Brexit is off ?

Hmack posted:

Andarkian posted:

."....... You had your chance, you blew it with your scare stories and, as you would have expected and got acceptance from the Brexiteers had we lost, then why do you not have the good grace to accept your own defeat....."

Nigel Farage would have accepted a remain vote?

You really must be taking the ****!

Either that, or you have been partaking of some pretty effective hallucinogenic substances. 

I've liked your post but please let's keep it classy.

PeterJ posted:

Eloise posted:

What would be best would be if the government accepted the sovereignty of parliament and opened the Brexit plans to scrutiny and debate.  That's what the ruling in the courts required.

The main problem I see here is that doing this is likely to expose and weaken our negotiating position. One option (which seems sensible to me) is to have a debate on invoking A50 with our best position without negotiation which would be to adopt WTO rules and tariffs. Then (again IMHO) a negotiation can be taken forwards from that baseline (and the EU would want to do this). The subsequent agreement would, of course, need to be approved by parliament.

Okay as you want me to address the whole of your post...

First off, the whole "giving away our negotiating position" is complete rubbish ... nothing would be given away which isn't revealed in the first five minutes of discussion with the EU.  It's not the minutia of negotiations which needs to be debated but a general direction of the negotiations... priorities for the UK. Decisions over priorities of the single market vs immigration.

Your second "option" also wouldn't work (IMO).  Given that negotiations are likely to take the best part of the 2 year "divorce" period; presenting the agreement to parliament to vote on after negotiations is flawed idea.  What are they going to do, vote against the position when the alternative is going back to the EU to beg for more negotiating time?  Go back to the EU and say "sorry we've changed our mind"?  Voting for economic suicide.  You can't negotiate then say "is what we've negotiated okay?"  Yes the details of the negotiations could be reassessed at that point, couldn't restart with a new direction - that would be even bigger political suicide than holding back triggering Article 50 (and let's face it with all the best will in the world politicians are there to retain power not throw it away). 

I should reveal my own leanings; I voted Leave and do not regret it. My whole working life has been based around working in and managing pan-European and global IT programmes and organisations (mostly but not always in the private sector) so I am not a 'little englander'. For my views on the recent High Court judgement see above but (again IMHO) it seems sound in law but (sorry to drone on about this) we are in uncharted constitutional waters here so all sorts of complexities, uncertainties, risks and problems are going to occur.

andarkian posted:

Eloise posted:

andarkian posted:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, but we did send £350 million a week to the EU. The fact is that they returned a discretionary £8 billion a year or so. They could have cut off the rebate any time they felt like it and the rules of the game would have prevented us, the U.K., doing anything about it.

 

No. That simply is not true. It would require all member states, including the UK, to agree to cut-off the UK's rebate (secured by Thatcher). The other members states do not have the power to stop it without the UK's agreement. 

PeterJ posted:

Hmack posted:

 

Well, again speaking as a Brexit supporter, there was a petition to Parliament to have a re-run which gained many, many votes (arguably many created by bots and by hose outside the UK but that's not the point). This petition was created by a UKIP supporter who thought that remain would win. Such delicious irony!

I must apologise to all who (maybe rightly) think I'm being too flippant on Brexit. However, it has raised so many constitutional issues that would never have never have been exposed otherwise. My philosophy (from business) is that change is painful but necessary. Whatever the outcome, there will be change for UK and EU and IMHO that will ultimately be good for us all.

The business philosophy analogy only works when you don't have the political equivalent of Peter Green in charge...

dayjay posted:

PeterJ posted:

naim_nymph posted:

 

...and then we would see how horrible BREXIT is going to be and have a re-vote instead, which REMAIN would win ; )

Again, with the greatest of respect, that is your opinion.

The reason we are where we are now is that those who want to be in the EU, andwho think life out side of the EU would be awful, are incapable of understanding that others do not believe this and assumed that the public would vote to stay in.  It would appear that the same belief,despite evidence otherwise, is still prevalent.  Should it come to a vote again those who used this to vote against an establishment that refused to listen on key issues will be even more likely to vote out again by that same establishment attempting to ignore the first vote.  Some people never learn, just because you believe something passionately doesn't mean that others do too.  An early election fought over brexit will kill the Labour Party and leave us with either a very very strong Tory party or, even worse, a stronger UKIP.

Brilliant. I had obviously missed this evidence (*).

Please elaborate.

(*) other than some lame claim that £350m per week is going to be added to the funding of the NHS - mind you, with the value of the ££ as it is, we shall probably need an extra £350m per week just to remain where we are !

