UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
message 3901:
by
Lydia
(new)
Jul 07, 2016 04:20AM
It seems to me that the idea of a second referendum pays no heed to the reaction of the EU countries in the event that the UK said "We've changed our minds. We're staying." That would be greeted by guffaws and disbelief, especially if the result was a neat reversal of the previous percentages. I doubt that they would be willing to negotiate a changed relationship and may indeed just want us to leave them to get on with tackling their many difficulties.
reply
|
flag
I didn't say unanimity. We will never get some people to change their minds no matter how much information we give them. What we need is something closer to a 60-40.The markets dislike uncertainty, but they dislike Brexit even more. Uncertainty with the possibility of remaining would be welcomed by most businesses.
The second referendum will come. It may be a general election rather than a referendum, but it will happen.
And we need to be consistent about what the EU will or won't do. It's somewhat ridiculous to argue that the EU will allow us a deal on tariff-free trade without free movement of people, but then to argue that the EU will never shift from their stance of no negotiation before article 50 is triggered. You can't have it both ways.
But that's not what a second referendum would be about. We can hold it before article 50 is triggered and before the negotiations with the EU. What we need is a clearer picture about the options on the table and the risks and costs associated with each one. Much of that work has already been done by the Treasury. The rest of it is being examined by Whitehall now so that a new PM arriving in September knows what her options are. Those options need to be put to the people, not decided by some right wing Tory elected only by right wing Tory activists.
even as a Remainer, I don't want a second referendum. Like Germany we ought to outlaw them as they just open up all the fissures in our society & we all fall through. But also as said above, referenda offering a binary yes/no never allows the complexity of an issue which is seldom binary in nature, plus there would be a collapse of credibility in our democracy if the referendum was made best out of three
One reason why we should get trade deals outside the EU faster than we would as part of the EU. A quote from one of the specialist journals"National parliaments will get a say over whether a free trade deal struck between the EU & Canada is approved – instead of EU institutions only – the EU’s executive said on July 5, a move that could put significant hurdles in the way of ratification. “From a strict legal standpoint, the Commission considers this agreement to fall under exclusive EU competence”, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said, “However, the political situation in the Council is clear”. The proposal to ratify the pact as a ‘mixed’ agreement comes after a number of countries such as France, Austria & Germany insisted their national parliaments be consulted. But the EU’s executive said it would already provisionally apply the terms of the deal after a decision by Council. The need for full ratification from 28 parliaments (UK included) throws a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the deal, which took 4 years to negotiate & is the EU’s most wide-reaching trade deal to date. Bulgaria & Romania have already threatened to scupper the pact over Ottawa’s refusal to lift visa requirements for its citizens."
Will wrote: "The markets dislike uncertainty, but they dislike Brexit even more. Uncertainty with the possibility of remaining would be welcomed by most businesses."You couldn't be more wrong, Will. I deal with large corporations and small companies as part of my work and they don't give a monkeys about Brexit. All they want is certainty.
HSBC were talking about leaving London only last year, not because there was concern about Brexit, but because of the levy that the EU wanted to impose on banking transactions. They threatened to move to Hong Kong or Shanghai. EU excluded the UK and hey presto, HSBC decide to stay in the UK.
Businesses are unaffected by Brexit. What's upsetting them is that Article 50 hasn't been triggered and the certainty that will come when the negotiations are settled.
message 3906:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jul 07, 2016 05:56AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "What we need is a clearer picture about the options on the table and the risks and costs associated with each one. Much of that work has already been done by the Treasury."You're living in cloud cuckoo land, Will. Everyone will remember Project Fear from the last referendum and ignore it. Why would they believe what is being said after being lied to so thoroughly already. Idiotic.
As for delaying Article 50 to conduct another referendum. This truly makes me realise how far disconnected from reality you really are. You're not even on the same planet. By the time that's organised there won't be an economy left.
quite an interesting article about our constitution and the manner of tripping Brexit. Leavers wanted more sovereignty, but risk less as Parliament is outflanked by a Royal Prerogative, or of course Parliament ignores the referendum result altogetherhttps://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/tim-...
