(21-11-2018 16:05 )Jack the Nipper Wrote:  Believe me Goodfella I'm not trying to be patronizing on your comments as I have always had an acknowledgement & respect on both sides of the debate on whether its Leave or Remain as there are pro & cons on both arguments on various sides of the debate.But the respect erodes when there is a non-acceptance of a democratic vote & a continued call to have another vote & then another vote if that vote doesn't provide the result the way certain people wanted.

(21-11-2018 16:15 )terence Wrote:  ^given the abhorrent lies we were told and the lack of understanding most people had about the eu and what it's function is, wouldn't a second referendum be the ultimate democratic action?

(21-11-2018 16:46 )SecretAgent Wrote:  ^ No because Brexiteers don’t believe in Democracy! They stated quite clearly on the night of the referendum when they thought they’d lost that it would not be the end if the matter. Now when people of all persuasions question the deal on offer they want a hard Brexit that nobody voted for rather than trust the public to decide with the benefit of the knowledge we now have.

In other countries they manage to have votes in quick succession for Presidents so to my mind as there is no majority in Parliament for the current deal or a hard Brexit we should have 2 votes. The first one could be “Do you want to exit the EU on the basis of the current deal” If the public say yes then that’s what we do. If the public say no then a couple of weeks later a 2nd referendum is held where the question is “ Do you want a Hard Brexit or to Remain”

I find it ridulous that Brexiteers campaigned on Sovereignty but now as MP’s don’t trust the people who elected them.

(20-11-2018 06:22 )HannahsPet Wrote:  Never has so much shit been spouted about so much by so few

Evening Standard Wrote:[This] has been the quintessential “post-truth” political saga... a dramatic sequence more or less entirely governed by emotional resonance and founded on irreconcilable claims.

(19-11-2018 01:58 )Jack the Nipper Wrote:  One man's curiosity is another man's form of sarcasm & judging by your numerous questions that even the most in-depth,knowledgeable EU expert would struggle to answer without a forensic research on every EU/UK law,trade,immigration & environmental policy etc I'm opting for the latter.If I had every answer to each of those without researching them first then I'd probably be a Government mandarin & not exchanging dialect on a forum.And if you too are unconversant with every machination of EU/UK then we are both talking hypothetically of what we both want inside or outside the EU.

Briefly touching over a things on a few subjects regarding immigration (7 out of 10 voters back controls on immigration) I'd back an end of freedom of movement in exchange for a tier/skills based visa system (time limited for certain sectors if there are labour shortages).More Government investment on apprenticeships (for both school leavers & adults) & work experience placements in school with better careers advice.Less focus on governments trying to push every school leaver into university (& pointless courses).

Withdrawal Deal/Backstop;The EU has offered 2 off the shelf models Norway & Canada Deal & from day dot I've always advocated for a Canada Plus model where EU negotiator Michel Barnier has admitted he is open for an Invisible Border between both Ireland's if sufficient technology is there(like there currently is with a technological one for differentiating VAT, currency etc).If full technology isn't available then I'd float the Nick Boles' idea of temporarily moving into a Norway Deal then transition into a Canada Plus model when technology is ready.And remember the backstop plan is there if a failure to negotiate a trade-deal.The main fault with Theresa May's backstop plan is that there is no end date & the only way the leave it is via a mutual agreement.And as I've mentioned previously 7 pages of the Withdrawal Agreement stipulates that any future trade deal with the EU requires us being in the Customs Union that would nulify the UK from trading independently around the world.

Cutting to the quick though neither you nor I will change each others minds or our reasons for voting so it's a futile debate.But as a leave voter I have a few questions for you (as a remainer)that I have prepared for you that aren't quite as technical as mine.

Do you back a People's Vote/2nd Ref & if so what question should be on the ballot paper (referendum questions in nature have 2 binary answers)?.

Should the remain vote win on a 2nd Ref what compromises (or elements of leave) could be made that would satisfy leave voters & unite the country?.