PeterJ posted:

Hmack posted:

Andarkian posted:

."....... You had your chance, you blew it with your scare stories and, as you would have expected and got acceptance from the Brexiteers had we lost, then why do you not have the good grace to accept your own defeat....."

Nigel Farage would have accepted a remain vote?

You really must be taking the ****!

Either that, or you have been partaking of some pretty effective hallucinogenic substances. 

I've liked your post but please let's keep it classy.

Apologies.

I will try,

Eloise posted:

First off, the whole "giving away our negotiating position" is complete rubbish ... nothing would be given away which isn't revealed in the first five minutes of discussion with the EU.  It's not the minutia of negotiations which needs to be debated but a general direction of the negotiations... priorities for the UK. Decisions over priorities of the single market vs immigration.

Your second "option" also wouldn't work (IMO).  Given that negotiations are likely to take the best part of the 2 year "divorce" period; presenting the agreement to parliament to vote on after negotiations is flawed idea.  What are they going to do, vote against the position when the alternative is going back to the EU to beg for more negotiating time?  Go back to the EU and say "sorry we've changed our mind"?  Voting for economic suicide.  You can't negotiate then say "is what we've negotiated okay?"  Yes the details of the negotiations could be reassessed at that point, couldn't restart with a new direction - that would be even bigger political suicide than holding back triggering Article 50 (and let's face it with all the best will in the world politicians are there to retain power not throw it away). 

For your first point, I'm not sure that we entirely disagree. Parliament needs to agree that we invoke A50 in the light of the referendum vote. If it does not, for whatever reasons, then a General Election is required.

For your second point, you are correct in revealing a core dilemma. If an agreement is reached, what happens if Parliament rejects it? However, parliament must IMHO debate such an agreement. My assumption would be that if such an agreement is rejected then Parliament is demanding an agreement which is better for UK and this is not "sorry we've changed our mind" but "sorry you must give us more".

The key point in any negotiation is to establish a base position which is the best position one can reach without any negotiation. Thus any negotiation process can only improve on this. IMHO our best position without negotiation is WTO rules which will cost more pain to EU than us so they are incentivised to reach a better position by negotiation.

Eloise posted:

 

The business philosophy analogy only works when you don't have the political equivalent of Peter Green in charge...

Sorry for my ignorance, but who is Peter Green?

However, I must agree that the political leadership on this has been awful. It was Cameron's screwing up of the negotiations (after setting expectations before) and his complete cock up (sorry) of the Remain campaign that got us in this mess.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Huge - I know what you mean - but i think they were campaigning over British sovereignty and the right of HMG to lead and govern the country  - and if you dont like what they are doing you would vote them out - as opposed to needing to lobby all the EU member states assuming they agree with you -  to change EU legislation and then let that trickle down to national governments - 

Simon, when the Leave campaigners talked about regaining sovereignty and being able to make our own decisions, did they persuade you to vote Leave on the basis that a small clique would administer our sovereignty and make decisions for us, all without consulting our elected representatives and in effect thereby, without consulting us, THE PEOPLE ?

I am appalled that anybody can support the position that May is trying to adopt, Brexit or Remain. It is one step short of dictatorship, in fact, it might not even be as much as one step !

3 years left before we can vote them out, and a lot of irreprable damage as a legacy.

PeterJ posted:

Eloise posted:

 

The business philosophy analogy only works when you don't have the political equivalent of Peter Green in charge...

Sorry for my ignorance, but who is Peter Green?

However, I must agree that the political leadership on this has been awful. It was Cameron's screwing up of the negotiations (after setting expectations before) and his complete cock up (sorry) of the Remain campaign that got us in this mess.

You've not heard of Sir Peter Green?  Does BHS ring a bell?

andarkian posted:

Huge posted:

Huge posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Chris, thanks, yes I had seen that before... I couldn't help thinking what a load of rubbish    ... I had to lookup to see what the Health Lottery was...

Isn't that the fact that the quality of healthcare depends on the postcode in which you live?

Oh, no, that's the postcode lottery isn't it? ...

Err, I think I might be getting a little confused here!  

Ah, finally worked it out...

It's about Brexit isn't it: Since no-one who voted for it knew what it actually was, then that must be the National Lottery!

"No-one who voted for it knew what it actually was." The ever quoted whinge of the Remoaners.

We, the majority, voted to invoke Article 50, to take back control of our borders, repatriate sovereignty as well as our legal system and the right to formulate our own agreements with whomever we want. All of which was implied by the Referendum and expected after Article 50 is invoked. Clear enough? 

More accurately..... "We, who by a very slight majority of those who voted, based on lies and deceit , voted to......"

