Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[mongrel]

Lets move on. We know that Brexit is no people's movement, Hedge fund managers are laughing all the way to the Aaron Banks shorting UK businesses during this crisis.


I see that John Bercow will defer his retirement a bit longer. That means that the next PM, should she or he be able to come up with something in the 3 or so weeks available before the October deadline, will have to do so in knowing that it will have to pass rigorous Parliamentary scrutiny. No matter who gets elected, the Parliamentary maths presents a problem for no deal.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ommons-speaker

[95thrifleman]

No deal is not up to parliment. If the EU stops granting extensions after 31st Oct we'll get the no deal by default.

[Daruwind]

No deal is not up to parliment. If the EU stops granting extensions after 31st Oct we'll get the no deal by default.

Yeah but problem is, that scenario will not be choosen by UK...meaning it is not scenario with majority and scenario you are prepared for. Else you would pick it yourselves....In other words...it would probably suck.

Keep in mind that bad brexit scenario is pushing people to call for re-entering ASAP.

[Aexodus]

The only way that they can stop no deal is by revoking article 50.

When Westminster voted to invoke article 50 on the 29th of March 2017, they voted to leave, deal or no-deal.

[Daruwind]

The only way that they can stop no deal is by revoking article 50.

When Westminster voted to invoke article 50 on the 29th of March 2017, they voted to leave, deal or no-deal.

Who will care in case of crisis due to bad brexit? Only truth is, the voters are always right and politicians are always to be blame for problems. If any brexit happens and it is not quick success and paradise, support for remain/re-enter will grow very quickly...Many people will change the mind as soon as you touch their money, not money of others..their own...If they are losing money for any reasons after brexit, people would draw such wrong conclusion brexit = less money = baaaad stuff. And they will call for opposite...

[Muizer]

However, He does sound at least more sensible than many of those in British politics advocating remaining in the EU, when he said "he didn't think the U.K. should hold another referendum on EU membership because "the result might not be any different,” but added: “I hope they will agree among themselves, and they will leave [the EU] by the end of October.

Easy for him to say, though, is it not? The EU have no problem recognizing that Brexit is bad for Britain AND backing out of Brexit is bad for britain. I think by now the former is preferable from the EU perspective, because it doesn't want to be saddled with a country that is 'In' but cannot agree with itself whether it wants to be In or Out.

[Infidel144]

Not good enough. I had earlier mentioned the illegality of said japery. My concern is that Benjamin is intolerant, not lactose intolerant.

You had earlier mentioned the illegality of 'milkshaking'... hmmm...
Then you admit you knew it was illegal and still called for more people to be assaulted.
[Now perusing the prior linked thread, there is no mention by mongrel of the illegality of milkshaking (he has 2 prior posts, 3 and 11)]

I think I had also mentioned to you at some point that flaming won't be indulged. You know the subject we are discussing, it relates to the UK government. Mongrel should not feature in discussion unless you have evidence of him being a member of Parliament.

The subject you opened the door for with your 'question':
"Did I publically support the milkshaking of certain politicians or did I merely report on it?"
Perhaps you should not ask questions, if you don't want an answer.

Otherwise your pretense only merits a <yawn>.

[mongrel]

You had earlier mentioned the illegality of 'milkshaking'... hmmm...
Then you admit you knew it was illegal and still called for more people to be assaulted.
[Now perusing the prior linked thread, there is no mention by mongrel of the illegality of milkshaking (he has 2 prior posts, 3 and 11)]

The subject you opened the door for with your 'question':
"Did I publically support the milkshaking of certain politicians or did I merely report on it?"
Perhaps you should not ask questions, if you don't want an answer.

Otherwise your pretense only merits a <yawn>.

Mongrel said he won't indulge flaming. The thread is about the government's failure to deliver Brexit, not the dog. He also points out that he frequently posts in more than one thread. Although he is sure that you will scan the whole forum for that reference he mentioned, HH has seen it, he was metorphorically slapped in the face with it, you can PM him and save time. Mongrel's curious as to why you are being so obsessive about him on this forum. To prevent readers from being bored by such antics in future, here's a picture for you, to help keep your obsessions offline

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Now then, back to Brexit.

Thanks to May's incompetence, the car industry ( and I dare say others) suffered needless losses , having shut down for a March Brexit that the PM had no intention of implementing.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...f-brexit-chaos

business, as Boris says.

