Brexit Negotiations

[jaybee]

1 minute ago, stlucifer said:

The first sentence IS the blackmail. She knows everyone with any sense knows a no deal exit would be disastrous. The very mention of it by this government has started businesses  revising their forward planning. And not in a good way.  irrelevant as she is obliged to follow the mandate of the people

I never mentioned what Europe thought as they are looking after their collective interest. Britain needs to look after Britain's interest. That means looking at the best deal which is neither May's deal or no deal. If it is leave then other options must be looked at including remaining in the custom's union with all that entails. OR, parliament deciding there is no good way to leave and rescinding A50. OR, deciding there is no overall majority for any of the options and deciding the people need to be once more consulted. That is more democratic than one person saying, "It's my deal or I'll financially cripple Britain".

Parliament is NOT standing in the way of anything. They are trying to decide on the best deal. This government are stopping them from making an informed decision because one person, May, is trying to cling to power for a few extra months. 

The vote was either leave or stay. It was driven by those, primarily on the leave bus, (remember that one?), telling lies. The public did not decide on a situation which everyone now knows will not bring millions to the health service. In fact this government is now ringfencing billions to fund a deal which will make us poorer. Where do you think that money is taken from?

It wasn't, "I knew, you knew, he knew, we all knew. It was completely the opposite. It is all about what we DIDN'T know.

The first sentence IS the blackmail. She knows everyone with any sense knows a no deal exit would be disastrous. The very mention of it by this government has started businesses  revising their forward planning. And not in a good way.  Irrelevant as she is obliged to follow the mandate of the people

I never mentioned what Europe thought as they are looking after their collective interest. Britain needs to look after Britain's interest. That means looking at the best deal which is neither May's deal or no deal. If it is leave then other options must be looked at including remaining in the custom's union with all that entails. OR, parliament deciding there is no good way to leave and rescinding A50. OR, deciding there is no overall majority for any of the options and deciding the people need to be once more consulted. That is more democratic than one person saying, "It's my deal or I'll financially cripple Britain".  Also Irrelevant as she is obliged to follow the mandate of the people, there were no caveats inserted that said well if this . then that etc

Parliament is NOT standing in the way of anything.   Oh yes they are. They are trying to decide on the best deal. This government are stopping them from making an informed decision because one person, May, is trying to cling to power for a few extra months.  Guess what? the rest is irrelevant.

The vote was either leave or stay. You got that bit right and Erm ! yes that's it we voted LEAVE. It was driven by those, primarily on the leave bus, (remember that one?), telling lies. The public did not decide on a situation which everyone now knows will not bring millions to the health service. In fact this government is now ringfencing billions to fund a deal which will make us poorer. Where do you think that money is taken from?  Guess what? the rest is irrelevant.

It wasn't, "I knew, you knew, he knew, we all knew. It was completely the opposite. It is all about what we DIDN'T know..  oddly enough that too is irrelevant.

Let me put it this way if I bought lottery tickets; which I do not, however if I did; how do you think they would react to. Oh actually I changed my mind my numbers should have been (whatever the winning numbers were) I was given the wrong information when I chose them.  Oh OK sir here's your umpteen millions......... NOT.

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

I'd rather have the same question -
Should Scotland be an independent country?

OK. I'll answer it for you.

If IndyRef2 happens and it's a YES vote, there is no way you'd be calling for another referendum to ratify the first one based on the known facts after negotiations.

[oaksoft]

44 minutes ago, Wendy Saintss said:

 

There is plenty of discussion around whether remain should be an option in a second referendum.

Actually, given that we'd decided to leave, there is some merit in having a second referendum asking for clarification of which version of Leave is preferred - Deal or No Deal being the two options. I can see merit in leaving out a Remain option because Remain has already been rejected.

[St.Ricky]

26 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Actually, given that we'd decided to leave, there is some merit in having a second referendum asking for clarification of which version of Leave is preferred - Deal or No Deal being the two options. I can see merit in leaving out a Remain option because Remain has already been rejected 

32 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Actually, given that we'd decided to leave, there is some merit in having a second referendum asking for clarification of which version of Leave is preferred - Deal or No Deal being the two options. I can see merit in leaving out a Remain option because Remain has already been rejected.

