The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[Magilla]

 

10 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

Okay, you will be happy and stop arguing, if Mrs May stated nobody likes the deal I have negotiated  and said  we are  having another  referendum to either remain in the EU or leave the EU without a deal and  remain had to receive  two thirds of the votes cast in order to overturn the result of the last referendum?

Clearly, you've missed the point. A 48/52 split isn't a mandate for any meaningful change, and thus Brexit is the inevitable dogs dinner it was always going to be.

 

Re: Mays deal, according to a poll in todays Daily Mail, Mays deal is supported by the majorty of the public

 

 

[woodview]

12 minutes ago, truman said:

How did that turn out?

thats exactly what I mean. We take bigger decisions without demanding 2/3 agreement.

[Lockdoctor]

3 minutes ago, Magilla said:

 

Clearly, you've missed the point. A 48/52 split isn't a mandate for any meaninful change, and thus Brexit is the inevitable dogs dinner it was always going to be.

 

Re: Mays deal, according to a poll in todays Daily Mail, Mays deal is supported by the majorty of the public

 

 

I've not missed the point , but have blown your suggestion to end arguments out of the water .  The UK Parliament  have passed legislation  to put into law that the UK are leaving the EU. This means under your suggestion to end arguments that another referendum result would require two third of votes to overturn the result of the previous referendum

17 minutes ago, woodview said:

There will never be 2/3rds for any decision on this. And staying is as contentious as leaving. We run the country on first past the post, which sees governments formed with less than 50% support. We went to war in Iraq under the Blair government who were on a 40% vote share.

Agreed 

[woodview]

9 minutes ago, truman said:

 

I'm not asking you to believe anything..I just wanted to see a report that says we'll be better off..  

 

I don't know of one. But I didn't vote Leave on the basis of GDP fluctuation. That's what I'm saying. My personal belief is that it will make marginal difference either way. If I took the 3.9% reduction in GDP after 15 years as gospel, (that's 0.2% a year)  it wouldn't change my mind. It may for some, not for others. In any decison you have to take the net overall effect. That's whether in a GE vote, a life decison, or the referendum.

[Magilla]

20 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

I've not missed the point ,

You have, because I'm discussing the referendum we've just had.

20 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

 

but have blown your suggestion to end arguments out of the water .

How? People aren't getting behind the vote to leave because there wasn't a clear concensus. Concensus *isn't* majority.

 

It's not hard to understand.

 

Quote

The UK Parliament  have passed legislation  to put into law that the UK are leaving the EU. This means under your suggestion to end arguments that another referendum result would require two third of votes to overturn the result of the previous referendum

Agreed 

I'm not arguing for another referendum in regard to my concensus comment (see missed point above), I refer to the previous referendum and your suggestion that the country should unite.

 

If that had been a 2/3rd majority, then the country would be united... but it wasn't... so it isn't.

 

The dots aren't that hard to connect?

 

Of course, either way wouldn't have made one jot of difference with regard to any possible trading arrangement, we'd still be getting a bad deal in comparison to staying.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Magilla

[L00b]

The disclaimer to the GDP projected figures, buried in the font size 1 print, is worth noticing: the figures are contingent on achieving, short-term, FTAs with a list of countries as long as my arm. Many of which have already started giving the U.K. a hard time at the WTO in Geneva.

 

Even if the U.K. exits with a WA and transition period, to 2020 or 2022 irrespective, I reckon you’re in for a 5+% hit and rule-taking from all comers like you wouldn’t believe.

 

Still, if that’s what British citizens -for better or lesser informed- actually want (acc.to recent polls), then hey, more power to them.

Edited November 28, 2018 by L00b

[Lockdoctor]

26 minutes ago, Magilla said:

You have, because I'm discussing the referendum we've just had.

How? People aren't getting behind the vote to leave because there wasn't a clear concensus. Concensus *isn't* majority.

 

It's not hard to understand.

 

I'm not arguing for another referendum in regard to my concensus comment (see missed point above), I refer to the previous referendum and your suggestion that the country should unite.

 

If that had been a 2/3rd majority, then the country would be united... but it wasn't... so it isn't.

 

The dots aren't that hard to connect?

 

Of course, either way wouldn't have made one jot of difference with regard to any possible trading arrangement, we'd still be getting a bad deal in comparison to staying.

All you're doing is embarrassing yourself  and adding more evidence for me and any reasonable poster to conclude that you  only respect any form of democracy or vote, if the result is to your own personal liking.  Do you  think Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP would agree to another Scottish Independence Referendum where it required two thirds  of people voting Yes to Scottish Independence for the result of the referendum to be implicated?

Edited November 28, 2018 by Lockdoctor

[Magilla]

1 minute ago, L00b said:

I reckon you’re in for a 5+% hit and rule-taking from all comers like you wouldn’t believe.

Certainly, as Trump has already made plain, there is going to be a lot of rule-taking if any deals are going to happen.

 

Worth noting that when Australia entered the AUSFTA with the US, it resulted in a reduction in trade between Australia and the United States.

 

Any sucesses re: FTA's still doesn't necessarily guarantee anything.

[truman]

1 minute ago, Lockdoctor said:

All you're doing is embarrassing yourself  and adding more evidence for me and any reasonable poster to conclude that you  only respect any form of democracy or vote, if the result is to your own personal liking.  Do you  think Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP would agree to another Scottish Independent where it required two thirds  of people voting Yes to Scottish Independence for the result of the referendum to be implicated?

That's because she has a vested interest in the result..the clue is in her party's name..

[Magilla]

30 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

All you're doing is embarrassing yourself

Really, doesn't look that way, I at least know what we're actually discussing

 

I say that had the referendum recieved a 2/3rd marjority the country could, rightly, be said to be united. It didn't, so it isn't.

 

Hence my Swiss reference! D'oh!

 

That you're unable to fathom that, is what's really embarrassing here

 

However, none of this would have made any difference to any future deal with the EU, as was always the case, you can't have your cake and eat it.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

Do you  think Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP would agree to another Scottish Independence Referendum where it required two thirds  of people voting Yes to Scottish Independence for the result of the referendum to be implicated?

Which of course, has no bearing on any statement I've made *at all*. It's not about what  Nicola Sturgeon might want

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by Magilla