BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

ugo.santalucia

finchy wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

fat daddy wrote:

Its the music scene .... Everyone in Berlin listens to David Hasstlehoff

The reason English singing artists sell more records is simply down to them singing in English... there is a number of German bands who sold millions of records, singing in English... basically Germans do understand what you say, while you don't understand what they say... the perception that English sung music is somewhat better is flawed... for every ludicrous Continental artist, I can name a British one who is probably worse... want to play the game?

Trio. You lose.

You joking right? Dadada is seminal!

ugo.santalucia

KingstonGraham wrote:

After living next to some people who insisted on playing them at top volume, you will never convince me that anything is worse than Scorpions.

Clearly you don't like power ballads... if you did, you'd agree they wrote some of the best power ballads ever... if you don't like big perms and guitar solos it's your problem... Scorpions sold more records than Adele in Japan... Japanese are very discerning people

ugo.santalucia

bompington wrote:

Well, that must explain why 18% of the German music market is UK bands, while German bands have... errr... a bit less of the UK market

Yes, that basically is the reason. Before popular music became the thing, clearly the Germans did more and better music than the British... and that is a few centuries worth of music which you have decided to ignore...

kingstongraham

ugo.santalucia wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

After living next to some people who insisted on playing them at top volume, you will never convince me that anything is worse than Scorpions.

Clearly you don't like power ballads... if you did, you'd agree they wrote some of the best power ballads ever... if you don't like big perms and guitar solos it's your problem... Scorpions sold more records than Adele in Japan... Japanese are very discerning people

I've seen a Tokyo menu with pork rectum as an option. Something being popular in Japan isn't going to convince me.

ugo.santalucia

KingstonGraham wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

After living next to some people who insisted on playing them at top volume, you will never convince me that anything is worse than Scorpions.

Clearly you don't like power ballads... if you did, you'd agree they wrote some of the best power ballads ever... if you don't like big perms and guitar solos it's your problem... Scorpions sold more records than Adele in Japan... Japanese are very discerning people

I've seen a Tokyo menu with pork rectum as an option. Something being popular in Japan isn't going to convince me.

They might feel similarly about the stomach of a sheep filled with its own offal, but I suspect Japanese are actually more open minded about foreign taste

I would have no problem in ordering rectum... I have eaten balls, why not anus?

bompington

I can only see this conversation going one way, and it's not upwards.

ugo.santalucia

bompington wrote:

I can only see this conversation going one way, and it's not upwards.

It's probably a good thing... if after 190 pages you're still pretty much at the point you were at page 30

bompington

Surrey Commuter, for example, on page 30 wrote:

I have never doubted that IN will win

going downhill indeed.

joelsim

So, first legal challenge result.

Good Friday Agreement and Brexit.

In Remain favour.

Next week will be a hearing.

Then Scotland legal case will come up.

Then Lords.

Happy days.

Theresa May or May not be able to.

A seriously good day for the majority of the population.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

So, first legal challenge result.

Good Friday Agreement and Brexit.

In Remain favour.

Next week will be a hearing.

Then Scotland legal case will come up.

Then Lords.

Happy days.

Theresa May or May not be able to.

A seriously good day for the majority of the population.

Link?

mamba80

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37490248

^ this ?

wallace_and_gromit

Joelsim wrote:

A seriously good day for the majority of the population.

The majority of which population?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37490248

^ this ?

Looks like it.

Unfortunately all they have won is the right to make make a challenge. No indication of whether it has a chance or not. I guess we'll find out soon enough as they will need to bring the case this year before any potential triggering of Article 50.

joelsim

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

A seriously good day for the majority of the population.

The majority of which population?

Probably the whole of Europe and especially the UK.

Just the start, there is plenty afoot. Many, many hurdles for Theresa May or May Not before she can even think of activating it, not that I believe she actually wants to.

As well as the three stooges making it even easier.

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37490248

^ this ?

Looks like it.

Unfortunately all they have won is the right to make make a challenge. No indication of whether it has a chance or not. I guess we'll find out soon enough as they will need to bring the case this year before any potential triggering of Article 50.

I've been saying for a while...there are many challenges that need to be overcome before A50 can be invoked.

This is the first of a few legal ones in motion.

If you think this is just a matter of the Tories deciding when, then you're mistaken.

wallace_and_gromit

Joelsim wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

A seriously good day for the majority of the population.

The majority of which population?

Probably the whole of Europe and especially the UK.

Why do you think that Parliament getting the final say on Article 50 will be a seriously good day for the majority of the UK? The only logical reason for folk wanting to get Parliament involved is to stop Article 50 being invoked as a majority of MPs favour remaining in the UK. Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave, so how would Parliament voting against the wishes of the people be good for them (or indeed democracy)? Sounds to me like you think the referendum gave the "wrong" result and that whatever means to reverse this result that can be used should be used.

The UK remaining in the EU would be good for the population of the EU but that's not the UK's concern really. The population of the EU was badly let down by its arrogant leaders who didn't foresee the possibility of the UK leaving the EU and didn't negotiate sensibly with Cameron early this year.

wallace_and_gromit

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

A seriously good day for the majority of the population.

