ml1dch Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 12 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: It wouldn't win. I don't accept that 17.4 million voted for no deal last time and would again. It probably wouldn't, but even offering it as an option would be thoroughly irresponsible (I know, I know - like it was in 2016). As per the Dunt tweets, first it would have to be clear that it was referring to trade only. I'm yet to come across anyone advocating no deal who means it literally, in the no-more-air-travel-or-cross-channel-ferries sense. But even if we (very charitably) assume that a wording can be found to make it clear we are talking about no trade agreements with the other 27 countries - that is still mandating the Government to (to pick one example) end British agricultural exports to the continent. Not slow them down, not reduce them, not make them less competitive - end them. Even if you are really sure that people aren't going to vote for that, you'd still be crazy to offer it up. Besides, it's not as if loads of people voting for something really daft doesn't have a recent precedent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 I never realised that the original referendum got passed through parliament by 544 to 53 votes. I know Cameron gets deserved blame but the other 543 are equally as moronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 20 minutes ago, ml1dch said: It probably wouldn't, but even offering it as an option would be thoroughly irresponsible (I know, I know - like it was in 2016). As per the Dunt tweets, first it would have to be clear that it was referring to trade only. I'm yet to come across anyone advocating no deal who means it literally, in the no-more-air-travel-or-cross-channel-ferries sense. But even if we (very charitably) assume that a wording can be found to make it clear we are talking about no trade agreements with the other 27 countries - that is still mandating the Government to (to pick one example) end British agricultural exports to the continent. Not slow them down, not reduce them, not make them less competitive - end them. Even if you are really sure that people aren't going to vote for that, you'd still be crazy to offer it up. Besides, it's not as if loads of people voting for something really daft doesn't have a recent precedent. I agree that no deal is utterly moronic and we shouldn't even be discussing it but I don't see a way that another referendum with remain on the ballot can be politically justified without No deal being on there as well. It's desperate times and to get a "remain" I'll happily risk no deal at this point. We're drinking in last chance saloon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Why don't we just tell the people that want to end freedom of movement that it has ended, and give them a blue passport that can't be used in the real world. We'll tell them that for every blue passport applied for, there's an equivalent european that's not allowed to come here. The blue passport will also give them exclusive access to special british supermarkets where they will have freedom to choose between turnips or parsnips both at a guinea for 15oz. Then the rest of us can just carry on. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 5 hours ago, bickster said: The Legal Advice appears to have leaked Much much more on link Link To PDF David Allen Green is of the opinion that it's pretty flimsy stuff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Just a quick skim through the "leaked" full text a few pages back that looks fairly convincing it has be said...found this lovely little gem... Quote In the absence of acquiescence or agreement by the third countries concerned, the UK will be relying on a footnote to Article 129 to the effect that “The Union will notify the other parties to these agreements that during the transition period the United Kingdom is to be treated as a Member State for the purposes of these agreements.” This does not have legal force as far as the third country is concerned. Basically, during the implementation period we won't be able to sign new trade deals with other countries and by the looks of this the ones we have currently, signed by the EU, won't have any "legal force" as far as we're concerned...Dangerous stuff. We'll be entirely reliant on the kindness of strangers to allow us to piggyback on the EU's deals but won't be legally bound to do so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 5 hours ago, desensitized43 said: We should never have been given the choice to start with. weren't a lot of countries given a choice on Maastricht ,Treaty of Nice , EU Enlargement ,Euro constitution ..in some cases they were even given a second choice on the same referendum I wonder had we been given the vote on the Euro constitution in 2005 if Brexit would never be happening ? I don't know how strong feeling was back then but chances are it would have passed it and Brexit probably wouldn't have reared it's head so the case appears to be for we should never have been given the choice when there was a slim chance we wouldn't vote the way we were expected to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 3, 2018 Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2018 Another day, another Tory struggling with the arse / elbow distinction This time it's The Brexit Secretary V4.0 himself that doesn't know when the date of exiting the EU is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 A ‘People’s vote’ on the three options would need a transferable vote (the same way Australia runs elections for the lower house). The voter ranks the three options 1, 2, 3 (nice and easy to understand). When the votes are counted the option with the fewest number 1 votes gets those votes transferred to to voters second choice. Then you are left with a clear preference from the electorate with no issue about a vote being split. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Xann said: Guess who's back, back againStephen Frys 's back, tell a friendGuess who's back, guess who's back?Guess who's back, guess who's back?Guess who's back, guess who's back?Guess who's back? It's been years since VT's number one source Stephen Fry got a look in ...Welcome back Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 3, 2018 Share Posted December 3, 2018 Bercow backs the contempt of Parliament letter. Lols. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 3, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted December 3, 2018 And nothing of consequence will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted December 3, 2018 Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2018 1 hour ago, ml1dch said: Bercow backs the contempt of Parliament letter. Lols. It's an absolute **** shambles, this. At least in America we can all point at Trump, whereas here there's no focal point. The whole thing is a very British **** up in every sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 24 minutes ago, snowychap said: Yup - around 80% are in line with each other from what I read (disclaimer - I've not checked that number myself). And obviously more importantly, it still needs a Government that actually wants to. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 Just now, ml1dch said: Yup - around 80% are in line with each other from what I read (disclaimer - I've not checked that number myself). And obviously more importantly, it still needs a Government that actually wants to. One more reason to get maybot gone. If you ever needed another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 4, 2018 Share Posted December 4, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Yup - around 80% are in line with each other from what I read (disclaimer - I've not checked that number myself). And obviously more importantly, it still needs a Government that actually wants to. as you didn't know the full facts , i demand a second post from you Edited December 4, 2018 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts