Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Kentonio said:
Sorry, I don't buy into this idea that all opinions are equal, they are not. The opinion of a taxi driver from Slough about trade and economics is not the equivilent of the opinion of an economics professor or international trade negotiator. This is half the reason we're in this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

No that's a different point to the one I was making, and I agree with you. Expert opinions are in general much better at analysing, assessing and improving the conditions of the subject they're an expert in. Sadly not as often as we'd like, but enough that it doesn't even justify a real discussion about it. If someone takes the opposite view I'll listen to why but I don't find it credible.

The thing is there are people who don't want thoroughly logical analysis and assessment of an issue. Some don't even want meaningful progress on it. Their priorities are entirely different. It's not that they don't want it coming from an expert but they don't want it coming from anyone, at certain times and on certain things. I think we're entitled to challenge them but not dismiss them.
 
Brwned said:
You asked why are stupid people allowed to reinforce other stupid people's opinions. You really think many gaps need to be filled in?
Click to expand...
Could you please stop claiming that I said stuff that I haven't? Quoting is really easy too, just quote me when you want to highlight anything I have said. I asked why the British media, or Sky, is obsessed with that format and then went on to describe some of the effect it is having.
 
Brwned said:
The thing is there are people who don't want thoroughly logical analysis and assessment of an issue. Some don't even want meaningful progress on it. Their priorities are entirely different. It's not that they don't want it coming from an expert but they don't want it coming from anyone, at certain times and on certain things. I think we're entitled to challenge them but not dismiss them.
Click to expand...

They can get a random opinion down the pub if thats what they care about. What worries me about putting these feckers on TV is that it can start people thinking that because its someone on TV their opinion must have some validity. Like when they ask sports stars about politics, as if being a great left back means your opinion on international diplomacy must be important.

Even if people don't consciously think it has value, it starts to have an effect by sheer weight of screen time.
 
Kentonio said:
They can get a random opinion down the pub if thats what they care about. What worries me about putting these feckers on TV is that it can start people thinking that because its someone on TV their opinion must have some validity. Like when they ask sports stars about politics, as if being a great left back means your opinion on international diplomacy must be important.

Even if people don't consciously think it has value, it starts to have an effect by sheer weight of screen time.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think it's dangerous too. However I think the alternative perspective, that I'm completely blind to the dangers of experts and aristocrats being the only voices, is most likely true too. Our capacity for understanding the world from a perspective outside of our own is incredibly limited, IMO.

Abizzz said:
Could you please stop claiming that I said stuff that I haven't? Quoting is really easy too, just quote me when you want to highlight anything I have said. I asked why the British media, or Sky, is obsessed with that format and then went on to describe some of the effect it is having.
Click to expand...

Here's your quote.

Abizzz said:
Why is British media so obsessed with this format? (or is it just sky?)

I mean anyone in Britain can go outside and ask some random stranger about Brexit... where's the information or entertainment value in that? It's just a constant reinforcement of stupidity. The never ending cycle of stupid people being heard saying stupid stuff by more stupid people who feel reaffirmed because some bloke on TV said it.
Click to expand...

You said explicitly that it's just a constant reinforcement of stupidity, that stupid people are saying stupid stuff and being heard by stupid people, and asked why it is so prevalent. If you believe that isn't exactly the same thing as asking "why are stupid people allowed to say stupid things that other stupid people hear - at least this often?" then I don't think there's anything else to be said.
 
Brwned said:
You said explicitly that it's just a constant reinforcement of stupidity, that stupid people are saying stupid stuff and being heard by stupid people, and asked why it is so prevalent. If you believe that isn't exactly the same thing as asking "why are stupid people allowed to say stupid things that other stupid people hear - at least this often?" then I don't think there's anything else to be said.
Click to expand...
It's not just not exactly the same, it's a world difference. When I criticize players I don't want them banned from playing football either. Of course they are allowed to state their thoughts, as much as I, or anyone else is. The question was why this certain format is used so much in British media. It offers next to nothing (and costs nothing to produce, I guess it's saving grace).

Am I not allowed to question the quality of a certain tv format then? Because you certainly seem to take extreme exception at my criticism of it.
 
Abizzz said:
It's not just not exactly the same, it's a world difference. When I criticize players I don't want them banned from playing football either. Of course they are allowed to state their thoughts, as much as I, or anyone else is. The question was why this certain format is used so much in British media. It offers next to nothing (and costs nothing to produce, I guess it's saving grace).

Am I not allowed to question the quality of a certain tv format then? Because you certainly seem to take extreme exception at my criticism of it.
Click to expand...

Why do you have an issue with that format? For the reasons you've given. We were discussing those reasons. If you want to understand my point then re-read the conversation in that context. I suspect like me you've lost all interest so...time to move onto something more worthwhile.
 
