What's new
PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Brexit never? Britain can still change its mind, says Article 50 autho

raefil said:
The answer to your question is yes.

However what we had was Labour and the Old Tory party colluding to frustrate the vote, the door was then opened for ERG to take control of the tories and we are where we are now.

As I say Im as guilty as any but weve slept walked into a position where the right took hold of the mantle and went about sorting it in a care free manner. We will pay the price of this for generations.

Its pointless blaming the Tories because, heres the truth, the blame must be spread amongst everyone, not just political parties, that tried with all their might to have this overturned. We let them in and, I fear to say it, theyre here for the long term.
Click to expand...
This is why I voted against the Tories at the GE when they were running for the Brexit vote and why I was so pissed off with Labour for chasing another vote. Complete idiocy and self serving politics.

You vote for what is right, not the least shit option and you honour democracy.

National stupidity was proven at the last GE.
 
Sepp Blatter said:
It was very much up to the remain camp to define things because the relationship with the EU is always changing. It is not a static relationship and never was.

If you are going to use 'reform from within' to bat away very legitimate questions about some of the EU's many flaws, then you have to set out what the reforms will be and how you will measure progress. What will you do if there is insufficient progress and no reform?

Otherwise, you are promising unicorns.

As I said, Cameron should have had a plan drafted by the civil service. That's a pretty basic governmental responsibility.
Click to expand...
No!
Whatever he’d drafted would’ve been irrelevant because the right wing of the Tory party wanted it all.
We’ll never agree on this, but you can’t ask one party in a vote to draft the manifesto for both sides. That’s what you’re asking and I find that suggestion ridiculous.
I wish he had, and I suspect that would’ve been a Norway type arrangement, but it wouldn’t have mattered.
What he should’ve done is defined exactly what leave meant so that voters could see what they were voting for, but the Brexits wouldn’t allow that. It took a lot of negotiating just to define the question, the Brexits didn’t want, nor would they have allowed, a strict definition of Brexit.
 
nigelscamelcoat said:
Am I allowed to say that a compromise of staying in the SM and CU would have been the imperfect compromise both sides would have had to swallow. Seeing as the result was so close. Or does that make me a remoaner?
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t, I think it was the perfect solution all round. Pity the high paid so called highly educated, couldn’t see it
 
LostinSpace said:
No!
Whatever he’d drafted would’ve been irrelevant because the right wing of the Tory party wanted it all.
We’ll never agree on this, but you can’t ask one party in a vote to draft the manifesto for both sides. That’s what you’re asking and I find that suggestion ridiculous.
I wish he had, and I suspect that would’ve been a Norway type arrangement, but it wouldn’t have mattered.
What he should’ve done is defined exactly what leave meant so that voters could see what they were voting for, but the Brexits wouldn’t allow that. It took a lot of negotiating just to define the question, the Brexits didn’t want, nor would they have allowed, a strict definition of Brexit.
Click to expand...
The government has to prepare for all eventualities after a referendum. That's why it is the government. It really is that simple - any failure to do so is a failure of government. Whether it is Brexit, abortion, gay rights, or whatever - it does not matter if they campaigned for one side or the other.

So, using your logic, if remain had won, then we could immediately have expected Labour to implement the 'remain and reform' it promised during the campaign. That's how it works, isn't it?

Remain was vague about what remaining actually meant - it cannot be a status quo, because if you accept the need for reform, then you already accept that it is changeable i.e. not a status quo.

It's almost as if prominent remainers didn't want a strict definition and we were told 'reform from within' without any indication of exactly how that was going to happen. I wonder why that could be...
 
Sepp Blatter said:
The government has to prepare for all eventualities after a referendum. That's why it is the government. It really is that simple - any failure to do so is a failure of government. Whether it is Brexit, abortion, gay rights, or whatever - it does not matter if they campaigned for one side or the other.

So, using your logic, if remain had won, then we could immediately have expected Labour to implement the 'remain and reform' it promised during the campaign. That's how it works, isn't it?

Remain was vague about what remaining actually meant - it cannot be a status quo, because if you accept the need for reform, then you already accept that it is changeable i.e. not a status quo.

It's almost as if prominent remainers didn't want a strict definition and we were told 'reform from within' without any indication of exactly how that was going to happen. I wonder why that could be...
Click to expand...
Sepp, you're trying to twist things.

Just answer this. If Cameron had detailed a Norway type agreement:
1. The EU would have to agree this.
2. It would have to pass through the UK parliament.

It simply wasn't feasible for Cameron to outline any post Brexit agreement and no-one expected him to.

It was possible for the Brexits to define their ideal Brexit and what they would try to achieve.

You are being totally unreasonable.

You got your result, now stop blaming remainers for fucking up Brexit, you're just sounding ridiculous.
 
I actually agree wholeheartedly that, as PM, Cameron was responsible for ensuring there was a clear vision for the Leave side of the referendum. It maybe that he needed to put the leading Brexiters in a locked room to develop that plan - but he HAD to ensure one emerged. That might actually have flushed out the impossibility of being ready for a referendum in the envisaged timescale - and delayed it until a reasoned debate could be had on both sides - discussing actual possibly workable solutions, compatible with the GFA.

What I wholeheartedly disagree with is the strange machinations over a definition of remain - imo they are a convoluted invention to try and make it look like there was fault on both sides. Remain really did mean status quo Yes, that maybe something of a moving feast - but nothing complicated. A remain vote would simply mean carry on as though the referendum never happened.
 