Michael Barnier has made it clear that there will be no further Brexit negotiations . I can't see that the new PM, Brexiteer or not, is going to have snowflake's chance in hell in arranging an orderly Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8936066.html

Who will care in case of crisis due to bad brexit? Only truth is, the voters are always right and politicians are always to be blame for problems. If any brexit happens and it is not quick success and paradise, support for remain/re-enter will grow very quickly...Many people will change the mind as soon as you touch their money, not money of others..their own...If they are losing money for any reasons after brexit, people would draw such wrong conclusion brexit = less money = baaaad stuff. And they will call for opposite...

Logically that could be so, but I expect vested interests will try to persuade them that migrants, regulation or taxes on the rich are to blame. Farage certainly would.

Yeah but problem is, that scenario will not be choosen by UK...meaning it is not scenario with majority and scenario you are prepared for. Else you would pick it yourselves....In other words...it would probably suck.

Keep in mind that bad brexit scenario is pushing people to call for re-entering ASAP.

No deal is not up to parliment. If the EU stops granting extensions after 31st Oct we'll get the no deal by default.

As Daruwind said. You will have noted that the UK did not leave on 29 March, as programmed.The UK's fate is in Parliament's hands.

[caratacus]

No deal is not up to parliment. If the EU stops granting extensions after 31st Oct we'll get the no deal by default.

Do you honestly believe that would happen, given all the shenanigans that have been played out in Westminster to thwart Brexit.

Firstly, this contest for the Tory leadership is unimportant, given the amount of candidates it will take until August until another person is installed, and by that time there will be barely two months to broker another deal. Such a deal won't be forthcoming anyway, because the EU have ruled it out and will not provide a further extension after 31st October. Preparations will therefore be made in early October for a no deal by the new PM, which will be strongly resisted by their colleagues who support Remain, especially those presently in cabinet who may well be booted out by the new incumbent. To prevent that happening these MPs will then side with the opposition for a vote of no confidence in their own government, who will collapse and an election will be called. No party will receive a majority but, a coalition will be agreed with Labour, the LibDems and the Greens to revoke article 50.

Think it is fanciful that the Tory MPS would pull apart their own government and the Party with it? Think again;

Chancellor Philip Hammond could try to bring down next government to block no-deal
Mr Hammond says "national interest trumps the party interest" and vows to "act in what I believe is the best interest" of the UK
https://news.sky.com/story/chancello...-deal-11731411

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I highly doubt, that preparations of a party, which have made in two years only an contract with a transportation firm without ferries, led to a well prepared brexit in 2-3 months...

[REhorror]

The UK is the prime example where a populace is governed by people who hate them.

The folks will vote for Brexit, the politicians will delay it, every friggin' times.

The same deal for Trump and the wall.

[mongrel]

The UK is the prime example where a populace is governed by people who hate them.

The folks will vote for Brexit, the politicians will delay it, every friggin' times.

The same deal for Trump and the wall.

Nonsense, it's nothing to do with the electorate. The policy is simply undeliverable as long as the Good Friday agreement is in place. That's putting aside the cost to business, presuming that the electorate would like to remain in their jobs, or use services. We could cede Northern Ireland to Eire to fix that problem, but that would destroy the Tory Party.

The Wall, presumably, is also a waste of money.

I highly doubt, that preparations of a party, which have made in two years only an contract with a transportation firm without ferries, led to a well prepared brexit in 2-3 months...

Precisely.


To paraphrase this week's cover for Private Eye magazine, here is a list of Mrs May's achievements as PM

[REhorror]

Nonsense, it's nothing to do with the electorate. The policy is simply undeliverable as long as the Good Friday agreement is in place. That's putting aside the cost to business, presuming that the electorate would like to remain in their jobs, or use services. We could cede Northern Ireland to Eire to fix that problem, but that would destroy the Tory Party.

The Wall, presumably, is also a waste of money.

What you are saying is that the bureaucrat can block whatever they want because they will draft up nonsensical policy and then they proceed to argue and disagree among themselves and thus delay on what is already voted for, so they can ask the populace to vote again.

It is the nonsense of "democracy". When the voters vote for something, they will not get it done, unless it's something the bureaucrat wants, then it will get done regardless of voter's participation.

What's the point of voting then?

[Muizer]

The UK is the prime example where a populace is governed by people who hate them.

The folks will vote for Brexit, the politicians will delay it, every friggin' times.

