Yeah but leaving to where exactly? What's the destination of this departure? What will future treaties between the EU and UK look like, and what is the roadmap to achieve this future status? Most importantly how does the UK government satisfy it's incredibly demanding population while also creating a better status for each of the other 27 countries in the EU? After all that is what May and Johnson have been promising to anyone willing to listen and they keep increasing the expectations on all sides... at some point they will have to deliver more than reiterations of the obvious.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yeah but leaving to where exactly? What's the destination of this departure? What will future treaties between the EU and UK look like, and what is the roadmap to achieve this future status? Most importantly how does the UK government satisfy it's incredibly demanding population while also creating a better status for each of the other 27 countries in the EU? After all that is what May and Johnson have been promising to anyone willing to listen and they keep increasing the expectations on all sides... at some point they will have to deliver more than reiterations of the obvious.
But do you guys need the approval of the parliament to ratify an international treaty, that's the question?
Basically who holds the legislative power in the UK, in most countries it's the parliament?
Until Article 50 is triggered the UK has not officially "resigned" from the EU. If it doesn't trigger article 50 then the UK remains in the EU.
As for the apocalypse of the economy. The uncertainty has already severely damaged Sterling and high probability of mounting inflation - this is stage one.
Those Brexiters who believe they have already left the EU, the apocalypse starts in Stage 2 if and when Article 50 is triggered. Stage 3 will be if and when the UK leaves the EU, probably 2020 at the earliest when in all likelihood they will have no trade deals in place because they cannot negotiate until they leave.
The length of time to negotiate these deals is not a matter of a few months or even a few years which could leave the UK in limbo during the majority of the
2020s.
Can keep repeating the same thing over and again but doubt it will ever sink in because Brexiters don't want to face reality.
As for the apocalypse of the economy. The uncertainty has already severely damaged Sterling and high probability of mounting inflation - this is stage one.
Those Brexiters who believe they have already left the EU, the apocalypse starts in Stage 2 if and when Article 50 is triggered. Stage 3 will be if and when the UK leaves the EU, probably 2020 at the earliest when in all likelihood they will have no trade deals in place because they cannot negotiate until they leave.
The length of time to negotiate these deals is not a matter of a few months or even a few years which could leave the UK in limbo during the majority of the
2020s.
Can keep repeating the same thing over and again but doubt it will ever sink in because Brexiters don't want to face reality.
yes, but my comment wasn't really aimed at you, but at @Nick 0208 Ldn
Leaving isn't up for discussion, but how the agreement that follows will look like.
The EU will negotiate with the government, but the british parliament might be able to influence the mandate of the government.
The conundrum here is, that usually the government negotiates these things and puts them to parliament afterwards to vote for/against it. That gives the parliament power/leverage/influence, because they government has to present an agreement, that the parliament can agree up on.
Yet the same process makes no sense in this specific instant, because once Art.50 is triggered, there is no going back. Even if the parliament doesn't like the outcome of the negotiations, it can't object anymore. It is too late, because the UK will be out regardless.
The position of the government is, that this doesn't matter and parliament has just to suck it up. Parts of the parliament seems to be uneasy with this. The question now is, can the parliament tell the government before the negotiations begin "These are your goals, that you should try to achieve in the negotiation-process."
Parliament elects the PM, if it doesn't support the PM anymore then they hold a vote of no confidence and if that is carried then he or she is no longer PM.
Parliament doesn't do the negotiation, the Govt which the PM selects does.
Before we can start negotiations we have to trigger article 50.
Its not that hard to follow but the remoaners can't seem to accept they lost the referendum and can't prevent the UK leaving the EU which will happen in due course.
Also there seems to be this idea that there is a soft brexit option despite Tusk repeatedly saying there isn't. The remoaners are fools in this regard, demanding a result which can't be achieved.
You did vote Remain didn't you, Mr Remoaner
It has nothing to do with negotiations but about who makes the laws in the UK. You are confusing the law proposal and the law making, the law making is the role of the parliament and since a treaty is a source of law, it has to be voted by the parliament.