Back to insults when you run out of arguments, Geoff?
Will wrote: "Back to insults when you run out of arguments, Geoff?"No Will, stating how I see you. No insult intended, it is a statement of fact.
You are disconnected from reality - as demonstrated by your suggestion that we all wait while another referendum takes place.
I'm sorry if you feel you were insulted by my observation, but it doesn't make it any the less true.
No, it's an insult. How you see someone is an opinion, not a fact.
Marc wrote: "quite an interesting article about our constitution and the manner of tripping Brexit. Leavers wanted more sovereignty, but risk less as Parliament is outflanked by a Royal Prerogative, or of cours..."it is interesting.
I suspect that the 'constitutional crisis' angle is overplayed. The joy of an unwritten constitutional is that you only have a crisis if you want one :-)
Marc wrote: "quite an interesting article about our constitution and the manner of tripping Brexit. Leavers wanted more sovereignty, but risk less as Parliament is outflanked by a Royal Prerogative, or of cours..."70% of our MPs are pro-Remain - as big a gulf as you're likely to see between MPs and their constituents.
Jim wrote: "Marc wrote: "quite an interesting article about our constitution and the manner of tripping Brexit. Leavers wanted more sovereignty, but risk less as Parliament is outflanked by a Royal Prerogative..."I've been trying to get my hands on a copy of our unwritten constitution for years.
We have written statutes - laws in writing, and then there's legal precedents, but our Constitution is, as you're all saying, unwritten.We need to keep it that way.
Pam - that's hilarious! I love this bit:“Boris said ‘gosh’ and ‘cripes’ interspersed with a lot of Latin..."
Pam wrote: "Sorry, just couldn't resist posting this - Politicians Left Before Us."Yes, that one is brilliant
cheered me up no end. Should have read it before I wrote this
https://jandbvwebster.wordpress.com/2...
Your pictures and your last line definitely gave me pause for thought, Jim.
Anna wrote: "Your pictures and your last line definitely gave me pause for thought, Jim."The people who stop and think are probably not the ones who need to stop and think (does that make sense?)
Don't mind me, I just joined social media to pimp my books :-)
Will wrote: "No, it's an insult. How you see someone is an opinion, not a fact."In that case you have insulted me since the referendum. Because I voted to leave you consider me to be so unintelligent that I can be lied to and manipulated into making me vote leave. That is the premise under which you are calling for a new referendum.
Not only are you insulting me, but you are also insulting everyone here who voted leave.
In a forum like this we argue about issues. We produce evidence to back up our point of view. If we don't agree with something we give a counter argument. That's how it goes.What we should not do is to attack each other personally. That's why Goodreads does not allow ad hominem attacks on its members. Ad hominem is when a statement is "directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."
If you don't agree with a point I am making, then feel free to put a counter argument. But what you should not do is try to win an argument by making direct personal insults. Not only is it against the terms of Goodreads, but it is also counter-productive.
You might not like what I have to say but as long as I stick to the issues I have every right to say it.
I have no dislike of what you have to say, Will. The problem is that your delivery is constantly patronising.
You want patronising, Geoff?I'll give you fucking patronising.
Go throw your toys back into your pram.
An interesting article which suggests why there might be so little meeting of mindshttp://quillette.com/2016/07/08/remai...
It's an interesting article in some ways, but the author's prejudices do tend to colour it. We get the same old tired rhetoric about the EU being unelected and unaccountable. That's just not true. Ask Nigel Farage - an elected member of the European Parliament.The EU, like all international organisations, is controlled by its member states. And the Governments of those member states are elected democratically.
Except at the moment when the Prime Minister is being chosen by 150,000 Tory party members.
