Jump to content

Master UK Political Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

If another referendum was held and the vote was for "stay", would the EU accept that?   Would it be their choice to do so?  I.e., if before the March deadline (after which the EU would definitely not let the UK back in), is there still time for another referendum?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sally, the EU don't want Britain to leave, partly because we're one of the few net contributors to the EU budget, partly because we import more from the rest of the EU than we export, partly because we are good at wealth redistribution by employing workers from former communist countries who's economies need to develop in far greater numbers than most other nations, whilst investing in those nations by retiring there. 

So they openly state that right until the last second the letter actioning Article 50 can be ripped up 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cheshire-Cat said:

But it would be significantly more informed than the previous referendum. We would actually know what's on offer for one.

I disagree. Remember that the withdrawal agreement only defines the terms under which the UK will leave. There is nothing concrete about the future relationship other than the backstop, which is only a temporary fall-back option in case of no agreement. The declaration on the future relations is just 10 pages of blahblahblah.

 

Even if there was a more detailed plan, we wouldn't know how it works out because this is something nobody has ever tried before.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jetsun Milarepa

Yes, brinkmanship. That seems to be a motivating factor in loads of time driven events (sales teams, University paper deadlines)...it'll probably suddenly and miraculously right itself at 11.59. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019 at 9:51 AM, Skycaptain said:

partly because we are good at wealth redistribution

Yes, the UK is a socialist paradise.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

That can't be right. At least he keeps travelling in a particular direction.

What you don't see is that there's an open cesspool at the end :P:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019 at 7:03 AM, Ortac said:

I don't know, but I do think that her vision is clouded on this matter and she is stubbornly refusing to "see the bigger picture" (as the Queen has urged). May has said repeatedly that to hold another referendum would be an affront to democracy and disrespectful to those 17.4 million who voted out. If the result of that referendum had been 90% voting to leave, I might possibly agree with her, but as it is, she is 100% wrong. In fact, I would say that she has a duty to hold another referendum and that not to do so would be an affront to democracy. 

 

Brexit is the hugest change that will happen to the UK since World War II, and it will fundamentally affect everyone including future generations who have had no say on it, and probably not for the better. Also, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to reverse once it has happened. Considering the majority of the previous referendum was so slim and it could just have easily swung the other way, the prime minister has a duty to reach out to confirm her mandate. It is absolutely imperative to ask the electorate "Is this still what you want?" 

 

To say that you have had your chance to vote in 2016 and you can't reconsider is outrageous. That was two and a half years ago, equivalent to halfway through a political term. You wouldn't apply the same reasoning to a general election, would you? Sorry, you voted for a Conservative government, so now we are not holding any more elections for an entire generation, you had your chance to vote, you picked us and you can't change your mind!

I agree. Adding to that, leaving the EU is far, far more complicated and not as simplistic as a lot of people think/thought. In 2016 many/most/all people didn't exaclty know what they were voting for. I think now everyone has a slightly better idea (not sure if that's true!) many people may reconsider either way, which warrants a new referendum.

Also, there was a very smal majority, debatably even smaller if you take into consideration that a lot of people didn't vote, relatively speaking. this means that just short of half the country is going to lose something they want to keep. Even though in or out is a black and white matter, what this entails isn't and the people who shout about out is out are not very democratic either in that they don't take into account the wishes of just short of half the country. My opinion anyway...

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

But at least he'll fall in under WTO rules.

But does he know what the WTO rules entail.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi folks,
I been reading through all the posts so far, been some really good comments and opinions.

 

One thing I would like to point out, which I didn't actually know myself till a while ago when a friend who did A level politics told me about it.

 

Unlike most western countries that have a written constitution, the UK doesn't, so any referendums are actually not legally binding.

 

I found this website explains it very well: www.tutor2u.net/politics/reference/uk-constitution

 

My friend said, when we have a referendum, though it is technically worthless and a government could totally ignore it or go opposite to it, it would be political suicide for the party in power to do that, but they could if they wished to as there is no constitution to bind it to a political code of law.

 

So say for example, the EU point blank refuse to budge or even try to make the deal worse to force May's hand, she could come back to parliament and say, it just ain't worth the hassles, we staying in end of story, and as of end of parliament today I resign.

 

Because there has been so many cockups and mistakes and the people are so fed up with brexit, the conservatives would probably still hang onto power, though most likely a general election would be called soon after, and Corbyn is too left wing to ever gain power plus he got no backing from his own party, England has always been a right wing country in the areas that have the biggest impact on the FPTP system. Now if it was a system like Scotland had, with the current state of of how bad May did last election, would be extremely interesting to see how it panned out.

