EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

See, IA has high regard for Nigel Farage. Now is Farage far right?

---

I've known IA for a decade and a half - he's not a supporter of the Far Right, I'm sure he's said rude things about the BNP in the past, though I'm not going to trawl his posts to find them.

Farage is an extremist... when it comes to Brexit, otherwise I'd say he's less-right wing than Jacob Reese-Mogg (who might actually be in the "starve the poor" camp). The fact IA admires Farage's commitment to Brexit does not mean he supports his ideas on the NHS.

Not that IA needs me to defend him... but I'm absolutely sick of the way people are acting in this thread.

If you cannot attack IA's argument, and only his character, then you aren't making a useful contribution.

For the record, though, IA's views on Bercow were not a useful contribution either - they belong in the UK Politics thread if anywhere.

Now, the whole :daisy: lot of you GROW UP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Whilst I appreciate the attempt at humour the point is that this thread has strayed wildly off topic. As defined by the OP this thread is about the EXIT NEGOTIATIONS but most of the posts for the last few pages have been about Parliament and/or attacking the credibility of the Leave/Remain position.

---

Are you really saying that this thread should be confined to the strict definition of the OP, that more general discussion of Brexit should be kept out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

I've known IA for a decade and a half - he's not a supporter of the Far Right, I'm sure he's said rude things about the BNP in the past, though I'm not going to trawl his posts to find them.

Farage is an extremist... when it comes to Brexit, otherwise I'd say he's less-right wing than Jacob Reese-Mogg (who might actually be in the "starve the poor" camp). The fact IA admires Farage's commitment to Brexit does not mean he supports his ideas on the NHS.

Not that IA needs me to defend him... but I'm absolutely sick of the way people are acting in this thread.

If you cannot attack IA's argument, and only his character, then you aren't making a useful contribution.

For the record, though, IA's views on Bercow were not a useful contribution either - they belong in the UK Politics thread if anywhere.

Now, the whole :daisy: lot of you GROW UP.

---

I've known IA for quite a while now too, and in the past I wouldn't have said that he's the kind of person that would say the kind of stuff that he's been spouting recently. But he has been saying that kind of stuff, and there it is, in black and white or whatever you've set up to browse in. If someone comes in here talking about Islam, and instead of putting forward his case for how his religion helps him, they talk about how they're looking forward to how the unbelievers will get theirs come the day of reckoning, would you not describe them as an extremist? That's what IA has been doing on Brexit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=q471MPrPiEA

:laugh4:

I shall be bathing in the tears of remoaners come All Hallows Eve.

Mad bint.

---

Well if the remoaners had accepted the result of the referendum I would have been more sanguine about it. As it is they have traduced our democracy and continue to do so. I happen to value the system that out forefathers fought for.

Like the Incredible Hulk. 'Don't Make Me Angry - You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well if the remoaners had accepted the result of the referendum I would have been more sanguine about it. As it is they have traduced our democracy and continue to do so. I happen to value the system that out forefathers fought for.

Like the Incredible Hulk. 'Don't Make Me Angry - You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry'.

---

Does the Loyal Opposition no longer exist? Are there any other issues where opposition to the government is to be deemed disloyalty to the nation? Who gets to decide what they are? Is there any recourse if we disagree, or is disagreement evidence of treason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Does the Loyal Opposition no longer exist? Are there any other issues where opposition to the government is to be deemed disloyalty to the nation? Who gets to decide what they are? Is there any recourse if we disagree, or is disagreement evidence of treason?

---

The "loyal" opposition who refused to swear fealty to the Queen? At least Sein Fein has the decency not to turn up.

The opposition is so craven they're not prepared to have an election and test their popularity since they are afraid of loosing their seats (and all those lovely perks).

The system is designed to enable people to have a career in politics rather than represent the people. Most seats are just re-engineered rotten boroughs.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The "loyal" opposition who refused to swear fealty to the Queen? At least Sein Fein has the decency not to turn up.

The opposition is so craven they're not prepared to have an election and test their popularity since they are afraid of loosing their seats (and all those lovely perks).

The system is designed to enable people to have a career in politics rather than represent the people. Most seats are just re-engineered rotten boroughs.

~:smoking:

---

Are you expecting me to speak up for Corbyn, or defend his various shenanigans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are you expecting me to speak up for Corbyn, or defend his various shenanigans?