Not really.
They can put forward a vote of no confidence in the PM and get a new PM but that isn't likely. Everyone is getting all excited about a fight already decided by the referendum. We will have to trigger article 50 and we will be out of the EU and the deal we get will be the deal we get and Parliament had its chance to stop all this by voting down the referendum bill. They didn't they supported Cameron and they can't complain about it all now the result is in.
Some people don't want to leave. Duh.
Yes I voted remain and I think I am more convinced now that I was right to do so but the principle of democracy is that you get a vote along with a lot of other people and if they outvote you then they get to do what they voted for which in this case is to leave the EU. I am not moaning about it so I am not a remoaner. I was a remain voter though.
Is this simple enough for you to understand so that we can move on?
Parliament isn't trying to do the negotiations. What makes you think they are?
If there has to be a vote on triggering article 50 then that is what has to happen, I am saying that I don't think it will change a thing because either parliament passes the vote to allow May to trigger A50 or it doesn't. If it doesn't then I think May goes to the country and wins a massive majority and comes back and passes it and then triggers it, none of which will make a blind bit of difference to the deal we get in the end.
So why call those who think Remain is a better idea than Leave remoaners, just because they disagree with the Leave campaign. They don't want the country to go down the toilet.
But it appears some people who voted remain are quite happy to accept any disasters that befall the UK because slightly more people voted to Leave than Remain
When would it be an appropriate time to start complaining. In another 40 years?
I mean the Brexiters are already moaning about Article 50 being ratified by parliament , you know -democracy
It is as simple as that, which make the leavers complaints strange.
I'm not sure there is a workable Brexit for remainers, certainly no more than there was a workable EU for Brexiters.
And I think it's quite a leap to equate claims of apocalyptic financial impact (which there is certainly a strong evidentiary base for already) with just completely making shit up about funding, legislative powers and immigrants.
Last edited:
No, parliament is in the UK designed to be representative. In short, any constitutional act is debated and amended to reflect the opinions of the nation which is, in case you forget 48% of the vote and 62% of the eligible population not voting to leave. Once the act is agreed in parliament, it is then the job of government to negotiate how we leave against those principles.
That is British sovereignty. Checks and balances. Representation. Debate. Not dictat.
How many 'kin times, we can acknowledge we lost but still carry on protesting this madness in the hope that sense will be seen before Article 50 is triggered, it's our democratic right and in this instance I see it as a patriotic duty. Whether the percentage of the Brexit voters that are voting along racist and borderline fascist lines may only be 10 or 20% of the 17.1M (and I'd suggest it's way more than that) it would still be enough of a portion to have swung the vote. I cannot and will not live in a situation where I would just allow that to happen, if more people had stood up to the National Socialist party in Germany in the 1930s at an early stage then history might be very, very different but they didn't and Hitler through his 4 referendums turned a whole country and changed the face of European politics forever carrying out a genocide on a scale never before seen.
If there was never a soft Brexit option then why were the vast majority of Brexiters talking about how harmoniously we could live with a Norwegian or Swiss model both up to and since the referendum? What Tusk is saying is that there is no soft Brexit option that would not involve Freedom of Movement and the UK paying in more than it already does, something us remoaners pointed out all the way through this debacle. A hard Brexit will ruin our economy for decades to come and as more people become desperate how many more turn to the far right for answers, how long before the next referendum is on internment and deportation of all British muslims?
I can protest, I will protest, it's my democratic right and even my patriotic duty to do so and I will continue to do so until it becomes potentially dangerous to myself and my family at which point, feck you all, we're off for good and screw Britannia.
I am not a constitutional lawyer; I am just trying to outline the controversy. What you descripe is mostly irrelevant to this question.
Because they didn't know what parliamentary sovereignty, that they were suddenly so passionate about before and after the referendum, actually is.
Every eu leader and his dog had said tht its not possible to have unrestricted access to the single market without freedom of movement so what makes you think that theres a soft brexit option?