The majority of which population?

Probably the whole of Europe and especially the UK.

Why do you think that Parliament getting the final say on Article 50 will be a seriously good day for the majority of the UK? The only logical reason for folk wanting to get Parliament involved is to stop Article 50 being invoked as a majority of MPs favour remaining in the UK. Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave, so how would Parliament voting against the wishes of the people be good for them (or indeed democracy)? Sounds to me like you think the referendum gave the "wrong" result and that whatever means to reverse this result that can be used should be used.

The UK remaining in the EU would be good for the population of the EU but that's not the UK's concern really. The population of the EU was badly let down by its arrogant leaders who didn't foresee the possibility of the UK leaving the EU and didn't negotiate sensibly with Cameron early this year.

My guess is that Parliament will get a vote but that the vote will be to invoke Article 50, despite the personal views of MPs. Whilst leaving the EU represents a challenge, Parliament voting to ignore the will of the people is a can of worms that we probably don't want to open.

bompington

This, like a lot of Brexit-related arguments, keeps bringing me back to something which seems to me to have been surprisingly under-discussed: namely the idea that a simple majority should be able to decide such a radical constitutional change.

Now I am, I have realised over the years, quite change-averse, but it always seems to me that a vote by approximately 25% of the total population should not be enough to overturn - permanantly - the status quo.

Of course people will reply straight away that most British governments are elected by an even smaller proportion, but I would argue that this is different:

1. General elections are not a binary choice. Imagine a referendum where the different Brexit options were split into clear choices: 1. stay 2. hard Brexit 3. Norwegian option 4. Swiss option etc. Would any one of the "out" choices have beaten "in"? I doubt it.
Apart from anything else, this argument illustrates one big flaw in this referendum (the Scottish one was the same), in that the "out" campaign can offer all things to all people - "out" voters are actually a coalition of the unsatisfied, the obsessive, the dreamers, who all have very different ideas of where they want to go, but just don't fancy staying here.

2. General elections are not permanent. You can always change your mind.

So I personally would agree with the principle that to make such a serious decision, you need more than just a simple majority: either a "super-majority" - a threshold set at, say, 60% - or a stipulation that more than 50% of the entire electorate is needed.

These are not fanciful ideas, they are legal/constitutional requirements in many countries.

But of course, we didn't have that, did we? I reckon that if Cameron could have done it, he would: I'm pretty sure that he was trying to tread a fine line between offering the rebellious eurosceptic Tories enough to satisfy them (and his position waas too weak to make it too hard for them), while still getting a vote to stay in the EU as per his preference. He miscalculated, and I'm not sure how possible it is to change the parameters now.


TLDR: bad referendum setup, not sure we can change that now.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

If you think this is just a matter of the Tories deciding when, then you're mistaken.

I didn't say that.

The key will be what the courts decide. If the courts decide that is within the prerogative powers of the Govt to trigger article 50 then I don't see how it can be stopped. If not then it gets a lot more complex. IMO.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

If you think this is just a matter of the Tories deciding when, then you're mistaken.

I didn't say that.

The key will be what the courts decide. If the courts decide that is within the prerogative powers of the Govt to trigger article 50 then I don't see how it can be stopped. If not then it gets a lot more complex. IMO.

i think the importance of the good friday agreement and the following peace shouldnt be ignored, this isnt a bunch of business men complaining brexit isnt fair.
the troubles as they were weirdly called, killed 1000's of people inc one or two i was close too and anything that could bring us back to the dark days of the IRA should be avoided.

anyone know the current situation with Spain and Gib ? another flash point that doesnt seem to get much coverage.

wallace_and_gromit

bompington wrote:

This, like a lot of Brexit-related arguments, keeps bringing me back to something which seems to me to have been surprisingly under-discussed: namely the idea that a simple majority should be able to decide such a radical constitutional change.

Excellent post all round.

It's remarkable that the bill to enact the referendum was debated in both the Commons and the Lords and yet it got passed without any of the typical safeguards for such binary votes that you highlighted. There was some serious sleeping at the wheel given that the Commons and the Lords apparently both don't want to leave.

rolf_f

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave.......

No, they didn't. The majority of people who voted, voted to leave. It's not the same thing and I think it is fairly well understood that it is actually a minority of people who want to leave.

And this is why I don't understand all this push for 'hard brexit' stuff. If you acknowledge that nobody who voted for remain would prefer a hard brexit over a soft brexit, and that a good number (if a minority) of those who voted to leave would prefer a soft brexit, then it is obvious that those in favour of a hard brexit are in a notable minority.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit

Rolf F wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave.......

No, they didn't. The majority of people who voted, voted to leave. It's not the same thing and I think it is fairly well understood that it is actually a minority of people who want to leave.

But that's still more than voted to stay. More people voted to leave than have voted for any single choice in any UK election ever. The Commons and the Lords had the chance to impose minimum thresholds and a requirement for a super-majority but were presumably more bothered at the time about getting to the bar or fiddling their expenses. So it would appear to be that Parliament's view - even if due to incompetence/inattention - is that the result should be based solely on those who voted.

