The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[aaron1867]

If we had a second referendum Brexit would not be over. We either go back to square one and Remain still think they know best. Or Millions vote for Leave again but narrowly lose out...

Every incident from that day forward is because we stayed in. All social infrastructure issues, Housing shortages, NHS funding, school places, crime, future euro bailouts, EU army, entangled in the future collapse, Euro currency misfortune, deterioration of relationships elsewhere eg US/China, any problems at all and it’s because we didn’t respect the first result. The split has happened and it won’t ever heal. Wonder if Remain ever consider the ‘after care’ of their divisive behaviour?

Do you genuinely believe that voting leave a second time would still end up with parties blocking Brexit? A second leave vote would put to bed this whole argument.

It wouldn't as you still have the framing difficulties. Even if you have say leave no deal, leave deal, remain that's not fair (splits leave vote). leave no deal or leave deal isn't fair (no remain option). Lots of issues.

A majority in parliament does that, so the ruling party can enact it. In a parliamentary democracy with no majority for any solution, it can't enact it.

At that point we then move onto the nightmare of trade deals and future relationships. Its only the start of it

I have said this quite a few times, but don't know if it's possible, but a ballot paper with Remain v Leave and an option for leave voters only to vote for deal/no deal.

And yes, parliament have to vote for it, but I can't see how they choose to ignore it for a second time. I think voting for something a second time will focus their minds on no longer being able to block it. You now effectively know if the country wants a deal or it doesn't.

The problem lies is that a new deal isn't going to be negotiated and the majority of the country and MP's don't want no deal. Nothing is going to get solved at the moment and 6 weeks could be wasted on an election that gives us a parliament similar to what we have now.

My personal opton would be that we extend to March 2020. Have a GE in that time. If that continues to block brexit, then we can only have a second referendum.

[aaron1867]

Do you genuinely believe that voting leave a second time would still end up with parties blocking Brexit? A second leave vote would put to bed this whole argument.

Pretty sure it wouldn't, the nuances of the deal would still provide endless topics for argument.

And as soon as the first IRA bomb/brexit death/zombie apocalypse* happens there will be a rerun of the "well we didn't know this when we voted the first and second times so obviously we need a third vote"


*other triggers may be available.

What are the realistic options to conclude it all?

[TightEnd]

Do you genuinely believe that voting leave a second time would still end up with parties blocking Brexit? A second leave vote would put to bed this whole argument.

Pretty sure it wouldn't, the nuances of the deal would still provide endless topics for argument.

And as soon as the first IRA bomb/brexit death/zombie apocalypse* happens there will be a rerun of the "well we didn't know this when we voted the first and second times so obviously we need a third vote"


*other triggers may be available.

What are the realistic options to conclude it all?

Soft Brexit now (for this parliament, possibly if Boris resigns and the Queen calls for Ken Clarke and GNU): Likelihood low

Boris gets a majority (no deal or hard brexit pass through parliament the latter if the EU agree to a deal) 2/1 in betting markets for the majority

revoke: Likelihood low

Nothing concludes it, just moves it onto next stage. (out but trying to make it work, or in but dealing with revolting* leavers)

* they will revolt, not are revolting

[MANTIS01]

that is not the case

once there was the decision to leave, there were strategies (softer red lines) and tactics (no election, no pro-roguing parliament, ERG voting for the WA) that could have avoided this at multiple points over the last few years

No one comes out of it with credit, not least the remainers who also voted against the WA especially those in the Labour party who i would think will be roundly punished at the election for doing so, but to say that they are being divisive now when they are acting in the national interest to avoid no deal (and protect parliamentary sovereignty in doing so)..NOTE not trying to stop leaving with a deal, really does take the biscuit.

The government, the ERG and hard leavers in general have to own this, and won't.

Easier to blame the other side. Plus ca change.

They are not acting in the national interest because it’s the ongoing uncertainty that’s crippling national interest

For your point to be valid you have to be 100% EU never blinks before deadline

With softer rhetoric from EU leaders and pressure being applied from their side it’s very obvious they were shifting uncomfortably in their continental loafers

[ripple11]

Could this be the plan?...seen in the Telegraph.

