Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Deleted member 21784]

This is not looking at it correctly. It is not rational.

Premise 1: there is an EU law coming in.

Premise 2: this law will cost JRM money.

Conclusion: JRM wants to leave the EU because of this.

Is premise 1 true? Do you have evidence for it? Have you read it? If it is true does it make premise 2 true? Can you show that this law will actually cost JRM money?

If both are true, is the conclusion true? The answer is no.

Even if we could prove JRM will save money because of Brexit this still wouldn’t show that is why he wants to leave. It would remain one possibility out of many other possibilities.

If you choose to believe the MPs hats off to you.

Only have to see boris', video doing the rounds the other day saying how he loves the single market and would vote to stay in if there was a vote only to completely turn around in the leave campaign ..

Can't trust them, best to have them overseen by the EU before they do something bad

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Can I nominate this for the most honest post in this thread?

Sorry Richard but my post, in which I called 2 posters on this thread a naughty name (for which Fragger chastised me) was even more honest than MM’s, even if only by a hair!

 

[Slime]

Could I take it a step further. I'd suggest that the vast majority of those saying Leave voters don't know what version of Leave they wanted has actually been Remain voters. And that the vast majority of those asking the questions have done so to discredit or in some way split the Leave vote.
Of the Leave voters I've asked, each one has had their version of Leave, just as Remainers have had their version of Remain.
Just as some have suggested a second vote with the options being Leave with a deal, Leave with No Deal or Remain, perhaps the Remain vote should also be split into those who want the status quo, those that wanted a return to a trading bloc(me) or those that want even greater integration.
Sounds very fair to me.

Silly Billy....that will split the Remain vote and ooooooooooooooooooooooops!

I have a plan that might possibly, just possibly, suit both sides of the debate ..................... bear with me on this.
Another referendum with three choices.
1. Remain in the EU ................ nothing changes.
2. Leave with a deal.
3. Leave with no deal.

Now, I know what you're thinking, but wait a minute.

The leave votes, options 2 & 3, are added together and, if they fail to achieve 50%, we stay as we are, option 1 wins.
If they do achieve at least 50% we then leave and they way we leave is purely according to which of options 2 & 3 received the most votes.

I can't help thinking though, if option 1 were to win, there would be a mahoosive amount of unrest and we'd probably be heading towards a best of three scenario!
Hopefully that wouldn't be the case.
Where's a fingers crossed emoji when you really need one?

 

[harpo_72]

Throughout this debate I have seen frequent references to Leave voters not knowing what form of Leave they were voting for and this may well be true.

However, what I have not seen is a corresponding lack of certainty over Remain voters.

Some may well have been voting for the then status quo.

Others may have wanted to remain within the EU as a trading bloc but with a changed relationship as initially pursued by Cameron.

Finally there would undoubtedly have been some who were not only happy to Remain but were also willing to accept the increased federalism proposed by some in Europe.

I know which was my preference but I very much doubt that all my fellow Remain voters had thought it through any more than their Leave counterparts and yet it appears to be only the latter group whose motives have been questioned.

I think some of the comments have been post-request for a referendum on leaving.
I think those who are more aware would seek to address the perceived issues with Europe. In a way this 3 years has provided us with a lot of information and I also think the EU has seen that some of their future plans are not so popular.
I would also argue that we have not been very good participants of the EU .. we have not communicated well and nor have we made reasonable requests, with solutions.
We have benefited hugely from our membership and the discussion about money going out is never offered with the money coming back in - because it makes it a redundant argument.
Would it split the remain vote, I don't think so, is there any point in voting on something that we cannot change because we missed the boat the first time ? Not really. The only thing I would want is we embrace our membership and become a leading voice not a bunch of whinging cry babies being awkward when ever.

Take the Leave situation you were promised a load of stuff and yet have they delivered any of it ... I don't think so.
Had they delivered Leave would have persuaded the remainer factions not all but a good few,

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Throughout this debate I have seen frequent references to Leave voters not knowing what form of Leave they were voting for and this may well be true.

However, what I have not seen is a corresponding lack of certainty over Remain voters.

Some may well have been voting for the then status quo.

Others may have wanted to remain within the EU as a trading bloc but with a changed relationship as initially pursued by Cameron.

Finally there would undoubtedly have been some who were not only happy to Remain but were also willing to accept the increased federalism proposed by some in Europe.