As I understand it, the referendum result provided guidance to Westminster that the people wished to leave. 

There was an expectation that Westminster would negotiate and agree a deal on the most favourable terms available. I don't see the No Deal option fulfilling these expectations.

Failing agreement in Westminster to pass the deal negotiated by the UK government would mean that that Parliament had failed and the matter should then be passed back to the people with two clear choices. 

Choice 1 

The deal negotiated by the government.

Choice 2

Remaining in the EU

 

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, jaybee said:

The first sentence IS the blackmail. She knows everyone with any sense knows a no deal exit would be disastrous. The very mention of it by this government has started businesses  revising their forward planning. And not in a good way.  Irrelevant as she is obliged to follow the mandate of the people

I never mentioned what Europe thought as they are looking after their collective interest. Britain needs to look after Britain's interest. That means looking at the best deal which is neither May's deal or no deal. If it is leave then other options must be looked at including remaining in the custom's union with all that entails. OR, parliament deciding there is no good way to leave and rescinding A50. OR, deciding there is no overall majority for any of the options and deciding the people need to be once more consulted. That is more democratic than one person saying, "It's my deal or I'll financially cripple Britain".  Also Irrelevant as she is obliged to follow the mandate of the people, there were no caveats inserted that said well if this . then that etc

Parliament is NOT standing in the way of anything.   Oh yes they are. They are trying to decide on the best deal. This government are stopping them from making an informed decision because one person, May, is trying to cling to power for a few extra months.  Guess what? the rest is irrelevant.

The vote was either leave or stay. You got that bit right and Erm ! yes that's it we voted LEAVE. It was driven by those, primarily on the leave bus, (remember that one?), telling lies. The public did not decide on a situation which everyone now knows will not bring millions to the health service. In fact this government is now ringfencing billions to fund a deal which will make us poorer. Where do you think that money is taken from?  Guess what? the rest is irrelevant.

It wasn't, "I knew, you knew, he knew, we all knew. It was completely the opposite. It is all about what we DIDN'T know..  oddly enough that too is irrelevant.

Let me put it this way if I bought lottery tickets; which I do not, however if I did; how do you think they would react to. Oh actually I changed my mind my numbers should have been (whatever the winning numbers were) I was given the wrong information when I chose them.  Oh OK sir here's your umpteen millions......... NOT.

She is NOT obliged to follow the mandate of the people. It was a referendum. A referendum is NOT binding. IF the outcome of negotiations is detrimental to the country then a rethink is NOT out of the question. I just don't get the mentality that some people have that makes them want to cut their nose, ears and mouth off to spite their face. Also. To be pedantic. Scotland is a country. We didn't vote to leave. We voted to remain. We just didn't have a choice.

And the last bit is NOT even close to an analogy so I won't comment further on it. A closer analogy would be if you bought that ticket with the claim that you would get x million then they came back and told you that YOU OWED THEM...…...

Edited December 19, 2018 by stlucifer

[oaksoft]

37 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

 

The flaw in your argument is that Remain has already been categorically ruled out.

The remaining question is one of which Brexit do people want.

That is the argument Wendy put forward I think and it's a very persuasive one.

The issue is that Remainers don't want to accept the result of the referendum.

Personally I'd prefer us to stay in the EU but of all the possible options, remaining was ruled out.

There is therefore no logic in putting it on the ballot paper of another referendum.

I'd like to see someone explain why that is not a reasonable request and "because Remain is best for the UK" isn't a logical explanation.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

To what end may I ask, an irreverent Party that couldn't organise a decent piss up in a Brewery discussing something that as a Party; or as a Nation we can have no impact on, I really don't know who is worse, we Alex (the con man) or current incumbent (the con woman).

Seethe

[St.Ricky]

29 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

The flaw in your argument is that Remain has already been categorically ruled out.