The Benn bill will pass into law next week. It squeezes the PM to the max with opposition parties refusing to vote for a general election until a letter requesting an extension has been sent on 19 October;

The Prime Minister has stated that “he would rather die in a ditch” than send the letter because his premiership would be toast and the Conservative Party would be destroyed in any subsequent election.

 So with the threat of the Kinnock amendment behind and the prospect of the political meltdown in front, the government will bring back MV4 in the week commencing 14 October;

There will be a tweak to the Backstop and it will be claimed that this delivers on the PM’s promises, allows the UK to leave by 31st October and is consistent with the Brady Amendment which previously passed the House;

The hand of friendship will be offered to the 21 Tory rebels and support for MV4 would allow their rehabilitation back into the Party. The threat to the ERG and ‘Spartans’ is that they will be expelled from the Party if they don’t support the Bill; and
Having passed MV4, the PM will go to the European Council on 16 and 17 October proclaiming a successful negotiation.

A General Election will then be called for 26 or 28 November and Gove/Cummings trust that an exhausted electorate will meekly fall into line.

[MANTIS01]

Talk of Boris not appointing a commissioner that would put EU in legal breach meaning they couldn’t operate.

Prob why Macron is going to veto an extension.

[Marky147]

Click to see full-size image.

Made me chuckle

[kukushkin88]

Morning,

The headline might be extreme but I agree with the fundamentals of why the current situation exposes some real problems.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045?fbclid=IwAR28QhVhn0HE677j5nFHf3qd8LjTNEmPVY4LvfltJnYX6uewa0VGIsmCwRo

I thought it was every bit as relevant here as the Trump thread.

[kukushkin88]

It will be another one he walks away from pops, we all know it.

I’ve never walked away from discussing the issues raised in this thread. As I’ve said before, the only reason why I’m here is because I believe there’s merit in discussing these things.

This isn’t a bad analysis, for sure it’s highly possible/likely that not all 120,000 are attributed directly to what the government, lots of them are though.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerity-120000-unnecessary-deaths/

Apologies to Rick for the approach I took in that sequence of posts.

Sometimes, I am sure you just find a nice juicy headline and don't read the article at all.

Extracts from this document that"proves your point"

 Restrictions on health and social care spending is one of a number of possible explanations for this, and the findings need to be treated with a bit of caution.


 “There was a report this week, we are getting 120,000 unnecessary deaths every year in this country as a direct result of the austerity.”

Val McDermid, 16 November 2017 (isn't Val a fiction writer???)


While lower growth in health and social care spending since 2010 may be behind the increase in deaths, these findings should be treated with caution as the research doesn’t prove this is the case. Reduced spending is one of a number of possible explanations for the results.


Older people accounted for more of these additional deaths, with deaths at care homes and at home contributing most to the estimated additional deaths. Deaths in hospital were lower than expected. The authors put this down to greater pressures on social care spending, but also a drive to move more patients reaching the end of possible health treatments out of hospital.
Lets think about this one a bit. Deaths were actually LOWER in hospitals. People sent off to care home, where they are looked after by Care Assistants, not Nurses. Hmm, what do we think the outcome is likely to be?


I struggle to see your headline 120,000 additional deaths due to austerity being in any way substantiated by this article..even the article questions its own numbers!

NEXT!

It goes without saying that I don’t think you understand. I am happy to try and do a better job of explaining if you’d like?

Carry on Rover, so far you haven't convinced anyone.

Oh, please keep up with the condescending put downs, it highlights your nice guy attributes.

There’s clearly not a huge amount of point labouring this one. In brief, the discussion is about how many tens of thousands of people have been killed by austerity, you seem to think it’s about whether austerity killed people, it isn’t. I posted the full fact article as it provides an element of counterpoint/balance to the original study, it’s an established convention itt to do so.

Thanks to Doobs for the added clarity as well.

[BigAdz]

So by using nice sobering words you are still avoiding showing us.

You have said a dog could explain it better, but so far just scuttled off into your basket when called to heel, then gone for a very long snooze to hope by the time you come back, someone has already been for a walk.

