How to spin an election result.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

I've just been persuaded that Manchester City were NOT the winners of the Premier League. The winners were really LONDON. If you add up the points that the London teams won, they clearly won the title. Glad that's cleared up.

But that's always been the case. That's why the northern monkeys wouldn't let Norris merge us with Fulham and make a London superclub.

But Man City weren't the real winners anyway. Just a rich man's plaything.

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

But that's always been the case. That's why the northern monkeys wouldn't let Norris merge us with Fulham and make a London superclub.

But Man City weren't the real winners anyway. Just a rich man's plaything.

Just like Farage to Arron Banks.

[Burney]

Those other two parties have also made it very clear they don’t support a hard Brexit. These results suggest that a Remain v hard Brexit referendum would result in a strong Remain vote.

A/ Such a referendum isn't on the table.
B/ It suggests no such thing, since evidence clearly shows that turnout was much higher in Remain areas than in Leave areas - something that would be highly unlikely to be the case in the event of such a referendum
C/ Given that there is a clear majority shown in the votes for Brexit taking place in some form, these results provide zero justification for Remain getting another look-in.

[WES]

A/ Such a referendum isn't on the table.
B/ It suggests no such thing, since evidence clearly shows that turnout was much higher in Remain areas than in Leave areas - something that would be highly unlikely to be the case in the event of such a referendum
C/ Given that there is a clear majority shown in the votes for Brexit taking place in some form, there is zero justification for Remain even getting another look-in.

Re C, the justification is that with the current parliament there is no chance of no deal going through unless it is explicitly demanded by the public in a clear vote.

If you believe that there is no chance of an acceptable deal for Leave voters (I fail to see how anyone can think that will happen given what we've been through) and that therefore the only Leave option is no deal and you want to leave the EU, I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't support the referendum I described.

Rightly or wrongly, it's your only chance of getting what you want.

[Burney]

Re C, the justification is that with the current parliament there is no chance of no deal going through unless it is explicitly demanded by the public in a clear vote.

If you believe that there is no chance of an acceptable deal for Leave voters (I fail to see how anyone can think that will happen given what we've been through) and that therefore the only Leave option is no deal and you want to leave the EU, I'm not sure I understand why you wouldn't support the referendum I described.

Rightly or wrongly, it's your only chance of getting what you want.

None of that justifies remain being on the ballot, though. That was explicitly rejected in exactly the same sort of democratic exercise you propose back in 2016. Why should Remain be allowed a second bite simply because the previous administration negotiated incompetently and because Remain MPs have done their damnedest to frustrate any form of Brexit in order to achieve exactly this result whereby they are able to present the public with a choice between their preferred result (remain) and the most traumatic outcome possible?

And, given which, were such a vote to take place, what faith could voters possibly have that it would be respected?

No. Sorry. None of this argument stands up.

[WES]

None of that justifies remain being on the ballot, though. That was explicitly rejected in exactly the same sort of democratic exercise you propose back in 2016. Why should Remain be allowed a second bite simply because the previous administration negotiated incompetently and because Remain MPs have done their damnedest to frustrate any form of Brexit in order to achieve exactly this result whereby they are able to present the public with a choice between their preferred result (remain) and the most traumatic outcome possible?

And, given which, were such a vote to take place, what faith could voters possibly have that it would be respected?

No. Sorry. None of this argument stands up.

I accept all of that but I think the reality is that the only way we end up leaving the EU is via the referendum I described. It's the only way to give parliament the clear message that the people want to leave and they are happy to do so under no deal and that they prefer it to Remain.

Anything else will not bring the clarity we need to force parliament to do it.

[Burney]

I accept all of that but I think the reality is that the only way we end up leaving the EU is via the referendum I described. It's the only way to give parliament the clear message that the people want to leave and they are happy to do so under no deal and that they prefer it to Remain.

Anything else will not bring the clarity we need to force parliament to do it.

I don't think Remaining permanently is a valid option, though. You could argue that we might be allowed to vote between No Deal and the ongoing pursuit of alternative options via extensions, etc, but not remain.

[WES]

I don't think Remaining permanently is a valid option, though. You could argue that we might be allowed to vote between No Deal and the ongoing pursuit of alternative options via extensions, etc, but not remain.

If we did that all the Remain voters would vote for the deal and enough Leave voters would that it would win and we'd be in the same position. If you had a strict yes/no on a no deal exit parliament would claim that it didn't represent half the country and I expect the answer would be No for the reasons above. Both would leave us where we are now.

The beauty of Remain/No Deal is that it forces Leave voters to commit and leaves nowhere to hide for Remain voters. If we vote for No Deal within that framework there will be absolute clarity and parliament will have no option.

As unpalatable as another referendum is, I see no other option. No Deal would win imo, in case you are interested.

[Ash]

Leave first. Deal later. The party that just won that election had one policy. WTO exit.

[Burney]

If we did that all the Remain voters would vote for the deal and enough Leave voters would that it would win and we'd be in the same position. If you had a strict yes/no on a no deal exit parliament would claim that it didn't represent half the country and I expect the answer would be No for the reasons above. Both would leave us where we are now.

The beauty of Remain/No Deal is that it forces Leave voters to commit and leaves nowhere to hide for Remain voters. If we vote for No Deal within that framework there will be absolute clarity and parliament will have no option.

As unpalatable as another referendum is, I see no other option. No Deal would win imo, in case you are interested.

No, I'm sorry, but there is no democratic or moral justification for Remain getting another go under any circumstances. To allow that would be to validate Remainers' persistent refusal over the last three years to simply accept the fúcking result and go from there.
And make no mistake: it is that which has been the really damaging thing that has made compromise impossible. It is impossible to compromise in good faith with someone who fundamentally wishes not to achieve a mutually-acceptable outcome, but to screw you and take everything. Without an honest commitment that we must leave, there can be no reconciliation. Dangling the carrot of another referendum whereby they might get their way only exacerbates the problem. And, were they to win such a referendum, do you seriously believe that would bring us all back together? You'd have to be mental to believe that.