How to spin an election result.

[Billy Goat Sverige]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7i9V55W4AEb8-e?format=jpg&name=large

I guess those other two parties didn’t vote for the referendum and to invoke article 50 :rolleyes:

[WES]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7i9V55W4AEb8-e?format=jpg&name=large

I guess those other two parties didn’t vote for the referendum and to invoke article 50 :rolleyes:

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. :shrug:

[AFC East]

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. :shrug:

Would a 2nd ref have three questions, with a single transferable vote?

1. May deal (or whatever BoJo can negotiate)
2. No deal Brexit
3. Remain

I think in those circumstances option 1 would be the likely winner.

[WES]

Would a 2nd ref have three questions, with a single transferable vote?

1. May deal (or whatever BoJo can negotiate)
2. No deal Brexit
3. Remain

I think in those circumstances option 1 would be the likely winner.

I can’t see any deal getting support. Instead of a compromise deal bringing people together they seem to drive people even further apart as they satisfy no one.

I can only see two options; Remain or No Deal. And given that the Leave campaign’s narrative was entirely based on a deal and that as it stands parliament will not allow no deal, the only solution imo is a two choice referendum - Remain or No Deal.

[AFC East]

I can’t see any deal getting support. Instead of a compromise deal bringing people together they seem to drive people even further apart as they satisfy no one.

I can only see two options; Remain or No Deal. And given that the Leave campaign’s narrative was entirely based on a deal and that as it stands parliament will not allow no deal, the only solution imo is a two choice referendum - Remain or No Deal.

BoJo will never let that into the wild as a second vote.

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

Would a 2nd ref have three questions, with a single transferable vote?

1. May deal (or whatever BoJo can negotiate)
2. No deal Brexit
3. Remain

I think in those circumstances option 1 would be the likely winner.

But it wouldn't.

All the polling shows the opposite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Un ion_membership_referendum#Three-option_referendum

The majority now want to remain, and many Leavers won't take a no deal, or won't take May's deal.

I also think we should have a run off between the top 2 a couple of weeks later like they do in France

That way we can have a proper discussion about what no deal entails.

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

Would a 2nd ref have three questions, with a single transferable vote?

1. May deal (or whatever BoJo can negotiate)
2. No deal Brexit
3. Remain

I think in those circumstances option 1 would be the likely winner.

And what's scary is that at the beginning of Apr and beginning of May, 24% chose neither when asked whether they now wanted to Leave or Remain.

How can a quarter of the public want to be neither in nor out of the EU?

They want something that's not actually possible. Like many Brexiters.

[WES]

But it wouldn't.

All the polling shows the opposite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Un ion_membership_referendum#Three-option_referendum

The majority now want to remain, and many Leavers won't take a no deal, or won't take May's deal.

I also think we should have a run off between the top 2 a couple of weeks later like they do in France

That way we can have a proper discussion about what no deal entails.

Yeah but polling results are no justification for a second referendum. The justification is that the Leave vote was clearly driven by a ‘we will get a deal’ message, even Farage admits that. If even 600k people of the 17.4mil who voted Leave would have voted differently if they knew it was a no deal, the result would have been Remain.

And as importantly, parliament is clearly at odds with the referendum. The only way to resolve it is to go back to the people with a very clear definition of the options. Leave means no deal, and we always knew what Remain meant so we now have clarity.

Problem is, there are no shortage of Leave voters who are terrified that it was a one off that could never be repeated. Farage falls into this category imo.

[Yesterday Once More]

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.

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

Yeah but polling results are no justification for a second referendum. The justification is that the Leave vote was clearly driven by a ‘we will get a deal’ message, even Farage admits that. If even 600k people of the 17.4mil who voted Leave would have voted differently if they knew it was a no deal, the result would have been Remain.

And as importantly, parliament is clearly at odds with the referendum. The only way to resolve it is to go back to the people with a very clear definition of the options. Leave means no deal, and we always knew what Remain meant so we now have clarity.

Problem is, there are no shortage of Leave voters who are terrified that it was a one off that could never be repeated. Farage falls into this category imo.

I agree with every word of that except the first sentence.

They are one of the justifications for a 2nd vote. Everyone knows the SNP won't agitate for a 2nd vote till they have the numbers and this is accepted by all sides.

But more importantly, the GFA says that the Paddies can have a Prot vs Papist vote if the polling over a period shows a majority for change.

What's good enough for the bogtrotters is good enough for the Britishers.

[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. :shrug:

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. :shrug:

[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. :shrug:

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.

[WES]

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.

There is no moral or democratic justification but there is a practical one imo. The fundamental issue is that parliament does not believe that the referendum was a vote for a no deal exit and they are terrified that if they go along with one and the economy goes into the toilet they will lose their seats in the next GE. That is why we can't progress. My referendum proposal would resolve that.

Would it bring us together? Of course not, only time and a lot of it will do that. But it will allow us to take the next step.

[Ash]

There is no moral or democratic justification but there is a practical one imo. The fundamental issue is that parliament does not believe that the referendum was a vote for a no deal exit and they are terrified that if they go along with one and the economy goes into the toilet they will lose their seats in the next GE. That is why we can't progress. My referendum proposal would resolve that.

Would it bring us together? Of course not, only time and a lot of it will do that. But it will allow us to take the next step.

The thing often overlooking about this parliament is that they absolutely do not accurately represent the people on the main thing that the people currently care about. Leavers voted Tory and Labour in the last election under good faith that they would implement the referendum result as promised in the manifestos. That faith has been shown to be misplaced. If for the sake of argument we assume a roughly even split then around half of MPs should support leave, but perhaps only a quarter do. If this parliament cannot implement the decision we need to elect a new one, with the chance to vote for MPs who reflect the views of voters, not the elites.

[WES]

The thing often overlooking about this parliament is that they absolutely do not accurately represent the people on the main thing that the people currently care about. Leavers voted Tory and Labour in the last election under good faith that they would implement the referendum result as promised in the manifestos. That faith has been shown to be misplaced. If for the sake of argument we assume a roughly even split then around half of MPs should support leave, but perhaps only a quarter do. If this parliament cannot implement the decision we need to elect a new one, with the chance to vote for MPs who reflect the views of voters, not the elites.

Yes, I agree completely, however I can't accept a GE with even the smallest possibility of Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott getting into power. And even if I did, the Conservatives are never going to call one.

So going back to being practical, you have to ask yourself what are the conditions under which this parliament will exit the EU? One is by agreeing a deal, something which I think is impossible. Secondly, via a referendum which makes it absolutely clear that the public prefer no deal to Remain.

It's the only option I can see. :shrug:

[Ash]

Yes, I agree completely, however I can't accept a GE with even the smallest possibility of Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott getting into power. And even if I did, the Conservatives are never going to call one.

So going back to being practical, you have to ask yourself what are the conditions under which this parliament will exit the EU? One is by agreeing a deal, something which I think is impossible. Secondly, via a referendum which makes it absolutely clear that the public prefer no deal to Remain.

It's the only option I can see. :shrug:

There may be a GE scenario where a no-dealer is elected as Tory leader, who then faces a no-confidence vote from Tory remainer MPs who are then backed by Labour.

With May gone surely her discredited WA must surely go with her, while and WTO v Remain is better than WA v Remain, however much you try to sugar-coat it with words like 'confirmatory', a second referendum with Remain on the ticket does not respect the first result.

Anyway, I think George Galloway was right when he said that Labour was finished. I don't have the exact quote but basically the coalition between metropolitan middle class remainers and traditional working class leavers is over. The party machinery is dominated by the former, who will likely go hard-remain, and Labour won't be getting their traditional (leave) voters back.

[Burney]

There may be a GE scenario where a no-dealer is elected as Tory leader, who then faces a no-confidence vote from Tory remainer MPs who are then backed by Labour.

With May gone surely her discredited WA must surely go with her, while and WTO v Remain is better than WA v Remain, however much you try to sugar-coat it with words like 'confirmatory', a second referendum with Remain on the ticket does not respect the first result.

Anyway, I think George Galloway was right when he said that Labour was finished. I don't have the exact quote but basically the coalition between metropolitan middle class remainers and traditional working class leavers is over. The party machinery is dominated by the former, who will likely go hard-remain, and Labour won't be getting their traditional (leave) voters back.

:nod: Labour's predicament is if anything worse than that of the tories. A strong tory leader could guarantee the withdrawal of the whip from any Remain rebels, meaning that forcing a GE would almost certainly mean them losing their seats, campaign on the basis of getting out deal-or-no-deal and win back Brexit Party voters. By contrast, whichever way Labour go, they lose half their vote.

A GE forced by a no-confidence vote is very far from being a guarantee of a Corbyn government.

[WES]

:nod: Labour's predicament is if anything worse than that of the tories. A strong tory leader could guarantee the withdrawal of the whip from any Remain rebels, meaning that forcing a GE would almost certainly mean them losing their seats, campaign on the basis of getting out deal-or-no-deal and win back Brexit Party voters. By contrast, whichever way Labour go, they lose half their vote.

A GE forced by a no-confidence vote is very far from being a guarantee of a Corbyn government.

It doesn't have to be a guarantee of a Corbyn government to scare me, even a small chance is too much. And despite your scenario, I still can't see a GE anytime soon.

And no matter how strong the Tory leader, I think the MPs will be terrified of No Deal blowing up the economy - even in the short term - and them being held accountable. Unless of course there was a referendum that made it clear that this was the desire of the people.

That is not the case now and only a referendum could clear it up outside of a GE.

[AFC East]

It doesn't have to be a guarantee of a Corbyn government to scare me, even a small chance is too much. And despite your scenario, I still can't see a GE anytime soon.

And no matter how strong the Tory leader, I think the MPs will be terrified of No Deal blowing up the economy - even in the short term - and them being held accountable. Unless of course there was a referendum that made it clear that this was the desire of the people.

That is not the case now and only a referendum could clear it up outside of a GE.

A pretty fair summary. The view that there is no moral or democratic basis for another referendum is frankly irrelevant. Politics has never worked within those constraints.

[Ash]

A pretty fair summary. The view that there is no moral or democratic basis for another referendum is frankly irrelevant. Politics has never worked within those constraints.

Well, perhaps not in EU politics, where referenda are regularly re-run until the required conclusion is reached, and which is why many voted Leave in the first place. Overthrowing the biggest vote for anything in British history is a bit different. It would set a precedent for throwing out the results of any vote - election or referendum that the establishment didn't like. There's your moral and democratic basis right there. :thumbup:

[AFC East]

Well, perhaps not in EU politics, where referenda are regularly re-run until the required conclusion is reached, and which is why many voted Leave in the first place. Overthrowing the biggest vote for anything in British history is a bit different. It would set a precedent for throwing out the results of any vote - election or referendum that the establishment didn't like. There's your moral and democratic basis right there. :thumbup:

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.

[WES]

Well, perhaps not in EU politics, where referenda are regularly re-run until the required conclusion is reached, and which is why many voted Leave in the first place. Overthrowing the biggest vote for anything in British history is a bit different. It would set a precedent for throwing out the results of any vote - election or referendum that the establishment didn't like. There's your moral and democratic basis right there. :thumbup:

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.

[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 :rubchin:



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.

[WES]

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.

Well, there's two parts to it. In terms of the members of parliament who will not vote for any kind of Brexit other than one by name only, I think you are correct. They have refused to recognise a democratic decision because they believe that is the best way for them to keep their seats imo.

However, I am not convinced that the negotiations themselves have resulted in a deal worse than that that might have been achieved had the negotiations been conducted differently. The EU always had all the cards and no motivation at all to make it easy on us. If anything, the debacle of negotiations strengthens their hand if anyone else should have the temerity to decide to leave.

In which case, this was always going to come down to Remain or No Deal. So as reprehensible as some of the participants have been on both sides, I think we've ended up where we should have all along.

[Burney]

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

If a proper Brexiteer came in and immediately threatened to withdraw the whip from any hardcore remainers (meaning they would be fúcked at a GE) and then dared them to bring down the government, he might have to go to the country, but he'd have a good chance of actually winning a workable majority sans remain filth clogging up the party.

[WES]

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

No, because I have no really strong opinion on whether or not we should leave. I just want progress at this point. And I don't like being half committed to something. The people I have the most disregard for are anyone who voted Leave but who cannot accept No Deal. Spineless cowards, the lot of them.

No Deal or Remain, Britain. Make your minds up and get on with it. :nod:

[redgunamo]

I wanted him to admit that :-\



If a proper Brexiteer came in and immediately threatened to withdraw the whip from any hardcore remainers (meaning they would be fúcked at a GE) and then dared them to bring down the government, he might have to go to the country, but he'd have a good chance of actually winning a workable majority sans remain filth clogging up the party.

[Sir C]

If a proper Brexiteer came in and immediately threatened to withdraw the whip from any hardcore remainers (meaning they would be fúcked at a GE) and then dared them to bring down the government, he might have to go to the country, but he'd have a good chance of actually winning a workable majority sans remain filth clogging up the party.

'Remain filth'? Really?

[Ash]

However, I am not convinced that the negotiations themselves have resulted in a deal worse than that that might have been achieved had the negotiations been conducted differently. The EU always had all the cards and no motivation at all to make it easy on us. If anything, the debacle of negotiations strengthens their hand if anyone else should have the temerity to decide to leave.


The problem with the negotiations was May ruling out the no-deal from the start. If you are haggling with someone over the price of a car but say to them that you will buy the car you've already lost.

[Burney]

'Remain filth'? Really?

Absolutely! :nod: We must have ideological purity within the Party.

The scum must be purged: Remainers; Lefty bleeding hearts; identity politics wallahs; tax raisers; Allan-lovers; nanny staters; warmists - they all have to go.