We, are the same people who now want to stiffle open debate and discussion, especially in Parliament, where we (note, not the same we as in red) rely upon our elected representatives to look after the nation's best interests.

Don Atkinson posted:

 

Simon, when the Leave campaigners talked about regaining sovereignty and being able to make our own decisions, did they persuade you to vote Leave on the basis that a small clique would administer our sovereignty and make decisions for us, all without consulting our elected representatives and in effect thereby, without consulting us, THE PEOPLE ?

I am appalled that anybody can support the position that May is trying to adopt, Brexit or Remain. It is one step short of dictatorship, in fact, it might not even be as much as one step !

3 years left before we can vote them out, and a lot of irreprable damage as a legacy.

Don, with respect you are conflating and confusing several issues.

The people have been consulted via the referendum.

The High Court has ruled (not entirely without justification) that Royal Prerogative cannot be used to invoke A50.

Once you accept that MPs and ministers are not particularly clever (and can thus be swayed by malign influencers) it all becomes clear. Remember the fourth book of the 'Hitchhikers Trilogy' which revealed God's final message to his creation "We apologise for the inconvenience".

Don Atkinson posted:

 

More accurately..... "We, who by a very slight majority of those who voted, based on lies and deceit , voted to......"

We, are the same people who now want to stiffle open debate and discussion, especially in Parliament, where we (note, not the same we as in red) rely upon our elected representatives to look after the nation's best interests.

Who do you mean by we kimosabe?

Eloise posted:

PeterJ posted:

Eloise posted:

 

The business philosophy analogy only works when you don't have the political equivalent of Peter Green in charge...

Sorry for my ignorance, but who is Peter Green?

However, I must agree that the political leadership on this has been awful. It was Cameron's screwing up of the negotiations (after setting expectations before) and his complete cock up (sorry) of the Remain campaign that got us in this mess.

You've not heard of Sir Peter Green?  Does BHS ring a bell?

Eloise, I did get this after a few seconds. However, I must admit that my first reaction was - how dare you suggest that my favourite guitarist can be linked to Theresa May or her cohorts in any way whatsoever?

PeterJ posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

More accurately..... "We, who by a very slight majority of those who voted, based on lies and deceit , voted to......"

We, are the same people who now want to stiffle open debate and discussion, especially in Parliament, where we (note, not the same we as in red) rely upon our elected representatives to look after the nation's best interests.

Who do you mean by we kimosabe?

We, were defined by Andarkian.

we, is the population of the UK.

Hmack posted:

Eloise posted:

PeterJ posted:

Eloise posted:

 

The business philosophy analogy only works when you don't have the political equivalent of Peter Green in charge...

Sorry for my ignorance, but who is Peter Green?

However, I must agree that the political leadership on this has been awful. It was Cameron's screwing up of the negotiations (after setting expectations before) and his complete cock up (sorry) of the Remain campaign that got us in this mess.

You've not heard of Sir Peter Green?  Does BHS ring a bell?

Eloise, I did get this after a few seconds. However, I must admit that my first reaction was - how dare you suggest that my favourite guitarist can be linked to Theresa May or her cohorts in any way whatsoever?

Well he (the guitarist) has more justification to be knighted...

Philip Green, not Peter.

Peter Green? I think you mean Sir Philip Green, who infamously sold BHS for £1, simultaneously selling his staff down the river.

PeterJ posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

Simon, when the Leave campaigners talked about regaining sovereignty and being able to make our own decisions, did they persuade you to vote Leave on the basis that a small clique would administer our sovereignty and make decisions for us, all without consulting our elected representatives and in effect thereby, without consulting us, THE PEOPLE ?

I am appalled that anybody can support the position that May is trying to adopt, Brexit or Remain. It is one step short of dictatorship, in fact, it might not even be as much as one step !

3 years left before we can vote them out, and a lot of irreprable damage as a legacy.

Don, with respect you are conflating and confusing several issues.

The people have been consulted via the referendum.

The High Court has ruled (not entirely without justification) that Royal Prerogative cannot be used to invoke A50.

Once you accept that MPs and ministers are not particularly clever (and can thus be swayed by malign influencers) it all becomes clear. Remember the fourth book of the 'Hitchhikers Trilogy' which revealed God's final message to his creation "We apologise for the inconvenience".

Peter, with equal respect, I am not.

The referendum is informative, not legally binding.

The High Court is making it clear that in their opinion May is wrong in the way she is planning to invoke A50. May intends to seek the ruling of the Supreme Court. We shall all have to accept that ruling when it comes.

Eloise posted:

 

You've not heard of Sir Peter Green?  Does BHS ring a bell?

