Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?


  • Total voters
    1,077


Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,900
Goldstone
And a Tory party intent on exiting the EU (and, as a result, the Thatcher-inspired single market) is another step in the same direction.
Except that the Tories didn't want to leave the EU. They said they'd let the people choose, and they thought the people would choose remain, thus silencing the right wing Tories that did want to leave. It's not FPTP that's seen this move to the right, it was a referendum.

The Corbynistas decry Blair as a pseudo-Tory but the shift from the Thatcher/Major era to New Labour was a much more abrupt change of direction than you would ever expect to see in a parliament elected under PR.
Yes, you get a lot more decisions made with a majority government than under PR.

Corbyn, if he ever gets over the line, will go much further still.
Agreed. That will be the odd one out in our recent history.

Germany is the obvious comparison, in terms of population, size of economy etc. Sure, it sometimes takes them weeks to form a government after an election, but when they do, it represents a majority of the vote. Policies shift either side of the middle from time-to-time, but not very far from it. Looking at the current situation, which system would you say is more likely to deliver "strong and stable" government?
I don't think 'strong and stable' is the best question, as FPTP is more likely to provide that, as you generally get a government with a majority, who can carry out their manifesto. It's unusual that we don't have a majority government, and obviously the Brexit issue has divided everyone. I agree that Germany's system usually leads to less lurching from left to right (not that I think we've seen much ourselves), and that could be better for the country. Although one issue with it is the constant concessions that would be made to the SNP etc.
 

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jan 11, 2016
24,155
West is BEST
Wrong again. I agree that the referendum wasn't binding BUT since then Parliament HAS passed a law, which is still in place, that says we WILL leave on the 29th March ..... unless another law is passed.

Quite right.
 

ManOfSussex

We wunt be druv
Apr 11, 2016
14,729
Rape of Hastings, Sussex
Norway is quite happy in their treaty with Iceland, and Liechtenstein in EFTA. They are happy with their connection with the EU, although not part of it. Why should they admit the 'troublecausers' into their treaty?

We don't need to join EFTA to enter into a Norwegian arrangement with The EU anyway.
 

hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
60,981
Chandlers Ford
**** people who support this. Genuinely.

By and large, I find people are decent - with decent core values and moral compass.

Many people, sadly, are also easily led and manipulated, through misinformation and exaggeration. They are intrinsically decent people entirely unaware of quite what it is they are enabling.

Something like 60% of respondents polled, indicated support for the government's 'Hostile Environment' immigration policy. Physically introduce those 60% of people to the nurse in Edinburgh, her autistic son, and her soon-to-be-deported infirm and elderly parents and I would be astonished if anything more than a tiny few would agree (or have realised) that this should be the reality of what they thought they were supporting.
 

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,900
Goldstone
Norway is quite happy in their treaty with Iceland, and Liechtenstein in EFTA. They are happy with their connection with the EU, although not part of it. Why should they admit the 'troublecausers' into their treaty?
The 'troublecausers'? Our population voted to leave the EU, that doesn't mean we're causing trouble for the sake of it. We were founding members of the EFTA and it's possible we'd want to rejoin. I'm just pointing out that if Norway make that difficult, they could create an enemy.

We don't need to join EFTA to enter into a Norwegian arrangement with The EU anyway.
Indeed.
 


Notters

Well-known member
Oct 20, 2003
24,865
Guiseley
[MENTION=35479]btnbelle[/MENTION] has actually made the case for remain. It surely cant be denied that:
a) people voted leave for a variety of different reasons.
b) at least 2% of those who voted leave would likely have wanted a customs union
c) remaining in the EU would be a closer outcome to leaving but staying in a customs union than no deal.
 
D

Deleted member 2719

Guest
I misled you in my previous tweet.
The Constitution Unit say 22-24 weeks laying out the correct procedures.
https://constitution-unit.com/2018/...ndum-on-brexit/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


Anyone who thinks JRM and Farage have common sense is taking the mickey. I didn't realise you were part of the Eton old boys network too.
I doff my cap to you.

Hell yeah, I will converse with anyone, the question is will anyone converse with me?

They are master debaters and they have both come along way.
 

Garry Nelson's teacher

Well-known member
May 11, 2015
5,257
Bloody Worthing!
Heard today an interview with a guy in Brexit-central Sunderland. He was of the opinion that if Nissan withdrew following a hard Brexit it would be a disaster for the place. Had this realisation and risk awareness changed his pro-Brexit view? "Nah, if Nissan goes, something else* will turn up." Sometimes your heart just sinks...…………..


* the something else would need to generate 7000 jobs lost in Nissan and goodness knows how many others in the supply chain and in any local businesses that sell anything to anyone who lose their jobs
 


Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
10,859
Crawley
Only if that is allowed in the original act ...... I've not read every word but I haven't seen where that was put into the original act.

