Brexit, for once some facts.

[Zlatan]

If someone votes for a party without a manifesto, then whatever that party does they will claim to do in the names of those who voted for them. And those people will not be able to deny it however unwelcome, even abhorrent, that party's actions.

(Of course, they could say they didn't mean to support those actions. They might even mean it. But it was their votes that supported the party.)

In the days after the 2016 referendum, we saw considerable numbers of people quoted as saying they only wanted to register a protest. They don't really want to leave. Bad mistake.

And what about parties that totally ignore what was said in their manifestos. Been said often enough, but 80% of all our MPs got their seats on a leave manifesto. They have proven, and its been said to be ok on here weeks ago, that parties do not need to even attempt to attain manifesto pledges.
Thats why we have probably a fatal constitutional crisis at moment.
Yes, Parliament could have, and perhaps should have, said months ago Brexit in our opinion is bad for country and should be cancelled. But they didnt, they drew up manifestos and called a GE, promises were made by both major parties which have been utterly ignored. The parties, system and its misuse have created this crisis.
MPs have proven to take part in large scale lying. Why were Parties real opinions and desires not represented in the last GE. Lying ####s spring to mind.

 

[oyster]

And what about parties that totally ignore what was said in their manifestos.

You are able to deny that you supported the policies they followed because you did not vote for those policies - you voted for the manifesto contents.

Sure, it doesn't actually enable you to get them to follow every word. But there again, in a representative democracy, that should not be expected anyway.

 

[Woosh]

And what about parties that totally ignore what was said in their manifestos.

ask the ERG that question.
90% of conservative MPs voted for TM's deal. 10 DUP and 20 ERG MPs sunk that deal @ MV3 and handed conservative share of votes to Farage's enterprise.

 

[Zlatan]

ask the ERG that question.
90% of conservative MPs voted for TM's deal. 10 DUP and 20 ERG MPs sunk that deal @ MV3 and handed conservative share of votes to Farage's enterprise.

Yes, agreed. They all do it.
I dont agree with your point about our governance being representative demo racy so manifestos can be ignored.
A parliament making decisions going against public opinion is completely different to putiing policies in place in contradiction to manifestos.
The manifesto is, or should be, what gets the party elected. It should set out the parties' opinions and direction on major issues. Not achieving those goals is to be expected, not attempting to should mark end of that party. I suspect it may well have done so.

 

[oldgroaner]

Yes, agreed. They all do it.
I dont agree with your point about our governance being representative demo racy so manifestos can be ignored.
A parliament making decisions going against public opinion is completely different to putiing policies in place in contradiction to manifestos.
The manifesto is, or should be, what gets the party elected. It should set out the parties' opinions and direction on major issues. Not achieving those goals is to be expected, not attempting to should mark end of that party. I suspect it may well have done so.

Optimist! All they have to do to get the Faithful back is elect Boris to the PM ship to tell the dumb electorate exactly what they want to hear.
WTO Brexit, and the bloody fool will.
That will urinate on Farages bonfire.
He will suddenly decide he was a Conservative after all.
And presto! like a plague of rats the Conservative faithful will rise up out of the sewers

 

[Woosh]

I dont agree with your point about our governance being representative demo racy so manifestos can be ignored.

I didn't say anything about ignoring manifestos and democracy.
Most MPs accept the result of the 2016 referendum and try to do their job in the best way.
If they cannot find a good brexit that they can agree on, then perhaps the most obvious reason is there just isn't a good brexit.

 

[Zlatan]

I didn't say anything about ignoring manifestos and democracy.
Most MPs accept the result of the 2016 referendum and try to do their job in the best way.
If they cannot find a good brexit that they can agree on, then perhaps the most obvious reason is there just isn't a good brexit.