---

Either defend him or don't ask stupid questions ~;)

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Either defend him or don't ask stupid questions ~;)

~:smoking:

---

So does opposition not exist outside Jeremy Corbyn? Am I not allowed to oppose the government if I do not swear fealty to Saint Jez of Corbyn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So does opposition not exist outside Jeremy Corbyn? Am I not allowed to oppose the government if I do not swear fealty to Saint Jez of Corbyn?

---

He's the Leader of the "Loyal Opposition" as started during the Regency. If I misunderstood that can a Subject be loyal and oppose the government I think that is highly likely since every election since at least the 1950's over 50% of the voters didn't vote for the elected government, we are governed by a group most people don't want.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are you really saying that this thread should be confined to the strict definition of the OP, that more general discussion of Brexit should be kept out?

---

If you want to talk about the credibility of the result, of the impact it has had/will have on our society those are different topics, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I've known IA for quite a while now too, and in the past I wouldn't have said that he's the kind of person that would say the kind of stuff that he's been spouting recently. But he has been saying that kind of stuff, and there it is, in black and white or whatever you've set up to browse in. If someone comes in here talking about Islam, and instead of putting forward his case for how his religion helps him, they talk about how they're looking forward to how the unbelievers will get theirs come the day of reckoning, would you not describe them as an extremist? That's what IA has been doing on Brexit.

---

I grew up liking Connie Huq - in fact I think she was one of my first teenage crushes. Regardless of which, she's talking about chopping people's heads off and she repeatedly interrupts her opponent. She does, in fact, look a bit unhinged.

At no point have I indulged IA's rudeness - but the simple fact is you have repeatedly antagonised those of us who voted Leave in this thread. You have your own specific axe to grind and want to grind it on us, well sir, we indulged you for some time but now the trope has worn out, completely. Once the rest of us started ignoring you you've zeroed in on IA and every time he posts you bring up Farage - I'd say you spend a lot more time thinking about Nigel Farage than anyone who voted Leave here. Now you've explicitly linked IA to the BNP withh absolutely no justification.

Frankly, the standard of debate between you and IA as sunk to a deplorable low on both sides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well if the remoaners had accepted the result of the referendum I would have been more sanguine about it. As it is they have traduced our democracy and continue to do so. I happen to value the system that out forefathers fought for.

Like the Incredible Hulk. 'Don't Make Me Angry - You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry'.

---

Having taken Pannonian to task I think it behoves me to say that you could have just ignored him.

Hurling insults at each other should be beneath both of you.

You're right, I shouldn't have been so angry. The veil has slipped on my view of the Mother of Parliaments. I never had much down for politicians generally as your all aware. However the chutzpah exhibited by the majority of MP is disturbing. That they are ready to destroy democracy in the UK is shocking.

For the first time in my life I actually feel that serious unrest could be unleashed in the UK. Not a riot here or there but disorder on a nationwide scale. I talk to people and I've never seen such anger in my fellow subjects. Never.

The remoaners bang on about this being a return to the 1930s and they're right but not in the way they think. They are the ones facilitating the destruction of democracy and that's a bad thing, for whatever comes next is never good.

I apologise to forum members for my rudeness.

Oh and I wont feed the troll again. :bow:

Oh and Huq was hot back in the day. :creep:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You're right, I shouldn't have been so angry. The veil has slipped on my view of the Mother of Parliaments. I never had much down for politicians generally as your all aware. However the chutzpah exhibited by the majority of MP is disturbing. That they are ready to destroy democracy in the UK is shocking.

For the first time in my life I actually feel that serious unrest could be unleashed in the UK. Not a riot here or there but disorder on a nationwide scale. I talk to people and I've never seen such anger in my fellow subjects. Never.

The remoaners bang on about this being a return to the 1930s and they're right but not in the way they think. They are the ones facilitating the destruction of democracy and that's a bad thing, for whatever comes next is never good.

I apologise to forum members for my rudeness.

Oh and I wont feed the troll again. :bow:

Oh and Huq was hot back in the day. :creep:

---

The Remain demonstrations have been notable for their lack of incident despite the hundreds of thousands involved. The Leave demonstrations, considerably smaller by a factor of a hundred, have seen violence aimed at police. And of course, during the campaign itself, an MP campaigning for Remain was assassinated. Will you condone further violence in the pursuit of your goal?

A warning applying to everyone, please cease the targeting of individuals in this thread. Thank you.

Honestly, I still think she's attractive - and it's worth pointing out that ten years ago equally ludicrous things were being said by some Eurosceptics. still, that's no defence.