Should the leave vote win again on a 2nd Ref would it mean a Hard Brexit or would negotiations need to be made & for what?.

Under what circumstances should a Hard Border between both Ireland's be implemented & by whom?.

Regarding immigration rules who should get immigration preference an Indian Doctor or an EU fruit picker?.

7 out of 10 people believe the immigration in the UK needs to be controlled or reduced are they right? if no then do immigration levels have any impact on wages & infrastructure?.

(22-11-2018 19:21 )ShandyHand Wrote:  

Evening Standard Wrote:[This] has been the quintessential “post-truth” political saga... a dramatic sequence more or less entirely governed by emotional resonance and founded on irreconcilable claims.

(https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/i-never-thought-i-d-say-it-but-there-could-be-an-upside-to-brexit-a3996066.html)



Thanks for the reply. Rest assured you are over-estimating my powers of subtlety if you thought I was being sarcastic with my post. My intent was as stated. I was trying to encourage some comment on our building for the future and away from the divisiveness and tearing down that has characterised this fractious debate so far.

I agree that realistic answers to the questions I asked are beyond most laymen and that includes me! However, it was you who said you had researched the question posed in the referendum so I thought the attempt to establish what it was you wanted for everyone's future in voting as you did was worth a shot. Note too that I only asked for your aspirations on these questions, I was not overly concerned with your thoughts on what might practically be achieved from the actual negotiations. (I could perhaps have made that clearer.) Though I will, again, give you credit here JtN in that you seem more mindful of what can realistically be had from Brussels than most I've heard from on your side of the argument.


Regardless, we now see that like most in this debate you only researched this question so far. This is no slight on you, as it is no slight on anyone that did so. As Goodfella says these are the complex topics - the very things that we vote in politicians to handle for us in fact!

If I HAD to state my preference for any new referenda question, and I agree any three tier question would be intrinsically unfair, I would have it thus: Accept the current deal; or suspend Article 50 and have a general election. This latter would then allow the parties to set out their stalls again on what the rejection of the deal meant and outline what they propose as an alternative. Of course it seems likely that any such suspension would have to be agreed by the ECJ in any case. (And, as such, I think we are now past the point it could be done in time, making this a muter point by the day.)

However, IF remain were to win a second vote I don't see anything that would then satisfy those that voted out in 2016... Were any of the compromises May has made so far really done with the placating of the remain voting public in mind? I feel in no way placated by her current plans. I feel all May is doing is trying to make the best of a bad job - stopping the economy from tanking even more and trying to keep hold of as many jobs as possible, etc., as I see it. In other words she is trying to ensure that the Tories are reelected. There can be no sop to remainers because we are not remaining.

And unless I'm missing something a Canada plus plus deal is still possible in the long run is it not?

Indian Doc or EU fruit picker? I have no argument with anyone working here who is making a net contribution to the economy of this country. (Overall EU workers make a net contribution to our economy and on average each worker contributes more than the average Brit. Source)

And proper research indicates that immigration (particularly that from the EU) does not have the overall negative impacts on indigenous wages (and unemployment) that propagandists would claim. I admit the impacts of immigration on infrastructure in the UK are even more complex and in some ways problematic but overall the picture is certainly no one way street. For instance, I see that London already has a vast shortfall of workers in its construction projects despite employing 30% from the EU. How is that work going to benefit from the throttling of EU migration?

Finally, can I ask, what the encouragement of apprenticeships, the focus on helping as many pupils as possible into university courses, etc., has to do with our membership of the EU?

(19-11-2018 18:48 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  If I were The Emperor, I would insist on no more referendums, BUT there could only be free, un-whipped votes in Parliament from now on for anything Brexit-related. They created this mess -- they should deal with it, let the chips fall where they may, and then face their constituents like grown-ups.

Sadly, the closest I will ever come to being the Emperor is this...

(19-11-2018 15:24 )Jack the Nipper Wrote:  I completely agree with Goodfella on not a lot.