To think this could be the end of brexit as mps take control of the process from the PM

[quittinaeete]

Theresa may now really cant go for a hard brexit, anyone else think it's brexit cancelled?

So what happened to Greenland? Are they all dead? And did food run out?

No, but I fancy a better quality of life than basic subsistence. Not saying that’s what Greenland have as I don’t know, but certainly what plenty of leavers are telling us we should be happy to put up with “we surviv rationing!” etc.

I really hope there is a second referendum as I don't think the populace were in receipt of the full facts when they voted in 2016

If there is a second Ref I thinks facts would play an even lesser part in proceedings than the first time round.

It was a lot of scaremongering, russian bots influenced social media campaigns, extreme rightwing and pensioners rather than the informed, educated, forward thinking and younger generation

Both insulting and naive in one paragraph - so that's not going to happen a second time round then?

@londonrach Africa isn't a country

I forgot about Greenland. Yes and they really only had one trade deal to do.

@Peanut1983

Yes I do think about what's best for other people when I vote. So do my contemporaries.

No, no other country has left the EU so far, this is new territory.

If you live in a democratic country, a vote is held on an issue, side A wins but side B blocks the result through shenanigans - what alternative is there?

If you live in a democratic country, a vote is held on an issue, side A narrowly wins through shenanigans but side B blocks the result. There you go, I fixed that for you.

With AV, hard right and authoritarian people will have a party to vote for that will have a realistic chance of getting seats in parliament.

PV is the only way to go IMO

PR sorry

They all seem to pick and choose which EU policy to adopt whereas the UK is pretty much one of the only ones that is a stickler for the rules

A bit of anecdata here but I worked in... I can't say where, but as part of my old job I got to see the development of some government policy on state aid and to check it against EU judgements about state aid by other countries. The British policy was waaaaay more risk averse than the others (German and Dutch mostly). The UK government seems to have an almost passive aggressive respect for EU rules.

In that case someone who receives benefits and votes for the party that will benefit them is also a sociopath? They too are thinking primarily for themselves? I didn't realise I was meant to vote for others not myself.

@areyoubeingserviced thanks. And thanks for the insight into employment laws.

@Peanut1983 I'm glad my post made sense. Thanks. I'm still not clear though on what your reasons were for voting leave. Or anyone else's for that matter. I genuinely cannot find substantiated claims to support that decision. And I am really trying to understand it.

I also feel sad about reactions like Moonbea's boyfriend and his mates. If you vote for a change to the status quo the onus should be on you to stand for that change and persuade the rest of us as to its benefit. Instead I get the sense a lot of leavers are blase and relaxed about the whole thing and will just chill in the pub. Whilst those of us trying to grapple with the impending and unknown changes are left trying to navigate the murkiest of muddiest waters. Maybe I'm reading into it too much but if you don't feel passionate enough about leaving to kick up a stink over it then why on Earth did you vote that way? Why vote for a huge change if you're not that bothered if it doesn't happen? I'm not being aggressive - I am genuinely trying to understand the rationale so I can understand the leaver perspective.

@londonranch. You realise that when you talk about "countries outside the eu including africa...." that Africa is not a country right? Just want to check. Also a lot of African countries do receive favourable deals from the EU for certain things. Again though there is the issue of standards - which the UK is a big proponent for. There is also the issue of China who has offered basement prices for resources in Africa in exchange for investment opportunities across the whole continent. For example the One Belt One Road initiative that China is implementing in Africa. The EU wouldn't do this for various reasons - including ethics and a lack of capital to be able to throw down in this way. I won't get into the good and bad debate of One Belt.

@Prettyvase please read my long post a while back. The UK does have the right to adapt EU regulations. As do all EU countries. Blame your EU Parliamentarians for the failure to reject ones the British public are against - not the EU or the other countries who have actually got politicians who care about their sovereignty and domestic policies. To be honest the UK has actually rejected or adapted quite a few rulings. You can find records online for voting etc. That said, I don't love the deals some countries have cut but that's a whole different debate and a personal opinion.

And can we please stop with the Greenland argument? This is an island of just over 56,000 people. Most of them are members of the indigenous population whose main concerns include fishing and the seal trade. Their greatest trade as a nation-state is selling fish and fish products to Denmark - who they also rely on to supply skilled/unskilled workers for the fishing trade. The relationship between the two countries is an unusual one. Negotiating that trade deal would not have taken long due to inequities of power. Although now there is an interesting emerging economy around sand as the ice melts and reveals stocks of sand that can be used for building aggregate. Random fact. Anyway, I'm not sure that comparing Greenland and the UK is a fair comparison and I wouldn't want to model the exit of the UK on that of Greenland.