There's a lot going on in Parliament but overall my impression is that all the wrong people are in charge. There are decent people in both parties and decent people on both sides of this debate - but they're not the ones calling the shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Remain demonstrations have been notable for their lack of incident despite the hundreds of thousands involved. The Leave demonstrations, considerably smaller by a factor of a hundred, have seen violence aimed at police. And of course, during the campaign itself, an MP campaigning for Remain was assassinated. Will you condone further violence in the pursuit of your goal?

---

Read my post. I did not condone violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You're right, I shouldn't have been so angry. The veil has slipped on my view of the Mother of Parliaments. I never had much down for politicians generally as your all aware. However the chutzpah exhibited by the majority of MP is disturbing. That they are ready to destroy democracy in the UK is shocking.

For the first time in my life I actually feel that serious unrest could be unleashed in the UK. Not a riot here or there but disorder on a nationwide scale. I talk to people and I've never seen such anger in my fellow subjects. Never.

The remoaners bang on about this being a return to the 1930s and they're right but not in the way they think. They are the ones facilitating the destruction of democracy and that's a bad thing, for whatever comes next is never good.

I apologise to forum members for my rudeness.

Oh and I wont feed the troll again. :bow:

Oh and Huq was hot back in the day. :creep:

---

Your system for hundreds of years has been consistently moving towards the concentration of authority to Parliament and specifically the Commons. All authority exhibited by the courts, by the queen, by any other institution is derived from Parliament and can be revoked by Parliament. Parliament is your sovereign, not the 'government', not the people as a whole. In order for your democracy to be upheld, this fundamental principle must be upheld because to claim that referendums are somehow above the sovereignty of parliament and must be fulfilled by Parliament against their will, is the real upheaval of British history.

Your democratic government structure is Indirect in nature, not Direct, full stop. To claim otherwise is a lie, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. The Commons do not want a no-deal exit and if they go against the government to make sure no-deal does not happen that is British democracy, you can voice your opposition through your vote at the next election and the next session of Parliament will then get to decide what they want to do with the Brexit question, which could very well be no-deal since the Tory's are leading in the polls and will likely only give the whip to those who wish to follow through with no-deal.

Remoaners is a shit meme, no different than the US alt-right talking about "Sleepy Joe", "Little Marco". Conservatism in both the US and UK is dead, your values are not for democracy since proroguing Parliament for the purpose of curtailing debate is decidedly anti-democratic, that's not debatable. Your values are not for sovereignty of the British people from Europe since the realpolitik of a UK outside the EU is well known at this point. It can't even be argued it is for the prosperity of the public, since the government papers (why is it named after a bird????) seem to indicate that no deal would indeed be closer to disaster for medicine, oil, and food imports than otherwise suggested by Brexiteers.

But I don't even care about all that. As someone who leans left, I don't care whether I am debating a neoconservative or a nationalistic fascist. It's just the delusion that you and most of the other pro-Brexit British in this thread truly believe the mess of British government is not a reflection of the Conservative political class becoming more abhorrent in their attempts to circumvent consensus in favor of pushing a divided question to its most extreme outcome.

Don't @me Pannonian, I understand your anger but you refuse to understand them for what they are and try to push a circular argument style to get a gotcha moment that never arrives. They don't care about what it takes to get to Brexit, they never did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Your system for hundreds of years has been consistently moving towards the concentration of authority to Parliament and specifically the Commons. All authority exhibited by the courts, by the queen, by any other institution is derived from Parliament and can be revoked by Parliament. Parliament is your sovereign, not the 'government', not the people as a whole. In order for your democracy to be upheld, this fundamental principle must be upheld because to claim that referendums are somehow above the sovereignty of parliament and must be fulfilled by Parliament against their will, is the real upheaval of British history.

Your democratic government structure is Indirect in nature, not Direct, full stop. To claim otherwise is a lie, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. The Commons do not want a no-deal exit and if they go against the government to make sure no-deal does not happen that is British democracy, you can voice your opposition through your vote at the next election and the next session of Parliament will then get to decide what they want to do with the Brexit question, which could very well be no-deal since the Tory's are leading in the polls and will likely only give the whip to those who wish to follow through with no-deal.

Remoaners is a shit meme, no different than the US alt-right talking about "Sleepy Joe", "Little Marco". Conservatism in both the US and UK is dead, your values are not for democracy since proroguing Parliament for the purpose of curtailing debate is decidedly anti-democratic, that's not debatable. Your values are not for sovereignty of the British people from Europe since the realpolitik of a UK outside the EU is well known at this point. It can't even be argued it is for the prosperity of the public, since the government papers (why is it named after a bird????) seem to indicate that no deal would indeed be closer to disaster for medicine, oil, and food imports than otherwise suggested by Brexiteers.

