Without going over old ground that's already been covered on the Brexit thread,I couldn't care less who is in charge of each party,as long as the party keeps to it's election/brexit promises.We was told that the referendum was a once in a generation vote and that result has still not been implemented.You can dress it up any way you like,with as many If,Buts or Maybe's as you can muster but you can not alter the result of that 'once in a generation'.When people do not accept that result,that is when democracy gets questioned.Nothing to do with how many general elections we may or may not have,deals between party's,backhanders,peerages or any other deals,we've had the referendum respect the result.
There’s loads of wiggle room here. Anybody would think the U.K. and Europe are going to cease trading together. There’s always going to be one side end up with a surplus.
Without going over old ground that's already been covered on the Brexit thread,I couldn't care less who is in charge of each party,as long as the party keeps to it's election/brexit promises.We was told that the referendum was a once in a generation vote and that result has still not been implemented.You can dress it up any way you like,with as many If,Buts or Maybe's as you can muster but you can not alter the result of that 'once in a generation'.When people do not accept that result,that is when democracy gets questioned.Nothing to do with how many general elections we may or may not have,deals between party's,backhanders,peerages or any other deals,we've had the referendum respect the result.
I think that is quite a naïve view.
Assuming we do leave, a campaign to re-join will start immediately.
Anyone that could possibly say that the referendum was a once in a generation vote would be deluded.
Anyone that took such a proposition seriously would be naïve, as would anyone that thinks that the general public may not take a different view, after experiencing the results
Since when does a democracy not allow people to change their minds.
Isnt it a bit like saying the Tories have done so well, we will not have any more General Elections ever?
I really don't know why people have such strong opinions about a second referendum.
If the public have not changed their minds then we would leave.
If they haven't then we wont, which is perfectly democratic.
Brexit wont be all over in my lifetime whatever happens.
The 2016 referendum was poorly thought out, and the only thing that offers a solution is another one.
The 17.4 million didn't all support any particular Brexit solution.
You have dodged many pertinent questions, and are ignoring the only definitive solution.
Many important arguments weren't thought of ignored during the referendum campaign.
Who could possibly imagined that three and a half years later, we would have ended up where we are now.
If this is a Brexit election, and the majority vote for remain parties, how could you even suggest that leaving is still the will of the people?
This is where we are now after three and a half years.
The country is no less split than it was in 2016.
Boris is the hero of the Tory Party.
He has come back with 95% of Theresa Mays deal.
He has accepted a NI only backstop, which Theresa May rejected, and he previously said he would never accept.
He wants a Canada deal that many leavers think is not good enough.
He says freedom of movement, and the single market is good for NI, but not for the rest of the UK. How do you possibly explain that?
The future plan is less alignment with the EU, to allow for a US trade deal, meaning less trade with the EU, and putting the NHS at risk.
Splitting the UK was not mentioned in the referendum campaign.
There is huge risk that Scotland, and NI will move fairly quickly, followed by Wales in the longer term.
We may have to have internal borders in the UK, even if there are no splits.
We could still leave with the disaster that is no deal next year.
Regarding the betting on the 2016 referendum, remain was odds on. Bigger bets went on remain, giving the bookies a bigger liability. But, the higher volume of bets went on leave. But there is a quote that states males placed most of the bets. Im non the wiser😊
Without going over old ground that's already been covered on the Brexit thread,I couldn't care less who is in charge of each party,as long as the party keeps to it's election/brexit promises.We was told that the referendum was a once in a generation vote and that result has still not been implemented.You can dress it up any way you like,with as many If,Buts or Maybe's as you can muster but you can not alter the result of that 'once in a generation'.When people do not accept that result,that is when democracy gets questioned.Nothing to do with how many general elections we may or may not have,deals between party's,backhanders,peerages or any other deals,we've had the referendum respect the result.
Cameron's tweet that you are taking as gospel says there won't be a second referendum if remain win.
I don't think there's much doubt that Cameron made that statement,however the rest of the article and comments make for interesting reading given hindsight.
UK PM Johnson has 14-point lead over Labour before election: YouGov poll
LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Conservative Party has a 14-point lead over the opposition Labour Party, according to a YouGov opinion poll published by broadcaster Sky News on Tuesday, ahead of an election on Dec. 12. Support for the Conservatives stood at 42% compared with Labour's 28%. The pro-European Union Liberal Democrats were on 15% and the Brexit Party was on 4%.
It’s as if the media have suddenly discovered people with a certain amount of power and influence are two faced , manipulative liars. They themselves need to have a long look in the mirror.
‘Running scared’: Sajid Javid pulls out of TV debate amid ‘fake news’ row
Chancellor Sajid Javid is being accused of “running scared” after pulling out of a TV debate with his opposition rivals amid a “fake news” row over a Conservative dossier on Labour’s spending plans. John McDonnell accused the chancellor of being “terrified” of seeing Tory claims about a supposed £1.2 trillion spending spree ripped apart in the live TV clash planned for Channel 4 this weekend. Mr Javid was continuing to use the hotly-disputed figure in emails to voters on Tuesday evening, despite hearing a live radio audience laugh openly at Treasury minister Rishi Sunak as he failed to produce an equivalent figure for the cost of Conservative plans.
