Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[apelike 10]

53 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I note that it is a well trod tactic of certain people on here to try and suggest that the results of any democratic vote should be worked out as a percentage of the population, rather than the percentage of the people of voting. This is obviously a way of trying to minimise the figure, thus making the result seem illegitimate and more easily dismissible.

Me bold... You will also notice that a common tactic is also to use the phrase "non-binding result" for the same reason despite the fact that the result was accepted by the government and parliament, and that referendums are always non-binding unless stated otherwise.

[melthebell 862]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

Me bold... You will also notice that a common tactic is also to use the phrase "non-binding result" for the same reason despite the fact that the result was accepted by the government and parliament, and that referendums are always non-binding unless stated otherwise.

It was none binding, the issue is the government enacted on it straight away without a plan or looking at the possible benefits against the possible consequences which sensible would do. If it doesn't look like its in the countries best interest then you ignore it

[Robin-H 11]

16 minutes ago, melthebell said:

It was none binding, the issue is the government enacted on it straight away without a plan or looking at the possible benefits against the possible consequences which sensible would do. If it doesn't look like its in the countries best interest then you ignore it

It wasn't exactly straight away.

 

The referendum was in June 2016. Article 50 was triggered in March 2017. 

[tinfoilhat 11]

4 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

It wasn't exactly straight away.

 

The referendum was in June 2016. Article 50 was triggered in March 2017. 

Do you think the government had a clear plan of what they wanted to achieve in March 2017 ?

[melthebell 862]

9 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

It wasn't exactly straight away.

 

The referendum was in June 2016. Article 50 was triggered in March 2017. 

but they didnt think about it sufficiently and put a plan in place, they still jumped in feet first

Edited September 20, 2019 by melthebell

[Robin-H 11]

12 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Do you think the government had a clear plan of what they wanted to achieve in March 2017 ?

I think the government knew what they wanted to achieve yes. The problem was the EU could not begin the negotiations until Article 50 was triggered, and until then we didn't know the EU's position. 

[Longcol 597]

1 hour ago, Robin-H said:

I think the government knew what they wanted to achieve yes. 

Perhaps they shouldn't have sent David Davies - IIRC his "gambit" was to ask the EU what they were going to give the UK - hardly "knowing what they wanted to achieve".

 

Bit like May's continued "Brexit means Brexit" - as clear as mud.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

4 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Haha give it a rest! I voted remain, I'm anything but 'Brexit-fevered'.  

 

I note that it is a well trod tactic of certain people on here to try and suggest that the results of any democratic vote should be worked out as a percentage of the population, rather than the percentage of the people of voting. This is obviously a way of trying to minimise the figure, thus making the result seem illegitimate and more easily dismissible. That's not how votes work. Interesting too that people only do that when the result of the vote is something that they disagree with.. only 31% of the population voted to stay in the EC in the 1975 referendum. Only 23% of the population voted Labour in the 1997 Blair landslide... 

 

Yes, I have a problem with you saying no-one, when 26.6% of the voting population was demanding a referendum. 

Wow, a rare common sense post, Congratulations, even if you are a remainer.

 

Angel1.

Edited September 20, 2019 by ANGELFIRE1

[altus 538]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

I think the government knew what they wanted to achieve yes. The problem was the EU could not begin the negotiations until Article 50 was triggered, and until then we didn't know the EU's position. 

Even before the referendum vote it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the EU was never going to let brexit undermine the single market. Unfortunately our brexit secretary is still trying to get the EU to agree to it with his claims we can leave and postpone sorting out the alternative to the Northern Ireland backstop until the end of 2020. The EU haven't fallen for all the previous attempts to undermine the single market and they aren't going to fall for this one.

[Longcol 597]

1 minute ago, altus said:

Even before the referendum vote it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the EU was never going to let brexit undermine the single market. Unfortunately our brexit secretary is still trying to get the EU to agree to it with his claims we can leave and postpone sorting out the alternative to the Northern Ireland backstop until the end of 2020. The EU haven't fallen for all the previous attempts to undermine the single market and they aren't going to fall for this one.

I think it was also obvious that May's approach was to preserve Tory party unity at all costs rather than going for something the country as a whole might agree on.

 

But let's look at consequences as per the thread title - still not heard any response to posts pointing out the paucity of post Brexit trade deals in place.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/469438-consequences-of-brexit-part-8-read-first-post-before-posting/page/131/?tab=comments#comment-8287671

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/469438-consequences-of-brexit-part-8-read-first-post-before-posting/page/127/?tab=comments#comment-8287351

 

 

[taxman 12]

44 minutes ago, Longcol said:

I think it was also obvious that May's approach was to preserve Tory party unity at all costs rather than going for something the country as a whole might agree on.

 

But let's look at consequences as per the thread title - still not heard any response to posts pointing out the paucity of post Brexit trade deals in place.

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/469438-consequences-of-brexit-part-8-read-first-post-before-posting/page/131/?tab=comments#comment-8287671

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/topic/469438-consequences-of-brexit-part-8-read-first-post-before-posting/page/127/?tab=comments#comment-8287351

 

 

Yeah but I've got my proper culoured passport back and the Polish over the road have been told to go back to where they came from by their own ambassador, and I don't even need my insulin anymore cos the unicorns will solve everything ....

[apelike 10]

4 hours ago, taxman said:

Yeah but I've got my proper culoured passport back and the Polish over the road have been told to go back to where they came from by their own ambassador, and I don't even need my insulin anymore cos the unicorns will solve everything ....

Good, that cool to know, thanks for sharing..............