The same deal for Trump and the wall.

Governments aren't always wrong to not do what the people want, just like parents aren't always wrong to deny their children what they ask for. The analogy is correct, because parents are supposed to know better what's good for their children than the children themselves and that is exactly why we choose representatives: to know better than us what's best for us. If you vote for someone that has never had to explain to you why you cannot get exactly what you want, you're doing something wrong. That's like picking the doctor based on which one confirms your own diagnosis: stupid.

[REhorror]

Governments aren't always wrong to not do what the people want, just like parents aren't always wrong to deny their children what they ask for. The analogy is correct, because parents are supposed to know better what's good for their children than the children themselves and that is exactly why we choose representatives: to know better than us what's best for us. If you vote for someone that has never had to explain to you why you cannot get exactly what you want, you're doing something wrong. That's like picking the doctor based on which one confirms your own diagnosis: stupid.

Government is the servant of their people, not their parents.

Parents do not need to ask for the children's opinion to do something.

A democratic government requires the population consensus as their sole authority. Cut that out and there's no point in voting or "democracy" at all.

[Muizer]

Government is the servant of their people, not their parents.

Parents do not need to ask for the children's opinion to do something.

A democratic government requires the population consensus as their sole authority. Cut that out and there's no point in voting or "democracy" at all.

I think that is way more debatable than you seem to think. The fact that we choose delegates in representative democracy is not just a 'logistical inconvenience. My country's consitution explicitly states representatives should be entirely free to use their own judgement once elected. And that should signal to voters that their job is not to instruct their delegates to do x,y or z, but to select the delegate they think is most likely to act in their interests, even if, or especially, if that turns out to be something other than could be anticipated. It's a consumerist attitude towards democracy that representatives are like errand boys/girls who fail if they do not deliver exactly what was ordered. So yes, they are 'servants' but not like errand boys, but like doctors, car mechanics and all the other people we go to to fix our problems because they know better than we do. That doesn't mean you're not trusted with making the choice which ones are best. Somebody has to decide that, and so far having the people vote seems to be the best way we've come up with.

[REhorror]

I think that is way more debatable than you seem to think. The fact that we choose delegates in representative democracy is not just a 'logistical inconvenience. My country's consitution explicitly states representatives should be entirely free to use their own judgement once elected. And that should signal to voters that their job is not to instruct their delegates to do x,y or z, but to select the delegate they think is most likely to act in their interests, even if, or especially, if that turns out to be something other than could be anticipated. It's a consumerist attitude towards democracy that representatives are like errand boys/girls who fail if they do not deliver exactly what was ordered.

You can debate all days but that is the point of democracy. You can't decide on something so the people vote it to decide it.

The delegates are also the results of voting, you trust in that person to do the right choice (which again is very dumb, but that's democracy for you).

And yes, a democratic government fails its very purpose if it fails to do what the populace vote upon, that's literally the goal of the democratic government, to execute the will of the mass.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

In fact free delegates are the symbol of an representive democracy, delegates, who are bound to their voters, was the model of communist constitutions (Rätesystem).

But as interesting it is, we are shifting in ot waters...

[caratacus]

Governments aren't always wrong to not do what the people want, just like parents aren't always wrong to deny their children what they ask for. The analogy is correct, because parents are supposed to know better what's good for their children than the children themselves and that is exactly why we choose representatives: to know better than us what's best for us. If you vote for someone that has never had to explain to you why you cannot get exactly what you want, you're doing something wrong. That's like picking the doctor based on which one confirms your own diagnosis: stupid.

That's an interesting concept of democracy. That the electorate vote politicians into office to do solely what is best for them, rather than what they may want. Of course it fails to acknowledge the influemce of special interest groups, lobbyists, financial institutions and importantly party donors, in that decision making. Not the least, the qualifications or empirical process necessary in deciding what constitutes "best interest" other than simply having an opinon.

[REhorror]

In fact free delegates are the symbol of an representive democracy, delegates, who are bound to their voters, was the model of communist constitutions (Rätesystem).

But as interesting it is, we are shifting in ot waters...

Interesting, so what's the point of the people voting?

You vote in the delegates, now let's the delegates decide your life. "Representative" democracy is how you get Papa Stalin, and how papa Stalin becomes the people, and anyone who says otherwise is a reactionary.

In short, voting in your king, except elective monarchy doesn't hide behind the people facade.