I know which was my preference but I very much doubt that all my fellow Remain voters had thought it through any more than their Leave counterparts and yet it appears to be only the latter group whose motives have been questioned.

I can understand the point you are making and I think it was one of the issues of having such a binary vote of “in or out” - the vote didn’t state what sort of in or out people wanted because there are multiple variants - the “campaigners” etc made multiple promises but ultimately if we take what the vote stated it was an Out vote - that’s it .

But I think the whole process was under estimated - why people voted one way or the other shouldn’t really matter because it will be near on impossible to satisfy even every voter who voted leave - some wanted to stay connect in various ways , some wanted to have a deal , some wanted to leave totally with no deal but these were all option open to the government after the vote was cast but there was no mandate for which way they go in that “out” journey

And when it comes to how people wanted to stay “in” - do we have a choice ? If the vote ended up being to “stay in “ the UK government surely would just carry on and continue to develop the relationship with the EU ( and keep our special deal )

Either way this whole process has caused a lot of issues and problems through every level of society and in families and social circles with some of this issues very deep rooted now and beyond repair. Interesting and prob hard times ahead for many

 

[Deleted member 16999]

My opinion is that there is too much emphasise on why people voted the way they did and what may have influenced their decision. When we vote in any National Poll their will always be campaigns from the interested parties to influence our voting decisions, these will include positive and negative spin and claims that are questionable in their honesty. It is up to the individual to educate themselves and come to a decision, after the votes are counted it's no good people suggesting those that had a different view were wrong in their decision or even too stupid to be allowed a vote. Its never perfect but it's the best we have.
I do have concerns though, the new way of dragging decisions through the courts to question political outcomes that are not in line with the will of some influential people is going to be fairly normal practice.

You can’t use that argument comparing the Referendum to other Elections, every other Election will have People associated with Parties who produce manifesto’s and have a detailed current history.
The Referendum was unique in that it crossed Political Lines, it wasn’t fought under normal circumstances and ultimately there wasn’t an individual being held responsible for either side.
Yes I agree it is down to individuals to do their own research etc, but let’s not pretend the Referendum Campaign was genuine from either side.
Then on the ballot paper was a very basic question to which the answer was anything but basic.

 

[drdel]

I think some of the comments have been post-request for a referendum on leaving.
I think those who are more aware would seek to address the perceived issues with Europe. In a way this 3 years has provided us with a lot of information and I also think the EU has seen that some of their future plans are not so popular.
I would also argue that we have not been very good participants of the EU .. we have not communicated well and nor have we made reasonable requests, with solutions.
We have benefited hugely from our membership and the discussion about money going out is never offered with the money coming back in - because it makes it a redundant argument.
Would it split the remain vote, I don't think so, is there any point in voting on something that we cannot change because we missed the boat the first time ? Not really. The only thing I would want is we embrace our membership and become a leading voice not a bunch of whinging cry babies being awkward when ever.

Take the Leave situation you were promised a load of stuff and yet have they delivered any of it ... I don't think so.
Had they delivered Leave would have persuaded the remainer factions not all but a good few,

I think your opinions may not stand up to much research / scrutiny, especially your financial claim we've gained more that its cost - be careful to add the additional contributions the public sector and corporations (often 50%) have to make towards EU's so-called 'grants'.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1188831701654482945

Bit of a long tweet

But showing that brexit is paving the way for the NHS to be sold off to the US

Happy days

 

[Foxholer]

Or you could look at it correctly and notice the driving forces behind brexit like Jacob ree mogg etc are euro sceptic because they are set to have to declare their earnings and pay tax.. costing them money

Simple really.

Utter twaddle!
They've ALWAYS ben required o 'delare their earnings and pay tax'!

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Utter twaddle!
They've ALWAYS ben required o 'delare their earnings and pay tax'!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...t-investment-firm-belgravia-a7902951.html?amp

 

[drdel]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1188831701654482945

Bit of a long tweet

But showing that brexit is paving the way for the NHS to be sold off to the US

Happy days

Extrapolating beyond logic. There's a massive difference in a materials procurement issue and a takeover !!!

 

[patricks148]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1188831701654482945

Bit of a long tweet

But showing that brexit is paving the way for the NHS to be sold off to the US

Happy days

But Broris assured us its not for sale and isn't on the table to US buy outs...

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Extrapolating beyond logic. There's a massive difference in a materials procurement issue and a takeover !!!