[Sir C]

Absolutely! :nod: We must have ideological purity within the Party.

The scum must be purged: Remainers; Lefty bleeding hearts; identity politics wallahs; tax raisers; Allan-lovers; nanny staters; warmists - they all have to go.

:-( This cavalier use of intemperate language distresses me. When the left do it we, quite rightly, assume the moral high ground.

Be better than the leftists, b. Do now crawl into the gutter with them.

[redgunamo]

You see what you and your sort have done? That's practically the entire Conservative party nowadays :-\



Absolutely! :nod: We must have ideological purity within the Party.

The scum must be purged: Remainers; Lefty bleeding hearts; identity politics wallahs; tax raisers; Allan-lovers; nanny staters; warmists - they all have to go.

[Burney]

:-( This cavalier use of intemperate language distresses me. When the left do it we, quite rightly, assume the moral high ground.

Be better than the leftists, b. Do now crawl into the gutter with them.

Pfff. The centre is dead. You and your moderation and your namby-pamby fears of nasty words have no place in the glorious future, in which the enemies of Britain must be crushed utterly on the way to glorious, sunlit uplands.

[Burney]

You see what you and your sort have done? That's practically the entire Conservative party nowadays :-\

Not me, mate. It's limp-wristed types like Sir C you want to worry about.

[Sir C]

Pfff. The centre is dead. You and your moderation and your namby-pamby fears of nasty words have no place in the glorious future, in which the enemies of Britain must be crushed utterly on the way to glorious, sunlit uplands.

Titter away, but I grew up with stroies of how it was when the centre failed and the extreme ruled - and then I went and saw it for myself, and it makes me nervous. Extremely nervous.

[Monty92]

To be fair, May has not once voluntarily ruled out No Deal.


The problem with the negotiations was May ruling out the no-deal from the start. If you are haggling with someone over the price of a car but say to them that you will buy the car you've already lost.

[Yesterday Once More]

And right on cue, a district judge has ruled Boris has to go to court to face a charge of "misconduct in public office" over the 350 million a week on the bus. What impeccable timing. The establishment really are pulling out the stops, you have to hand it to them.

[Burney]

Titter away, but I grew up with stroies of how it was when the centre failed and the extreme ruled - and then I went and saw it for myself, and it makes me nervous. Extremely nervous.

There is no question of the 'extreme' ruling, it's simply that the centre has drifted inexorably left since Thatcher and a correction is required.

[Monty92]

That’s utterly mental. It was literally written as a suggestion.




And right on cue, a district judge has ruled Boris has to go to court to face a charge of "misconduct in public office" over the 350 million a week on the bus. What impeccable timing. The establishment really are pulling out the stops, you have to hand it to them.

[Burney]

That’s utterly mental. It was literally written as a suggestion.

Yes. Political interference from judges; an executive, legislature and civil service determined to defy the public's democratic choice and a supine state broadcaster slavishly broadcasting naked propaganda to support them.

Presumably this is the benign centre we should be trying to support? :rubchin:

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

Titter away, but I grew up with stroies of how it was when the centre failed and the extreme ruled - and then I went and saw it for myself, and it makes me nervous. Extremely nervous.

Agree 100%.

It also worries me Tory MPs talking of a pact with Farrage. There have been times before when the normal centre-right party thought they could use a right-wing populist by getting him into power in the belief that they could control him once in office. Didn't always work out that well.

If the Tory party simply becomes the party of hard-Brexit English nationalism with a fück business* attitude then it will die long term. The age at which one is more likely to vote Tory has already risen from 47 to 51. The young will never forgive a hard Brexit. The party could be toast.

If my lads had a sensible, centre-left leader we'd be cleaning up. As it stands, we risk destroying an economy and turning the country into a gulag.

We're fücked.



*And this is how screwed we are. We have a lefty like me worried that neither of the major parties are sufficiently pro-business.

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

Yes. Political interference from judges; an executive, legislature and civil service determined to defy the public's democratic choice and a supine state broadcaster slavishly broadcasting naked propaganda to support them.

Presumably this is the benign centre we should be trying to support? :rubchin:

So we should be supporting one of our political leaders blatantly lying to the public to get them to vote in a way they may not have done without the lie? This is acceptable behaviour?

[Yesterday Once More]

So we should be supporting one of our political leaders blatantly lying to the public to get them to vote in a way they may not have done without the lie? This is acceptable behaviour?

The trouble is of course that many political leaders "blatantly lied to the public" to influence that referendum. George Osborne promised a punishment budget. David Cameron promised to stay whatever the result. Blimey, HM Government sent a glossy propaganda booklet through everyone's door (which we all paid for) promising to honour the result of the referendum. Should they all be prosecuted? If not, why just Bozza?