Courtesy Jean de la Fontaine (not my translation)


The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

A Frog espied an Ox that seemed to her of a noble size.
She, no bigger than an egg,
Envious, stretches, puffs up and labours
To match the animal in size,
Saying: 'Hey watch me sister;
Is this enough? tell me; am I there yet?
-No way! -How about now? -Not at all. - Is that it ?
You aren't even close.' The puny, pretentious creature
Swelled up so much that she croaked.
The world is full of people who aren't too wise:
People with some money wish to build like royalty,
Every minor prince has ambassadors,
Every marquis wants servants.

More and more I read in the UK people suggesting it should be a negotiation between equals. Even the infamous flexcit plan could only works if the EU forget that the UK is only 10 % of the U 27

Previous thread here : https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1419951

A101 wrote

And yes there will be problems at the beginning until business become more aware of the procedures. Storm in a teacup.

It won't if your business model is affected in such a way that it becomes unprofitable and has to shut down. If you operate with low margins, any additional cost is unwelcome. As such a company first will have to overcome the storm, which should/could have been avoided. Hence I doubt they'll consider this a "Storm in a teacup".

From the old thread, the original vote was binding because the PM at the time stated that the government would implement the result of the vote.
Now the opposition could always say that they never made such a promise but they did have to vote for the question and the actual referendum, and 400+ of them voted in the affirmative to have the vote.
As soon as it was lost the statements started coming in that it was a non-binding referendum, not sure that made a difference. Funny thing is, the Tory Government is trying to keep its word and take the UK out of the EU while being accused of not honoring any of their commitments and going back on their word.
Oh what a tangled web we weave....etc etc etc....and for the record, I apply that to all sides of the debate, including the Remain faction who declined on 3 occasions to halt Brexit in its tracks.

With for example car manufactoring struggle with profits on 1-3%, additional cost of time and administration in combination with the FTA japan eu i personally do not see survival of uk car industry.

Uk brexiteers still do not understand that of course exports to uk from eu will get hurt. but loosing the single market will become much more expensive.

par13del wrote:

From the old thread, the original vote was binding because the PM at the time stated that the government would implement the result of the vote.
Now the opposition could always say that they never made such a promise but they did have to vote for the question and the actual referendum, and 400+ of them voted in the affirmative to have the vote.
As soon as it was lost the statements started coming in that it was a non-binding referendum, not sure that made a difference. Funny thing is, the Tory Government is trying to keep its word and take the UK out of the EU while being accused of not honoring any of their commitments and going back on their word.
Oh what a tangled web we weave....etc etc etc....and for the record, I apply that to all sides of the debate, including the Remain faction who declined on 3 occasions to halt Brexit in its tracks.

Hypocrisy all around, sure. But in the end, a decision needs to be taken. The members of the house of commons need to make this decision or put it to the public again if they feel they don't have the mandate to do so. Their first priority must be the well being and future of the citizens of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland. Impopular and hard decision sometimes need to be taken, country before the party before ego.

Olddog wrote:

More and more I read in the UK people suggesting it should be a negotiation between equals. Even the infamous flexcit plan could only works if the EU forget that the UK is only 10 % of the U 27

Yes, the EU 27 is a lot bigger than the UK. But the UK is a lot bigger than Ireland. If you think the UK is going to be the biggest victim of a no-deal Brexit, think again.

AeroVega wrote:

Olddog wrote:

More and more I read in the UK people suggesting it should be a negotiation between equals. Even the infamous flexcit plan could only works if the EU forget that the UK is only 10 % of the U 27

Yes, the EU 27 is a lot bigger than the UK. But the UK is a lot bigger than Ireland. If you think the UK is going to be the biggest victim of a no-deal Brexit, think again.

That is a perfect example of the Brexiteers attitude: lose - lose.

Ireland is part of the EU and stays part of the EU, thus Ireland will be protected by the EU. The UK might be bigger than Ireland, but the UK still have the most to lose and will lose the most with a hard Brexit, but that is their choice, not the EU.

tommy1808 wrote:

.... and that means it is frictionless how?

Oh yeah, it doesn´t. I now know you never ever shipped anything across a customs border commercially ever. And if you claim you did, you are either lying about it or you are lying about how frictionless that is.

In one of the other Brexit threats i posted the tracking information for a shipment to Israel, a country that has far, far better trade conditions with the EU than the UK will have come November first, and despite the "all electronic frictionsless" customs stuff it was stuck in customs for, i believe, 24 days.....

best regards
Thomas

Once again the only frictionless border that has been proposed has been the land border between NI/ROI, HMG has maintained for quite sometime We won’t introduce a hard border; if the EU forces Ireland to do it, that’s down to them’.