The remaining question is one of which Brexit do people want.

That is the argument Wendy put forward I think and it's a very persuasive one.

The issue is that Remainers don't want to accept the result of the referendum.

Personally I'd prefer us to stay in the EU but of all the possible options, remaining was ruled out.

There is therefore no logic in putting it on the ballot paper of another referendum.

I'd like to see someone explain why that is not a reasonable request and "because Remain is best for the UK" isn't a logical explanation.

We take a different view on this. I have no problem in accepting the referendum result. The problem is that our Elected Representatives are not able to deliver a deal upon which they can agree. At that point it makes sense to me to pose the question to the people. Which do you wish. .Leave with the deal negotiated by the elected government or remain?

[Bud the Baker]

Amber Rudd launches her leadership bid......................

Quote

Amber Rudd has broken ranks with her cabinet colleagues, saying there is a “plausible argument” for a second Brexit referendum if Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement with the EU is rejected by MPs.

The work and pensions secretary insisted she did not want a second referendum, but said the issue should be returned to the British public if MPs are unable to reach an agreement.

 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

We take a different view on this. I have no problem in accepting the referendum result. The problem is that our Elected Representatives are not able to deliver a deal upon which they can agree. At that point it makes sense to me to pose the question to the people. Which do you wish. .Leave with the deal negotiated by the elected government or remain?

Yeah you SAY you accept the result but the reality is you still want to keep a Remain option which was absolutely rejected at the referendum.

The problem in parliament is not over whether to leave or not. The problem is HOW to leave. I find it a persuasive argument that we should ask the country which version of Brexit they want.

[St.Ricky]

23 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yeah you SAY you accept the result but the reality is you still want to keep a Remain option which was absolutely rejected at the referendum.

The problem in parliament is not over whether to leave or not. The problem is HOW to leave. I find it a persuasive argument that we should ask the country which version of Brexit they want.

Parliament has do far failed to come to any agreement on leave or ruled out remaining. For these reasons I feel comfortable with the idea of a second referendum at which time the choice of the deal agreed with the EU and the Government can be weighed against remaining. I do think that we seem to be experiencing a failure in our democratically elected parliament however.

[jaybee]

5 hours ago, stlucifer said:

She is NOT obliged to follow the mandate of the people. It was a referendum. A referendum is NOT binding. IF the outcome of negotiations is detrimental to the country then a rethink is NOT out of the question. I just don't get the mentality that some people have that makes them want to cut their nose, ears and mouth off to spite their face. Also. To be pedantic. Scotland is a country. We didn't vote to leave. We voted to remain. We just didn't have a choice.

And the last bit is NOT even close to an analogy so I won't comment further on it. A closer analogy would be if you bought that ticket with the claim that you would get x million then they came back and told you that YOU OWED THEM...…...

Edited 5 hours ago by stlucifer

Surely the point of a referendum was and is to decide upon a contentious issue and once a decision is voted on; it would be nonsense and (in my opinion) arrogant of the incumbent government to think they know best and to ignore the people's vote.  We are never going to agree I know and you have every right to express your opinions, I even accept that my analogy (offered a little tongue in cheek I may add) is not the best I could have chosen; however,  I like many other people never wanted to be in Europe; but I had to live with it even though the elected Government of the time did not have a mandate to transfer the sovereignty of the UK to Brussels.  When a referendum was proposed I and others used our vote to opt out and yet yourself and other 'remains' would like to deny us our democratic rights because ''the royal you' think better of remaining.

By the way I am a Scot and Patriotic but I do not believe Patriotism and Nationalism are the same thing, one can be one without being the other and yes Scotland is a country but it is a country within the united Kingdom and does not have the option of deciding whether or not the Scottish vote was 'unfair' since it voted to remain within the union it is bound by the UK decision. surely no ones fault unless of course you wish to berett all those Scots who voted to remain part of the UK, A pointless argument, methinks.

