in late 2018. Within weeks, it was forced to shut the system for around two months to fix a crack in an onshore section, triggering a spike in British natural gas prices in the depths of winter. 

Ineos said the upgrades would extend into the 2040s the lifeline of the pipeline system, which it said carries 40 percent of Britain's offshore crude oil and natural gas. 

Ineos said it would also invest 350 million pounds in a new energy plant at the 200,000-bpd Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland, and an additional 150 million pounds in a new petrochemicals facility in the northern English city of Hull. 

 (Reporting by Amanda Cooper; Editing by Dale Hudson and Jason Neely)

 

I did expect Jim Ratcliffe to make a big investment when the story about him moving to Monaco to avoid tax broke.

 

First story allows European firms to continue to bid for contracts in UK and vice versa (though I see Ulysses' caveat above). Thought the Brexiteers would be all over this as treachery. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Mikey1874

[Thunderstruck]

50 minutes ago, Taffin said:

I'd love nothing more than a second referendum and the chance to stay in the EU from a personal perspective. It makes sense to have it now that it is clear what Brexit means and under what terms it would occur.

 

However, the electorate voted and we shouldn't go back on it now. Is it a shame some people voted leave out of spite? Yes. Is it a shame some people voted leave out of stupidity? Yes. Unfortunately they did and they (and all of us) have to live with the consequences now. 

 

I'll never forgive those who voted leave but it was their right to do so and it should be respected.

 

 

 

Don’t forget those registered voters who did not bother to cast a vote. 14 million voters, including 1.4 million in Scotland, is a far from insignificant number. 

 

We will never know how they might have voted on the day (and with the information then available) but, IMO, they certainly don’t now have any moral basis for complaining about the outcome or even to be pressing for a second vote. 

[Jamboelite]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

I'd love nothing more than a second referendum and the chance to stay in the EU from a personal perspective. It makes sense to have it now that it is clear what Brexit means and under what terms it would occur.

 

However, the electorate voted and we shouldn't go back on it now. Is it a shame some people voted leave out of spite? Yes. Is it a shame some people voted leave out of stupidity? Yes. Unfortunately they did and they (and all of us) have to live with the consequences now. 

 

I'll never forgive those who voted leave but it was their right to do so and it should be respected.

 

 

I dont get this view that we continue on with a car crash that in my opinion the majority dont now want.

 

At least find out if that is the case when we are almost 3 years down the line and people can see what is on the table.

 

Yes to the transition deal

No to the transition deal

Revoke Article 50

 

If its still the will of the people then the outcome should be the same? If its not then.........

 

This is a once in a generation vote so lets be sure, its a pretty unique situation.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Jamboelite

[Mysterion]

19 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

I dont get this view that we continue on with a car crash that in my opinion the majority dont now want.

 

I think people who are remain inclined need to be careful with this sort of opinion (i include myself here). 

 

I think that people have dug in lately and i'm not sure it's swung a huge amount in the other direction. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Mysterion

[Boris]

 

15 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

I think people who are remain inclined need to be careful with this sort of opinion (i include myself here). 

 

I think that people have dug in lately and i'm not sure it's swung a huge amount in the other direction. 

 

Given the magnitude of what may happen, wouldn't it be sensible to at least double check we are doing the "right" thing?

 

Brexiters are worried they would lose the vote.  May is also worried they would lose the vote as that would then split her party.  Remainers have nothing to lose, a world to win.

 

I don't doubt that it would be tight, but I suspect remain would win it.  Nothing to base that opinion on, just a hunch.

 

 

[DETTY29]

2 hours ago, Taffin said:

I'd love nothing more than a second referendum and the chance to stay in the EU from a personal perspective. It makes sense to have it now that it is clear what Brexit means and under what terms it would occur.

 

However, the electorate voted and we shouldn't go back on it now. Is it a shame some people voted leave out of spite? Yes. Is it a shame some people voted leave out of stupidity? Yes. Unfortunately they did and they (and all of us) have to live with the consequences now. 

 

I'll never forgive those who voted leave but it was their right to do so and it should be respected.

 

 

5live yesterday and guy phoned in looking for 2nd referendum.

 

He voted leave because he saw the side of the bus and thought the NHS would be getter £350m a week better off.

 

Probably didn't realise we do get (some of the) money back from the EU either.

Edited February 28, 2019 by DETTY29

[Taffin]

22 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

5live yesterday and guy phoned in looking for 2nd referendum.

 

He voted leave because he saw the side of the bus and thought the NHS would be getter £350m a week better off.

 

Probably didn't realise we do get (some of the) money back from the EU either.

 

He should have done the research at that point before voting, not now.

 

For those who do genuinely want to leave the EU, it would be totally unfair to have a re run just because some people didn't engage their brains first time around.

 

Don't get me wrong, if it happens I'll be delighted personally but it completely undermines our political system imo. 