Has anyone ever said that their would be no electronic procedures NO:.
How on earth does the UK collect its VAT and excise payments now wow its electronic. So by your reckoning because the Irish border is electronic now its a hard border?

How on earth does the UK deal with imports from those outside the EU now, wow funny that a majority of the procedure is electronic. While yes some business will find this confusing and a PITA if they haven't had to do this before, but the way you carry on is if it these procedures have never been in place before which is far from the case.

But you continue to assert that having a electronic regulatory burden is somehow not a frictionless border, if that were the case then every movement of goods within the EU is not frictionless, those companies trading within the EU still have to report via electronic means intra-EU trade flows whether or not they are paying tariffs or what not means trade is still reported.

As for your example on the transhipment from the EU to Israel that's a matter for the Israelis to decide you actually haven't said why the transhipment was held up and you are insinuating that it SOP for all goods imported when it is not for importing into the EU, as it is known that only about 5% of goods imported into the EU are inspected either are random inspection or intelligence led as a majority of goods in transit the customs declaration would sent to the receive nations Customs Authority and will do a risk assessment on whether to do compliance check

The checks could be something simple like a Manifest hold they may have submitted the wrong paperwork or incorrect forms, or it could be flag for a known entity who have tried to evade duties or illegal goods or whatever or the goods entering to do not match the expected weight or value. Also the checks themselves are different depending on the circumstances:


The X-Ray Exam: The containers on a shipment are put through an X-ray machine at the terminal. Once the photos are examined, they will release the container. Or, it will be escalated to go through an additional exam.

The Tail Gate Exam: The container is inspected at the pier. A customs officer breaks the seal of the container and inspects its contents. If everything is correct, they will release the container or the container is escalated to the final level of exams.

The Intensive Exam: The entire container is taken to a Customs Exam Site . The contents of the container are emptied. At the CES an authorized agent will empty the container, separate the parcels, open boxes, and prepare the cargo for a customs officer to fully inspect the cargo.

Klaus wrote:

You were complaining about missing evidence for Boris' lies and fantasy claims and I delivered those to you.

To apparently stunned silence.

By crikey you blokes like to put words in peoples mouths. The deceptiveness of those pro remain followers within this forum is quite telling which also leads to becoming a figment of your imagination.

Were in this sentence does it say I was complaining about missing evidence on Boris Johnson

An article in the most pro remain tabloid that actually talks about what most pro leave have been saying for some time.

Dutchy wrote:

But in the end, a decision needs to be taken. The members of the house of commons need to make this decision.

Yep and HMG has certainly taken the lead on that front

Dutchy wrote:

or put it to the public again if they feel they don't have the mandate to do so.

The mandate came from the 2016 EU referenda to leave the EU in which Parliament voted for and again when it voted to invoke A50, in full knowledge of the process of invoking A50 if a deal cannot be reached that satisfies Parliamentary sovereignty. They also had an opportunity to amend the end result from making a no deal exit to revoking A50 under law when they amended the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, one also has to remember it was John Bercow the speaker who overturned decades of convention to allow a majority in the house of commons to take control of legislation from the government in a series of indicative votes which could lead to a statutory effect.

Dutchy wrote:

Their first priority must be the well being and future of the citizens of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland. Impopular and hard decision sometimes need to be taken, country before the party before ego.

And which the Prime Minister is doing, making the hard decision that the electorate mandated in the referenda

AeroVega wrote:

Olddog wrote:

More and more I read in the UK people suggesting it should be a negotiation between equals. Even the infamous flexcit plan could only works if the EU forget that the UK is only 10 % of the U 27

Yes, the EU 27 is a lot bigger than the UK. But the UK is a lot bigger than Ireland. If you think the UK is going to be the biggest victim of a no-deal Brexit, think again.

Not being a big fan of the EU, I don't get this logic of Brexiteers.

The small fish always loses. To me, what resembles the most Brexit is the pro-independence rallies in Catalonia and Québec. And what has happened? (even if CAT or QB have not "exited"?). Today Barcelona and Montréal are clearly "seconds" and no one doubts that Madrid and Toronto are the economic and everything-capitals of Spain and Canada.

IMO Brexit will be quite negative for London in the future. Until recently London was the economic-and-everything capital of Europe. This will shift to other cities. It is already happening.

SCQ83 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Olddog wrote:

More and more I read in the UK people suggesting it should be a negotiation between equals. Even the infamous flexcit plan could only works if the EU forget that the UK is only 10 % of the U 27

Yes, the EU 27 is a lot bigger than the UK. But the UK is a lot bigger than Ireland. If you think the UK is going to be the biggest victim of a no-deal Brexit, think again.

