The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Polymath Rebecca Long-Bailey has just torpedoed Grieve’s idea Love Labour 😍 https://twitter.com/channel4news/sta...67410909986821

Isn't it incredible watching them shuffle about, making no progress?

They just go around in circles. None across the parties know what stance to take, what to do, what to say.. tripping over their tongues - each day a different take/ delivery.

Brexit will break them all and we will still be here talking about it.

[Blueangel]

Interesting read... apologies for the text being out of focus but it was the best I could find.



https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/statu...93917443317760

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Interesting read... apologies for the text being out of focus but it was the best I could find.

As a side note: I often wonder how straight talker Peter Foster finds working with some of the rabble on The Telegraph.

Foster's Twitter page is always worth a read.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Interesting read... apologies for the text being out of focus but it was the best I could find. Attachment 137375 https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/statu...93917443317760

I like the way that the most likely option they have is that Boris Johnson resigns (not going to happen) and/or the Queen steps in (not going to happen).

[Clocker]

	Quote:	bowlie
	The Conservative Government cannot agree amongst themselves what they want. This question needs to go back to the people.

It is not about what they want. It is about what the people want. And what the people want has not been implemented as yet.

Why does there need to be a second vote just because some people don't like the result of the first?
Surely the result of the first has to actually be implemented and a decade or generation or so pass before there can even be talk of a second vote?

If not why does a second vote annul the result of the first? If you're going to have a second vote, what happens when then the other side complain and demand a third vote and so it would go on and on...? Meaning the side that wants to stay in, at least medium-term, get their own way because in the meantime we'd still be in the EU whilst the votes go on and on...

[StirB]

	Quote:	Clocker
	It is not about what they want. It is about what the people want.

WHAT do the people want? (Hint, it isn't what you're spouting)...

According to the poll of 3,006 voters carried out between Monday and Friday, the public is so set against "no deal" it would prefer to remain in the EU than leave without a divorce agreement. By 53 percent to 47 percent, voters say they would prefer Britain stayed in the EU than leave without a deal.

By 47 percent to 35 percent, voters also want the U.K. prime minister to “compromise” with the EU to get a deal, rather than walk away without one.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ther...-a-hard-place/

[Clocker]

	Quote:	StirB
	WHAT do the people want? (Hint, it isn't what you're spouting)...According to the poll of 3,006 voters carried out between Monday and Friday, the public is so set against "no deal" it would prefer to remain in the EU than leave without a divorce agreement. By 53 percent to 47 percent, voters say they would prefer Britain stayed in the EU than leave without a deal.

A poll is not a referendum. Moreover that poll does not indicate how many or which of the participants originally voted leave or remain!

[StirB]

	Quote:	Clocker
	A poll is not a referendum. Moreover that poll does not indicate how many or which of the participants originally voted leave or remain!

And the referendum didn't indicate what kind of Brexit people wanted. This is very simple stuff, Clocker.

The poll (one of many similar) indicates people want different Brexits, you'd need to be a fanatic not to get that.

[baboon]

	Quote:	StirB
	you'd need to be a fanatic not to get that.

You see your mistake?

[Clocker]

	Quote:	StirB
	And the referendum didn't indicate what kind of Brexit people wanted.

You should have pointed that out beforehand maybe, to your politician. You're saying:
The voting slip should have perhaps specified what sort of deal or conditions were coming with the option of leaving, or that the deal should have been negotiated and known and understood before the vote. I understand your point but don't agree with it.
Too late now anyway. The vote took place.
Personally I was happy with the options on the voting slip.
Also I don't believe for one second that the referendum was rushed through or was sprung upon the people with no information, I think it was long overdue. Most had been wanting to leave since the early 1990s, if not earlier and the result reflected that. I'm just amazed it has all taken so long and angry that after three years they are still faffing.

[marton]

	Quote:	Clocker
	It is not about what they want. It is about what the people want. And what the people want has not been implemented as yet. Why does there need to be a second vote just because some people don't like the result of the first? Surely the result of the first has to actually be implemented and a decade or generation or so pass before there can even be talk of a second vote? If not why does a second vote annul the result of the first? If you're going to have a second vote, what happens when then the other side complain and demand a third vote and so it would go on and on...? Meaning the side that wants to stay in, at least medium-term, get their own way because in the meantime we'd still be in the EU whilst the votes go on and on...

We have general elections every four years, or more often, when it is possible to completely change the Government so annulling the result of the previous vote. This destroys your proposal of waiting a decade or a generation.

"why does a second vote annul the result of the first" see my comment above about general elections.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:	StirB
	And the referendum didn't indicate what kind of Brexit people wanted. This is very simple stuff, Clocker.