[Jamboelite]

1 hour ago, Mysterion said:

 

I think people who are remain inclined need to be careful with this sort of opinion (i include myself here). 

 

I think that people have dug in lately and i'm not sure it's swung a huge amount in the other direction. 

We voted to leave, fine fair enough i dont agree but understand thats where we are.

 

However shouldnt people be allowed to vote on the terms of leaving then now we know what is on the table for a transition deal?

 

If through that process people have decided the deal on the table isnt what they want isnt it important to find that out ?

 

We cant go back if we change our minds later so lets be sure its what people today want. 

 

If people truly still want to leave either under this deal or a push back for another one then they have nothing to fear in reaffirming that vote with a credible view of the deal on the table. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Jamboelite

[Jamboelite]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

He should have done the research at that point before voting, not now.

 

For those who do genuinely want to leave the EU, it would be totally unfair to have a re run just because some people didn't engage their brains first time around.

 

Don't get me wrong, if it happens I'll be delighted personally but it completely undermines our political system imo. 

Easier said than done in finding out reliable information during a truly horrific campaign on both sides.

[Cade]

What chance have we got when the MPs apparently running this country don't even have a clue how the EU works?

 

Both the Tories and Labour keep making false claims about the EU and it's rules, regulations, laws and obligations.

It's appalling.

 

[Mysterion]

54 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

 

Given the magnitude of what may happen, wouldn't it be sensible to at least double check we are doing the "right" thing?

 

Brexiters are worried they would lose the vote.  May is also worried they would lose the vote as that would then split her party.  Remainers have nothing to lose, a world to win.

 

I don't doubt that it would be tight, but I suspect remain would win it.  Nothing to base that opinion on, just a hunch.

 

10 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

We voted to leave, fine fair enough i dont agree but understand thats where we are.

 

However shouldnt people be allowed to vote on the terms of leaving then now we know what is on the table for a transition deal?

 

If through that process people have decided the deal on the table isnt what they want isnt it important to find that out ?

 

We cant go back if we change our minds later so lets be sure its what people today want. 

 

If people truly still want to leave either under this deal or a push back for another one then they have nothing to fear in reaffirming that vote with a credible view of the deal on the table. 

 

Just going back to my earlier post - I don't disagree with both of you. 

 

I'm just of the view that generically saying there's a majority for remain now is how we ended up here in the first place. Too many people turned up disenfranchised for many reasons (many i think are false) and voted out. 

 

I would like the option of a 2nd binary vote with Deal or Remain on offer. 

 

We have already had the vote to leave so the deal we want to take should be ratified by a legally binding agreement (instead of the current advisory one). 

 

 

 

[Taffin]

9 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Easier said than done in finding out reliable information during a truly horrific campaign on both sides.

 

True but given no country had ever excercised article 50 I'd have wanted to be pretty sure on what would follow before voting for that.

 

What's on the side of a bus would be quite low on my priorities for decision making.

[Victorian]

In normal circumstances it would be reasonable to 'respect' a referendum result and deliver on the mandate provided.    But this occasion is so fundamentally important to the prosperity of the country and the implications of a disorderly exit are so hazardous that it is entirely legitimate to consider revisiting the question.     If anything,   the entire event has become an object lesson regarding how dangerous and unweildy simple referendums are.    There should never be repeat of a simple,  blind choice referendum on such a profoundly important issue.

 

Practical self preservation supercedes notional democratic values on this occasion.     

[Jamboelite]

25 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

True but given no country had ever excercised article 50 I'd have wanted to be pretty sure on what would follow before voting for that.

 

What's on the side of a bus would be quite low on my priorities for decision making.

Agreed.

[Cade]

Brexiteer Junior Fisheries minster resigns from the Govt.

 

A total nobody trying to make headlines.

[Thunderstruck]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

In normal circumstances it would be reasonable to 'respect' a referendum result and deliver on the mandate provided.    But this occasion is so fundamentally important to the prosperity of the country and the implications of a disorderly exit are so hazardous that it is entirely legitimate to consider revisiting the question.     If anything,   the entire event has become an object lesson regarding how dangerous and unweildy simple referendums are.    There should never be repeat of a simple,  blind choice referendum on such a profoundly important issue.

 

Practical self preservation supercedes notional democratic values on this occasion.     

 

I suspect that your use of the phrase ‘In normal circumstances it would be reasonable to “respect” a referendum result’, indicates that you think we should only be having a second vote for Brexit. I disagree. 

 

I do agree with your later point that there ‘should never be repeat of simple, blind choice referendum on such a profoundly important issue’.

 

I would go further. In the future, we should be:-

 

1. Banning referendums or;

2. If we must have them, have the requirement of a ‘supermajority’ of the ‘for change’ vote exceeding 60% of the total electorate and;

3. Making mandatory a second vote on any post-referendum deal/settlement. 

 

 

[Cade]

AS the Brexit ref was only Advisory and not Binding, it can be ignored if that is in the national interest.