There’s loads of wiggle room here. Anybody would think the U.K. and Europe are going to cease trading together. There’s always going to be one side end up with a surplus.
I am not sure what you are getting at, but even Donald Trump knows that remaining closely aligned with the EU, categorically means no comprehensive trade deal with the USA.
Without going over old ground that's already been covered on the Brexit thread,I couldn't care less who is in charge of each party,as long as the party keeps to it's election/brexit promises.We was told that the referendum was a once in a generation vote and that result has still not been implemented.You can dress it up any way you like,with as many If,Buts or Maybe's as you can muster but you can not alter the result of that 'once in a generation'.When people do not accept that result,that is when democracy gets questioned.Nothing to do with how many general elections we may or may not have,deals between party's,backhanders,peerages or any other deals,we've had the referendum respect the result.
Heres one, seeing as we are not going backwards.
Claim The EU referendum was “advisory” only. Conclusion The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.
"The [EU] referendum was an advisory referendum” Dominic Grieve MP, 10 October 2016 “This was not an advisory referendum” John Redwood MP, 7 November 2016 Given that the meaning of the French Revolution is still contested, it’s no surprise that there are arguments over June’s EU referendum.
The word “advisory” crops up a lot in the debate at the moment. Here we’ll look what people mean when they say that the referendum was, or wasn’t, advisory.
Start with the law The referendum was not legally binding. There’s no one source that can prove this statement true (although here’s a respectable one). That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one. In other countries, referendums are often legally binding—for example, because the vote is on whether to amend the constitution. The UK, famously, doesn’t have a codified constitution.
A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. In practical terms this would mean someone would be able to go to court to make the government implement the result. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011, for example, was legally binding in this way
Otherwise, as the High Court put it on 3 November: “a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”. So, purely as a matter of law, neither the government nor Parliament has to do anything about the referendum.
How does the U.K. food industry get delivered into US hands? We consume 50% of unprocessed food that’s homegrown. 30% of unprocessed food is imported from the EU. I’d presume the figure for the U.K. could be even higher if the desire was there. It always comes down to the consumer to make their choice surely? Some like to go to their butcher, some have packaged/ filmed meat. Wherever the food comes from, the final decision is with the consumer.
Consumers only get a choice of what the supermarkets are prepared to stock.
Without going over old ground that's already been covered on the Brexit thread,I couldn't care less who is in charge of each party,as long as the party keeps to it's election/brexit promises.We was told that the referendum was a once in a generation vote and that result has still not been implemented.You can dress it up any way you like,with as many If,Buts or Maybe's as you can muster but you can not alter the result of that 'once in a generation'.When people do not accept that result,that is when democracy gets questioned.Nothing to do with how many general elections we may or may not have,deals between party's,backhanders,peerages or any other deals,we've had the referendum respect the result.
On a serious note.
No Parliament can legally tie the hands of a future Parliament.
So a new Government doesn't have any obligation to honour promises made by a previous Government.
So whatever was said about the referendum in 2016, is irrelevant as we have had 3 PMs, and by December will have had 2 elections since.
The Lib Dems are promising to revoke article 50, on winning the election, many people will see this as reasonable, and democratic, although unlikely, as if you don't agree with this policy, you can vote for another party.
Therefore if the Lib Dems got a majority it would surely be reasonable for them to revoke.
Then reason I referred to the number of elections is purely because an election is a vote, as is a referendum.
It seems that many people are prepared to go along with vote after vote when it comes to General Elections, despite the fact that no amount of General Elections may solve the problem, and they balk at another referendum which definitely would provide a solution.
The biggest problem with Brexit is that it means different things to different people.
So the 17.4 million people that voted for it were in favour of a Brexit, but not the same Brexit.
So you could make a case for the remainers being in the majority, as over 16 million of them all voted for exactly the same outcome.
Whereas the 17.4 million, are still split between, no deal, Canada, Norway, Theresa Mays deal, and a Boris deal.
As only one outcome can be chosen, whichever we choose will have been supported by a very small minority.
I'm surprised that any politician agrees to appear on The Andrew Neil Show as he absolutely ties them in knots,if they think they can get a lie or a distortion of fact past him they soon find out that's not a very wise move.
Comments
It’s ok importing produce, but it’s shifting it that counts.
Anybody would think the U.K. and Europe are going to cease trading together.
There’s always going to be one side end up with a surplus.
Assuming we do leave, a campaign to re-join will start immediately.
Anyone that could possibly say that the referendum was a once in a generation vote would be deluded.
Anyone that took such a proposition seriously would be naïve, as would anyone that thinks that the general public may not take a different view, after experiencing the results
Since when does a democracy not allow people to change their minds.
Isnt it a bit like saying the Tories have done so well, we will not have any more General Elections ever?
I really don't know why people have such strong opinions about a second referendum.
If the public have not changed their minds then we would leave.
If they haven't then we wont, which is perfectly democratic.
Brexit wont be all over in my lifetime whatever happens.