But I don't even care about all that. As someone who leans left, I don't care whether I am debating a neoconservative or a nationalistic fascist. It's just the delusion that you and most of the other pro-Brexit British in this thread truly believe the mess of British government is not a reflection of the Conservative political class becoming more abhorrent in their attempts to circumvent consensus in favor of pushing a divided question to its most extreme outcome.

Don't @me Pannonian, I understand your anger but you refuse to understand them for what they are and try to push a circular argument style to get a gotcha moment that never arrives. They don't care about what it takes to get to Brexit, they never did.

---

^^^ Ayyyy


There's a lot of talk about democracy lately. Now, let us discuss what it means to be "democratic." It means that the architecture of government must possess legitimacy. It means that the people, both majorities and minorities, can influence the course of their lives at the highest level and ensure that their interests are considered and safeguarded. Perhaps the UK and other democracies have not achieved such a thing yet, but we do have the same forms of government that we did 10 years ago, so we can at least hold a comparison within. In the sense that any UK government or policy as it can be constructed under existing rules can be legitimate, what does it take?

In a procedural sense, what is the modern government of the UK? It arises from Parliamentary representation. The Monarch does not provide or produce governance in a meaningful sense; all they retain is their ultima ratio. So what is at the heart of the procedural legitimacy of Parliament? The heart of it is the MPs and the Acts of Parliament. I haven't checked in a while, but I would bet that the majority of MPs remain opposed to Brexit. I recall this was an issue in the 2017 elections, and the vote clearly returned an anti-Brexit parliament. Is this not a democratic result, the very recourse Remainers are so gung-ho about today because they expect Borish Johnson's Conservatives to win outright on a party line, then what is? This same 2017 Parliament produced several pieces of legislation across party lines to reject both No Deal Brexit and May's Deal Brexit. If this wasn't procedurally legitimate, then certainly no form of Brexit can be as of now. Now, what is the procedural legitimacy of a non-binding referendum itself? Nil, or at least no more than a particularly expensive and thorough opinion poll. I don't see how this can be disputed. If you want legitimacy, hold a binding referendum with defined options ranked by preference.

But perhaps there is another democratic legitimacy to Brexit, in that a majority of voting people voted out of the EU? Unfortunately not. 51.89 * 0.7221 (turnout) = 37.5% of the electorate backed leave, at one point in 2016. If the basic wishes of a majority of the population are a dispositive factor, all indicia point to fewer Britons wishing to Leave (in any form) than to stay, and for this to have been true shortly before the referendum as well as at most times afterwards. If the continuing and granular manifestation of the will of the people is the democratic thing, then an outdated, unspecific, and irregularly conducted nonbinding referendum cannot be it, chief. Everything points to Leave being a minority position since mid-2017. A real lack of democracy can be seen in the technocratic and unaccountable character of the negotiations themselves, which Leavers do not oppose except insofar as it does not produce the results they prefer. Those who favored a strong democracy would wish the people to have their hand directly in the conduct of negotiations, or at least in their ability to maintain accountability and transparency among their assigned delegates. Brexiteers today thus have neither the numbers nor procedure on their side, and are a clear-cut case of an ideologically-motivated vanguard minority subverting the whole country. And maybe, theoretically, rule or ruin by vanguard could be a good thing. It has not often been in history, but perhaps it could be. Lenin and Castro thought so, and they were more popular than Brexit. A Corbyn government with the ruthlessness of Brexit might be able to deliver significant victories on behalf of "the People." But ultimately I disagree with the soundness and virtue of the means and hope to see you admonished in the end.

Now, all this is why it so frightens me to hear IA inveigh, so wrongly yet with such conviction, about Remain being the antidemocratic ones, that "They are the ones facilitating the destruction of democracy and that's a bad thing, for whatever comes next is never good." For IA democracy means leaning on any pretense to permanently and irrevocably seize power on behalf of a narrow cabal and their agitated clients. This is the "democracy" of the decolonial despotism, and it recalls the "People's Will" as seen in Cromwell's Commonwealth or the movie Children of Men. It can happen there, and I reiterate what cruel racist fools y'all Europeans were to sneer at the struggles of Eastern Europe or new African countries. You are not immune to the same degenerations. None of us are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Your system for hundreds of years has been consistently moving towards the concentration of authority to Parliament and specifically the Commons. All authority exhibited by the courts, by the queen, by any other institution is derived from Parliament and can be revoked by Parliament. Parliament is your sovereign, not the 'government', not the people as a whole. In order for your democracy to be upheld, this fundamental principle must be upheld because to claim that referendums are somehow above the sovereignty of parliament and must be fulfilled by Parliament against their will, is the real upheaval of British history.