Rolf F wrote:

And this is why I don't understand all this push for 'hard brexit' stuff. If you acknowledge that nobody who voted for remain would prefer a hard brexit over a soft brexit, and that a good number (if a minority) of those who voted to leave would prefer a soft brexit, then it is obvious that those in favour of a hard brexit are in a notable minority.

Agree with this. I recall when the Aussies had a referendum on becoming a republic, there were three options on the ballot paper: one to maintain the status quo and two variants of republicanism. Whilst republicanism was in total more popular than Her Majesty, neither option was on its own, so Her Majesty remains in charge. If the EU referendum had offered the choices: Stay, leave immediately or leave but negotiate best terms, then Stay would doubtless have won. Another missed opportunity by the Commons and Lords.

wallace_and_gromit

Rolf F wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave.......

No, they didn't. The majority of people who voted, voted to leave. It's not the same thing and I think it is fairly well understood that it is actually a minority of people who want to leave.

But that's still more than voted to stay. More people voted to leave than have voted for any single choice in any UK election ever. The Commons and the Lords had the chance to impose minimum thresholds and a requirement for a super-majority but were presumably more bothered at the time about getting to the bar or fiddling their expenses. So it would appear to be that Parliament's view - even if due to incompetence/inattention - is that the result should be based solely a simple majority of those who voted.

Rolf F wrote:

And this is why I don't understand all this push for 'hard brexit' stuff. If you acknowledge that nobody who voted for remain would prefer a hard brexit over a soft brexit, and that a good number (if a minority) of those who voted to leave would prefer a soft brexit, then it is obvious that those in favour of a hard brexit are in a notable minority.

Agree with this. I recall when the Aussies had a referendum on becoming a republic, there were three options on the ballot paper: one to maintain the status quo and two variants of republicanism. Whilst republicanism was in total more popular than Her Majesty, neither option was on its own, so Her Majesty remains in charge. If the EU referendum had offered the choices: Stay, leave immediately or leave but negotiate best terms, then Stay would doubtless have won. Another missed opportunity by the Commons and Lords.

rolf_f

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave.......

No, they didn't. The majority of people who voted, voted to leave. It's not the same thing and I think it is fairly well understood that it is actually a minority of people who want to leave.

But that's still more than voted to stay. More people voted to leave than have voted for any single choice in any UK election ever. The Commons and the Lords had the chance to impose minimum thresholds and a requirement for a super-majority but were presumably more bothered at the time about getting to the bar or fiddling their expenses. So it would appear to be that Parliament's view - even if due to incompetence/inattention - is that the result should be based solely a simple majority of those who voted.

Indeed - that's democracy but I think it is important to always remain clear that the majority of the UK population are not in favour of brexit whatever the outcome of the vote was; to say otherwise is the sort of untruth that won it for Boris Trump. The remainers who didn't vote deserve a lot of contempt for what they have allowed to happen. But as to where we are now - it is such a catastrophically incompetent piece of Government that really we ought to be able to retrospectively sack the Cameron Government and scrap everything they ever did and start again.

wallace_and_gromit

Rolf F wrote:

...I think it is important to always remain clear that the majority of the UK population are not in favour of brexit whatever the outcome of the vote was...

How do you (that's you personally) know what the non-voters wanted? They most likely were indifferent, as otherwise they'd have voted.

joelsim

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

A seriously good day for the majority of the population.

The majority of which population?

Probably the whole of Europe and especially the UK.

Why do you think that Parliament getting the final say on Article 50 will be a seriously good day for the majority of the UK? The only logical reason for folk wanting to get Parliament involved is to stop Article 50 being invoked as a majority of MPs favour remaining in the UK. Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave, so how would Parliament voting against the wishes of the people be good for them (or indeed democracy)? Sounds to me like you think the referendum gave the "wrong" result and that whatever means to reverse this result that can be used should be used.

Correct.

Some of those who voted to leave were hoodwinked by promises such as £350m extra to the NHS every week, or European Army, or Turkey joining or any of the other lies. I suspect far more than the majority they got. You can't legislate for stupidity.

Democracy is the biggest threat to democracy.

wallace_and_gromit

Rick Chasey wrote:

Keep 'em guessing! The Johnny Foreigners won't know where the UK attacks are coming from in the exit negotiations.

Guy would do better to ponder the irony of EU politics that gave rise to the Eurozone I think.

wallace_and_gromit

Joelsim wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

A seriously good day for the majority of the population.

The majority of which population?

Probably the whole of Europe and especially the UK.

Why do you think that Parliament getting the final say on Article 50 will be a seriously good day for the majority of the UK? The only logical reason for folk wanting to get Parliament involved is to stop Article 50 being invoked as a majority of MPs favour remaining in the UK. Parliament is meant to represent the people and a majority of the people have voted to leave, so how would Parliament voting against the wishes of the people be good for them (or indeed democracy)? Sounds to me like you think the referendum gave the "wrong" result and that whatever means to reverse this result that can be used should be used.

Correct.

Correct that Parliament should represent the people?

Or correct that you just want the result reversed?