The 2016 referendum was poorly thought out, and the only thing that offers a solution is another one.
The 17.4 million didn't all support any particular Brexit solution.
You have dodged many pertinent questions, and are ignoring the only definitive solution.
Many important arguments weren't thought of ignored during the referendum campaign.
Who could possibly imagined that three and a half years later, we would have ended up where we are now.
If this is a Brexit election, and the majority vote for remain parties, how could you even suggest that leaving is still the will of the people?
This is where we are now after three and a half years.
The country is no less split than it was in 2016.
Boris is the hero of the Tory Party.
He has come back with 95% of Theresa Mays deal.
He has accepted a NI only backstop, which Theresa May rejected, and he previously said he would never accept.
He wants a Canada deal that many leavers think is not good enough.
He says freedom of movement, and the single market is good for NI, but not for the rest of the UK. How do you possibly explain that?
The future plan is less alignment with the EU, to allow for a US trade deal, meaning less trade with the EU, and putting the NHS at risk.
Splitting the UK was not mentioned in the referendum campaign.
There is huge risk that Scotland, and NI will move fairly quickly, followed by Wales in the longer term.
We may have to have internal borders in the UK, even if there are no splits.
We could still leave with the disaster that is no deal next year.
Bigger bets went on remain, giving the bookies a bigger liability.
But, the higher volume of bets went on leave.
But there is a quote that states males placed most of the bets.
Im non the wiser😊
So.......
LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Conservative Party has a 14-point lead over the opposition Labour Party, according to a YouGov opinion poll published by broadcaster Sky News on Tuesday, ahead of an election on Dec. 12.
Support for the Conservatives stood at 42% compared with Labour's 28%. The pro-European Union Liberal Democrats were on 15% and the Brexit Party was on 4%.
https://news.yahoo.com/uk-pm-johnson-14-point-172843198.html
They themselves need to have a long look in the mirror.
Chancellor Sajid Javid is being accused of “running scared” after pulling out of a TV debate with his opposition rivals amid a “fake news” row over a Conservative dossier on Labour’s spending plans.
John McDonnell accused the chancellor of being “terrified” of seeing Tory claims about a supposed £1.2 trillion spending spree ripped apart in the live TV clash planned for Channel 4 this weekend.
Mr Javid was continuing to use the hotly-disputed figure in emails to voters on Tuesday evening, despite hearing a live radio audience laugh openly at Treasury minister Rishi Sunak as he failed to produce an equivalent figure for the cost of Conservative plans.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/running-scared-sajid-javid-pulls-out-of-tv-debate-amid-fake-news-row/ar-BBWEM94?ocid=spartandhp
Heres one, seeing as we are not going backwards.
Claim
The EU referendum was “advisory” only.
Conclusion
The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.
"The [EU] referendum was an advisory referendum”
Dominic Grieve MP, 10 October 2016
“This was not an advisory referendum”
John Redwood MP, 7 November 2016
Given that the meaning of the French Revolution is still contested, it’s no surprise that there are arguments over June’s EU referendum.
The word “advisory” crops up a lot in the debate at the moment. Here we’ll look what people mean when they say that the referendum was, or wasn’t, advisory.
Start with the law
The referendum was not legally binding. There’s no one source that can prove this statement true (although here’s a respectable one). That follows from the fact that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 didn’t say anything about implementing the result of the vote. It just provided that there should be one.
In other countries, referendums are often legally binding—for example, because the vote is on whether to amend the constitution. The UK, famously, doesn’t have a codified constitution.
A UK referendum will only have the force of law if the Act setting it up says so. In practical terms this would mean someone would be able to go to court to make the government implement the result. The Alternative Vote referendum in 2011, for example, was legally binding in this way
Otherwise, as the High Court put it on 3 November:
“a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament”.
So, purely as a matter of law, neither the government nor Parliament has to do anything about the referendum.
https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/
Tariffs undoubtedly increase prices.
No Parliament can legally tie the hands of a future Parliament.
So a new Government doesn't have any obligation to honour promises made by a previous Government.
So whatever was said about the referendum in 2016, is irrelevant as we have had 3 PMs, and by December will have had 2 elections since.
The Lib Dems are promising to revoke article 50, on winning the election, many people will see this as reasonable, and democratic, although unlikely, as if you don't agree with this policy, you can vote for another party.
Therefore if the Lib Dems got a majority it would surely be reasonable for them to revoke.
Then reason I referred to the number of elections is purely because an election is a vote, as is a referendum.
It seems that many people are prepared to go along with vote after vote when it comes to General Elections, despite the fact that no amount of General Elections may solve the problem, and they balk at another referendum which definitely would provide a solution.
The biggest problem with Brexit is that it means different things to different people.
So the 17.4 million people that voted for it were in favour of a Brexit, but not the same Brexit.
So you could make a case for the remainers being in the majority, as over 16 million of them all voted for exactly the same outcome.
Whereas the 17.4 million, are still split between, no deal, Canada, Norway, Theresa Mays deal, and a Boris deal.
As only one outcome can be chosen, whichever we choose will have been supported by a very small minority.