|
Post by PG on Jan 15, 2019 21:02:08 GMT
230. That's a bit of a drubbing isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jan 15, 2019 21:24:27 GMT
I'm sure I am not the only one to have repeatedly said that running a country is far too important a job to be left to politicians.....
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 15, 2019 21:30:53 GMT
Relax, Jeremy says that when he gets in he'll negotiate a wonderful Brexit deal with the EU where we all win.
My view now is that you abide by the referendum decision and leave without a deal. Let the cards fall where they will and work to limit the damage.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 15, 2019 21:43:19 GMT
My view now is that you abide by the referendum decision and leave without a deal. Let the cards fall where they will and work to limit the damage. I’d probably agree with that but I don’t think it can happen. I think there are sufficient tories who’d resign the whip if a policy of no deal came into play and would instead force a general election - which in itself would change nothing about Brexit but instead eternally shaft the country with a Corbyn government. The government will try to renegotiate the deal but I think the EU will push for a second vote. It needs a political solution and I reckon that the second vote will happen with an extension to A50. I think the outcome of that would still be a leave vote but at least it’d be clear.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 15, 2019 21:49:11 GMT
My view now is that you abide by the referendum decision and leave without a deal. Let the cards fall where they will and work to limit the damage. I’d probably agree with that but I don’t think it can happen. I think there are sufficient tories who’d resign the whip if a policy of no deal came into play and would instead force a general election - which in itself would change nothing about Brexit but instead eternally shaft the country with a Corbyn government. The government will try to renegotiate the deal but I think the EU will push for a second vote. It needs a political solution and I reckon that the second vote will happen with an extension to A50. I think the outcome of that would still be a leave vote but at least it’d be clear. We had a bit of a straw poll about this. I think about 90% of my friends voted Remain but have no interest in voting again. We voted once and that's that.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Jan 15, 2019 22:13:12 GMT
I agree with bob. But whether that happens is going to depend on the ultimate game of political chicken (or rock, paper, scissors) between remainers, soft brexiteers and hard brexiteers.
May is going to try and run the clock down and keep running it down. She'll go to Brussels, come back in the three days the amendment gave her and say that the new plan is the old plan but with more safeguards on the backstop and giving Parliament a vote before we join the backstop (to effectively rip up the Withdrawal Agreement in 2 years time).
Remainers know that to stop brexit they need to reverse Article 50 and win a second referendum. Well some would like to not have the referendum as that adds risk. So, they will hope that if they keep defeating May, then eventually she'll have to give them a second referendum and to do that Article 50 has to have the clock stopped. Remainers hope is that soft brexiteers will decide to prefer a second referendum over May's deal.
Hard brexiteers know that in the absence of anything being changed, we leave on 29th March with no deal. They therefore also want to keep the clock running to kill time. But the risk to them is that the clock is stopped and the remainers gain the upper hand. May hopes that when push comes to shove, any brexit is better than no brexit (if remainers get the upper hand) and hard brexiteers will fold into her deal.
Soft brexiteers want a deal, but not May's deal. Their issue is that the only deal on the table is May's deal. They know that not delivering brexit will destroy them at the next election (from either party maybe). But that a hard brexit is something they refuse to accept. May hopes that as the clock runs down, to deliver the referendum in some form, they will finally back her deal.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 15, 2019 22:20:42 GMT
Relax, Jeremy says that when he gets in he'll negotiate a wonderful Brexit deal with the EU where we all win. My view now is that you abide by the referendum decision and leave without a deal. Let the cards fall where they will and work to limit the damage. I just don't see that as a smart option.
Why are people so frightened of asking a large chunk of the population to simply face up to reality? Because there might be riots?
Not as bad as the ones you'll get when we are all suffering the consequences of hard Brexit and those who backed it finally realise it is actually the polar opposite of the Eldorado they were promised.
That's because no-deal Brexit can't deliver the cake-heavy Brexit that people apparently voted for for the extremely simply reason that out there in the real world, it doesn't bloody exist. In fact it's quite likely to result in something of a cake shortage.
Basically we are condemned to purgatory to save the blushes of the deluded and those unwilling to admit that they were led a merry dance by the deluded.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 15, 2019 22:39:18 GMT
Depending on the question, a second vote would be tricky for May and Corbyn. Assuming the question was the same as last time, leave or remain, with the understanding that leave meant no deal, it’d be difficult for May to campaign for remain having said Brexit means Brexit. She couldn’t exactly back leave this time on those terms either. Corbyn, who lets remember went on a walking holiday during the last campaign, is hardly going to back remain either. I doubt the EU would show willing to bring back Cameron’s concessions let alone what he wanted (which the rest of Europe now seems to want, too) so my expectation would be leave winning by a bigger margin. There will probably then be arguments about the invalidity of the result based on much reduced turn out for the reasons Bob alluded to above.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 15, 2019 23:25:50 GMT
I completely agree that a second referendum is tricky but Brexit is damned tricky and by God are we having a go at that fool's errand.
And, if the argument is that Brexit-sympathisers are going to just be as stubborn as mules in the face of all the evidence and Remainers are going to get the hump about being asked to toddle down to a polling station or fill out a postal vote, that I suggest that there is something dreadfully, dreadfully wrong with all of us as a society.
We need to collectively get a grip as a nation.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 16, 2019 7:18:45 GMT
This whole Brexit mess has dominated our lives and effectively neutered Government for the last 3 years. I think a second referendum is now moving up to the front runner spot but I am not sure the result will be any different second time around. The problem is that if a decision is big enough to require a referendum, it should have a higher success threshold than 50% since, as we have seen, a close result causes divides, resentment and potentially unrest. It should be put into statute that a referendum requires a minimum 60% majority.
We are a country running a balance of payments deficit and Corbyn's policies would just increase that exponentially without any long term benefit but with lots of long term pain, so he is probably the last outcome I would want to see and I would take hard Brexit over Jeremy. However hard Brexit would probably lead to Jeremy getting a chance to take the helm anyway and in my view that would be the worst of all scenarios.
Damned if we do and damned if we don't. We really have disappeared down an alley with no way out. If by some quirk of fate, we do end up staying in the EU I don't see any reason we can't keep exactly the deal we had before Article 50 was invoked. We wouldn't have left and we haven't voted or agreed to change our terms so the status quo remains.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jan 16, 2019 8:00:55 GMT
I may be wrong but I thought that "the Government" was/is all the elected MPs, not just the Party in Power. In about 3 years they have spectacularly failed to sort out an agreement to leave the EU, and no doubt the actions of European Parliament haven't helped. There is apparently no confidence in the Government, so I think that the best way forward is a General Election with none of the current elected MPs eligible to stand for re-election. Let's see if a different set of minds can work positively together rather than being constantly entrenched in inter-party rivalry.
I do wish that MPs would remember on a daily basis that they have been elected to serve the needs of the People, not their own personal needs/interests or those of their party.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 16, 2019 8:37:13 GMT
I may be wrong but I thought that "the Government" was/is all the elected MPs, not just the Party in Power. In about 3 years they have spectacularly failed to sort out an agreement to leave the EU, and no doubt the actions of European Parliament haven't helped. There is apparently no confidence in the Government, so I think that the best way forward is a General Election with none of the current elected MPs eligible to stand for re-election. Let's see if a different set of minds can work positively together rather than being constantly entrenched in inter-party rivalry. I do wish that MPs would remember on a daily basis that they have been elected to serve the needs of the People, not their own personal needs/interests or those of their party. The Government is the group who have control of the House, whether that be a single party or a coalition. Those not in that group are the opposition and the Official Opposition is normally the largest party of those not in Government. I wouldn't want to see every MP binned - there has to be some kind of handover and transition otherwise no-one understands how it all works (or doesn't)
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 16, 2019 8:49:36 GMT
Damned if we do and damned if we don't. We really have disappeared down an alley with no way out. If by some quirk of fate, we do end up staying in the EU I don't see any reason we can't keep exactly the deal we had before Article 50 was invoked. We wouldn't have left and we haven't voted or agreed to change our terms so the status quo remains. I minded of an episode of Seinfeld where George, in a fit of rage, quit his job in front of all his colleagues. After he cooled down at home he realised it was a mistake so decided to just go back into work and act like it had never happened, much to the confusion of the people he worked with.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 16, 2019 9:24:31 GMT
I completely agree that a second referendum is tricky but Brexit is damned tricky and by God are we having a go at that fool's errand. And, if the argument is that Brexit-sympathisers are going to just be as stubborn as mules in the face of all the evidence and Remainers are going to get the hump about being asked to toddle down to a polling station or fill out a postal vote, that I suggest that there is something dreadfully, dreadfully wrong with all of us as a society. We need to collectively get a grip as a nation. A second referendum is tricky but the result will be trickier. I'm reminded when the remain argument got behind Gina Miller in order that the house must have a meaningful vote. It did and thanks to her we now faced an increased risk of no deal. A second referendum doesn't make no deal less likely, it makes it more likely.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jan 16, 2019 9:27:21 GMT
There have been plenty of noises coming out of business in the last few weeks and surely they're worth listening to?
In particular the car industry have said a no deal result will have an affect within hours due to the just in time delivery process. So using that as an example on 30th March there could potentially be 100k + car workers sitting in a factory with nothing to do.
There has to be a grown up solution to all of this but it appears the 650 people in Westminster aren't those adults.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 16, 2019 10:23:19 GMT
This whole Brexit mess has dominated our lives and effectively neutered Government for the last 3 years. I think a second referendum is now moving up to the front runner spot but I am not sure the result will be any different second time around. The problem is that if a decision is big enough to require a referendum, it should have a higher success threshold than 50% since, as we have seen, a close result causes divides, resentment and potentially unrest. It should be put into statute that a referendum requires a minimum 60% majority. Theres nonway you can have a situation where one side only needs 40% to win and the other needs 60%, that really would lead to riots, especially if leave got even high than 52% but not enough to meet the new freshold.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Jan 16, 2019 11:28:02 GMT
This whole Brexit mess has dominated our lives and effectively neutered Government for the last 3 years. I think a second referendum is now moving up to the front runner spot but I am not sure the result will be any different second time around. The problem is that if a decision is big enough to require a referendum, it should have a higher success threshold than 50% since, as we have seen, a close result causes divides, resentment and potentially unrest. It should be put into statute that a referendum requires a minimum 60% majority. Theres nonway you can have a situation where one side only needs 40% to win and the other needs 60%, that really would lead to riots, especially if leave got even high than 52% but not enough to meet the new freshold. It's not one side needing 40% to win, it is that to change the status quo, there has to be a sufficiently large majority in favour of it to ensure that it is carried and accepted by everyone. I am not suggesting that this be the case IF there is a second referendum but I think it should be obvious to everyone that 51/49, 52/48 or 53/47 results are always going to leave more than a sizable minority feeling very aggrieved and that should be avoided in future by making sure that there is a strong majority. I think when you get to the point that 60% or more of the electorate want something there is much more of a general acceptance that if you are in the minority, you have to go with the flow because there is no doubt about the result. However when there are only a few % points in it, there can always be cries that there were outside factors that swung the electorate one way or another. Democratic societies are built around stability, so to agree to have something fundamentally change the platform on which that stability is based, it should require a definite majority, not a hair's width one.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Jan 16, 2019 12:07:47 GMT
Its phrases like "will of the people" and this country voted for Brexit that's the problem. There is no clear cut will of the people and only 37% of the population voted to leave.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 16, 2019 12:27:07 GMT
It's not one side needing 40% to win, it is that to change the status quo, there has to be a sufficiently large majority in favour of it to ensure that it is carried and accepted by everyone. I am not suggesting that this be the case IF there is a second referendum but I think it should be obvious to everyone that 51/49, 52/48 or 53/47 results are always going to leave more than a sizable minority feeling very aggrieved and that should be avoided in future by making sure that there is a strong majority. I think when you get to the point that 60% or more of the electorate want something there is much more of a general acceptance that if you are in the minority, you have to go with the flow because there is no doubt about the result. However when there are only a few % points in it, there can always be cries that there were outside factors that swung the electorate one way or another. Democratic societies are built around stability, so to agree to have something fundamentally change the platform on which that stability is based, it should require a definite majority, not a hair's width one. I hear what you’re saying but the fact is leavers and remainers, rightly or wrongly, see each other as opponent and so leavers would see it as remain needing 40% to win and them 60%. I know it’s not as simple as winning but so divisive is the whole issue that it has been seen that way.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 16, 2019 12:41:48 GMT
Its phrases like "will of the people" and this country voted for Brexit that's the problem. There is no clear cut will of the people and only 37% of the population voted to leave. Which was the largest vote of it's kind. This stat assumes we thing the remaining 63% of the population would have voted remain which is not the case. The country did vote for Brexit and that is beyond doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 16, 2019 13:00:23 GMT
I still think a second vote is a non-starter, for a whole host of reasons, and setting the bar at an arbitrary 60% doesn't help either - what if one side gets 59% and doesn't get their way?
If it were me I'd get cross party agreement on a deal that is acceptable to all of us (ignoring the EU) by tweaking May's deal and then vote it through. Then we go back to the EU and tell them that is now our new position, it will not change no matter how they protest. If they want to extend Article 50 while they go back and put it to their members then we're fine with that but it's either that deal or no deal. If it's no deal then all bets are off.
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jan 16, 2019 16:29:29 GMT
It's not one side needing 40% to win, it is that to change the status quo, there has to be a sufficiently large majority in favour of it to ensure that it is carried and accepted by everyone. I am not suggesting that this be the case IF there is a second referendum but I think it should be obvious to everyone that 51/49, 52/48 or 53/47 results are always going to leave more than a sizable minority feeling very aggrieved and that should be avoided in future by making sure that there is a strong majority. I think when you get to the point that 60% or more of the electorate want something there is much more of a general acceptance that if you are in the minority, you have to go with the flow because there is no doubt about the result. However when there are only a few % points in it, there can always be cries that there were outside factors that swung the electorate one way or another. Democratic societies are built around stability, so to agree to have something fundamentally change the platform on which that stability is based, it should require a definite majority, not a hair's width one. I hear what you’re saying but the fact is leavers and remainers, rightly or wrongly, see each other as opponent and so leavers would see it as remain needing 40% to win and them 60%. I know it’s not as simple as winning but so divisive is the whole issue that it has been seen that way. Not quite getting what you're not getting Alex - either side would require 60% to win in such a vote. I still think a second vote is a non-starter, for a whole host of reasons, and setting the bar at an arbitrary 60% doesn't help either - what if one side gets 59% and doesn't get their way? If it were me I'd get cross party agreement on a deal that is acceptable to all of us (ignoring the EU) by tweaking May's deal and then vote it through. Then we go back to the EU and tell them that is now our new position, it will not change no matter how they protest. If they want to extend Article 50 while they go back and put it to their members then we're fine with that but it's either that deal or no deal. If it's no deal then all bets are off. I think I just heard (in the background, on the radio, so not gospel!) second vote is edging to becoming more likely. Nothing about changing the winning percentage required though.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jan 16, 2019 16:52:38 GMT
Personally, I'd like to see the Queen come whirling into Parliament with a big mace and start battering the twats.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 16, 2019 18:14:03 GMT
Its phrases like "will of the people" and this country voted for Brexit that's the problem. There is no clear cut will of the people and only 37% of the population voted to leave. Which was the largest vote of it's kind. This stat assumes we thing the remaining 63% of the population would have voted remain which is not the case. The country did vote for Brexit and that is beyond doubt. Yes it did. But the country was also misled and it voted for something damaging and ultimately undeliverable. And that now appears also to be beyond reasonable doubt.