Not being a big fan of the EU, I don't get this logic of Brexiteers.

The small fish always loses. To me, what resembles the most Brexit is the pro-independence rallies in Catalonia and Québec. And what has happened? (even if CAT or QB have not "exited"?). Today Barcelona and Montréal are clearly "seconds" and no one doubts that Madrid and Toronto are the economic and everything-capitals of Spain and Canada.

IMO Brexit will be quite negative for London in the future. Until recently London was the economic-and-everything capital of Europe. This will shift to other cities. It is already happening.

Don't know about Québec, but the plan of Catalonia was to be part of the EU. Perhaps the EU is a good level to give certain area's more sovereignty but keeps in it a greater context of the EU.
I think the Heiniken plan, wasn't too unrealistic:

The plan gives a division of Europe in regions. Heineken went for advice on the division to Henk Wesseling, who was Professor of History at the University of Leiden. The designs from the plan were left to the Leiden historian Wim van den Doel.[1] Eurotopia takes ethnic sensitivities into account, to cause the least possible amount of friction.[2] The basic idea is a Europe that is completely composed of states with roughly 5 to 10 million citizens.[3] According to Heineken, the absence of a powerful state would lead to a chance of more stability, equality and peace. While under the motto of small is beautiful, administration in the states could be more efficient.

Wikipedia

Dutchy wrote:

Hypocrisy all around, sure. But in the end, a decision needs to be taken. The members of the house of commons need to make this decision or put it to the public again if they feel they don't have the mandate to do so.

The people voted twice, once in 2016 then in the snap election, all major political parties had to state in public that they would honor the result of the 2016 referendum. In the end, they put back in power the majority of the members who initially gave them the option to vote on the EU, somehow the people trusted them.

A101 wrote:

And which the Prime Minister is doing, making the hard decision that the electorate mandated in the referenda

Bless ya cotton socks, still not grasping the concept of a UK referendums and their meaning. Still taking the narrow view, rather than the vote as a whole.

The referendum advised that the electorate on that day were split
Just over a third voted remain, just over a third voted leave, just under a third were undecided/did not vote.

Mandated my hairy harris.

Parliament is accurately reflecting & respects that referendum advice. Parliament has to make the decision via our democratic process. The government (well the small minority of it that subscribe to no-deal) should fight for their choice in the house, not sneak it through the cat flap in the shed door by suspending out democratic process. Should be easy if its such a good thing, right? They know it's not.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Hypocrisy all around, sure. But in the end, a decision needs to be taken. The members of the house of commons need to make this decision or put it to the public again if they feel they don't have the mandate to do so.

The people voted twice, once in 2016 then in the snap election, all major political parties had to state in public that they would honor the result of the 2016 referendum. In the end, they put back in power the majority of the members who initially gave them the option to vote on the EU, somehow the people trusted them.

And what is the result of the referendum? Brexit wasn't very defined and that is the major problem here.

Dutchy wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

Yes, the EU 27 is a lot bigger than the UK. But the UK is a lot bigger than Ireland. If you think the UK is going to be the biggest victim of a no-deal Brexit, think again.

Not being a big fan of the EU, I don't get this logic of Brexiteers.

The small fish always loses. To me, what resembles the most Brexit is the pro-independence rallies in Catalonia and Québec. And what has happened? (even if CAT or QB have not "exited"?). Today Barcelona and Montréal are clearly "seconds" and no one doubts that Madrid and Toronto are the economic and everything-capitals of Spain and Canada.

IMO Brexit will be quite negative for London in the future. Until recently London was the economic-and-everything capital of Europe. This will shift to other cities. It is already happening.

Don't know about Québec, but the plan of Catalonia was to be part of the EU. Perhaps the EU is a good level to give certain area's more sovereignty but keeps in it a greater context of the EU.
I think the Heiniken plan, wasn't too unrealistic:

That was the Catalan intention. It wasn't going to work for several reasons (the biggest of which was they would likely face a Spanish veto).

The same veto that was used to threaten a Scottish independence, delicious irony

ChrisKen wrote:

Bless ya cotton socks, still not grasping the concept of a UK referendums and their meaning. Still taking the narrow view, rather than the vote as a whole.

The referendum advised that the electorate on that day were split
Just over a third voted remain, just over a third voted leave, just under a third were undecided/did not vote.

Mandated my hairy harris.

Parliament is accurately reflecting & respects that referendum advice. Parliament has to make the decision via our democratic process. The government (well the small minority of it that subscribe to no-deal) should fight for their choice in the house, not sneak it through the cat flap in the shed door by suspending out democratic process. Should be easy if its such a good thing, right? They know it's not.