Brwned said:
Why do you have an issue with that format? For the reasons you've given. We were discussing those reasons. If you want to understand my point then re-read the conversation in that context. I suspect like me you've lost all interest so...time to move onto something more worthwhile.
Click to expand...
The point I took away from your posts is that it comforts some, fair enough. I still think it's incredibly overdone but I do agree, time to move on.
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ex...EU-theresa-may-article-50-jacob-rees-mogg/amp
It's the express so I'll take it with a huge pinch of salt... But saying the EU will offer Britain a unilateral exit... But ni stays

Would be interesting to see if the Erg would hang the dup out to dry like that... Suspect may won't even allow it to get to a vote but it would be interesting to see what the erg would do in such a Situation
 
sun_tzu said:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ex...EU-theresa-may-article-50-jacob-rees-mogg/amp
It's the express so I'll take it with a huge pinch of salt... But saying the EU will offer Britain a unilateral exit... But ni stays

Would be interesting to see if the Erg would hang the dup out to dry like that... Suspect may won't even allow it to get to a vote but it would be interesting to see what the erg would do in such a Situation
Click to expand...

Yes, but that was what the EU proposed in the first place and the UK insisted that it should be the whole of the UK because they didn't want a border in the Irish Sea.

Parliament will never agree on anything anyway.
 
Tories are unionists and would never accept the chance of NI being split off like that, never mind the DUP and ERG. This is a non offer that was already vetoed by May in the negotiations before.

Hopefully if May loses the vote again she will be finally forced out...

The best thing the EU can do is refuse to extend past the 29th without something concrete, voted through parliament, a firm decided on course of action.

The options haven't changed since December. Parliament don't want to make a decision as there are no good options... That is why May must go first, May is responsible for this shambles.

3 options are the subjugation "deal" May has "negotiated", no deal, or withdraw article 50 and no Brexit.

I prefer the latter, and to keep the question open, no nightmare undemocratic second referendum which would probably be a "bloodbath", the UK leaving or not can be dealt with in the far future. Then a GE where everyone except the most fanatical will be keen to get back to domestic affairs for the moment.
 
There is nothing undemocratic about another referendum especially as it would presumably asking people to choose between actual real world options - doubly so when things are utterly deadlocked. You can think it undesirable because it might cause a "bloodbath" if you want to but the idea that a democratic vote is undemocratic because isn't supportable.
 
I admit I've been suffering from Brexit fatigue, so I'm definitely out of touch, but Newsnight has maybe just clarified something for me. I kept reading there will be a vote on 'ruling out a no deal', which is obviously nonsense as the UK can't unilaterally do that, but apparently the vote will actually be whether to 'leave with no deal', which in contrast can be done unilaterally. The vote will fail of course, and I presume it's there just to shut the ERG up for a bit, but at least I can see a bit of sense to it now. Why the press keep saying the vote will be to 'rule out no deal' when it isn't I've no idea, they don't help, as usual.
 
May sounding increasingly desperate in her Grimsby speech. I wonder if she will still be PM this time next week?
 
MoskvaRed said:
May sounding increasingly desperate in her Grimsby speech. I wonder if she will still be PM this time next week?
Click to expand...
I think so... There does not seem to be a 2/3 majority to vote for a ge... Probably not even 50% to succeed with a confidence motion.

The only thing I could see is if forced to apply for an extension she might call a ge (at which point if it's called by her I'd guess she would get the 2/3... And then it becomes pitched as a leave Vs remain (conservative Vs others) the only problem with that is I don't think the erg would agree with a manifesto that included Mays deal... Equally you could see significant labour movement to Tig if they don't get a 2nd referendum with remain in the labour manifesto... So a ge would be a brave call and if we had a brexit party with the erg and farrage the conservatives as well as Tig+libs and labour plus the SNP and ni parties getting their usual regional representation then its hard to see anything other than a hung parliament.
So yeah I don't think she's going anywhere till either a hard brexit has happened or she has her (or a very similar deal through).
 
Wibble said:
There is nothing undemocratic about another referendum especially as it would presumably asking people to choose between actual real world options - doubly so when things are utterly deadlocked. You can think it undesirable because it might cause a "bloodbath" if you want to but the idea that a democratic vote is undemocratic because isn't supportable.
Click to expand...

For remoaners, the definition of democracy is to keep voting/ holding neverndums and getting the outcome they want

I also suspect that any 2nd referendum would be rigged with 3 options - 2 Brexit and 1 remain, to split the Brexit vote
 
Last edited:
711 said:
I admit I've been suffering from Brexit fatigue, so I'm definitely out of touch, but Newsnight has maybe just clarified something for me. I kept reading there will be a vote on 'ruling out a no deal', which is obviously nonsense as the UK can't unilaterally do that, but apparently the vote will actually be whether to 'leave with no deal', which in contrast can be done unilaterally. The vote will fail of course, and I presume it's there just to shut the ERG up for a bit, but at least I can see a bit of sense to it now. Why the press keep saying the vote will be to 'rule out no deal' when it isn't I've no idea, they don't help, as usual.
Click to expand...

Most of Parliament have no idea what they're doing and clearly most of the press don't either. If decent journalists could have posed incisive questions to these charlatans things would be a lot clearer to the public long ago.

The only way to rule out no deal is to agree the deal or cancel Brexit. Neither of these, of course, will have a majority.
 
