None of the above
Brexit implementation
- Thread starter homes
- Start date
AFCDorset
Subscribed
No need to be cryptic, you are usually a clear thinker.None of the above
What do you think is causing the breakdown in our government, happy to hear your view.
I don't accept your premise about "the breakdown in our government". Nor do I agree with what I think is a different point, but which you may be treating as a different way of saying the same thing, that the country has become polarised into a sectarian mess.
AFCDorset
Subscribed
Firstly, do you consider that the government is doing ok or even doing a decent job in difficult circumstances?
And secondly no, it is different, the 'sectarian' comment was about the intransigence of certain interest groups and their effect on British politics. The hard left, 'environmental' groups, even the main stream media promote views that are intent on suppressing any dissent. This develops into an 'us or them' situation, the very essence of sectarianism.
SardiniaFox
Bill Poster
Is that why the Daily Mail, as an example, called anyone who wasn't 100% behind a hard Brexit "enemies of the people"?
AFCDorset
Subscribed
Did they really say that?
I haven't looked at a Daily Mail in decades but that is astonishing. Generally speaking I consider what I see in those newspaper headlines that I do see to be 'controlled opposition' or simple propaganda.
That would be the judges who were ensuring process was passing through the country’s rule of law being targeted by a Brexit-supporting newspaper that wanted the country to be run...by its own laws.Thought they were referring to the judges...
View attachment 1101
...from the newspaper that supported Hitler
View attachment 1102
AFCDorset
Subscribed
That sounds about right.
Yet another example of the incompetence of the May government in getting itself into a mess of it's own making.
I could argue the point that the court was meddling in matters that were really the business of parliament but the shitshow that was the government of the day really did much of that to itself.
You could argue but you'd be wrong to do so unfortunately.
The Brexit referendum was never binding (like any other referendum), merely advisory. Hence the need for the judges to be involved & the legal process to be followed.
AFCDorset
Subscribed
Possibly MM, it was certainly an argument at the time. I still feel that the brexit decisions should have been made by parliament and, before the creation of the Supreme Court, they would have been.
The lack of a written constitution means that these sorts of matters are open to interpretation, is a referendum binding if the PM of the day says that it is? I do not think that this is conclusive either way, there is certainly nothing to say that a referendum is not binding or that it is. By convention (precedence) a referendum is acted upon by the government, this might just sway the argument.
astleyfox
Subscribed
Thats a technicality. What do you think would have happened, if the government had gone back on its word to implement the result?
Lonesome Crow
King of the lurkers.
I bet it would of been binding if remain had won.
AFCDorset
Subscribed
Judging by the last 12 months, not a lot.
Of course it would, but 'that's different'.
MrTeabreak
Subscribed
The government doesn't need a referendum to make policy, it never has.
The Heath government took us into the old EEC without a referendum, that came later to see if we wanted to stay in.
Cameron could've just said 'we're leaving the EU' if that was what he wanted. But he didn't, EU membership wasn't even on the radar for most people. He just wanted to knock the tory eurosceptics into line in time for the next election, as Farage was bleeding support from the hard right of the party.
The Brexit vote was not about Europe for the tory party, it was about unifying their own party, and they committed the biggest blunder in a generation (or opportunity depending upon your politics), over simple party politics.
The sensible middle ground part of the Tories has atrophied or been expunged during the last 4 years and all we're left with is cretinous vacuous dogmatic idiots who couldn't organize a village Fete.
Last edited:
Lonesome Crow
King of the lurkers.
"The government doesn't need a referendum to make policy, it never has"
I know but it was part of the manifesto on which they got elected.
"Cameron could've just said 'we're leaving the EU' if that was what he wanted"
Yeah right, can you imagine the uproar, it was bad enough after leave won the referendum.
I know but it was part of the manifesto on which they got elected.
"Cameron could've just said 'we're leaving the EU' if that was what he wanted"
Yeah right, can you imagine the uproar, it was bad enough after leave won the referendum.
