Well then he'd better tell Cat Smith to stop objecting to giving UK citizens in the EU a vote on 'administrative' grounds. Well assuming he doesn't want another Brexit vote. Maybe that's a heroic assumption on my part...
He has broken cover a bit early, but it is inevitable. Mays plan will be voted down - FACT, the House won't sanction a hard Brexit - They know they have the numbers to stop that. The solution to the impass is another vote. But it does still have to be won - sorry to keep harping on about it, but things need to happen after May's vote gets voted down. Let the ERG get the blame for it! Please, It is important.
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
Ok, I'll qualify that with "a large proportion", though I think it's implied that it's the ones claiming that "more democracy is bad for democracy" are the ones who cling most tightly to the "will of the people" reasoning.
He has broken cover a bit early, but it is inevitable. Mays plan will be voted down - FACT, the House won't sanction a hard Brexit - They know they have the numbers to stop that. The solution to the impass is another vote. But it does still have to be won - sorry to keep harping on about it, but things need to happen after May's vote gets voted down. Let the ERG get the blame for it! Please, It is important.
Another vote is not necessarily a “solution to the impass” - don’t make the mistake of complacency that result would be remain, I’m not convinced that it would.
Another vote for leave and we’re in a weird place if parliament vote down May’s “deal”.
He has broken cover a bit early, but it is inevitable. Mays plan will be voted down - FACT, the House won't sanction a hard Brexit - They know they have the numbers to stop that. The solution to the impass is another vote. But it does still have to be won - sorry to keep harping on about it, but things need to happen after May's vote gets voted down. Let the ERG get the blame for it! Please, It is important.
Another vote is not necessarily a “solution to the impass” - don’t make the mistake of complacency that result would be remain, I’m not convinced that it would.
Another vote for leave and we’re in a weird place if parliament vote down May’s “deal”.
That is what I am saying. A lot of the remainers on here take it for granted, but it isn't and it is important that the ERG loons are blamed by many - not remainers. Of course remainers will be blamed, but we have to keep our heads low and mitigate the damage. It is like a snooker player thinking a couple of shots ahead.
He has broken cover a bit early, but it is inevitable. Mays plan will be voted down - FACT, the House won't sanction a hard Brexit - They know they have the numbers to stop that. The solution to the impass is another vote. But it does still have to be won - sorry to keep harping on about it, but things need to happen after May's vote gets voted down. Let the ERG get the blame for it! Please, It is important.
Another vote is not necessarily a “solution to the impass” - don’t make the mistake of complacency that result would be remain, I’m not convinced that it would.
Another vote for leave and we’re in a weird place if parliament vote down May’s “deal”.
That is what I am saying. A lot of the remainers on here take it for granted, but it isn't and it is important that the ERG loons are blamed by many - not remainers. Of course remainers will be blamed, but we have to keep our heads low and mitigate the damage. It is like a snooker player thinking a couple of shots ahead.
Doesn’t seem very ‘heads low’ to me stating it on a public forum
Unless I've misread things, that thing you said would happen hasn't happened, today's comments are a bit too conditional for my tastes (Don't get me wrong, I'd be delighted to be proved utterly wrong).
And, even if it were to happen, the question(s) asked of the electorate will be just as important as the fact of a plebiscite. At the moment, I cannot see an agreed formulation that would gain Parliamentary support.
I have my doubts whether either the Conservative or Labour Parties in Westminster can find a way, whilst brandishing their qualifications as honourable and honest public servants, to easily resile themselves from their manifesto commitments about honouring the 2016 referendum.
I even, occasionally, have misgivings about whether they wish to, or whether they will, instead, seek to fashion a Brexit in their own image...
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
And me mate.
Could you remind me what your reasons are? What are you looking forward to in your personal life as a result of Brexit?
But I/we am not important - It is a Charlton forum!
It is therefore the most important forum
True - but it probably doesn't register that high with most of the population - sadly
The only ones that count are those on here
Actually, being serious, over the course of two years and with just a few exceptions, the debate on this thread has been far superior to the coverage in the media and far far superior than that conducted by our political ‘leaders’.