There is a soft brexit option if we accept freedom of movement, despite chronic amnesia or myopia among the brexiteers there was no option on freedom of movement on the ballot. This is what parliament needs to debate. Brexit without access to the common market would be a disaster for the UK economy, we know what the price of that access is so does parliament go for the soft option to minimise damage to the economy or the hard option to appease the far right element of the Brexit voters?
a
Last edited:
As many as you like because voting Brexit isn't like voting for Hitler and I think that is obvious not least to the generation which was involved in stopping him which voted mainly Brexit.
Also, at issue is whether we leave the EU or not that is what the referendum was supposed to decide and now you want to change your mind about what was voted on because you lost. If you can turn round afterwards and decide not to trigger A50 then what was the point in the whole exercise?
We are not talking about types of Brexit.
It wont happen as debate reveal intention and most brexiters dont want their intentions for brexit to be revealed
Sit back and laugh comfortable in Holland all you like Stan. Are you telling me you'd just let the Tories, UKIP and Britain First roll in Britain's first fascist government and stand idly by doing nothing if you still lived here? Yet you still claim to be a socialist.
Rant
Read the post again because I said the exact opposite yet the remoaners on here seem to think differently.
My mother is 95 and she was 12 when Hitler came to power, don't think maths is your strong point.
How many people over 89 do you think voted Brexit, because that's the generation that fought Hitler. The generation that followed in the peace created by that group may well have formed a sizeable part of the leave vote but that's got nothing to do with it, that their xenophobia grew out of post WWII austerity and the subsequent immigration that rebuilt the country is disappointing but not surprising to anyone that grew up with Bernard Manning, Jim Davidson, Mind Your Language and Alf Garnett on TV. Voting Brexit may not have been a vote for Hitler but surely you can see the rising tide of the far right when national newspapers are declaring High Court judges traitors for daring to uphold the law.
I would love to see the whole thing binned, it was only an advisory referendum after all and one that was atrociously prepared, campaigned and run by both sides. That it will determine the future of this country for much of the rest of my life terrifies me. Putting the vote to parliament though is not about overturning the referendum, it's about finding the best route to Brexit for the country in the eyes of our democratically elected representatives as you keep reminding us. If we have to leave then the question of hard vs soft Brexit will be the centre of that debate. That had Brexit is ruinous and soft Brexit is worse than the status quo were we to remain in the EU is clear and any sensible nation would welcome their politicians considering that maybe ignoring the referendum is the only sensible option. Expecting sense from parliament is like expecting sense from the majority of the UK though.
A socialist without the right to vote anywhere i might add. Not laughing at you but where you find time and energy to pen such long rants.
Wilders pvv party are top of the charts here and not much i can do if he is voted in.
However, i do want to see anyone that voted cameroon in, knowing full well what could happen, suffer a great deal. I'm a firm believer in you get what you pay for and by gove they got it.
I have zero, fecking zero sympathy for them. its so hypocritical. the fact that some good people will suffer is a shame but dont blame the 52%, blame tory voters.
If people suffer from Brexit, don't blame the people who voted for Brexit, blame the people who voted Tory instead? That makes no sense.
It kind of make sense because if I'm not mistaken, Stan blames Cameron for his actions as PM and his use of Brexit as a political tool. So the people who voted for Tory and supported Cameron are the main culprit.
Yes but he didn't make them vote for Brexit
Thats about as irrelevant as it gets.
Book a holiday in typhoon season and hope it stays dry
yes, the 30 odd %
The people who voted Cameron are to blame for the referendum happening in the first place. They didn't force people to vote to leave though.
People who voted leave can't just wash their hands of all responsibility if it goes wrong. You're responsible for your vote. If you make a stupid decision with that vote, it's your stupid decision, nobody else's.
Basically the position SR outlined serves to divert blame away from Brexit-supporting non-Tories, which he just so happens to be.
But he knew that people were angry and confused, he knew that the insular nature of british people could have led to this, he knew that his "friends" were lying, dishonest scumbags.
Cameron is the number one culprit, he was willing to put his country in a tough spot for his own potential benefit.