So presumably they hadnt worked that out by time of last GE?
Both Labour and Tory maifestos of last GE show little evidence in directions taken since.
Simple fact is the manifestos were plain lies designed to attract (misled) voters.
I suspect many have taken a far more pragmatic view, voters have been lied to, manifestos ignored, people will remember all this. Lets see what happens next GE. Tory and Labour are doomed.

 

[Woosh]

So presumably they hadnt worked that out by time of last GE?
Both Labour and Tory maifestos of last GE show little evidence in directions taken since.
Simple fact is the manifestos were plain lies designed to attract (misled) voters.

No.
If TM had worked that one out, she wouldn't be heading for the chop now, would she?

 

[Woosh]

lots of people, including myself, thought that if we charge enough import duty on German cars, the EU would be forced to give us a good deal.
Later, we found out that they can't let NI be the backdoor for smugglers.
I have always supported EFTA brexit.

 

[Danidl]

I'd know.

Then please define in clear unambiguous terms what a SATISFACTORY conclusion to Brexit would be. Bearing in mind that it must be couched in UK terms and wherever you invoke third parties, e.g the EU, what concessions you are prepared to make in order to appease them.

 

[flecc]

Well let them have their leader and you go off with Roy and form your own party. Because that is the way THAT game is set up.

People who voted 'remain' seem to struggle with sticking to the structure of the game being played. Any game - not just the Brexit one. Obviously promises and agreements matter less to them. They will scream and shout and say otherwise - but the facts are right there for anybody with the eyes to see them.

Cue red crosses and downward thumbs below.

I don't know why you've posted this reply to me, I don't have any such difficulty. I'm supporting Rory Stewart who, despite having been a remainer, is insisting the referendum must be honoured.

I hated the referendum result, but it was the only result. At my age it won't affect me to any degree anyway.
.

 

[Zlatan]

No.
If TM had worked that one out, she wouldn't be heading for the chop now, would she?

They must be very thick then Woosh. Pretty sure most folk with any semblence of intelligence had already worked out May's predicament.
I dont understand why folk who understand our system arent more insulted and perturbed when both major parties do not attempt to carry out manifesto pledges. Wether one agrees with those pledges is actually irrelevant.
Perhaps Corbyn will be elected into no10 on a manifesto pledge of lowering taxes and raising minimum wage... Only to do the opposite.????

 

[Danidl]

It's you that doesn't get it..When their was a remain petition running and it reached 6 million the remainers hailed it as some sort of victory, When the Brexit party get 35 to 50 seats you will say it's irrelevant, it's a lot harder for people to go out and vote than to click on a remain petition. If the Brexit party win loads of seats (on a WTO platform ) it will confirm that the leavers have not changed their opinion.

The remain petition stopped getting new names after it had generated a debate in the HoC. The function of those petitions is to get ideas and positions onto the floor of the HoC,..so in that regard it was a success. Read the notes pertaining to the petition process.
The plausible result of a number of Brexit MEPs will if nothing else sour the already fraught relationship between the UK and the EU. Within the EU they will achieve nothing of substance to the advantage of the UK..either in gaining additional perks on a withdrawal agreement or in trade negotiations afterwards

 

[OxygenJames]

Then please define in clear unambiguous terms what a SATISFACTORY conclusion to Brexit would be. Bearing in mind that it must be couched in UK terms and wherever you invoke third parties, e.g the EU, what concessions you are prepared to make in order to appease them.

Out of the customs union. Out of the single market. End to free movement. Out from the ECJ.

We have stated this time and time again - you just don't listen. Maybe its because they're all negatives - they say leave, go, end and out. You don't like those words. You think stay, remain, start and in.

Whatever.

If it was a real Brexit those four things would happen.

 

[oyster]

Out of the customs union. Out of the single market. End to free movement. Out from the ECJ.

We have stated this time and time again - you just don't listen. Maybe its because they're all negatives - they say leave, go, end and out. You don't like those words. You think stay, remain, start and in.

Whatever.

If it was a real Brexit those four things would happen.

With absolutely no deals with any other country, anywhere?