Except those same minor margins are enough to put a government in place for 5 years giving them the power to authorize billions in spending on projects - civil and military -, authority to bind the country into treaties not covered by the EU for all manner of things, implement ideas that were never even discussed during the run up to an election, etc etc etc. it is the way the system works and has worked for centuries. Indeed, not every binding to the EU and its forerunners was done by public vote but by acts of parliament.

I still say the politicians should just have stood up 3 years ago and say they did not accept the result of the vote and tell the people to vote again, that has worked in other countries in the EU so.....all this wheeling and dealing is making them look silly. Would some have lost their seats in the next election held, yes, but they are saying that the interest of the country should be first and foremost right?

The vote of the people was clear, in a representative democracy that however does not mean you need to deliver in any case. If the damage to the country would be too big, it is the duty of the elected persons to change course. The long term benefit might still make the move a good choice, though and the hard Brexit is the most honest solution and fully restores British sovereignty.

par13del wrote:

Except those same minor margins are enough to put a government in place for 5 years giving them the power to authorize billions in spending on projects - civil and military -, authority to bind the country into treaties not covered by the EU for all manner of things, implement ideas that were never even discussed during the run up to an election, etc etc etc. it is the way the system works

A UK referendum is not the same process as a UK general/by election. Nor does represent the same outcomes.

Besides, the opposition still has a say. The whole house still has to reach a consensus, as per our representative democracy. As does the other place. Apparently the minority government (whose own members advocating no-deal are themselves a minority) don't have to acheive this for their no-deal brexit.

It's up to the house to reach a concensus on the best option. Whatever that is, however long that takes, the referendum result will have been respected, given that is well reflected with what's currently happening in the house.

Tens of thousands take to the street and chant: "‘stop the coup". In several cities all across the UK. Who could have thought in this day and age. The British politicians should all be very ashamed that they let it come to this.

Link

I'm in England now, and Thank God Brexit will not happen before I leave.
Then, when the UK has crashed out of the EU I would be hesitant to visit again until clearly has been spelled out how visitors etc. are treated at border crossings and such.

Regarding Boris Johnson "power grab", I didn't even know what he did (dissolving parliament) would be even possible.
If the PM in Holland ever tried to do such a thing, the Tweede Kamer would slap him/her with a vote of no-confidence (or assume an acute medical case of insanity) and sack the PM at the end of the debate.

Dieuwer wrote:

I'm in England now, and Thank God Brexit will not happen before I leave.
Then, when the UK has crashed out of the EU I would be hesitant to visit again until clearly has been spelled out how visitors etc. are treated at border crossings and such.

Even with the hardest Brexit, I don't think tourist will be in trouble, but there might be some (many) unexpected side effects.

Dieuwer wrote:

Regarding Boris Johnson "power grab", I didn't even know what he did (dissolving parliament) would be even possible.
If the PM in Holland ever tried to do such a thing, the Tweede Kamer would slap him/her with a vote of no-confidence (or assume an acute medical case of insanity) and sack the PM at the end of the debate.

In the Netherlands, it is not possible. If a Dutch Prime Minister wants to disbands Parlement, there will be an automatic election, because there is a coalition there are more checks and balances in the system. This alone will prevent such a move.

So you were not surprised by the power grab of Boris?

Dieuwer wrote:

Regarding Boris Johnson "power grab", I didn't even know what he did (dissolving parliament) would be even possible.
If the PM in Holland ever tried to do such a thing...

It's possible, it's a normal part of parliamentary process. However in this case it's also quite clearly being misused to circumvent the house and it's processes.
If they don't manage to legislate, then it's quite likely there will be a no confidence vote. Boris might be counting on that to sneak it through but he's forgotten he's not the only one who can ask for an extension from the EU while the houses sort their ship out.

No, I'm not surprised. It was touted as a strong possibilty the second he was given the job of PM. The opposition and a lot of his party were surprised though, no one thought he'd be stupid enough to actually go nuclear.

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I'm in England now, and Thank God Brexit will not happen before I leave.
Then, when the UK has crashed out of the EU I would be hesitant to visit again until clearly has been spelled out how visitors etc. are treated at border crossings and such.

Even with the hardest Brexit, I don't think tourist will be in trouble, but there might be some (many) unexpected side effects.

Dieuwer wrote:

.

I would like to travel to Europe this fall, but I will avoid using flights via LHR or other UK airport or even just to the UK and Rep. of Ireland until this Brexit mess is figured out. I suspect there will be, like we have seen with Hong Kong, a significant cut in tourism and business travel by persons in the UK and from outside the UK until the situation is more stable. Of course tourist might make out pretty well due to the lower value of the Pound and less travel to the UK may mean cheaper hotels, car rentals, tourist attractions less crowded.