But I/we am not important - It is a Charlton forum!
It is therefore the most important forum
True - but it probably doesn't register that high with most of the population - sadly
The only ones that count are those on here
Actually, being serious, over the course of two years and with just a few exceptions, the debate on this thread has been far superior to the coverage in the media and far far superior than that conducted by our political ‘leaders’.
Agreed - I have learnt a lot and it has helped keep me in touch with what's happening as it is likely to have a direct impact on me. Thanks to the regular contributors and to the moderators for keeping it on track.
The Brexit deal offered to May is nothing but a punishment deal. Would love to know how all these 'expert' remainers know exactly what is going to happen if and state IF we ever are allowed to leave the corrupt and unelected EU!
It's not clear to me how Miller envisages a 180 degree change in direction without a change of government? Single issue meets political reality? Who was it that said to expect the same people and same culture to deliver a different outcome is the definition of insanity?
What leap of faith are we all expected to take whereby we think Remain or an intangible Norway/BINO option might win in a national plebiscite? Or that today's Cabinet might be trusted to make the right calls after the WA is defeated? The call for a referendum throughout 2017 was opportunist and simply antagonised, nay gave justification to the ERG, hard Brexit brigade who wish to leave everything in their pursuit of ideological purity and of course the dream trade deal with the US. It's anti-democratic and seeking to overturn "the will of the people"
May deliberately stalled for 15 months but now we have the WA draft. We can both respect the 2016 result, and recognise that the reality of the proposed WA is somewhat different to the prospectus. Who says so? Everybody! Thus the call today for a People's vote is entirely justified for it is an entirely different discussion. Not Remain vs an abstract Leave prospect ranging from Norway to North Korea. No, today the option is very clear: A tangible WA (with no guarantee of an FTA at the end and no Single Market) vs Remain
If the House votes the WA through, then we are doing this Brexit thing - People can blame who they want but ultimately it's the MPs voting through the WA who own the decision. But that appears highly unlikely at the first hurdle, and should it be defeated, then it's because the opposition parties have found both common ground to defeat WA AND agree the road map taking us to March 29th and beyond. Without that common ground the risk of a No Deal Brexit becomes uncomfortably high. So it's all very well asserting that Corbyn is prioritising power over stopping Brexit, but one needs to be in power (and retain it) to put the brakes on.
Perhaps McDonnell is laying the groundwork by talking up the inevitably of a referendum today just as May tours the country trying to top up the hopeless poll ratings for the WA. The fact is that May and the Conservative Party are against a second referendum and the legislation required to give the People's vote a chance AND to revoke Article 50 simply MUST be driven by the Government. Therefore one can conclude that a second referendum requires a Government of national unity which is designed to exclude Brextremists and those who have taken us along the path to date.
The People's Vote is a great brand but there has to be substance underneath. Defeating the WA has to be followed by a change of government- a national coalition if you will, so as to execute either a second referendum or a meaningful shift in the WA and post Brexit approach. At the same time an alternative outcome is emerging driven by pro remain Cabinet ministers and that is "Norway plus" or BINO. The Guardian suggests they think they can rally a Commons majority with support from the SNP and DUP. Time will tell but why would the SNP, Lib Dems and Labour let the Tories off the hook? EFTA gives no restriction on Freedom of movement but not Remain either. And it honours the referendum result plus kills off the Hard Brexit argument.
May will attempt to cling on to power but is she the right person given the deliberate delays? And is it soon the right time to take power away from the Tories? For Miller is entirely correct in describing this Brexit strategy as the biggest right wing experiment since the 1930s. The end game is horrendous and we have all seen the Alt-Right agenda at play wooing the white working class and blaming elites.
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
Ok, I'll qualify that with "a large proportion", though I think it's implied that it's the ones claiming that "more democracy is bad for democracy" are the ones who cling most tightly to the "will of the people" reasoning.
Before the next referendum, let us remind ourselves of a few things claimed by the 'more democracy' Remainers:
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
-referenda are advisory only and not binding on the government
-Just because a Party has support for something in their manifesto does not mean they have to carry it out
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
-Rich and powerful people with control of or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
Then let us see how much of this they apply to their 'more democracy' referendum. I can guarantee that reasons will be found to reverse all of it.
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
Ok, I'll qualify that with "a large proportion", though I think it's implied that it's the ones claiming that "more democracy is bad for democracy" are the ones who cling most tightly to the "will of the people" reasoning.
Before the next referendum, let us remind ourselves of a few things claimed by the 'more democracy' Remainers:
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
-referenda are advisory only
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
-Rich and powerful people with control or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
Then let us see how much of this they apply to their 'more democracy' referendum. I can guarantee that reasons will be found to reverse all of it.
You forgot to mention the winning campaigners engaging in electoral fraud, money laundering and collaborating with foreign agents.
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
Ok, I'll qualify that with "a large proportion", though I think it's implied that it's the ones claiming that "more democracy is bad for democracy" are the ones who cling most tightly to the "will of the people" reasoning.
Before the next referendum, let us remind ourselves of a few things claimed by the 'more democracy' Remainers:
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
-referenda are advisory only
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
-Rich and powerful people with control or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
Then let us see how much of this they apply to their 'more democracy' referendum. I can guarantee that reasons will be found to reverse all of it.
You forgot to mention the winning campaigners engaging in electoral fraud, money laundering and collaborating with foreign agents.
But I/we am not important - It is a Charlton forum!
It is therefore the most important forum
True - but it probably doesn't register that high with most of the population - sadly
The only ones that count are those on here
Actually, being serious, over the course of two years and with just a few exceptions, the debate on this thread has been far superior to the coverage in the media and far far superior than that conducted by our political ‘leaders’.
Agreed - I have learnt a lot and it has helped keep me in touch with what's happening as it is likely to have a direct impact on me. Thanks to the regular contributors and to the moderators for keeping it on track.
@CharltonMadrid I can't remember exactly what your, @Algarveaddick, @PragueAddick and any other EU based forum member's circumstances are, but it's worth having a look at this thread on the Habitual Residence Test for benefits are, should you need to move back here. It's significantly more complicated than you might expect, and somewhat reliant on the DWP and HMRC not being officious arseholes.
It seems that AgeUK have been preparing for the possibility of a bunch of British pensioners moving back from Spain post-Brexit, as they've just issued a new fact sheet on the subject. While some of it won't apply if you're below pension age, it may bring up some stuff you've not thought of.
For those interested in the latest polls, this has just appeared. No time to write around the findings plus there's a temptation to retrofit a narrative around the numbers. All one can say is that there has been a significant shift since the WA was released and some of it is not in May's favour.
The Brexit deal offered to May is nothing but a punishment deal. Would love to know how all these 'expert' remainers know exactly what is going to happen if and state IF we ever are allowed to leave the corrupt and unelected EU!
It is hard to believe because it seems remote, and there are degrees of separation, but the powers that be in the EU, all of them actually, are in some way elected, even 'appointments' are made by elected national government leaders. The UK is well aware and was completely involved in EU governance not least because with over 40 years membership the UK has been heavily involved in establishing EU structures.
Still can't get over the argument that more democracy is bad for democracy
The last reason Brexiteers cling on to is that it's "The will of the people". If that is taken away from them via a second vote, then all that's left is xenophobia and an irrational dislike of Europe as reasons to still leave.
Nonsense. I am not xenophobic and have spent many years working in Europe, but my reasons to leave are still valid to me.
Ok, I'll qualify that with "a large proportion", though I think it's implied that it's the ones claiming that "more democracy is bad for democracy" are the ones who cling most tightly to the "will of the people" reasoning.
Before the next referendum, let us remind ourselves of a few things claimed by the 'more democracy' Remainers:
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
-referenda are advisory only
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
-Rich and powerful people with control or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
Then let us see how much of this they apply to their 'more democracy' referendum. I can guarantee that reasons will be found to reverse all of it.
You forgot to mention the winning campaigners engaging in electoral fraud, money laundering and collaborating with foreign agents.
So you agree with me on the rest?