LostinSpace said:
Sepp, you're trying to twist things.

Just answer this. If Cameron had detailed a Norway type agreement:
1. The EU would have to agree this.
2. It would have to pass through the UK parliament.

It simply wasn't feasible for Cameron to outline any post Brexit agreement and no-one expected him to.

It was possible for the Brexits to define their ideal Brexit and what they would try to achieve.

You are being totally unreasonable.

You got your result, now stop blaming remainers for fucking up Brexit, you're just sounding ridiculous.
Click to expand...
He should have had a plan for exactly what do to whichever way the vote went - that was his job.

Where did I say anything about making post-Brexit agreements? I said, in my initial comment, that Cameron should have had a plan. Something that was to be enacted the next day. Who was going to be responsible for the negotiating team; how they would start to approach the negotiations; how government bodies should react in the wake of the referendum, and other practical considerations.

He did not do so and legged it. Arrogant and also very lazy (no surprise - he had a reputation for both of those things).

You seem to think that I am talking about having the entire deal wrapped up beforehand.

It was not reasonable for anyone to plot out an agreement for an ideal Brexit for the very reasons you state. There are many variables. Just as there were for remain - nobody could have planned for the ideal remain, either. Remain and reform? Remain and do nothing? Remain and push for ever closer union?

Your petulant final sentence speaks volumes about why I have less and less inclination to debate with some of the more intransigent Europhiles. Really cannot be bothered, to be honest.
 
Sepp Blatter said:
He should have had a plan for exactly what do to whichever way the vote went - that was his job.

Where did I say anything about making post-Brexit agreements? I said, in my initial comment, that Cameron should have had a plan. Something that was to be enacted the next day. Who was going to be responsible for the negotiating team; how they would start to approach the negotiations; how government bodies should react in the wake of the referendum, and other practical considerations.

He did not do so and legged it. Arrogant and also very lazy (no surprise - he had a reputation for both of those things).

You seem to think that I am talking about having the entire deal wrapped up beforehand.

It was not reasonable for anyone to plot out an agreement for an ideal Brexit for the very reasons you state. There are many variables. Just as there were for remain - nobody could have planned for the ideal remain, either. Remain and reform? Remain and do nothing? Remain and push for ever closer union?

Your petulant final sentence speaks volumes about why I have less and less inclination to debate with some of the more intransigent Europhiles. Really cannot be bothered, to be honest.
Click to expand...
You’re the one being intransigent. When Brexit goes wrong, you blame anyone but the Brexits, unbelievable!
 
LostinSpace said:
There was no Brexit defined, that was up to the Brexits. The Brexits should’ve drawn up a framework to describe what they were campaigning for.
What you’re saying is akin to asking the Tories to draft Labour’s manifesto at the next GE.
Click to expand...


Staying in wasn't defined either.. Just "go with the flow" is what you advocate because reform was never going to happen. In fact the only thing likely to have happened was that it would get worse. Fair enough, hanging onto the apron strings suited you. Why you persist with this is beyond me. I have no doubt we did the right thing. No doubt whatsoever. Whether it's carried out properly remains to be seen.I think complaining about that is your best bet.
 
Liberation said:
Staying in wasn't defined either.. Just "go with the flow" is what you advocate because reform was never going to happen. In fact the only thing likely to have happened was that it would get worse. Fair enough, hanging onto the apron strings suited you. Why you persist with this is beyond me. I have no doubt we did the right thing. No doubt whatsoever. Whether it's carried out properly remains to be seen.I think complaining about that is your best bet.
Click to expand...
Staying in was defined, we were in so everybody knew what it was. Yes people wanted change from within, including me, but nothing was promised.
 
Liberation said:
Agreed....Which is why we voted to leave... I don't understand why you can't accept that.
Click to expand...
Because the problems we have are caused by our own Tory government. Right wing politicians and the media shifted the blame onto the EU and you lot fell for it, hook line and sinker. You chose the wrong scapegoat.
 
LostinSpace said:
Because the problems we have are caused by our own Tory government. Right wing politicians and the media shifted the blame onto the EU and you lot fell for it, hook line and sinker. You chose the wrong scapegoat.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't wipe my arse on the tory government. Unfortunately everyone else let us down... You appear to be suggesting that because of the tories we had to accept the EU?...... Bugger off. The right thing was done and of that I have no doubt.
 
Liberation said:
Agreed....Which is why we voted to leave... I don't understand why you can't accept that.
Click to expand...

Equally, I don’t understand why you can’t accept that the referendum was fundamentally flawed because one of the options was not deliverable without us unilaterally breaking a legally binding international peace treaty.

And guess what - the UK jumped at the chance to vote Leave and now thinks because we had a vote, that somehow makes it OK.

It’s ridiculous. And I fear that more scenes from Belfast last night are the resulting cracks beginning to show [ and I cannot emphasise how much I want to be wrong about that] - But it’s not convenient for you guys to admit it.
 
raefil said:
The Labour party had its chance, it nearly happened but that ship has sailed now. If Im honest, even had corbyn won, it would not have succeeded. Labour stopped being a genuine socialist alternative under Bliar. Its too deeply ingrained now and would have undermined any SD leader whoever it was.

Ive said this a few times now and I dont think Im wrong. Labour is now setting about filling the position that the one nation tories have vacated. Theyre going through an identity crisis at the moment.
Click to expand...
Phil ,Phil just to warn you someone has hacked into your account.
 
Top