The grown-up thing to do would be to admit it.
Yet many consider that an outrageous suggestion borne of some sort of patronising intellectualism. It's not. It's just facing facts, however unpalatable they may be.
Insisting that the country voted for Brexit and insisting that we stick to leaving is like the captain of a sinking ship insisting that the passengers all stay aboard as the ship slips below the waves. It's not noble to sacrifice others for your own beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jan 16, 2019 18:17:06 GMT
Which was the largest vote of it's kind. This stat assumes we thing the remaining 63% of the population would have voted remain which is not the case. The country did vote for Brexit and that is beyond doubt. Yes it did. But the country was also misled and it voted for something damaging and ultimately undeliverable. And that now appears also to be beyond reasonable doubt.
The grown-up thing to do would be to admit it.
Yet many consider that an outrageous suggestion borne of some sort of patronising intellectualism. It's not. It's just facing facts, however unpalatable they may be.
Insisting that the country voted for Brexit and insisting that we stick to leaving is like the captain of a sinking ship insisting that the passengers all stay aboard as the ship slips below the waves. It's not noble to sacrifice others for your own beliefs.
What is your pathway to achieving that?
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Jan 16, 2019 19:24:41 GMT
Wow, that was close. 325 vs 306.
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Jan 16, 2019 19:54:48 GMT
Wow, that was close. 325 vs 306. Something sensible has happened at last.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jan 16, 2019 20:25:13 GMT
I hear what you’re saying but the fact is leavers and remainers, rightly or wrongly, see each other as opponent and so leavers would see it as remain needing 40% to win and them 60%. I know it’s not as simple as winning but so divisive is the whole issue that it has been seen that way. Not quite getting what you're not getting Alex - either side would require 60% to win in such a vote. I still think a second vote is a non-starter, for a whole host of reasons, and setting the bar at an arbitrary 60% doesn't help either - what if one side gets 59% and doesn't get their way? If it were me I'd get cross party agreement on a deal that is acceptable to all of us (ignoring the EU) by tweaking May's deal and then vote it through. Then we go back to the EU and tell them that is now our new position, it will not change no matter how they protest. If they want to extend Article 50 while they go back and put it to their members then we're fine with that but it's either that deal or no deal. If it's no deal then all bets are off. I think I just heard (in the background, on the radio, so not gospel!) second vote is edging to becoming more likely. Nothing about changing the winning percentage required though. How is it possible for either side needing 60% to win? Are you saying that if it’s 55% to remain we would still leave because remain didn’t reach the 60% required to overturn the first referendum result? I think where you’re confused by my point is that you don’t realise that leavers see remainers as their opponents and so a referendum they did not win would be a win for remain. It’s not as binary as just the leavers either winning or losing. That’s why you cannot have a clause saying we need 60% of voters to say leave in order go ahead with Brexit as that would mean the leave side only need 41% to win the referendum and that would be seen as undemocractic.
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Jan 16, 2019 20:35:33 GMT
I am not generally a Gove fan, but I did like his speech.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jan 16, 2019 21:36:23 GMT
Yes it did. But the country was also misled and it voted for something damaging and ultimately undeliverable. And that now appears also to be beyond reasonable doubt.
The grown-up thing to do would be to admit it.
Yet many consider that an outrageous suggestion borne of some sort of patronising intellectualism. It's not. It's just facing facts, however unpalatable they may be.
Insisting that the country voted for Brexit and insisting that we stick to leaving is like the captain of a sinking ship insisting that the passengers all stay aboard as the ship slips below the waves. It's not noble to sacrifice others for your own beliefs.
What is your pathway to achieving that? Pathway to achieving what? Awareness?
How about an honest approach by the tabloid media?
Honesty from the government?
Sticking our collective heads in the sand is not sensible.
|
|