 

So basically put, nothing is set in stone, anything could still happen before the final deadline of brexit.

 

So as my friend always signs off to me: sit back, put your feet up and enjoy the chaos thats to come.

 

90a767baea1b1c241c5a63577480fb6e.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AmyTSUK said:

So for example, the EU point blank refuse to budge or even try to make the deal worse to force May's hand, she could come back to parliament and say, it just ain't worth the hassles, we staying in end of story, and as of end of parliament today I resign.

I'd call that a double win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mysticus Insanus, sadly I can't see that happening. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4 February 2019 at 4:09 AM, AmyTSUK said:

My friend said, when we have a referendum, though it is technically worthless and a government could totally ignore it or go opposite to it,

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AmyTSUK said:

a general election would be called soon after, and Corbyn is too left wing to ever gain power

That is under the assumption that any party would still be able to gain an overall majority. Following the development in other countries this is increasingly unlikely and except for the 2015 election even the Tories haven't managed to get a clear majority in recent times. So it's about forming coalitions, like in most of the rest of the world.

 

If you look at the latest projection of the electoral calculus, the Tories would be 39 seats short of a majority, which means it wouldn't even be enough with the DUP. The only politically viable option I could see with these numbers would be a Labour/LibDem/SNP coalition. Tories/SNP and Tories/Labour would have the numbers, but unless there is some serious brainwashing involved I can't see them coming together.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...and while brexiteers are still phantasising about all those ambitious new trade deals, Angela Merkel is visiting Japan with a delegation of German business representatives. As opposed to UK businesses they can rely on the recent free-trade agreement between Japan and the EU, so they will have a lot to talk about with their Japanese counterparts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, the EU did say they were done negotiating so I mean Parliament saying she could go back to the table is a wee bit pointless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4 February 2019 at 10:39 AM, ben8884 said:

well, the EU did say they were done negotiating so I mean Parliament saying she could go back to the table is a wee bit pointless.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that one of the previous Brexit secretaries didn't know that Calais-Dover is a major trade route, it might as well be ignorance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jetsun Milarepa
3 hours ago, timewarp said:

Given that one of the previous Brexit secretaries didn't know that Calais-Dover is a major trade route, it might as well be ignorance.

Well we seem to be living in the age of post education and post truth....

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4 February 2019 at 12:08 PM, timewarp said:

it might as well be ignorance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 2:09 PM, Ortac said:

And neither do many of the people who voted for it, which makes it all the more appalling that it is happening.

Why assume that? People I've spoken to know exactly why they voted as they did. Had the Govt of the time been honest about the long term aims of the EEC (as it was then) ie it was NOT a trading organisation but that closer political union was the intent - then there's a good chance we would never have joined in the first place and all this would be academic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4 February 2019 at 4:22 PM, Frankentan said:

Why assume that? People I've spoken to know exactly why they voted as they did.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Frankentan said:

Why assume that? People I've spoken to know exactly why they voted as they did. Had the Govt of the time been honest about the long term aims of the EEC (as it was then) ie it was NOT a trading organisation but that closer political union was the intent - then there's a good chance we would never have joined in the first place and all this would be academic.

Many (including Farage) have admitted to deception by the campaign so anyone voting for money to fund the NHS did not in fact know what they were voting for. Some people though absolutely did.

In terms of lying in the first place-I agree, Heath was a staunched European and I know people who voted in favour because they thought it was just going to be an economic union which is why the Labour government gave voters a second referendum in the 1970s. They got a referendum then, we should get one now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frankentan said:

Had the Govt of the time been honest about the long term aims of the EEC (as it was then) ie it was NOT a trading organisation but that closer political union was the intent - then there's a good chance we would never have joined in the first place and all this would be academic.

This is one of the core problems. There's never been an understanding in this country about what the EU (or its predecessors) actually is. It has always been a political project, originally one that was supposed to tie Germany to France in order to maintain peace for good. You need to understand the French-German relations post WWII in order to understand the EU, and of course the UK has usually not been a country that is particularly interested in what's going on elsewhere.

 

Even now, after so many decades, it's blatantly evident that British politicians are completely clueless about how negotiations with the EU work. They could have talked to Greece, they could have talked to Switzerland, but no, in this country the wheel needs to be reinvented to make sure it's British enough (which is of course the reason why the British car industry went downhill, but that's a different issue).

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...