Brexit (merged threads)

[Windwalker]

Yes that means that 51.89% of those that were able to or interested enough to vote voted leave.

Which is not the same as the majority of Great Britain.

Yep but it is the democratic system and the outcome, regardless of how the remoaners try to dress it up.

[Davie P]

Its exactly what was promised, its 'leave' in its most base form. Stop paying, close the door and walk away.

 

This is quite simply untrue. No-one, not even Farage, was promising a No-Deal scenario at the time of the referendum.

[Ghostrider]

^ Its quite true, the ballot contained a choice of two words, 'leave' or 'remain'. That was it, no conditions attached.That, and only that was what folk voted on.

 

Farage especially, and everyone else punting for the 'leave' side were in no position to 'promise' anything, they were simply putting out their salesman patter for one possible scenario. "This is an illustration we prepared earlier of what could be possible........".

 

Whether folk understood what they were voting for at the time (and as far as I'm concerned it matters none whether they were too stupid to realise it, or allowed themselves to be deluded in to thinking it was something it wasn't, that's their own doing, no-one else's) the majority voted for 'leave' in any sense that it ends up being delivered.

 

To flip the scenario on its head, had 'remain' won the referendum, and we were now in a parallel universe situation of folk whining that 'but I voted remain because Cameron or whoever promised we'd get this that or the other if we remained, and as we're not I was 'misled' and would have voted leave had I known it wasn't going to happen". Do you really think anybody would entertain them? Like hell they would.

 

If remain had won, we'd be having to put up with whatever b/s comes with staying in the club, no-one's pre-referendum 'promises' were worth diddly, likewise as 'leave' won we're having to put up with whatever comes with whatever route leaving takes, pre-referendum 'promises' have no worth there either.

[Davie P]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you have no problem with Leave trying circumvent parliament's sovereignty to deliver an outcome they didn't mention as a possibility during their campaign. Is there nothing you find concerning about that?

[Ghostrider]

^ I have no idea what 'Leave' may or may not have mentioned during their campaign. Like I said none of them were in a position to 'promise' anything post referendum. I voted based on the questions asked, as they were asked on the ballot, and in the full understanding that if 'Leave' won, a 'No Deal' scenario was equally as likely as any other.

 

I'd rather Boris hadn't taken the proroguing route, but the jury is still out as to whether I have a 'problem' with it or not. Firstly he's not 'Leave', he's PM, who so far anyway, appears to be pursuing a 'leave' agenda - time will tell what he actually delivers......

 

We're in a very unusual if not unique situation. The referendum produced a 'leave' majority, yet a subsequent election produced what appeared to be a 'remainer' majority parliament, which wasn't promising for getting anything done. May, an apparent 'remainer' tried for three years to push through just about every alternative to a 'No deal' there is, and couldn't get it past either parliament, the EU, or both.

 

Something had to be done to break the stalemate, as the alternative of continued bickering going round in circles and achieving nothing as has been for the last three years is no longer an option. There comes a point when keeping on doing the same thing but expecting a different result comes in to play......Bickering on for so long should never have been an option in the first place, but there you go......

 

Boris has chosen proroguing to break that stalemate, whether it is the 'best' way, whether its a justifiable way, or  if its even the only viable way to make progress, like I said, jury's still out. No happy about it, but willing to be persuaded the ends justify the means.......

[Davie P]

I don't disagree with the thrust of what you're saying, but the whole thing rests on the slim majority of a pre-legislative referendum over three years ago. However, the the result of the recent European elections were (arguably) pro-EU - and as you say, the "subsequent election produced what appeared to be a 'remainer' majority parliament", and the Prime Minister doesn't have a working majority to support his plans.

 

Whilst I agree the deadlock should be broken, in this case deadlock = the status quo, and in the absence of any compelling support for a no-deal Brexit I'm not sure suspending parliament to force through a deeply divisive agenda will satisfy any principles of democracy.

 

---

 

IMHO, the most troublesome aspect of all of this is that a considerable percentage of the population seem willing to accept a Prime Minister acting without the support of parliament. I understand Brexit supporters' willingness to accept this as a short-term fix, but It's a dangerous precedent, and we should carefully consider the wider implications.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Davie P

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@ Davie P - There was more than one Leave campaign group.

[Davie P]

Yes, I know

[Davie P]

Did anyone see Michael Gove on the Andrew Marr show this morning?

 

As well as completely contradicting himself on the issue of proroguing parliament (he had previously dismissed the idea and declared it undemocratic, but now seems to think it's fine), he refused to confirm that the government would comply with any new legislation passed by parliament. Sadly, that's no surprise as they've already been pulled up in the High Court for trying to by-pass parliament, and were also held in contempt of parliament.

 

The 'democratic' argument for pushing through a no-deal Brexit based on a slim majority pre-legislative referendum 3 years ago is on very shaky ground indeed. We are now in the making of an unprecedented abuse of governmental executive power.

[Roachmill]

I grew up during the P&J strikes in Aberdeen. Gove was widely regarded as a rat somethinged SOB back then. Not surprised he's no better now. He's a perfect fit for the Conservatives.

[Muckle Oxters]

It's no a good start fur Boris in parliament danight!

[Redrobbie99]

Public anger at these remain MP's is now reaching boiling point come a general election many of them are going to be swept aside . 

[Davie P]

^ an interesting interpretation considering the recent UK wide protests about Johnson's attempts to by-pass parliament. I haven't seen much in the way of public support for Johnson, even in the right-leaning media?

 

But yes, a General Election would seem like the best solution

[Urabug]

Well whether Boris is right or wrong is wide open to personal opinion, but to rule out a "no deal brexit" is total stupidity .

 

Everyone has the right to walk a way from a deal if it does not meet there requirements,now we more or less have to accept anything that the EU will give us, should this ruling become law. 

 

What a bunch of numpties trying to run this country. Mob rule.

[Ghostrider]

So, what is the remainers end game?

 

Keep us in this eternal limbo of the last three years for who knows how many years to come, destroying the country in the process with the uncertainty. Or, start a civil war by continually blocking any form of brexit by whatever means they can dream up, in the hope folk get fed up waiting and it all just fades away in to obscurity with nothing changed.

 

Neither will end well,

 

One of their own tried for three years to please everybody, and only succeeded in pissing off everybody and making herself look a bumbling moron in the process, Boris has tried the only other option for moving ahead that ison the table, and has been headed off at the pass in the first squirmish. Time will tell if he can mount a successful counter attack.

 

So, just how do remainers propose to break this stalemate seeing it is they who have now blocked all the known viable options that could achieve progress.