ChrisKen wrote:

A UK referendum is not the same process as a UK general/by election. Nor does represent the same outcomes.

Besides, the opposition still has a say. The whole house still has to reach a consensus, as per our representative democracy.

400+ of them agreed to the question that was on the referendum, they were from all parties.
I guess only the government was obliged to honor the results, will leave it at that.

ChrisKen wrote:

A UK referendum is not the same process as a UK general/by election. Nor does represent the same outcomes.

Neglected to add, my point on the close vote was that in the existing system, a close vote for a GE still gives the government absolute power to govern, in my mind the system is not at fault here, it is the players.

Dieuwer wrote:

I'm in England now, and Thank God Brexit will not happen before I leave.
Then, when the UK has crashed out of the EU I would be hesitant to visit again until clearly has been spelled out how visitors etc. are treated at border crossings and such.

Regarding Boris Johnson "power grab", I didn't even know what he did (dissolving parliament) would be even possible.
If the PM in Holland ever tried to do such a thing, the Tweede Kamer would slap him/her with a vote of no-confidence (or assume an acute medical case of insanity) and sack the PM at the end of the debate.

What?

If you're coming into the UK from outside the EU, it's very unlikely anything will be different (excepte everything will be cheaper because the £ will be even further in the crapper). What do you think is going to happen - a 10ft high Trumpian wall will be erected overnight with a razor wire topping? At which 'border crossing' do you think you'll be treated differently. Even for EU citizens, it's very unlikely anything will change other than reciprocating the ETIAS system.

Sorry, but you post comes across as somewhat paranoid.

scbriml wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I'm in England now, and Thank God Brexit will not happen before I leave.
Then, when the UK has crashed out of the EU I would be hesitant to visit again until clearly has been spelled out how visitors etc. are treated at border crossings and such.

Regarding Boris Johnson "power grab", I didn't even know what he did (dissolving parliament) would be even possible.
If the PM in Holland ever tried to do such a thing, the Tweede Kamer would slap him/her with a vote of no-confidence (or assume an acute medical case of insanity) and sack the PM at the end of the debate.

What?

If you're coming into the UK from outside the EU, it's very unlikely anything will be different (excepte everything will be cheaper because the £ will be even further in the crapper). What do you think is going to happen - a 10ft high Trumpian wall will be erected overnight with a razor wire topping? At which 'border crossing' do you think you'll be treated differently. Even for EU citizens, it's very unlikely anything will change other than reciprocating the ETIAS system.

Sorry, but you post comes across as somewhat paranoid.

How about Boris slapping massive visa fees on the French or whatever European, because the PM of that country pissed him off? Is Boris not the UK copy of Trump? You do know how capricious and vindictive Trump is, right?
So it is not paranoid at all. It is inquiring about what might conceivably be happening.

par13del wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

A UK referendum is not the same process as a UK general/by election. Nor does represent the same outcomes.

Neglected to add, my point on the close vote was that in the existing system, a close vote for a GE still gives the government absolute power to govern, in my mind the system is not at fault here, it is the players.

It doesn't give absolute power though. The house of commons (and the other place) still have to reach a consensus.

The current coalition has a majority of one, they could have a majority of hundreds in the house and they still wouldn't have the ability to pass a no deal by consensus, as those proposing it are a minority in their own parties. More MPs oppose 'no deal' than support it.
If the house had reached a consensus we'd have our answer. It hasn't, they're still trying to find it. Circumventing that process isn't democracy and likely to be illegal and certainly unconstitutional.

ChrisKen wrote:

The current coalition has a majority of one, they could have a majority of hundreds in the house and they still wouldn't have the ability to pass a no deal by consensus, as those proposing it are a minority in their own parties. More MPs oppose 'no deal' than support it.

...and those more MP's could have killed No Deal 3 times and they did not, even the Brexiters changed their votes - Bojo and JRM - and they are called extremist who refuse to compromise, yet they did, really can't figure out the Remain side here....methinks we let them off the hook too easy.

Dieuwer wrote:

How about Boris slapping massive visa fees on the French or whatever European, because the PM of that country pissed him off?

What massive visa fees has Johnson imposed on whom? Source?

ChrisKen wrote:

A101 wrote:

And which the Prime Minister is doing, making the hard decision that the electorate mandated in the referenda

Bless ya cotton socks, still not grasping the concept of a UK referendums and their meaning. Still taking the narrow view, rather than the vote as a whole.

The referendum advised that the electorate on that day were split
Just over a third voted remain, just over a third voted leave, just under a third were undecided/did not vote.

Mandated my hairy harris.

