How to spin an election result.

[Ash]

You’re certain that 17.4mil people voted to leave even with no deal? Really? That’s funny because I recall no mention of it in the campaign I watched.

I’m not so certain, not sure how anyone could be.

There wasn't a mention of a deal either. Actually even 'no deal' involves a deal - the WTO deal that all non-EU countries default to. We voted to leave the EU. Not leave under a specified arrangement.

[Yesterday Once More]

What is being overlooked in all of this is that the Brexit Party have, effortlessly, hoovered up a third of the votes in a national election, and one in which turnout from leave areas was very low.

Some Labour MPs could conclude they have a free pass at blocking leaving with or without a deal, as their constituents have gone to the Lib Dems. But a very significant number of them, and the vast majority of Conservative MPs, know that if they bring down a Prime Minister who is determined to get us out come what may on 31 October, they will be toast. The likes of Amber Rudd with her wafer-thin majority, dear old Ken Clarke, not to mention Soubry, Chuka and the other clowns. Do they really want to throw their careers down the swanee and risk getting Corbyn in number 10 just to stop us leaving the EU on WTO terms if necessary?

A PM who is prepared to play poker with this bunch of charlatans would deserve the country's support - and would get it.

[redgunamo]

Nonsense. Elections are "rerun" all the time; every four or five years, for example.

I didn’t say there wasn’t a moral basis. Just that it’s irrelevant. Running another referendum wouldn’t be unconstitutional, rerunning an election would be.

[redgunamo]

Yes, rather like being asked to replay a cup final you've just won, you can see why Leave voters would've been less enthusiastic about things. Remain, on the other hand, has everything to gain.

What is being overlooked in all of this is that the Brexit Party have, effortlessly, hoovered up a third of the votes in a national election, and one in which turnout from leave areas was very low.

Some Labour MPs could conclude they have a free pass at blocking leaving with or without a deal, as their constituents have gone to the Lib Dems. But a very significant number of them, and the vast majority of Conservative MPs, know that if they bring down a Prime Minister who is determined to get us out come what may on 31 October, they will be toast. The likes of Amber Rudd with her wafer-thin majority, dear old Ken Clarke, not to mention Soubry, Chuka and the other clowns. Do they really want to throw their careers down the swanee and risk getting Corbyn in number 10 just to stop us leaving the EU on WTO terms if necessary?

A PM who is prepared to play poker with this bunch of charlatans would deserve the country's support - and would get it.

[WES]

There wasn't a mention of a deal either. Actually even 'no deal' involves a deal - the WTO deal that all non-EU countries default to. We voted to leave the EU. Not leave under a specified arrangement.

No, afraid I strongly disagree. The entire Leave campaign was run on the basis that we would not only get a deal we'd get a good deal because of how awfully important we are blah, blah, blah.

And many people believed it. Enough to overturn the result? Impossible to say. But it certainly raises a valid question with respect to the validity of the result given the no deal proposal imo.

[Monty92]

No, afraid I strongly disagree. The entire Leave campaign was run on the basis that we would not only get a deal we'd get a good deal because of how awfully important we are blah, blah, blah.

And many people believed it. Enough to overturn the result? Impossible to say. But it certainly raises a valid question with respect to the validity of the result given the no deal proposal imo.

Leavers who promised a good deal would argue that the reason we've wound up with a bad deal is because the entire process has been a) run by remainers treating it as a damage limitation exercise, b) sabotaged by those who have manouvered to take no deal off the table

This may not be true, but it's not the most outrageous claim in the world. We simply don't know how much the EU would have bent had they been faced by a hard Brexiteer PM from the outset with more ability to keep their Cabinet in line. And so it would seem reasonable at this point to give them a chance to prove they were right all along, the opportunity for which is (just about) still open.

[WES]

Leavers who promised a good deal would argue that the reason we've wound up with a bad deal is because the entire process has been a) run by remainers treating it as a damage limitation exercise, b) sabotaged by those who have manouvered to take no deal off the table

This may not be true, but it's not the most outrageous claim in the world. We simply don't know how much the EU would have bent had they been faced by a hard Brexiteer PM from the outset with more ability to keep their Cabinet in line. And so it would seem reasonable at this point to give them a chance to prove they were right all along, the opportunity for which is (just about) still open.

Yes, I agree. The Tories should select a hard Brexiter and go into negotiations with the EU with no deal on the table. If they don't move - and I see no reason to believe they will - then we should go to no deal. If we can get a deal, fine, but I'd be willing to bet there is no deal at all that will keep the large majority of Leave voters happy.

The point is assuming we have to go to no deal, what do you do then? This parliament won't let it go through so the only option is a GE or a second referendum. My choice would be the latter, and I would choose the question a laid out because even with a GE there is no certainty that both major parties might still not try the middle ground and we end up back where we are now.

[Burney]

Leavers who promised a good deal would argue that the reason we've wound up with a bad deal is because the entire process has been a) run by remainers treating it as a damage limitation exercise, b) sabotaged by those who have manouvered to take no deal off the table

This may not be true, but it's not the most outrageous claim in the world. We simply don't know how much the EU would have bent had they been faced by a hard Brexiteer PM from the outset with more ability to keep their Cabinet in line. And so it would seem reasonable at this point to give them a chance to prove they were right all along, the opportunity for which is (just about) still open.

This is correct. The claim by Remainers that Brexit has caused such chaos that only a second referendum can settle it is simply disingenuous nonsense. It has been their obstructionism, deliberate sabotage and outright refusal to consider a future properly outside the EU that has caused the chaos. The idea that they should be rewarded for their deliberate decision to make Brexit unworkable by being given another shot at Remain is utterly fúcking abhorrent.

[Burney]

Yes, I agree. The Tories should select a hard Brexiter and go into negotiations with the EU with no deal on the table. If they don't move - and I see no reason to believe they will - then we should go to no deal. If we can get a deal, fine, but I'd be willing to bet there is no deal at all that will keep the large majority of Leave voters happy.

The point is assuming we have to go to no deal, what do you do then? This parliament won't let it go through so the only option is a GE or a second referendum. My choice would be the latter, and I would choose the question a laid out because even with a GE there is no certainty that both major parties might still not try the middle ground and we end up back where we are now.

It is perfectly possible for No Deal to go through using purely executive powers. Parliament need not be involved. For that to happen would require a PM with the balls to do it, though.

[redgunamo]

Aren't you worried a GE could wipe Remain out, once and for all

Yes, I agree. The Tories should select a hard Brexiter and go into negotiations with the EU with no deal on the table. If they don't move - and I see no reason to believe they will - then we should go to no deal. If we can get a deal, fine, but I'd be willing to bet there is no deal at all that will keep the large majority of Leave voters happy.

The point is assuming we have to go to no deal, what do you do then? This parliament won't let it go through so the only option is a GE or a second referendum. My choice would be the latter, and I would choose the question a laid out because even with a GE there is no certainty that both major parties might still not try the middle ground and we end up back where we are now.