And how would NI be handled?

You do need to address all the issues.

 

[Danidl]

Yes, agreed. They all do it.
I dont agree with your point about our governance being representative demo racy so manifestos can be ignored.
A parliament making decisions going against public opinion is completely different to putiing policies in place in contradiction to manifestos.
The manifesto is, or should be, what gets the party elected. It should set out the parties' opinions and direction on major issues. Not achieving those goals is to be expected, not attempting to should mark end of that party. I suspect it may well have done so.

I am in general agreement here with you. The problem regarding Brexit is that the major parties did not actually do their sums properly and even more importantly had not devised coherent strategies as to what would constitute a Brexit. Once the dust had settled on the GE and they had time to look at the information ,I suspect the more clear thinking were appalled. For all her faults, Mrs May did construct a plausible Brexit,which would not altogether destroy the UK economy. Of course this did not meet with sufficient approval... Primarily because the definition of Brexit is not agreed.

 

[Danidl]

Out of the customs union. Out of the single market. End to free movement. Out from the ECJ.

We have stated this time and time again - you just don't listen. Maybe its because they're all negatives - they say leave, go, end and out. You don't like those words. You think stay, remain, start and in.

Whatever.

If it was a real Brexit those four things would happen.

Fine.. Then what ?. What relationships would you want at the end of week 1, week 2 month 1 month 2.
Do you want any UK citizen to be able to travel to Europe, ..including Ireland?, Do you want to import food, drink, car parts, exchange information , ? Chase criminals, ? Get medical treatment?..
The opposite to free movement is no movement, restricted movement is a compromise. What levels of restricted movement will you accept?.
If you want out of the single market, fine, but then you lose ALL access to it,all the bad bits and all the good bits. .. you don't get to choose.
If you refuse the role of the ECJ .. reasonable in the context of being outside the single market, then major European commercial entities will no longer be interested in trading with you.
Now those may be your working definition of a satisfactory brexit, but how much of it is shared with the 17 million
?

 

[oldgroaner]

Out of the customs union. Out of the single market. End to free movement. Out from the ECJ.

We have stated this time and time again - you just don't listen. Maybe its because they're all negatives - they say leave, go, end and out. You don't like those words. You think stay, remain, start and in.

Whatever.

If it was a real Brexit those four things would happen.

I take it this collective "We" was your buddies in the Adam Smith Institute?

Right from the start the leave faction campaigned with promises we would not have to do any of the things you now pretend was voted for by the electorate but simply wasn't offered or specified.

I realise you think that if a lie is repeated often enough people will believe it, and many have.
But then you can kid a lot of people with any old rubbish, can't you?
Farage is proving that

 

[oldgroaner]

Then please define in clear unambiguous terms what a SATISFACTORY conclusion to Brexit would be. Bearing in mind that it must be couched in UK terms and wherever you invoke third parties, e.g the EU, what concessions you are prepared to make in order to appease them.

Cancellation

 

[oldgroaner]

So presumably they hadnt worked that out by time of last GE?
Both Labour and Tory maifestos of last GE show little evidence in directions taken since.
Simple fact is the manifestos were plain lies designed to attract (misled) voters.
I suspect many have taken a far more pragmatic view, voters have been lied to, manifestos ignored, people will remember all this. Lets see what happens next GE. Tory and Labour are doomed.

I agree in principle with much of that, but neither party will be permanently damaged, the electorate have short memories, Boris will promise the Earth, after all he was the main man that they believed at the time of the referendum and he knows how to play the mugs.
And Gove or Moggy would do exactly the same. The Tory lying machine will save the day for them.
And Labour will plod along, after all it hasn't broken it's promise over Brexit has it?
The only time either party will be threatened is if there are enough remainers, not leavers.
Don't put too much faith in Farage creating some sort of worthwhile change, all he can do is mess on the carpet like a dog with diarrhoea.
And scurrying off with the proceeds of mugging the public.