Parliament is accurately reflecting & respects that referendum advice. Parliament has to make the decision via our democratic process. The government (well the small minority of it that subscribe to no-deal) should fight for their choice in the house, not sneak it through the cat flap in the shed door by suspending out democratic process. Should be easy if its such a good thing, right? They know it's not.

Ahh the pro-remain camp pulling out legitimacy of the voting system and taking overall electorate numbers as the result, I would be more inclined to take you're post at face value if the we had a compulsory voting system. And even then a compulsory voting system does not guarantee 100% voter turn out, one only has to look at the last Australian Federal Election to see that which had a turnout of 91.89% compared to the highest ever recorded turnout in the UK in 1950 being 83.9% Also unless you had a legitimate reason for not voting you actually receive a fine for not voting, the actual fine is $20 but the maximum penalty is $180
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/ ... on/8786684

Now way back in 2011 the people of the UK had a chance to change the first past the post system at the "United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum" which did not pass with no gaining the majority at 67.9% but with only 42.2% turnout

The statistical value you are trying to place is;
Leave: 37.449%
Remain:34.719%
Invalid votes:0.054%
Did not vote:27.789%

The only votes that matter in either a non-compulsory or compulsory election are those that actually can be counted under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 or in the case of the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum there are actually two legislative acts being the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and the European Union Referendum Act 2015

The European Union Referendum Act of 2015 passed the Commons 544-53 on its second reading the Act also passed on its third reading in the Commons on 7 September 2015 and was approved by the House of Lords on 14 December 2015, and given Royal Assent on 17 December 2015 and came partly into force on the same day and came into full legal force on 1 February 2016 Only the Scottish Nationalists opposed the bill; other parties, even the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, agreed not just on holding the referendum but on structuring it as a single vote, a one-day plebiscite requiring only a simple majority nationwide to pass – no supermajority, no “multiple lock” recognising Uk constituent parts, no later confirming vote and no requirement for a detailed prospectus of the leave position.

Prime Minister David Cameron gave legitimacy to the referenda when he proclaimed that the "vote will be implemented" and soon after the result "The result of the European Union referendum must be respected" and by respected is that whom actually turned out to vote and counted by the Electoral Commission

Prime Minister David Cameron:

"I am absolutely clear a referendum is a referendum, it's a once in a generation, once in a lifetime opportunity and the result determines the outcome ... You can't have neverendums, you have referendums."

Dutchy wrote:

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Hypocrisy all around, sure. But in the end, a decision needs to be taken. The members of the house of commons need to make this decision or put it to the public again if they feel they don't have the mandate to do so.

The people voted twice, once in 2016 then in the snap election, all major political parties had to state in public that they would honor the result of the 2016 referendum. In the end, they put back in power the majority of the members who initially gave them the option to vote on the EU, somehow the people trusted them.

And what is the result of the referendum? Brexit wasn't very defined and that is the major problem here.

I could never be defined as you do not hold negotiations before the referenda or before invoking A50, European Union Referendum Act of 2015 did not define a requirement for a detailed position to leave the EU under law, as what would happen if they made such a position under law and the EU simply said NO the UK could not accept an alternative deal under the law.

Dutchy wrote:

Tens of thousands take to the street and chant: "‘stop the coup". In several cities all across the UK. Who could have thought in this day and age. The British politicians should all be very ashamed that they let it come to this.

Link

The only person who seems to be contemplating a to overthrow of an existing government via a political faction is Jeremy Corbyn, the placards my be a bit premature.

Dieuwer wrote:

I'm in England now, and Thank God Brexit will not happen before I leave.
Then, when the UK has crashed out of the EU I would be hesitant to visit again until clearly has been spelled out how visitors etc. are treated at border crossings and such.

Regarding Boris Johnson "power grab", I didn't even know what he did (dissolving parliament) would be even possible.
If the PM in Holland ever tried to do such a thing, the Tweede Kamer would slap him/her with a vote of no-confidence (or assume an acute medical case of insanity) and sack the PM at the end of the debate.

Boris Johnson has not dissolved Parliament he ask the Queen to prorogue which end a parliamentary session before starting a new session, Dissolution of the Parliament is when the electorate will go to the polls

ChrisKen wrote:

par13del wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

A UK referendum is not the same process as a UK general/by election. Nor does represent the same outcomes.

Neglected to add, my point on the close vote was that in the existing system, a close vote for a GE still gives the government absolute power to govern, in my mind the system is not at fault here, it is the players.

It doesn't give absolute power though. The house of commons (and the other place) still have to reach a consensus.

The current coalition has a majority of one, they could have a majority of hundreds in the house and they still wouldn't have the ability to pass a no deal by consensus, as those proposing it are a minority in their own parties. More MPs oppose 'no deal' than support it.
If the house had reached a consensus we'd have our answer. It hasn't, they're still trying to find it. Circumventing that process isn't democracy and likely to be illegal and certainly unconstitutional.