Your democratic government structure is Indirect in nature, not Direct, full stop. To claim otherwise is a lie, and you know it. Everyone here knows it. The Commons do not want a no-deal exit and if they go against the government to make sure no-deal does not happen that is British democracy, you can voice your opposition through your vote at the next election and the next session of Parliament will then get to decide what they want to do with the Brexit question, which could very well be no-deal since the Tory's are leading in the polls and will likely only give the whip to those who wish to follow through with no-deal.

---

Not really as simple as you make out:
http://civitas.org.uk/2016/12/03/bri...y-really-said/
Dicey saying that parliamentary sovereignty meant that Parliament has:

‘the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law … as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.’ (p. 20) This has the corollary, they thought, that ‘it cannot be said that a law is invalid as being opposed to the opinion of the electorate, since as a matter of law’ in Dicey’s view:

‘The judges know nothing about any will of the people except in so far as that will is expressed by an Act of Parliament, and would never suffer the validity of a statute to be questioned on the ground of its having been passed or being kept alive in opposition to the wishes of the electors.’ (p. 96, p. 101.)

Dicey’s argument was in truth more subtle than the High Court judges seem to have realised. He described how our constitution was made up of both laws and conventions. There was ‘the law of the constitution’ – the enforceable laws that laid down con­stitutional principles – and the ‘convent­ions of the constitution’ – the habits and traditions that are followed but not enforced. The conventions had one ultimate object: ‘to secure that Parliament, or the Cabinet which is indirectly appointed by Parliament, shall in the long run give effect to the will of that power which in modern England is the true political sovereign of the State – the majority of the electors or… the nation’. (p. 249.)

Dicey strongly maintains that ‘the electorate is in fact the sovereign of England’. The whole people act through a ‘supreme legislature’ whose conduct is ‘regulated by understandings of which the object is to secure the conformity of Parliament to the will of the nation’. All the conventions that uphold the supremacy of the House of Commons in practice uphold the ‘sovereignty of the people’. To demonstrate his claim Dicey examines three conventions: (1) the requirement that the powers of the Crown are exercised through ministers enjoying the confidence of Parliament; (2) the convention that the House of Lords gives way to the Commons; and (3) the right of monarchs to dissolve parliament against the wishes of the majority of MPs (no longer possible since the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliaments Act).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Remoaners is a shit meme, no different than the US alt-right talking about "Sleepy Joe", "Little Marco". Conservatism in both the US and UK is dead, your values are not for democracy since proroguing Parliament for the purpose of curtailing debate is decidedly anti-democratic, that's not debatable. Your values are not for sovereignty of the British people from Europe since the realpolitik of a UK outside the EU is well known at this point. It can't even be argued it is for the prosperity of the public, since the government papers (why is it named after a bird????) seem to indicate that no deal would indeed be closer to disaster for medicine, oil, and food imports than otherwise suggested by Brexiteers.

But I don't even care about all that. As someone who leans left, I don't care whether I am debating a neoconservative or a nationalistic fascist. It's just the delusion that you and most of the other pro-Brexit British in this thread truly believe the mess of British government is not a reflection of the Conservative political class becoming more abhorrent in their attempts to circumvent consensus in favor of pushing a divided question to its most extreme outcome.

---

No.
Your inventing conspiracy around a far simpler fact:
This is really difficult!
Fifty years of legal convergence under the doctrine of ever-closer-union has made exiting so [politically] contentious that it almost makes irrelevant that their exists a [legal] remedy to exit by the name of Art50.
It has proved nearly impossible despite opt-outs on the euro, schengen, justice, and more.

Staying in means traveling further down a path that does not have consent - make leaving still further difficult - so the task must be completed now regardless of how unpleasant it is.

Quote:

---

Parliament is your sovereign, not the 'government', not the people as a whole.

---

Parliament gets it's sovereignty and legitimately from the people. Jesus wept.

Quote:

---

seem to indicate that no deal would indeed be closer to disaster for medicine, oil, and food imports than otherwise suggested by Brexiteers.

---

Listen and learn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YggHsc0LvyI

Quote:

---

your values are not for democracy since proroguing Parliament for the purpose of curtailing debate is decidedly anti-democratic, that's not debatable.