 

Let the gammons riot. 

Send in the troops.

Job done.

[Victorian]

17 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

I suspect that your use of the phrase ‘In normal circumstances it would be reasonable to “respect” a referendum result’, indicates that you think we should only be having a second vote for Brexit. I disagree. 

 

I do agree with your later point that there ‘should never be repeat of simple, blind choice referendum on such a profoundly important issue’.

 

I would go further. In the future, we should be:-

 

1. Banning referendums or;

2. If we must have them, have the requirement of a ‘supermajority’ of the ‘for change’ vote exceeding 60% of the total electorate and;

3. Making mandatory a second vote on any post-referendum deal/settlement. 

 

 

 

Yes.   A mandatory second vote on a deal,  etc.

 

But if this is what we should do from this point on,    what practical reason is there for not applying this logic retrospectively?

 

There is no practical reason why this cannot apply in these profoundly important circumstances.    

[Toxteth O'Grady]

56 minutes ago, Cade said:

Brexiteer Junior Fisheries minster resigns from the Govt.

 

A total nobody trying to make headlines.

He wasn't a junior Minister. He was responsible for fishing and farming. Both are heavily regulated by the EU. I wouldn't say he was a nobody trying to make headlines even as someone who doesn't agree with his politics. 

 

It is another blow for May 

[Cade]

Farage leading a "New Jarrow March" from Sunderland to Parliament Square in London.

Lots of gammon twerps marching the length of ARE KUNTRY to make sure Brexit happens.

 

Tragic.

 

[DETTY29]

39 minutes ago, Cade said:

Farage leading a "New Jarrow March" from Sunderland to Parliament Square in London.

Lots of gammon twerps marching the length of ARE KUNTRY to make sure Brexit happens.

 

Tragic.

 

I'm a remainer / remoaner but Sunderland deserves all the shite coming it's way post Brexit.

 

If the Tories don't split the daft turkeys, sorry makems, you are f'd.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

46 minutes ago, Cade said:

Farage leading a "New Jarrow March" from Sunderland to Parliament Square in London.

Lots of gammon twerps marching the length of ARE KUNTRY to make sure Brexit happens.

 

Tragic.

 

But the endless Stop Brexit marches since the vote was held are welcome.

 

And WTF is a "gammon twerp"?

 

Or for that matter is "are Kuntry"?

Edited February 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[redjambo]

13 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

But the endless Stop Brexit marches since the vote was held are welcome.

 

And WTF is a "gammon twerp"?

 

Or for that matter is "are Kuntry"?

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gammon

 

"our country"

 

And there was me thinking that although your politics are shan, you were a clever guy.

 

I know, ad hominem. So sue me.

Edited February 28, 2019 by redjambo

[Francis Albert]

13 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

I'm a remainer / remoaner but Sunderland deserves all the shite coming it's way post Brexit.

 

If the Tories don't split the daft turkeys, sorry makems, you are f'd.

 

 

The sheer arrogance and contempt for those who had the temerity to disagree with Remain is breathtaking. And these people who totally disdain those who disagree with them actually appeal to the principle of "democracy".

[redjambo]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

The sheer arrogance and contempt for those who had the temerity to disagree with Remain is breathtaking. And these people who totally disdain those who disagree with them actually appeal to the principle of "democracy".

 

Oh settle down. There is arrogance and contempt on both sides, as you know fine well.

 

[Francis Albert]

6 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gammon

 

"our country"

 

And there was me thinking that although your politics are shan, you were a clever guy.

 

I know, ad hominem. So sue me.

I don't think you have a clue what my politics are.

 

Let's just say they don't decend to the gutter as yours apparently do.

 

"Gammon"? Really

Edited February 28, 2019 by Francis Albert

[redjambo]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

I don't think you have a clue what my politics are.

 

Let's just say they don't decend to the gutter as yours apparently do.

 

You have no idea what my politics are. Only a glimpse of them could be gleaned from viewing any posts I've made on here.

 

On the other hand, yours are plain to see, slightly disguised of course by the frequent trolling.

 

And it's "descend", not "decend".

[Victorian]

Francis Albert only pretends to not understand stuff.    He understands alright.     There will be thousands of people who suddenly start openly understanding all sorts of concepts and logic once Brexit is finalised one way or another.     Pretence is the name of the game while the outcome (goal) is yet to be determined.

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

You have no idea what my politics are. Only a glimpse of them could be gleaned from viewing any posts I've made on here.

 

On the other hand, yours are plain to see, slightly disguised of course by the frequent trolling.

 

And it's "descend", not "decend".

I never claimed to know what your politics were. What exactly to do you claim mine are?

Thanks for the spelling correction. "Are Kuntry" is spelt "our country" unless you are taking the piss out of regional or lower class accents.