Ah, sorry, somebody said that you meant Philip Green.

You should not judge capitalism and business by one corrupt and voracious individual. You may, of course, judge how both Labour and Conservatives by how thy allow such crony capitalism to exist but that is another matter.

Remember, it is business and capitalism that have brought us our delightful Naim Hifi!   Let's talk of happier things but please remember that change is inevitable (the Internet of Things, Robotics and Artificial Intelligence are likely to wreak far more change than this local issue ).

I find everything about Brexit very depressing. David Cameron agree to the Referendum, to try to 'shut up' his noisy Right Wing, IMO - never thinking or even planning for the possibility that the Leave side might win. The Referendum was set up to allow a simple majority to 'win'. Thus DC set up this truly horrible situation, to unfold. A nasty, ill tempered campaign then followed, with both sides doing a very poor job of presenting their cases, including plenty of downright lies and speculation. All those involved - on both sides - should be truly ashamed for what they have now done. 

Having got a result with a small majority for Leave, our Politicians then rapidly swap sides and/or quit completely, to make best use of the opportunities presented.  They still even now, have No Plan - and seem to make a virtue of this. No Party Or 'side' emerges with any credit, IMO. 

Now we have a ruling from 3 Judges - on the legal & constitution aspects of what the Government proposes - and because its not what the Exiters wanted, they are slated & criticised. Even worse, one of those bringing case, is subject to hate mail & vilification. A comparison to a Fascist state seems fair, TBH.

Its is disgusting that this state of affairs in happening in the UK, in 2016.

Don Atkinson posted:

Peter, with equal respect, I am not.

The referendum is informative, not legally binding.

The High Court is making it clear that in their opinion May is wrong in the way she is planning to invoke A50. May intends to seek the ruling of the Supreme Court. We shall all have to accept that ruling when it comes.

 

Actually, as far as I understand, referenda have absolutely no place in our constitution. You are correct that, in theory, this is informative only. However, the Government said that is will abide by the decision and parliament voted for the referendum.

As I said earlier, this is the first time that a referendum has not delivered the result that Parliament and Government desired. That is why we are in uncharted constitutional territory.

I also pointed out that The High Court ruled against the Government using Royal Prerogative to invoke A50 on what seems to be pretty good logic. I do not think that The Supreme Court will reverse that decision.

We are in a buggers muddle due to the incompetence of our Government but I would argue this is mostly down to Cameron rather than May.

Don Atkinson posted:

PeterJ posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

More accurately..... "We, who by a very slight majority of those who voted, based on lies and deceit , voted to......"

We, are the same people who now want to stiffle open debate and discussion, especially in Parliament, where we (note, not the same we as in red) rely upon our elected representatives to look after the nation's best interests.

Who do you mean by we kimosabe?

We, were defined by Andarkian.

we, is the population of the UK.

You are going to hurt my feelings  ! To be fair, I did start some of this fascinating debate assuming that a lot of you were just rich Naim owners, but of course you are also very musically oriented and I will assume that means there will be a healthy sprinkling of left wing Socialits among you, and that is not a criticism, it just explains the polarisation of the debate.

I am of course extremely right wing and make absolutely no apologies. Strange to say, being right wing can be a lot less destructive than left wing, am thinking here of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and the great National Socialist himself whose name we will not use. 

We did get a majority and We did win the Referendum so please do not denigrate us as if 17.5 million people were any more deluded than you losers. We had our own rationale and voted accordingly, many as a protest against the overbearing and dismissive Establishment and hopefully even more who believe that the EU is an undemocratic aberration carrying out a failed Social experiment on the whole of Europe.

Whatever the reasons, I reiterate that we won and insist that the prize of Article 50 invocation be carried out forthwith.

andarkian posted:

...
We did get a majority and We did win the Referendum so please do not denigrate us as if 17.5 million people were any more deluded than you losers.
...

Should you wish people whose views you consistently insult and rubbish to not denigrate those who voted the other way then perhaps you might consider giving them some respect instead of denigrating them.  As you sow so shall you reap.

Which from the extreme right wing view of things of course only applies to other people not to yourself; and history tells us where that attitude leads be it from the extreme right or the extreme left.  If you had argued your case with factual information instead of insults, you may have got a better response.

P.S.  Not long ago I was a given a blood test to look for stress to the heart - normal is below 100 and my BNP level was 18, so clearly I'm not a political extremest!  

andarkian posted:

...

Whatever the reasons, I reiterate that we won and insist that the prize of Article 50 invocation be carried out forthwith.

Where was that time schedule specified in the referendum question?