---

Parliament is prorogued every year. Look it up.

On Prorogation: https://researchbriefings.parliament.../LLN-2019-0111

Prior to 1930 the length of the current prorogation would not have been unusual, but since 1930 is have usually been about a week. One notes, also, that it was suggested some months ago that Theresa May could prorogue Parliament just to put her deal to the House again. In regards to the Parliament and the Deal Boris Johnson was handed a poisoned chalice - a Deal Parliament would never accept and a Parliament itself already accustomed to open revolt within the Government.

The whole thing is, frankly, an unworkable mess at this point.

With regards to Brexit in general, I would have thought this would be something our American friends would grasp more directly. If our democracy is based on a Sovereign Parliament, then the "Ever Closer Union" clause in the Treaty of Rome clearly represents an existential threat to our democracy, doesn't it? At some point Parliament will cease to be soverign - one might argue this has already happened to an extent because Article 50 lays out the way in which the UK (via Parliament) must withdraw - rather than the terms of the negotiations being ope-ended. In any case, for decades people have had two pro-integration parties to choose from. Granted, they were slow-integration parties but that hardly helps.

Then we had a referendum and the majority of the electorate who voted voted to leave. Compare this to the 1992 French Maastricht Treaty referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_F...aty_referendum As you can see, the 2016 UK Referendum had a majority roughly double the 1992 referendum on a slightly higher turnout. Therefore, the mandate the British people gave Parliament to leave the EU is stronger than the one the French People gave to the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. It necessarily follows that any attempt to undermine the validity of the 2016 Referendum also undermines the validity of the EU itself.

Additionally, it should be noted that whilst the referendum was technically "advisory" there was an understanding, explicitly acknowledged by all parties and senior politicians, that Parliament would act on the result. Given the inherent nature of our Constitution this is as binding as it is possible for a Referendum to be and the idea that Parliament would ignore the expressed will of the British People is in the same catagory as the Queen ignoring the advice of her ministers.

Now, about No Deal:

Nobody, except a few fringe loons, wants No Deal. However, given a choice between a perpetual "Leaving" that continually drags our economy and makes inward investment virtually impossible at some point we have to go for No Deal rather than continually extending. Theresa May's Deal was, in reality, an extension of that "Leaving" process because of the Backstop - which is why it was continually voted down.

We will see if Boris Johnson can ditch the Backstop - if so it's likely Parliament and Country will hold its collective noses and the Deal will be ratified.

Parliament perhaps, but I cant see that going down well with the electorate at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Parliament perhaps, but I cant see that going down well with the electorate at all.

---

We shall see - I think the majority of the electorate will be glad it's over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Don't @me Pannonian, I understand your anger but you refuse to understand them for what they are and try to push a circular argument style to get a gotcha moment that never arrives. They don't care about what it takes to get to Brexit, they never did.

---

I know they don't care, but it's never been about a gotcha moment. I recognised fairly early on that it was a case of starting with their conclusion and shaping or ignoring the arguments in order to lead to that conclusion.

My point is the British system, which I used to be proud of, and which I used to believe in. Go back in my post history, and you'll see me roting many of the same arguments about democracy, balance, the need for reason etc. that PVC and others still go on about in the Trump and other US threads. I used to believe that the UK was fortunate enough to be in a position to comment with wisdom. Then came Brexit. These are what I believed to be necessities for a working democracy, which I believed the UK was fortunate enough to have even where others had been lacking.

1. Political debate needs to be shaped by reason and evidence-based discussion. Blind ideology, undisprovable, cannot be the driver for political debate. That way lies the religious fundamentalism that you see in the US uniquely in the west, but also the religious nutcases in the middle east.
2. Expert opinion has to be respected. Not everyone can be well informed about all subjects. Politicians cannot just overrule the arguments of people who are foremost in their fields. Those who try should lose their credibility. This is why anti-vaxxers hold sway in the US, but not the UK.
3. Politicians must tell the truth, and if they do not, they must be held to account.

The referendum campaign by Leave, and the voters' response to it, abused the heck out of my beliefs in the above. I'd previously thought that the UK was well positioned in all three points, and it was all that was necessary for the best working liberal democracy in the world, ie. the UK. After the referendum, I sought further lines that I hoped we would not cross, that I never imagined would be necessary to paint in the first place.