As said the article proves nothing, and even says so, but you appeared to say I was thick after I had broken it down.

So stop wagging your tail and looking all happy with yourself and please PROVE your statement that austerity killed hundreds of thousands in this article.

Quote,

I am happy to try and do a better job of explaining if you’d like?

Carry on.....


Either that, or stop trying to have me put down, at every opportunity Bonzo

[kukushkin88]

So by using nice sobering words you are still avoiding showing us.

You have said a dog could explain it better, but so far just scuttled off into your basket when called to heel, then gone for a very long snooze to hope by the time you come back, someone has already been for a walk.

As said the article proves nothing, and even says so, but you appeared to say I was thick after I had broken it down.

So stop wagging your tail and looking all happy with yourself and please PROVE your statement that austerity killed hundreds of thousands in this article.

Quote,

I am happy to try and do a better job of explaining if you’d like?

Carry on.....


Either that, or stop trying to have me put down, at every opportunity Bonzo

It always funny when you criticise people’s timeliness in trying to assist with your misunderstandings (this might be one of the ones you don’t see as funny.)

A wide ranging study is carried out by a respected body, a headline outcome of the study is that austerity was responsible for ~120,000 premature deaths. Like all good studies they acknowledge where there is scope for error but the error is only truly questioning how many 10’s of thousands died and it’s a number that will still be going up. Reading the study might help your understanding.

This one is of interest as well:

https://www.ippr.org/files/2019-06/public-health-and-prevention-june19.pdf

Just to add to the epic list of misunderstandings, I said a dog could “interpret” it better. At least now it makes sense why your reply made no sense.

[BigAdz]

Just the constant insults about my, and others, level of intellect get very waring, especially from someone believed by the boss, to be such a nice guy.......

You have been missing for ages searching for another source(no doubt you will claim you haven't)

I fully understand many arguments you put up on here, but when given an answer rather than prove your point, you just slag people off with put downs, maintaining they don't understand your point. Not the case, its called discussion, and you need to be pulled up on it.


In terms of the report you have directed us too, it still doesn't prove the previous report was as factual as you made out, in fact it has f all to do with it, citing prevention as the cure for better health care, very little to do with austerity and nothing that proves your point.

In fact it was hard to take a report serious that within the first few lines of content has such appalling mistakes on a Public Health document

 Prevention leads to longer and health lives

 For too long policymakers have failed to health
 and health services as a risk to be managed rather.

Please don't post a link to a long document you(probably haven't read yourself) think will validate your point, when it totally doesn't, in the hope the shear length of it will give folk the impression you are reading all this guff, and therefore a level above some of us.

You have been, and will be, exposed, so you best up your game old lad.

[MANTIS01]

Yah but the pertinent question is why did austerity exist.

Saying Tories implemented austerity without just cause isn’t valid.

Labour and economic disaster were the drivers

Think it’s fair to contest a policy of continuing to spend on public services when there’s no money.

In fact doing so probably compounds the issues because public money is being used for interest payments rather than hospital beds

[4KSuited]

Latest figures I’ve seen (article in The Times; sorry I can’t post a link as it’s beyond the paywall) indicate that the UK gov is spending £54bn per annum servicing interest on a national debt of about £1.6tn

And this is with interest rates at near all time lows for the period.

I’m sure Tighty will be able to trace the piece if he has the time & inclination.

Labour would have us believe that their “borrow more to invest in the economy (and spend more on welfare benefits and the NHS black hole)” is the only solution. They can afford this approach, of course, because they’re rarely in power & when they’re not they can always accuse a responsible government as heartless when attempts are made to simply live within our means.

They convince people like kuku that “austerity kills”, when they should just begin to accept that £54bn could be better spent.

Please let us have a Labour party that advocates a balanced budget. I’ll start voting for them too.

[doubleup]

The vast majority of that borrowing was under the coalition and the Tories. It could be argued that austerity held back the economy and caused increased borrowing.

Present public expenditure (% of GDP) is much the same as it was under Labour pre-crisis.  And the present government thinks it's fine to go on a spending splurge, if their recent statements are to believed.  So I suppose you won't be voting for them either.