You can have that only if the EU treaty predefines what an exit would look like for any country and what the relationship with the EU would be - which is not the case now.



If you would do that now, then a country would go to the EU with a statement like "we are thinking about leaving. can we negotiate a detailed agreement so that we can have a referendum about it?".



Apart from putting the country in an extremely bad negotiation position, do you think the EU would even start with it as it is an extremely time-consuming process as most likely a waste of time?

[StirB]

	Quote:	Clocker
	You should have pointed that out beforehand maybe, to your politician.

Not sure what Hans-Ulrich Bigler could have done about it

	Quote:	Clocker
	You're saying: The voting slip should have perhaps specified what sort of deal or conditions were coming with the option of leaving, or that the deal should have been negotiated and known and understood before the vote. I understand your point but don't agree with it.

Am I? OK, if you say so.

I think if you check the nuance (there's that word again) I never implied anything about what should have been on the voting slip. My point was simply that the YES/NO voting slip does not in any way give you the authority to assume what kind of Brexit people wanted. Time and again polls have strongly suggested your opinion is on the wrong side of this.

	Quote:	Clocker
	Too late now anyway. The vote took place. Personally I was happy with the options on the voting slip. Also I don't believe for one second that the referendum was rushed through or was sprung upon the people with no information, I think it was long overdue. Most had been wanting to leave since the early 1990s, if not earlier and the result reflected that. I'm just amazed it has all taken so long and angry that after three years they are still faffing.

Indeed, it is amazing what 40 years of drip feeding by the rags can do to a population.

[Clocker]

	Quote:	marton
	This destroys your proposal of waiting a decade or a generation.

Only in your opinion.
Furthermore the result of a general election is implemented swiftly after the vote. The result of the referendum has not been implemented as yet, despite more than three years having passed, so we are not actually at the stage of being able to annul as we have yet to see and experience the new situation of being free and out of the EU.
So we'd need to wait for at least four or five years after the leaving date at the earliest before considering our options on a possible new referendum.

[RufusB]

	Quote:	Clocker
	Also I don't believe for one second that the referendum was rushed through or was sprung upon the people with no information, I think it was long overdue. Most had been wanting to leave since the early 1990s, if not earlier and the result reflected that. I'm just amazed it has all taken so long and angry that after three years they are still faffing.

I believe it was rushed through, almost indecently rushed, and both sides were so busy making promises and doing their level best to distract that it was a straight-up hustle. We were just missing the pretty lady in the skimpy outfit while those in charge did their sleight of hand.

I don't think most people wanted to leave since the 90s. Certainly not those born since the 70s. And I don't believe the leavers would have got their very small majority if it had been made clear that leaving with a no-deal was likely. I doubt that the possibility even occurred to many.

[Clocker]

	Quote:	StirB
	Time and again polls have strongly suggested your opinion is on the wrong side of this.

Again, polls don't count. The referendum hopefully will though if the UK gets its act together and leaves finally!

[StirB]

	Quote:	Clocker
	Again, polls don't count. The referendum hopefully will though if the UK gets its act together and leaves finally!

Sigh. Polls are the only thing that count when you are looking for the specifics of the type of Brexit people want, as the referendum did not go into that level of granularity. This is completely obvious, isn't it?

[Clocker]

	Quote:	StirB
	Sigh. Polls are the only thing that count when you are looking for the specifics of the type of Brexit people want, as the referendum did not go into that level of granularity. This is completely obvious, isn't it?

No, not at all. On the contrary I think you need a referendum on the type of Brexit or type of deal, in order to get your way. But again, you should have perhaps thought of that a few years ago. It is now too late to organize one.
People, yourself included, can't accept the result, so try to draw in all this other waffle, talk of polls, changes of opinion, possible second votes etc. in an attempt to delay or stop Brexit. It is only that fact that is blindingly obvious here!

[StirB]

	Quote:	Clocker
	No, not at all. On the contrary I think you need a referendum on the type of Brexit or type of deal, in order to get your way. But again, you should have perhaps thought of that a few years ago. It is now too late to organize one. People, yourself included, can't accept the result, so try to draw in all this other waffle, talk of polls, changes of opinion, possible second votes etc. in an attempt to delay or stop Brexit. It is only that fact that is blindingly obvious here!

You are obviously afraid to listen to reason, that's a shame, there is a sensible debate to be had on this but you are not willing to participate.

At least it disabuses us of the old wisdom that a broken clocker is still right twice a day.

	Quote:	Clocker
	Again, polls don't count. The referendum hopefully will though if the UK gets its act together and leaves finally!

It will not go through as it's undeliverable. If it was deliverable, it would be done and dusted by now.

Why the groaning again today? What's your problem?

Same old, same old.. repeat of when you were plumtree and arseyline, and whatever else you called yourself.