Incidentally, my MIL voted leave - I'm convinced it's because she thought it might get me deported

Of course people vote to benefit themselves, but most don't vote only to benefit themselves, while not caring about other people dying. Most people care about human lives over dog shite, because unlike you, most people have a thing called empathy.

Of course people vote to benefit themselves, but most don't vote only to benefit themselves

True. I'd vote for a party that sys they are going to scrap Uni fees because that benefits me. I wouldn't vote for someone who would make me a few hundred/ a thousand better off at the expense of public services though. At the next election I won't vote C^ntservative even though I would probably have more money under them. They have screwed people over too much and are actually cruel. They have milked the cow dead.

I love the fact that people are comparing the UKIP vote to the SNP .

The fact that UKIP stood 624 candidates in but the SNP only 59 might have something to do with that.

Nigel Farage is a failure of a politician, he didn't even bring about the internal strife in the Tory party that brought about the referendum, that would have been the back bench business club, who brought the first vote on a referendum in 2012, and then had Carswell and Reckless defect to UKIP in 2014 at an opportune time. He didn't even run the campaign for the referendum that had the most influence.

Sad pathetic little man holding on to the coat tails of others.

I'm a Tory voter. If we had an election tomorrow and Labour won I'd hate it, but I'd accept the removal vans would have to pull up in Downing Street, and I'd take the view that it was for my side to regroup and try to win the election after. I wouldn't take the view that Theresa May could squat in Number 10 and we Tories could pull some shenanigans so that we, the losers, could keep Corbyn, the winner, out just because we didn't like it.

I don't get this argument at all, and I don't think it presents a very good analogy. A better analogy is this. The conservatives win an election on a manifesto, their leader becomes PM, and they get to try and implement their policies (Johnson became Foreign Secretary and Davis became Brexit secretary, and Fox, etc, etc). However, in this case, the opposition's role is to oppose the government's policies in a continuous way. And that is what the losing remain side is doing.

In your analogy, you seem to argue that the losing opposition should not oppose the government. But it's their job.

As time goes on, and it becomes more and more apparent that the government's policies are not implementable. People protest, opinios change, the government loses confidence, it is only in power through an agreement with the DUP. Over time, Parliament votes it is in the best interest not to implement the government's policies. That is what we're seeing.

At no point on this thread has it been acknowledged that we had a referendum, 17.4m - more people than have voted on one side in any election or referendum in British history - voted Leave, and those people have the right to see what they voted for implemented, not blocked by the losing side, and certainly not blocked by 340 or so MPs (most of whom stood on a manifesto in 2017 promising to implement the referendum result).

As a result, I don't think the winning side has the right to see what they voted for implemented for. I don't see why that should override what parliamentary democracy or the majority of the people in the country. To give a concrete example, I don't think those that voted for the Poll tax had the right to see the poll tax continued, when it became unpopular, just because it was in the manifesto of 1987.

BTW the UKIP average vote equals out at 6,410 votes per constituency stood in.

I’m still at page 7 but can someone threatening civil war tell me exactly how this will happen? To have a war, two sides willing to fight are necessary. I can’t see anyone like the million peaceful demonstrators on an arrest free march resorting to violence. Who will they warmongers be fighting?

There won't be a civil war. There might be looting from electrical shops, though.

I can't believe that people are stupid enough to think everyone votes for themselves. We directly gained from the tax cuts for people earning more than £150k. Still voted labour because I knew that money was being stolen from disabled people and children whose parents have had less opportunity than we have. I'm a human being with a conscience! @Peanut1983 it shouldn't be news to you that you should consider others as well as yourself

This as well is rather wondervul, from about page 8, Alsohuman:

Russia will smuggle in weapons and provide covert training (spetznaz) for no other reason than the fact they seem to enjoy destabilizing countries. The leave resistance will slowly grow, and collect captured British military equipment, in exactly the same way as every other civil war.

@MuseumofInnocence the other flaw with that argument is that you have another chance to vote after a max of 5 years. Even if the government won 100% of the vote they'd still check in with you to make sure you were still cool with it.

If people who voted to leave believe it was a fair and democratic exercise in 2016 and are secure in that belief, why do you object so vehemently to a confirmatory referendum? If you believe in your heart of hearts that the country would vote to leave again, what have you to fear?

Is it perhaps because the latest polling, suggesting 55% would now vote to remain (so, win with a greater margin than the last vote) is making you uneasy?

If you truly believe in democracy, and it seems public opinion is changing, shouldn’t you support the majority voice on principle, even if you disagree with it, knowing what we all know now (which is a great deal more than we did in 2016).

HollowTalk

There won't be a civil war. There might be looting from electrical shops, though.“

Not necessarily forward thinking:candles and matches may be a more sensible looting list

The leave voters know leave would lose which is why there can't be another vote.

Its why people like JRM have changed their minds.

This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, they threw everything at it and promised everyone everything.

It would never happen again.