You can find it here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted

The relevant part reads;
(2)In this Act references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at 11.00 p.m. on 29 March 2019 or (as the case may be) to beginning with 11.00 p.m. on that day.

(3)Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).

(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—

(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and

(b)amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
 

Mtoto

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2003
1,837
Except that the Tories didn't want to leave the EU. They said they'd let the people choose, and they thought the people would choose remain, thus silencing the right wing Tories that did want to leave. It's not FPTP that's seen this move to the right, it was a referendum.

Yes, you get a lot more decisions made with a majority government than under PR.

Agreed. That will be the odd one out in our recent history.

I don't think 'strong and stable' is the best question, as FPTP is more likely to provide that, as you generally get a government with a majority, who can carry out their manifesto. It's unusual that we don't have a majority government, and obviously the Brexit issue has divided everyone. I agree that Germany's system usually leads to less lurching from left to right (not that I think we've seen much ourselves), and that could be better for the country. Although one issue with it is the constant concessions that would be made to the SNP etc.

FPTP hollowed out the middle over the course of 40-odd years, creating the landscape in which the referendum result could happen - the two sides managed (just) to overwhelm the centre.

You're also conflating individual parliaments and governments with long-term stability. In general, FPTP does indeed result in a majority government, which then sets about carrying out its manifesto - which will be either a left-wing manifesto or a right-wing manifesto, regardless of the fact that a majority of the electorate has not voted for it. It encourages radicalism, on both sides, because there's no need to convince half the voters, or anything close to it. A PR government, on the other hand, can claim to represent a majority of the individual votes cast.
 

melias shoes

Well-known member
Oct 14, 2010
4,830
TBH the rest of the post was largely paranoid drivel so not really worth engaging with. Or it ignored the core tenement of our constitution that one Parliament does not bind it's successor, so it is perfectly entitled to review and change any decision it made.

Sigh.
 


Grombleton

Surrounded by <div>s
Dec 31, 2011
7,356
D

Deleted member 2719

Guest
Because he is a lying, self-interested little toad.

I get you don't understand their educated commonsense discussions, of course we could look at the dream duo of Corbyn and Abbott.
 

Attachments

  • a5e1686d0a713ea971656fa5976cb84c.jpg
    a5e1686d0a713ea971656fa5976cb84c.jpg
    37.8 KB · Views: 129


Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
10,859
Crawley
I have read that doc before, I am unaware of reform since and frankly as this thread demonstrates in spades, 3rd countries will not benefit from the need for an effective working EU. Turkeys won’t vote for Christmas, and if EU politicians are not going to assist the U.K. post Brexit on what basis do you think EU politicians will meaningfully help other 3rd countries? That is absurd.

The origins of the CAP are reasonable, however as it stands today it is broadly speaking indefensible, I can accept some subsidies but 40% of the EU budget is obscene, if the EU was serious about deploying it on a socialist basis they would create an algorithm to make it means tested. Billionaire landowners will get nothing. They have had plenty of time to do that haven’t they?

The policy sits in place for 6 years from 2014 till 2020, then it gets reviewed. It is not absurd to help third countries that need help, if the EU makes life in other parts of the world difficult them people start turning up en masse in boats and trying to get assylum in the EU. There is obviously other forces that can cause that to happen anyway, but it is in no ones long term interest to see other countries failing in a global economy.
 

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
49,900
Goldstone
FPTP hollowed out the middle over the course of 40-odd years, creating the landscape in which the referendum result could happen
I disagree. The migration issues following wars in the middle east etc, gave support for UKIP and their timing was perfect to get the result over the line. Had we had PR the likes of UKIP would have had an even bigger voice, so I'm not sure you can put the referendum down to FPTP.

You're also conflating individual parliaments and governments with long-term stability.
Well yes, I thought your question was which system was more likely to deliver a strong and stable government. I'd have answered differently if I thought you were asking about government over the long term.

In general, FPTP does indeed result in a majority government, which then sets about carrying out its manifesto - which will be either a left-wing manifesto or a right-wing manifesto, regardless of the fact that a majority of the electorate has not voted for it. It encourages radicalism, on both sides, because there's no need to convince half the voters, or anything close to it. A PR government, on the other hand, can claim to represent a majority of the individual votes cast.
I agree.
 


Lincoln Imp

Well-known member
Feb 2, 2009
5,964
This short selling practice you dislike and it’s affect on the lives of ordinary people..........can you recall George Soros and how he made over a billion on Britain’s exit from the ERM?

He must be the living embodiment of the very “worst sort of tossers” to quote you.......or maybe not?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...rexit-campaign-best-for-britain-a3809821.html

Capitalists eh?

I read your posts with interest but comparing Farage's action (shorting the currency of his country, the country he claimed to be the saviour of) with claiming agricultural grants seems a bit thin. It's like saying a pensioner who accepts a not-totally-needed winter fuel allowance is no better than someone who constructs a fantastically contrived tax-avoidance scheme.
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here