The only answers to parliament opposing leaving the EU without a deal is either the WA or revoke A50, they simply have to choose one or the other if they cant no deal is the default you cant leave the uncertainty going forever.

par13del wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

The current coalition has a majority of one, they could have a majority of hundreds in the house and they still wouldn't have the ability to pass a no deal by consensus, as those proposing it are a minority in their own parties. More MPs oppose 'no deal' than support it.

...and those more MP's could have killed No Deal 3 times and they did not, even the Brexiters changed their votes - Bojo and JRM - and they are called extremist who refuse to compromise, yet they did, really can't figure out the Remain side here....methinks we let them off the hook too easy.

Yep pro-remain cannot be pleased until A50 is revoked but wait they don't want that either,

Revocation to avoid no-deal: Result: Yes 184 - No 293 - Defeated
Confirmatory public vote: Result: Yes 268 - No 295 - Defeated
No deal:Result: Yes 160 - No 400 - Defeated
Customs union: Result: Yes 264 - No 272 - Defeated
Efta and EEA: Result: Yes 65 - No 377 - Defeated
Labour's alternative plan: Result: Yes 237 - No 307 - Defeated
Contingent preferential arrangements:Result: Yes 139 - No 422 - Defeated
Common market 2.0: Result: Yes 188 - No 283 - Defeated

scbriml wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

How about Boris slapping massive visa fees on the French or whatever European, because the PM of that country pissed him off?

What massive visa fees has Johnson imposed on whom? Source?

I don't think even Johnson is that silly to do something like that

The Tories' manifesto in 2017 called for Brexit with a good deal, so there is no mandate for no deal.

Clearly this current parliament is unable to decide something, but another parliament might not be better.

A new referendum is the obvious way to get out of this, and I don't see how it could seriously be called undemocratic. However the most ardent Brexiteers don't want to risk losing that referendum, so they won't allow it.

Aesma wrote:

The Tories' manifesto in 2017 called for Brexit with a good deal, so there is no mandate for no deal.

Clearly this current parliament is unable to decide something, but another parliament might not be better.

A new referendum is the obvious way to get out of this, and I don't see how it could seriously be called undemocratic. However the most ardent Brexiteers don't want to risk losing that referendum, so they won't allow it.

Except the manifesto also say's:

...…..but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK

And we need to get the right deal, parliament rejected the deal brought to it by TM three times, either BJ will get the concessions desired or no deal,

If we are going to make sure Britain emerges from Brexit as a strong and united nation, we will need strong leadership and good government: to get the right deal for Britain in Europe

A new referendum is not the way out of this, Parliament has had ample opportunity to amend the outcome and failed, the process either has to run its course or put it to the government revoke A50 those are the only options left.

Let BJ have his time unhindered up till the new session of parliament as BJ is right if the EU still think that we will not leave without a deal than they have no reason to change there position after all you can revoke right up to the 31 October.

https://www.afr.com/world/europe/method ... 831-p52mpx


An interesting take on Boris methods something that has crossed my mind many a time. I have said it before that Boris wants to leave with a deal.

Some people just need help with taking their blinkers off.

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I'm in England now, and Thank God Brexit will not happen before I leave.
Then, when the UK has crashed out of the EU I would be hesitant to visit again until clearly has been spelled out how visitors etc. are treated at border crossings and such.

Even with the hardest Brexit, I don't think tourist will be in trouble, but there might be some (many) unexpected side effects..

The last two times this year I visited the UK (with my Spanish passport) and didn't use e-Gates (once in SEN - no e-Gates whatsoever - and in LGW - e-Gates didn't work -) I was asked in which country I live (I don't live in the UK), what flight I was coming from... not overly invasive but I don't recall been asked any questions years ago. It seemed odd to me.

I reckon a problem in the UK (which seems to be one problem EU citizens have to get this "settled" status) is that traditionally there are few controls and paperwork (and as a EU citizen you don't have any Visa stamp).

https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/30/mum-live ... -10658918/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -status-uk

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ent-scheme

In any case, I don't understand why those EU citizens are surprised. The UK has always been an outlier in the EU and always liked to set themselves apart (no Schengen, etc). IMO Brexit is a natural process. Given that those three EU citizens (Italy, France, Portugal) in the articles I posted have lived in the UK for decades, I don't understand either why they haven't taken on a UK passport.

SCQ83 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

I'm in England now, and Thank God Brexit will not happen before I leave.
Then, when the UK has crashed out of the EU I would be hesitant to visit again until clearly has been spelled out how visitors etc. are treated at border crossings and such.