Well lets run through your points:
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
Interesting point. We should therefore consider what other countries do for sweeping constitutional changes - 2 thirds majority to change the constitution or some other clear margin of victory, as well as a minimum turnout. Having such a huge constitutional change on such a close result would be incredibly divisive and not a clear indication of what the people want.
-referenda are advisory only
The 2016 referendum was explicitly advisory and non-binding in the legislation. In contract, the Scottish referendum was binding.
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
Well generally but mainly because Murdoch's tabloids and the Daily Mail are not above outright lying to their readers and regularly do so to further the personal goals of their owners. In particular, most of the stuff written in the various newspapers regarding our EU membership is false on some level.
-Rich and powerful people with control or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
Agreed. There should be strict controls on spending and actual meaningful sanctions (including nullifying the result) if the winning campaign does not conform to the rules. The referendum ought to be run under proper electoral rules. The only way Leave campaigners will play by the rules is if there is sufficient power there to nullify the result if they cheat or lie during the campaign, since after the conduct of the various Leave campaigns during 2016, they cannot be trusted to act in a way that is democratic or promotes honesty and integrity. There also need to be stricter rules and monitoring of online campaigning and data manipulation as current laws are not fit for purpose and allowed the Leave campaigns to collaborate with Cambridge Analytica and Russia to promote millions of pounds worth of illegal content to defraud voters, such as my father-in-law.
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
As Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested, we should have one referendum to begin the negotiations (the 2016 referendum) and another referendum to decide on the deal. Likewise, as Farage said days before the vote, if the result was close there should be a second referendum. There are many more examples of Leave supporters promoting continuing the debate after the 2016 referendum since all sides understood and agreed before the 2016 vote that it was advisory and should not be treated as a final decision on our country's membership of the EU.
Comments
Another vote for leave and we’re in a weird place if parliament vote down May’s “deal”.
I am shook.
And, even if it were to happen, the question(s) asked of the electorate will be just as important as the fact of a plebiscite. At the moment, I cannot see an agreed formulation that would gain Parliamentary support.
I have my doubts whether either the Conservative or Labour Parties in Westminster can find a way, whilst brandishing their qualifications as honourable and honest public servants, to easily resile themselves from their manifesto commitments about honouring the 2016 referendum.
I even, occasionally, have misgivings about whether they wish to, or whether they will, instead, seek to fashion a Brexit in their own image...
Actually, being serious, over the course of two years and with just a few exceptions, the debate on this thread has been far superior to the coverage in the media and far far superior than that conducted by our political ‘leaders’.
Would love to know how all these 'expert' remainers know exactly
what is going to happen if and state IF we ever are allowed to leave
the corrupt and unelected EU!
What leap of faith are we all expected to take whereby we think Remain or an intangible Norway/BINO option might win in a national plebiscite? Or that today's Cabinet might be trusted to make the right calls after the WA is defeated? The call for a referendum throughout 2017 was opportunist and simply antagonised, nay gave justification to the ERG, hard Brexit brigade who wish to leave everything in their pursuit of ideological purity and of course the dream trade deal with the US. It's anti-democratic and seeking to overturn "the will of the people"
May deliberately stalled for 15 months but now we have the WA draft. We can both respect the 2016 result, and recognise that the reality of the proposed WA is somewhat different to the prospectus. Who says so? Everybody! Thus the call today for a People's vote is entirely justified for it is an entirely different discussion. Not Remain vs an abstract Leave prospect ranging from Norway to North Korea. No, today the option is very clear: A tangible WA (with no guarantee of an FTA at the end and no Single Market) vs Remain
If the House votes the WA through, then we are doing this Brexit thing - People can blame who they want but ultimately it's the MPs voting through the WA who own the decision. But that appears highly unlikely at the first hurdle, and should it be defeated, then it's because the opposition parties have found both common ground to defeat WA AND agree the road map taking us to March 29th and beyond. Without that common ground the risk of a No Deal Brexit becomes uncomfortably high. So it's all very well asserting that Corbyn is prioritising power over stopping Brexit, but one needs to be in power (and retain it) to put the brakes on.