[stlucifer]

3 hours ago, jaybee said:

Surely the point of a referendum was and is to decide upon a contentious issue and once a decision is voted on; it would be nonsense and (in my opinion) arrogant of the incumbent government to think they know best and to ignore the people's vote.  We are never going to agree I know and you have every right to express your opinions, I even accept that my analogy (offered a little tongue in cheek I may add) is not the best I could have chosen; however,  I like many other people never wanted to be in Europe; but I had to live with it even though the elected Government of the time did not have a mandate to transfer the sovereignty of the UK to Brussels.  When a referendum was proposed I and others used our vote to opt out and yet yourself and other 'remains' would like to deny us our democratic rights because ''the royal you' think better of remaining.

By the way I am a Scot and Patriotic but I do not believe Patriotism and Nationalism are the same thing, one can be one without being the other and yes Scotland is a country but it is a country within the united Kingdom and does not have the option of deciding whether or not the Scottish vote was 'unfair' since it voted to remain within the union it is bound by the UK decision. surely no ones fault unless of course you wish to berett all those Scots who voted to remain part of the UK, A pointless argument, methinks.

First point. Yes. A referendum is to decide upon contentious issues. BUT. The people need to have the true facts. It's not a debating society where the winner gets a book. It affects our children far more than it affects us oldies. This was not what happened in the case of this vote.

Second point. This government IS being arrogant in not allowing other options to be taken into account for the benefit, or at least, not the detriment of the people.

Third point. Yes. You've come to the crux of the nose, face scenario. You, along with many other, mostly older people, resent being taken into the EU and have now decided they can redress this forgetting that we are now so integrated that it will be disastrous to exit with the sort of deal on the table. If not for us. Definitely for our kids

Fourth? You made a massive assumption there. I never said I voted remain, but, having since seen the real damage this will do as things have unfolded and this "stupid person" has decide it's her ridiculous deal that is the only one that should be voted on and ensuring there will be no time to discuss any other option I have definitely come to the conclusion this action is folly. Crashing out is the worst of all scenarios and she has decided to put her arrogance and temporary political position ahead of logic. We should not be looking at her really bad deal as the only option to leaving without a deal. All options should be looked at, including admitting there is no option at this time and remaining. Remember A50 could be suspended unilaterally. In fact it could be done without a new referendum. Governments are there to look after the interests of the people. Not the interest of the PM.

I agree that you can be a patriot without being a nationalist but it doesn't change the fact that the Scottish psyche has been proven to be different from the English one.              At least in the EU when voting for the most important issues it's one country, one vote.  Even the smallest country has a veto. No matter what Scotland vote for we are engulfed by the English vote. Not exactly the equal partnership we were told we had during the other referendum. But that's just another lie told to win a vote that we are not so easily able to address. At least if you elect the wrong party in an election you get the right to change your mind a few years down the road once you see the damage that's being done.

[saintnextlifetime]

10 hours ago, stlucifer said:

She is NOT obliged to follow the mandate of the people. It was a referendum. A referendum is NOT binding. IF the outcome of negotiations is detrimental to the country then a rethink is NOT out of the question. I just don't get the mentality that some people have that makes them want to cut their nose, ears and mouth off to spite their face. Also. To be pedantic. Scotland is a country. We didn't vote to leave. We voted to remain. We just didn't have a choice.

And the last bit is NOT even close to an analogy so I won't comment further on it. A closer analogy would be if you bought that ticket with the claim that you would get x million then they came back and told you that YOU OWED THEM...…...

It wouldnae be for much longer if we remain. .

                                                                                       https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/11/merkel-nation-states-must-today-be-prepared-to-give-up-their-sovereignty/

[The Original 59er]

  On 12/18/2018 at 10:17 AM, The Original 59er said:

All of this was either out of Corbyn's hands or, in the case of a vote of no confidence in the Government, a no win situation so, whether he supported stay or leave, his options were very limited. It's ok for the Libdems or SNP to call for a no confidence vote that would be forced on the government but the know Labour won't react so it's easy for them to demand it. They also know such a vote would end in failure for the opposition so making Labour look weak is a win, win for them.