Even with the hardest Brexit, I don't think tourist will be in trouble, but there might be some (many) unexpected side effects..

The last two times this year I visited the UK (with my Spanish passport) and didn't use e-Gates (once in SEN - no e-Gates whatsoever - and in LGW - e-Gates didn't work -) I was asked in which country I live (I don't live in the UK), what flight I was coming from... not overly invasive but I don't recall been asked any questions years ago. It seemed odd to me.

I reckon a problem in the UK (which seems to be one problem EU citizens have to get this "settled" status) is that traditionally there are few controls and paperwork (and as a EU citizen you don't have any Visa stamp).

https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/30/mum-live ... -10658918/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -status-uk

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ent-scheme

In any case, I don't understand why those EU citizens are surprised. The UK has always been an outlier in the EU and always liked to set themselves apart (no Schengen, etc). IMO Brexit is a natural process. Given that those three EU citizens (Italy, France, Portugal) in the articles I posted have lived in the UK for decades, I don't understand either why they haven't taken on a UK passport.

Like I said, countries within the EU treat UK citizens better than the UK treats EU citizens in the UK. Even on that level you can see that the problem lies within the UK, not the EU.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

par13del wrote:

The people voted twice, once in 2016 then in the snap election, all major political parties had to state in public that they would honor the result of the 2016 referendum. In the end, they put back in power the majority of the members who initially gave them the option to vote on the EU, somehow the people trusted them.

And what is the result of the referendum? Brexit wasn't very defined and that is the major problem here.

I could never be defined as you do not hold negotiations before the referenda or before invoking A50, European Union Referendum Act of 2015 did not define a requirement for a detailed position to leave the EU under law, as what would happen if they made such a position under law and the EU simply said NO the UK could not accept an alternative deal under the law.

Exactly, so with the same legitimacy you can say that we tried, but the outcome wasn't what we want, so we revoke article 50 and be done with it.

The leave means leave mantra is bogus.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And what is the result of the referendum? Brexit wasn't very defined and that is the major problem here.

I could never be defined as you do not hold negotiations before the referenda or before invoking A50, European Union Referendum Act of 2015 did not define a requirement for a detailed position to leave the EU under law, as what would happen if they made such a position under law and the EU simply said NO the UK could not accept an alternative deal under the law.

Exactly, so with the same legitimacy you can say that we tried, but the outcome wasn't what we want, so we revoke article 50 and be done with it.

Are you suggesting it should have been done in way to make sure the negotiations fail?

You still do realise that the that would have boxed Parliament in even more as the default position under A50 is still a no deal exit, don't you

Dutchy wrote:

The leave means leave mantra is bogus.

How so?

A101 wrote:

You still do realise that the that would have boxed Parliament in even more as the default position under A50 is still a no deal exit, don't you

That remains to be determined in court, as you very well know.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The leave means leave mantra is bogus.

How so?

Because it is meaningless. As you, yourself have argued, the Brexit wasn't well defined and thus negotiations were needed to define it. Then claiming that the advisory referendum was for a hard Brexit and that everyone voted for a hard Brexit is bogus. So have a revote with clear defined options.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The leave means leave mantra is bogus.

How so?

Your kids took a small vote and just about decided they wanted to go for a swim in lake. The water looks so turquoise and inviting, 'what could possibly go wrong?' Swim means swim.

All the locals, experts and consensus say this is a bad idea. Although it looks inviting, it's Lake Kawah Ijen. The water is so acidic, it'll induce great pain and really wont be good for their health. The toxic gases will probably inflict untold damage and the current within it will make a quick escape unlikely as they'll be dragged away from it's edge.

The kids listen to this advice, learn from it and decide maybe it's not such a good idea, as there's a whole load of consequences they hadn't considered or even realised existed.

But swim means swim, right? In you go kids.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

You still do realise that the that would have boxed Parliament in even more as the default position under A50 is still a no deal exit, don't you

That remains to be determined in court, as you very well know.

Do you even understand what you are replying to and in the context?

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The leave means leave mantra is bogus.

How so?

Because it is meaningless. As you, yourself have argued, the Brexit wasn't well defined and thus negotiations were needed to define it. Then claiming that the advisory referendum was for a hard Brexit and that everyone voted for a hard Brexit is bogus. So have a revote with clear defined options.

No i didn’t, please do not twist what I said to suit your own interpretation of events. Look at what European Union Referendum Act of 2015 say’s: which did not define a requirement for a detailed position as Article 50 shows that the withdrawl agreement and future relationship has to be negotiated, you can’t legislate into law what hasn’t been negotiated. It’s not bloody rocket science