Perhaps McDonnell is laying the groundwork by talking up the inevitably of a referendum today just as May tours the country trying to top up the hopeless poll ratings for the WA. The fact is that May and the Conservative Party are against a second referendum and the legislation required to give the People's vote a chance AND to revoke Article 50 simply MUST be driven by the Government. Therefore one can conclude that a second referendum requires a Government of national unity which is designed to exclude Brextremists and those who have taken us along the path to date.
The People's Vote is a great brand but there has to be substance underneath. Defeating the WA has to be followed by a change of government- a national coalition if you will, so as to execute either a second referendum or a meaningful shift in the WA and post Brexit approach. At the same time an alternative outcome is emerging driven by pro remain Cabinet ministers and that is "Norway plus" or BINO. The Guardian suggests they think they can rally a Commons majority with support from the SNP and DUP. Time will tell but why would the SNP, Lib Dems and Labour let the Tories off the hook? EFTA gives no restriction on Freedom of movement but not Remain either. And it honours the referendum result plus kills off the Hard Brexit argument.
May will attempt to cling on to power but is she the right person given the deliberate delays? And is it soon the right time to take power away from the Tories? For Miller is entirely correct in describing this Brexit strategy as the biggest right wing experiment since the 1930s. The end game is horrendous and we have all seen the Alt-Right agenda at play wooing the white working class and blaming elites.
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
-referenda are advisory only and not binding on the government
-Just because a Party has support for something in their manifesto does not mean they have to carry it out
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
-Rich and powerful people with control of or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
Then let us see how much of this they apply to their 'more democracy' referendum. I can guarantee that reasons will be found to reverse all of it.
It seems that AgeUK have been preparing for the possibility of a bunch of British pensioners moving back from Spain post-Brexit, as they've just issued a new fact sheet on the subject. While some of it won't apply if you're below pension age, it may bring up some stuff you've not thought of.
The UK is well aware and was completely involved in EU governance not least because with over 40 years membership the UK has been heavily involved in establishing EU structures.
The one in 2016 is not the only one that has ever happened.
-37% of voters who vote is not a majority, only more than 50% counts
Interesting point. We should therefore consider what other countries do for sweeping constitutional changes - 2 thirds majority to change the constitution or some other clear margin of victory, as well as a minimum turnout. Having such a huge constitutional change on such a close result would be incredibly divisive and not a clear indication of what the people want.
-referenda are advisory only
The 2016 referendum was explicitly advisory and non-binding in the legislation. In contract, the Scottish referendum was binding.
-If something is supported by Murdoch's papers or the Daily Mail it is wrong
Well generally but mainly because Murdoch's tabloids and the Daily Mail are not above outright lying to their readers and regularly do so to further the personal goals of their owners. In particular, most of the stuff written in the various newspapers regarding our EU membership is false on some level.
-Rich and powerful people with control or access to the media should not be allowed to influence the result
Agreed. There should be strict controls on spending and actual meaningful sanctions (including nullifying the result) if the winning campaign does not conform to the rules. The referendum ought to be run under proper electoral rules. The only way Leave campaigners will play by the rules is if there is sufficient power there to nullify the result if they cheat or lie during the campaign, since after the conduct of the various Leave campaigns during 2016, they cannot be trusted to act in a way that is democratic or promotes honesty and integrity. There also need to be stricter rules and monitoring of online campaigning and data manipulation as current laws are not fit for purpose and allowed the Leave campaigns to collaborate with Cambridge Analytica and Russia to promote millions of pounds worth of illegal content to defraud voters, such as my father-in-law.
-If you have a referendum and you lose, you should have another referendum two years later because 'things have changed', duh.
As Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested, we should have one referendum to begin the negotiations (the 2016 referendum) and another referendum to decide on the deal. Likewise, as Farage said days before the vote, if the result was close there should be a second referendum. There are many more examples of Leave supporters promoting continuing the debate after the 2016 referendum since all sides understood and agreed before the 2016 vote that it was advisory and should not be treated as a final decision on our country's membership of the EU.