Please, the prime minster has NEVER been an elected position. The 150,000 are choosing the leader of the Conservative party. The Head of State chooses the individual they want for their Prime Minister, picking the person who can command a majority in the house of commons. (Which is where the democratic validation of the PM comes)Note that since the war we've had several changes of party leader of both parties, which have involved a change of prime minister. In none of these cases was it considered necessary to hold a general election
Not really. Governments work on the basis of a mandate from the people. The political parties publish a manifesto prior to a general election and they tell the people who their leader is. In modern politics, the leader of each party will make a great deal out of their background and personality. Although we don't directly elect a Prime Minister as the Americans elect a President, we do effectively choose who our next Prime Minister will be.The Head of State does not really choose the individual they want to be their Prime Minister. The impression of choice is an illusion and a throwback to the times before we were a parliamentary democracy. In reality, the Head of State could not choose anyone other than the leader of the party with a majority of MPs. The only time that the Monarch's view would have any weight would be if there was a hung Parliament that could not be resolved by the parties themselves.
We have had post-war general elections following a change of Prime Minister. Try the 1955 general election where Anthony Eden called a general election to gain a mandate after the retirement of Winston Churchill.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "You want patronising, Geoff?I'll give you fucking patronising.
Go throw your toys back into your pram."
Well, you are a teacher, what else would I expect?
message 3930:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jul 09, 2016 02:31AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "It's an interesting article in some ways, but the author's prejudices do tend to colour it. We get the same old tired rhetoric about the EU being unelected and unaccountable. That's just not true. ..."That is the ONLY body that is elected, Will. They cannot make law, they cannot elect to the other councils, as they are appointed, either by other councils or the heads of the member states. Those members of the other councils cannot be removed unless they have broken the law.
Are we all speechless on Blair's (and Campbell's to a lesser degree) responses to Chilcott?Will, you mentioned costs of holding a referendum. Any idea how much it actually costs. I know 9 million was mentioned with the mail shot by Cameron but I haven't a clue how much it all costs.
That figure must be far less in monetary terms and suffering even at today's rates than the cost of the war in Iraq, had we had a referendum in that.
Yes, Lynne, but don't forget, the reason we had a referendum on the EU was because it wan't going to be called until it was certain that we would vote remain. Blair wouldn't have gone for a referendum as he was fairly confident he would lose.
Will wrote: "We have had post-war general elections following a change of Prime Minister. Try the 1955 general election where Anthony Eden called a general election to gain a mandate after the retirement of Winston Churchill. ..."and his successor went for two years before he called an election.
So Eden was the only one since the war, the exception pretty well shows that it's not a necessity
As for governments having a mandate from the people we don't vote for a government. We vote for an individual candidate who may stand for a party. Once the election has been fought and the MPs arrive, then a government is formed. After all the last Lib-Con government stood on no single manifesto and the mandate it had came from the fact that more MPs were willing to enter the lobby at its behest than at the pleading of any other political figure
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "The second referendum debate is now moot:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2..."
well you could argue that two thirds of those who voted remain don't want a second referendum enough to vote in the poll :-)
No, the question of a second referendum is not moot. All that has happened is the current government has responded to a petition. That petition was hardly likely to succeed in its current form because it cannot be applied retrospectively. What the petition has done is to show the depth of feeling. There is absolutely nothing to stop the current government or a future one from holding a second referendum.And no Geoff the European Parliament isn't the only part of the EU which is democratically elected. Like nearly all international bodies, it is controlled by what is known as its "states party" - ie the member states including the UK.
So when the EU met last week to discuss the implications of Brexit (without us), they did that through a meeting of the democratically elected leaders of each member state. When the EU appoints a commissioner, that commissioner is chosen by one of the member states. International conventions are drafted and agreed by ... you've guessed it ... member states.
We elect our MPs. They in turn form a Government. That Government joins with other member states in controlling the EU. And it is exactly the same for every one of the international treaty organisations that we belong to, from the UN down.
Jim - we vote for both an individual MP and for the party that they stand for. The individual party manifestos form part of the offer from the parliamentary candidates to the electorate. And as part of that we are also told before the election who the party leader is, and therefore who we are voting for as potential pm.