Both large parties are in a pickle here and it's us, joe public, that'll ultimately suffer. This is why I think a new vote for the people is the best way forward. If those who voted leave were confident of a repeat then they would not be fighting so hard against it when our parliament cannot agree on the strategy.

I'm not quite sure where this has come from, but this ain't my post, so if someone is using my name to post something, then please desist!

In fact if you scroll back you will find the original quote was Stlucifer, but it seems strange that someone would alter the re-quote to say it was my point!

Edited December 20, 2018 by The Original 59er

[stlucifer]

10 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Yeah you SAY you accept the result but the reality is you still want to keep a Remain option which was absolutely rejected at the referendum.

The problem in parliament is not over whether to leave or not. The problem is HOW to leave. I find it a persuasive argument that we should ask the country which version of Brexit they want.

Only 37% of the electorate voted for EU exit. Hardly an overwhelming majority of the population. Even of those who voted, the margin was a mere 2% give or take. I know it's still a win but, given the lies that were spouted, the remain campaign would, I firmly believe, most likely win in any rerun. This begs the question. Why should something so fundamental as breaking off ties be down to the few who were influenced by lies?

I reiterate that this is far too important to have a stubborn, obstinate, power hungry person deciding that it's her way or the bye,bye way. Other avenues need to be explored to make sure this does not destroy what we already have. This must include, were you wrong or duped? ie Remain.

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, The Original 59er said:

  On 12/18/2018 at 10:17 AM, The Original 59er said:

All of this was either out of Corbyn's hands or, in the case of a vote of no confidence in the Government, a no win situation so, whether he supported stay or leave, his options were very limited. It's ok for the Libdems or SNP to call for a no confidence vote that would be forced on the government but the know Labour won't react so it's easy for them to demand it. They also know such a vote would end in failure for the opposition so making Labour look weak is a win, win for them.

Both large parties are in a pickle here and it's us, joe public, that'll ultimately suffer. This is why I think a new vote for the people is the best way forward. If those who voted leave were confident of a repeat then they would not be fighting so hard against it when our parliament cannot agree on the strategy.

I'm not quite sure where this has come from, but this ain't my post, so if someone is using my name to post something, then please desist!

In fact if you scroll back you will find the original quote was Stlucifer, but it seems strange that someone would alter the re-quote to say it was my point!

When clicked on it takes it back to you quoting me with a reply so I doubt you'll get the blame.

[jaybee]

2 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

I reiterate that this is far too important to have a stubborn, obstinate, power hungry person deciding that it's her way or the bye,bye way. Other avenues need to be explored to make sure this does not destroy what we already have. This must include, were you wrong or duped? ie Remain.

You know, this sounds like a quote from a stubborn power hungry type of person, who thinks it's his way or the by way, i'm right ignore democracy when it suits of course.

[stlucifer]

4 minutes ago, jaybee said:

You know, this sounds like a quote from a stubborn power hungry type of person, who thinks it's his way or the by way, i'm right ignore democracy when it suits of course.

Silly thing to say when I am asking for everyone, including your good self, to have a say. I promise I don't want to make any decision on my own. And this is only because our elected representatives CAN'T make a decision.

ETA. That's not even considering the fact that we now know that the Leave campaign may have been illegitimately funded and the information they were plastering over their bus was, to put it mildly, cr@p.

Edited December 20, 2018 by stlucifer

[Bud the Baker]

12 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Amber Rudd launches her leadership bid......................

 

................and in the other blue corner - Angela Leadsom!  

Quote

Andrea Leadsom has rebuked Amber Rudd after the work and pensions secretary broke ranks with the government by saying there was a “plausible argument” for a second referendum if MPs voted down the EU withdrawal bill.

Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons, said: “We won’t have a second referendum. That is not government policy.”

 

[jaybee]

Just now, stlucifer said:

Silly thing to say when I am asking for everyone, including your good self, to have a say. I promise I don't want to make any decision on my own. And this is only because our elected representatives CAN'T make a decision.