Bola said:
I also suspect that any 2nd referendum would be rigged with 3 options - 2 Brexit and 1 remain, to split the Brexit vote
Click to expand...

I doubt that question would be approved by the electoral commission unless structured in 2 parts

I.e. leave or remain as part one

And if leave wins a secondary option of
Leave with the transition deal on offer
Leave without the transition deal
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Most of Parliament have no idea what they're doing and clearly most of the press don't either. If decent journalists could have posed incisive questions to these charlatans things would be a lot clearer to the public long ago.

The only way to rule out no deal is to agree the deal or cancel Brexit. Neither of these, of course, will have a majority.
Click to expand...
Thanks Paul, that's how I read it.
 
I see the prize idiot Steven Barckley who is supposed to be the Brexit lead is demonstrating his total and complete lack of negotiation skills.

He continues to annoy the EU negotiators by blaming them for our failings rather than trying to win friends and influence them.

I have watched him on TV unable to even have a simple debate with interviewers.
He is very aggressive and condescending and obviously in a position far far above his capability.

Yet another example of us shooting ourselves in both feet.
 
Bola said:
For remoaners, the definition of democracy is to keep voting/ holding neverndums getting the outcome they want

I also suspect that any 2nd referendum would be rigged with 3 options - 2 Brexit and 1 remain, to split the Brexit vote
Click to expand...
Voted leave huh? Can't say I'm surprised...
 
Buster15 said:
I see the prize idiot Steven Barckley who is supposed to be the Brexit lead is demonstrating his total and complete lack of negotiation skills.

He continues to annoy the EU negotiators by blaming them for our failings rather than trying to win friends and influence them.

I have watched him on TV unable to even have a simple debate with interviewers.
He is very aggressive and condescending and obviously in a position far far above his capability.

Yet another example of us shooting ourselves in both feet.
Click to expand...
He was fast tracked by the conservative party.... They actually had him standing as an MP when he was 25... Some 13 years before he finally became an MP... Be grateful for small mercies as he could well have been running the country by now
 
afrocentricity said:
Voted leave huh? Can't say I'm surprised...
Click to expand...
Apparently it's more democratic to have a side win based on lies and breaking electoral laws than having a second vote when people are more aware of the reality and have clearer choices of what they want the future to be (I don't think it will happen and if it did it would have to be Remain vs Leave followed by May's Deal vs No Deal if Leave won the first round).
 
So how's it all going to play out...
Presumably may looses the 2nd meaningful vote by less that mv1
MPs then vote against no deal
MPs then vote for an extension
May then tries mv3 and looses by a bit less than mv2
She then has to ask for an extension and macron tells her it's got to be another 2 years
She tries mv4 and looses again
Can parliament force her to accept a 2 year extension or not?
 
RORY65 said:
Apparently it's more democratic to have a side win based on lies and breaking electoral laws than having a second vote when people are more aware of the reality and have clearer choices of what they want the future to be (I don't think it will happen and if it did it would have to be Remain vs Leave followed by May's Deal vs No Deal if Leave won the first round).
Click to expand...
Yup seems to be the default response from them. Smacks of fear that their skinny majority has abandoned them... I think they are right to be apprehensive. They can stfu about 'the will of the people' now though...
 
sun_tzu said:
So how's it all going to play out...
Presumably may looses the 2nd meaningful vote by less that mv1
MPs then vote against no deal
MPs then vote for an extension
May then tries mv3 and looses by a bit less than mv2
She then has to ask for an extension and macron tells her it's got to be another 2 years
She tries mv4 and looses again
Can parliament force her to accept a 2 year extension or not?
Click to expand...

Where does that come from?
 
Bola said:
For remoaners, the definition of democracy is to keep voting/ holding neverndums getting the outcome they want

I also suspect that any 2nd referendum would be rigged with 3 options - 2 Brexit and 1 remain, to split the Brexit vote
Click to expand...
I mean hey, it's just first past the post.
 
P-Nut said:
I'm guessing withdrawing and triggering art 50 again
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Macron then. Macron and the french government official position is no extension at all unless the UK gives a good reason for it.
 
Ubik said:
I mean hey, it's just first past the post.
Click to expand...

Could always just do 'No Deal' and 'May's Deal'. The remoaners get their 'People's Vote'. Those IRG turncoats can also do the decent thing and have a by-election
 
sun_tzu said:
I doubt that question would be approved by the electoral commission unless structured in 2 parts

I.e. leave or remain as part one

And if leave wins a secondary option of
Leave with the transition deal on offer
Leave without the transition deal
Click to expand...

That would be fairer, but there is the argument that part 1 has happened, so go straight to Part 2.

Not that I have a lot of faith in the commission on this issue. Both sides will rightly point to the false promises and soe ding on the referendum campaign, bit i think its a disgrace that millions of pounds of taxpayers money was spent on that biased 'impartial' leaflet issues by Cameron's govt.
 
What's the point of an extension? What brexit agreement would actually get enough votes to pass in parliament?Presumably it would have to involve Scotland staying in the EU...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.