4. Parliament is the basis of government. If the government cannot command the backing of Parliament, it has no mandate. That is why the party with the most MPs gets to try to form a government, but a government can only be formed once it can command a majority of the MPs in the Commons. Corollary to this is that if Parliament has a demonstrated majority on something, then that is by definition what the government must do.
5. Opposition is an intrinsic part of the British system. Opposition to the government is deemed as loyal to the nation as support for the government. Opposition must not be silenced, not threatened.
6. People should own responsibility for their own decisions.

On 4: see the current narrative of people versus Parliament, and the government ignoring Parliament's instructions. See Dominic Cummings, then one of the leaders of the Leave campaigns but not yet the PM's chief of staff, ignoring Parliament and its subsequent that he was in contempt of Parliament because Parliament could do nothing to him. The 2016 result now endows anyone attaching themselves to it with democratic authority, which subsequent elections contradicting it does not erase. Future elections won't matter either, as long as someone harks back to 2016.

On 5: opposition to Brexit is now deemed disloyalty to the nation and the people. See rory's argument that Parliament, and for that matter, people like me, should shut up and let the government work its magic. On a more physical level, see IA's hints that Leavers will turn violent in order to effect their outcome. Of course, that has already happened in individual cases, even before the vote took place.

On 6: if everything else fails, at least those who want to Leave should be held individually responsible for the results of their decision. They've had plenty of opportunity to change their mind, and evidence upon evidence has been stacked up to show what will happen when they get what they want. If they still go through with it, they are responsible for what happens. PVC in particular has tried to evade this, but you also have Furunculus blaming remainers for no deal.

I used to think that points 1-3 were all that were needed for a mature democracy, which the UK indisputably was. After Brexit, I tried to find lines that would not be crossed, where the UK can recover once we'd finished with it and agreed where a post-Brexit UK can be rebuilt. However, every one of those lines has been crossed, invariably by Leavers. So I'm left with point 6, which is to pin the Leavers down on what they've said, and hold them responsible for it once the dust has cleared.

Quote:

---

We shall see - I think the majority of the electorate will be glad it's over.

---

If its the same chequers I remember, I doubt it would survive the next election cycle, I guarentee it wouldnt last two.

The tories will not survive a brexit in name only in any case.

I've never tried to evade responsibility for the UK leaving the EU - I simply will not write you a blank cheque to blame me for any and all future ills of the UK after we leave. If you consider your line of thinking, it would entail blaming every voter for every Referendum or election vote they ever cast.

We could blame those who voted for Tony Blair et al in 1997 for Scottish Independence because in creating the Scottish Parliament he gave Alex Salmond a platform to pretend to be a serious politician, using English money. I believe that was in the 1997 Election Manifesto, so Labour voters knew what they were voting for.

Or perhaps that is unfair? To blame the breakup of the UK on a vote that, ultimately, had nothing to do with breaking up the UK.

The vote to Leave the EU was just that, no more, no less.

None of us voted for No Deal - I don't believe anyone in Parliament is really keen on "No Deal" in the strictest sense. Everyone wants some kind of deal, including the EU. The question is whether a deal can be done - and that is a question of both sides. If a deal cannot be done then their will be shared responsibility between the two negotiating teams.

If it happens that we have another Referendum and the question is "Remain or No Deal" then you would be justified in trying to blame us directly.

As it is - no dice. We wanted out because we don't want to be part of the inevitable EU Super-State and, whilst I don't often agree fully with Furunculus, it is better to do the leaving now than later. Face it, we're never going to want further integration - a lot of Mainland Europeans don't and us even less - we were always going to opt out of the project at some point. If not now, then when?

Seperately, I note that it is very easy for the Americans to decry us for preferring to have No Deal over continued delay - given they don't have to live through it.

Not sure if I have been beaten to the punch, but the Government have released an official document on the expected impact of hard Brexit known as Operation Yellowhammer.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...ptions_CDL.pdf

BBC Summary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

In regards to the Parliament and the Deal Boris Johnson was handed a poisoned chalice - a Deal Parliament would never accept and a Parliament itself already accustomed to open revolt within the Government.

---

This is the reason I believe in a second binding referendum (which would bypass parliament). There would be enough cross-party support to pass it. It would also sanction a No Deal Brexit if that is the will of the people. Happy to accept the result either way it goes. Even if it is unpopular, especially as majority of brexiteers believe they would lose. Unfortunately I feel this is the only real option to put it all to rest, especially since Boris cannot legally do a no deal Brexit anymore.





Side Note: Infractions will be issued from this post on-wards for any posts which target members in an unfair fashion. You are free to quote people, or direct them appropriate questions, or discuss a point. If you are unsure, simply stick to the arguments and not the person and I won't have to act again. I am retired, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

If its the same chequers I remember, I doubt it would survive the next election cycle, I guarentee it wouldnt last two.