You and I could be at this for ever, I don't wish to sound pompous or arrogant but having worked within the ERDF and ESF European programmes for a number of years both in Scotland and in England I feel I do have a smattering of how the system works and it doesn't, which is why I want us out.  I have no wish to surrender UK sovereignty to Europe nor to be legislated at by non elected officials who earn more in a month than most UK people do in a year.  My desire is that we leave Europe with No Deal as the UK electorate voted for, they did not vote leave with 'the best deal' decided by Corbin, St Lucifer or wee Jimmy frae Saltcoates, they voted to leave, period.

[stlucifer]

3 minutes ago, jaybee said:

You and I could be at this for ever, I don't wish to sound pompous or arrogant but having worked within the ERDF and ESF European programmes for a number of years both in Scotland and in England I feel I do have a smattering of how the system works and it doesn't, which is why I want us out.  I have no wish to surrender UK sovereignty to Europe nor to be legislated at by non elected officials who earn more in a month than most UK people do in a year.  My desire is that we leave Europe with No Deal as the UK electorate voted for, they did not vote leave with 'the best deal' decided by Corbin, St Lucifer or wee Jimmy frae Saltcoates, they voted to leave, period.

I am in no way saying the EU is a fantastic institution and doesn't need reformed. By hell it does. I'm saying we were told by the leave campaign as their flagship slogans that we were going to be better off and would spend all that extra cash on the NHS and that immigration would be reduced. NEITHER will happen when/if we leave.

But, we're obviously never going to agree so this is my last say on the discussion.

An analogy.

You are charged with murder. A jury of your peers look at the evidence provided, find you guilty and you're sentenced to life. A year later it is found that more than one of the prosecuting witnesses have lied and some evidence was tampered with.

What do we do?

Say, "Stuff it. We've made our decision"? Not very fair on you as you'll have to live with the consequences.

Change the verdict? You may still have committed the crime.

Hold another trial with all the new evidence? Doesn't that sound just a wee bit fair? 

You might be found guilty but at least the jury will have a better chance of reaching the right decision.

[jaybee]

3 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

I am in no way saying the EU is a fantastic institution and doesn't need reformed. By hell it does. I'm saying we were told by the leave campaign as their flagship slogans that we were going to be better off and would spend all that extra cash on the NHS and that immigration would be reduced. NEITHER will happen when/if we leave.

But, we're obviously never going to agree so this is my last say on the discussion.

An analogy.

You are charged with murder. A jury of your peers look at the evidence provided, find you guilty and you're sentenced to life. A year later it is found that more than one of the prosecuting witnesses have lied and some evidence was tampered with.

What do we do?

Say, "Stuff it. We've made our decision"? Not very fair on you as you'll have to live with the consequences.

Change the verdict? You may still have committed the crime.

Hold another trial with all the new evidence? Doesn't that sound just a wee bit fair? 

You might be found guilty but at least the jury will have a better chance of reaching the right decision.

Fair comment, however I think we will agree to disagree, but re your analogy, if we are still in Europe don't bother with the retrial I would be better of inside.

[stlucifer]

1 minute ago, jaybee said:

Fair comment, however I think we will agree to disagree, but re your analogy, if we are still in Europe don't bother with the retrial I would be better of inside.

At least you'll have the ECHR to protect you

[oaksoft]

11 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Parliament has do far failed to come to any agreement on leave or ruled out remaining. For these reasons I feel comfortable with the idea of a second referendum at which time the choice of the deal agreed with the EU and the Government can be weighed against remaining. I do think that we seem to be experiencing a failure in our democratically elected parliament however.

Parliament hasn't decided but the people did and they clearly voted to Leave.

I don't know what is hard to understand about that.

They didn't vote to Leave with conditions attached.

They didn't vote Leave with a deal.

They voted to Leave period.

You and I might not like this but that is a fact.

It's worth re-iterating that I hope.a Remain option is still available but there's no democratic reason for it at all.