Slowly but surely will be sold off

People say we can't trust the EU and are sceptical about them

Yet trust the conservatives to protect something they have wanted to rip apart for years? It costs them too much money

Why pay to help others when one can have more money for ones self

 

[Deleted member 21784]

But Broris assured us its not for sale and isn't on the table to US buy outs...

I thought he would rather be dead in a ditch than delay brexit past 31st Oct

 

[patricks148]

I thought he would rather be dead in a ditch than delay brexit past 31st Oct

i assumed when he said in a ditch he meant his latest Mistress

 

[Foxholer]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-conservative-mp-north-east-somerset-capital-management-investment-firm-belgravia-a7902951.html?amp

Nothing in that story clashes with my previous post!
If you can prove otherwise, I'll happily donate a tenner to H4H! If, as I expect, you cannot, I suggest you do so!
Btw. It's npt because I'm a JR-M fan - as I'm decidedly not! I'm simply a fan of FACTS!
My understanding is that it's the 'interest' in the likes of SCM that hs to be declared, not the consequential dividend (as stated by JR-M) - as that can be derived by other means!
PS. Please excuse the 'keyboard malfunctions (missed letters)' in the previous post.

 

[Hobbit]

I can understand the point you are making and I think it was one of the issues of having such a binary vote of “in or out” - the vote didn’t state what sort of in or out people wanted because there are multiple variants - the “campaigners” etc made multiple promises but ultimately if we take what the vote stated it was an Out vote - that’s it .

But I think the whole process was under estimated - why people voted one way or the other shouldn’t really matter because it will be near on impossible to satisfy even every voter who voted leave - some wanted to stay connect in various ways , some wanted to have a deal , some wanted to leave totally with no deal but these were all option open to the government after the vote was cast but there was no mandate for which way they go in that “out” journey

And when it comes to how people wanted to stay “in” - do we have a choice ? If the vote ended up being to “stay in “ the UK government surely would just carry on and continue to develop the relationship with the EU ( and keep our special deal )

Either way this whole process has caused a lot of issues and problems through every level of society and in families and social circles with some of this issues very deep rooted now and beyond repair. Interesting and prob hard times ahead for many

Some good points.

On the issue of we don't know what the various options were that people wanted. That's an impossible circle to square once, and was made even more so once the waters were muddied by asking it. Was it deliberately asked, post-Referendum, to make going forward impossible? There's some very, very intelligent people out there who may well have recognised the difficulties asking it would cause - nowt like a Remain PM to really screw things up - but maybe thats just me being cynical.

There were 2 simple solutions; Leave, then negotiate. Or negotiate a framework trade agreement at the same time as the WA. It could have had a start date 24hrs after Leave. That would have satisfied those in the EU about the sanctity of Art 50. But once the EU realised how bloody wet May was about leaving they became emboldened. Thats changed with Johnson's hardline negotiating stance - they've bent over backward on this extension., even after Johnson's second letter.

As for Remain and hope to change the EU, my preferred option. I think Cameron's efforts to get something out of the EU prior to the vote showed how little the EU is willing to change. And since then, for all many people having said they think the EU got it wrong, the EU has had plenty of time to up the offer, and it hasn't happened.

"Carry on and develop the relationship..." apart from the UK's money, the UK has always been seen as a nuisance that has been tolerated because of the money. And for all the perception that the UK hasn't tried to be a part of the EU, the UK implements more of the EU rules than almost every other EU member state bar Germany. It laughable when reading on here about workers rights and environmental protection - they are EU laws and they are barely nodded at here in southern Spain but they've been fully implemented in the UK. The UK argues like hell when it feels its in the right but when the ref blows the whistle they behave.

 

[Foxholer]

I love Chaka Umanna's stoicism!

His main thrust of this interview https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50208063/chuka-umunna-our-primary-goal-is-stopping-brexit
is that 'we simply haven't had the support from a significant number of... MPs....to get it through'.

Has he not realised that his/their idea is simply a non-starter!

 

[Dando]

Slowly but surely will be sold off

People say we can't trust the EU and are sceptical about them

Yet trust the conservatives to protect something they have wanted to rip apart for years? It costs them too much money

Why pay to help others when one can have more money for ones self

I guess labours PFI contracts have done wonders for the nhs budgets

 

[Deleted member 18645]

Independent Group for Change leader Anna Soubry says a further referendum, rather than an election, would be the best route forward - adding it is “within our grasp".

Which actually means "an election would mean my constituents would kick me out of a job so I don't want any part of one thank you"