The tories will not survive a brexit in name only in any case.

---

Given how fienishly difficult the job is I think you might be surprised. A lot of the invective, on both sides, stems as much as anything from the lack of progress and attendent frustration. The Major problem with May's deal was that in locking us into the Backstop and (probably) signing us up to taking future EU rules it really was Brexit in name only, all the downsides and none of the benefits.

By Contrast, No Deal represents some benefits - and so does a deal without the Backstop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Not sure if I have been beaten to the punch, but the Government have released an official document on the expected impact of hard Brexit known as Operation Yellowhammer.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...ptions_CDL.pdf

BBC Summary



This is the reason I believe in a second binding referendum (which would bypass parliament). There would be enough cross-party support to pass it. It would also sanction a No Deal Brexit if that is the will of the people. Happy to accept the result either way it goes. Even if it is unpopular, especially as majority of brexiteers believe they would lose. Unfortunately I feel this is the only real option to put it all to rest, especially since Boris cannot legally do a no deal Brexit anymore.

---

A "legally binding" referendum isn't really on the cards - enough damage has been done to our democracy without creating a precedent that Parliament can legally abdicate its authority to another body.

Another referendum is potentially on the cards, but if it includes a Remain option and that wins then I fear IA will be right and there will be riots. Remember, many leave voters are economically disadvantaged (AKA the great unwashed/plebs/insert other middle class slur) - they're already outside the mainstream of society in so far as they feel disenfranchised and have little to lose.

The London riots were triggered by one man being shot in a rather dodgy way even though he pretty obviously was a gangsta. If poor people feel they've been put through the ringer for three years for no reason other than for them to be "punished" as an example to intransigent plebs in other EU nations to "go along or else"... Well, that's not going to go down well, is it?

Given that the Remain Bloc said there would be no second Referendum I can't see one with Remain on the ballot unless the Lib Dems beats Labour to second place in the next election. Remember - right now the two main parties (who got a collective majority and much more than 50% of the vote) both support Leave. Pro-Leave parties also won the majority of seats in the EU election and Hard Brexit came first.

It might be comforting to think there's a quiet, dignified, pro-Remain majority somewhere but if they're so quiet they don't vote it's not worth much, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

A "legally binding" referendum isn't really on the cards - enough damage has been done to our democracy without creating a precedent that Parliament can legally abdicate its authority to another body.

---

I am always for more democracy as you are aware. Supporting voting systems such as STV over FPTP.

Quote:

---

if it includes a Remain option and that wins then I fear IA will be right and there will be riots.

---

There would certainly be unrest, but not as much as implied prediction. After all, in that scenario, wouldn't the majority be for remaining within the EU? It would mean those creating the unrest would be a minority. Now, if the referendum was for Hard Brexit and it was thwarted by Parliament, I would certainly be expecting pitchforks outside the window. So far, Pro-Remain have been the ones actively campaigning in larger numbers, though this could be reasoned with Brexit being the default current option, this is to be expected.

Quote:

---

Remember - right now the two main parties (who got a collective majority and much more than 50% of the vote) both support Leave. Pro-Leave parties also won the majority of seats in the EU election and Hard Brexit came first.

---

I disagree with your assertion that Labour are 'pro-leave' as we have discussed previously. Labour party is predominantly pro-remain and actively want it to be the party's official position, though it is led by a incompetent nincompoop who happens to be pro-leave. So you end up with a very disorganised opposition which is what we have. If Labour were fundamentally pro-Leave, we would not be experiencing the current situation in Parliament, as you rightly point out, the combined might would be well above the 50% threshold. But this is not the case, with majority of Labour in vote remain including a large minority of conservatives (though abet smaller due to defections & purge). Though being more remain leaning, it would still accept a soft-Brexit as a majority position as a compromise.

Quote:

---

It might be comforting to think there's a quiet, dignified, pro-Remain majority somewhere but if they're so quiet they don't vote it's not worth much, is it?

---

Remain winning a second referendum would include a large number of those who voted for Brexit first time around who changed their position. Referendum would also include more radicalised Brexit voting base too, as IA has previously expressed through his own position being exacerbated by the frustration of the current situation.

Also demographics would come into play with a new vote too. There would be first time voters who are stereo-typically identify themselves as Europeans, and unfortunate cases where people who voted Brexit first time around who are no longer with us. Such as my Uncle. Cancer is a bitch.