But that petition has been proved to be inflated by people not entitled to vote anyway. I don't care how many genuine signatures are on it. The false signatures have destroyed its integrity and it's worthless.
A small number of hackers have added some fraudulent signatures. The government has tried to remove as many as they can find. That in no way affects the strength of feeling evidenced by the petition. Nor is it proof that the Remain campaign were behind those fraudulent signatures.There can be no doubt that millions of people have genuinely signed the petition.
Will wrote: "Jim - we vote for both an individual MP and for the party that they stand for. The individual party manifestos form part of the offer And as part of that we are also told before the election who the party leader is, and therefore who we are voting for as potential pm. ..."you may think you are but parties reserve the right to change their leaders at any time and as far as I can work out, over 90% of the time this does not lead to a general election in the same year
Will wrote: "A small number of hackers have added some fraudulent signatures. The government has tried to remove as many as they can find. That in no way affects the strength of feeling evidenced by the petitio..."yes, but as a proportion of those who voted in the referendum they're pretty much irrelevant.
Barely a third of those who voted remain joined in the poll.
It's like having a five pound note that's only a bit forged - it's totally irrelevant. It's a fraud. You can't give it any credibility. The spoilers have wrecked it for the genuine signatories.
Actually the poll about the referendum showed the weakness of such polls.When you are in mid term and you're raising issues such as whether a law is being properly applied, then I think they have a purpose.
When you've just had a vote and more than thirty million people voted, even if four million votes on the poll are genuine, they're irrelevant. 26 million people didn't find the cause worthwhile enough to take part in the poll
Lynne - a vote or a petition does not become invalid simply because a small number of fraudulent signatures are added. If that was the case then anyone could wreck any vote simply by adding one fraudulent signature.The petition is a reminder to the politicians that the 48% haven't gone away. If anything there are probably the majority now that a large number of leave voters are regretting their decision. Expect more of this as the brexit case continues to unravel.
And, no, Jim the e- petition cannot be compared to the number of people who voted in the referendum. They are totally different things. The second referendum or general election will be the time when the public really say what they think. And with the Leave campaign falling apart we can make our own predictions about what the outcome of that will be.
Well it should Will but it wasn't one fraudulent signature and who is going to waste time and money checking. But the people who believe in it are still talking about 4 million signatures. How many of those 'genuine' ones would have been there if they'd had to shift themselves to a polling station. A click online requires neither effort nor much thought. I said a bit false is fraud. Pure and simple,
And if there had been electoral fraud in the main referendum, would you have said the same thing? A bit of fraud makes the whole thing invalid? On that basis we could rule out the EU referendum result because of the Leave campaign's lies about the £350 million a week.An e petition is open to fraud. That's why we have secure secret ballots for referendums and general elections. And that is why we need a referendum or general election or both on the terms of our exit from the EU, or when the public have better information a decision to remain.
message 3949:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jul 10, 2016 03:17AM)
(new)
The £350 million was not a fraud, Will, it was an interpretation of the amount paid and confirmed by the ONS.When we say we get £20,000 a year salary, is that fraud? It's the same thing, it's the gross figure. you then deduct NI, tax and add in Tax Credits. But it is worth remembering that the base salary is fixed, everything else is variable.
So it is with the figure released by the ONS. The total figure is £350 million per week. The annual figure is £13 billion, from that we receive a discount of £4.5 billion. The £4.5 billion is discount that has been negotiated by the UK to receive back. However, the money coming back has strings and cannot be spent by the UK government as it pleases, it is allotted according to the EU. So although it is our money we cannot spend it as we see fit and according to our needs. It's like being given pocket money then being told that you have to put half of it in the bank and another 20% has to go to household expenses. It is what the EU dictates. It can also be changed.
So let's get away from this untruth about fraud, shall we, because that's not what it is.
Yes I would. When it relates to properly held elections. I am convinced that postal votes were 'manipulated' in at least one London borough in the general electionA petition is just that, it's not a vote, it can be rejected it can be accepted and debated and still not have the outcome the petitioners want.
'
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