If leave had won, the outcome is different because you effectively remain where you are, as opposed to going thru’ an exit process which Brexit cheerleaders hadn’t even vaguely worked out or explained at the time (as we have witnessed subsequently).
Besides, Frottage himself said before the referendum that a 52-48 vote in favour of remain (because he’d assumed it would be close but that leave would still lose) would mean that the issue was far from over.
Lonesome Crow
King of the lurkers.
All irrelevent, it's either binding or it isn't.
It wasn’t, which is why certain papers & politicians resorted to using emotive language like “(going against) the will of the people”, which forget stoked the issue.
*further stoked
Foxgolfer
Bill Poster
Can we just say - Okay we left . It’s clearly shit. Let’s just admit we made a bit of a fool of ourselves and get back in by Easter ?
AFCDorset
Subscribed
Morning all, a few thoughts.
We have no tradition of regular referenda in the uk and there is no defining law that makes them binding or not. The lack of a written constitution allows parliament to make it up as it goes along, often this works, sometimes it does not. Such precedence as does exist shows that the government implements the choice of the voters.
However in the run up to the vote, the government committed to implement the result 'whatever it might be' and stated clearly that 'out means out', of the single market, customs union et al. I think the British people had the right to take the government at it's word.
The political machinations within the Tory party that MrT were important in that they contributed heavily to the decision to have the referendum, Cameron thought he could close down the leavers within the party and, expecting a remain vote, stifle anti EU feeling among some of the population. He got that all wrong, bottled it and ran.
We have no tradition of regular referenda in the uk and there is no defining law that makes them binding or not. The lack of a written constitution allows parliament to make it up as it goes along, often this works, sometimes it does not. Such precedence as does exist shows that the government implements the choice of the voters.
However in the run up to the vote, the government committed to implement the result 'whatever it might be' and stated clearly that 'out means out', of the single market, customs union et al. I think the British people had the right to take the government at it's word.
The political machinations within the Tory party that MrT were important in that they contributed heavily to the decision to have the referendum, Cameron thought he could close down the leavers within the party and, expecting a remain vote, stifle anti EU feeling among some of the population. He got that all wrong, bottled it and ran.
AFCDorset
Subscribed
Actually Lonesome that is not true. There is nothing to say that one way or another, it is one of the classic 'fudges' of the 'unwritten' British Constitution.
Stupid though this sounds in 2021, back in 2016, many people, myself included, thought that, on matters of principle, we could actually trust the words of the democratically elected British Prime Minister. We couldn't.
So did you just buy the idea that somehow it would just “happen”? Were you not interested in how it would happen or any of the implications?
AFCDorset
Subscribed
Like most brexiteers of my acquaintance, we wanted to be out of the EU in such a way that they had no official influence over our affairs. The method was simple, invoke Article 50, leave on WTO terms after a 2 year transition period, that was always the default position.
If, during the transition period, deals were agreed that allowed trade or other interactions to take place that were preferable to the WTO arrangements then fine, if not we all knew where we stood.
Your second paragraph is key - the lack of preparation on the part of the people in charge is/was shocking.
In an effort to deflect, I know that many leavers will desperately cling on to the excuse that it’s the EU being the bad guys (after all, blaming someone else has become par for the course over the last 5-6 years), but if anyone has the time to look at it much closer, you have to wonder what the f**k certain people were up to over the last 4 years.
AFCDorset
Subscribed
That is very true.
What surprises me most is that the contempt shown to the British by the EU was so self evident that anyone, irrespective of their political persuasion, would even think of staying in.
There are two distinct issues in play here. Getting out of the EU is one thing, preparing for later relations is quite another.
Many Brexiteers, like me, consider that we are not out of the EU. Put simply, the EU still has control over some of our affairs, so by my reckoning we are not actually out.
But more importantly the government wasted 4+ years in the hope that something would happen so that they could somehow cancel the whole thing and stay in. Most retainers and almost the entire government/civil service cabal wanted that too.
Which brings us to where we are today, stuck with possibly the worst possible outcome.
astleyfox
Subscribed
How have we ,”made a fool of ourselves”?