Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Hammerfell said:
That's the question we're all asking. It's madness.
Click to expand...

Bercow hasn't ruled yet. Another vote on exactly the same motion is clearly against the rules in house of commons, it's absolutely clear in erksine May. It's not a rule that has had to be used recently, last time was in the 40's I think. It's there for exactly this kind of circumstance though. To prevent the government endlessly bringing back the same votes, browbeating and bullying MPs in to submission.

The government will probably try and argue the motion is different someway, it will be up to Bercow though to rule and decide on that, and I believe there is a very good chance it will be ruled out of order, unless May can get further concessions to substantially change the substance of the vote.

There is also a very good chance a decent proportion of MPs will reconsider the arguments about the "deal" this weekend, but then in dig in even further against it. The desperate shenanigans the government is up to, and the ludicrous stage managed propaganda moves May pulled will ensure that.
 
Buster15 said:
Not really.
There is a complete difference between a vote in the HoC and the whole country voting in a referendum.
Click to expand...
How so, though? Isn’t voting in both situations supposed to represent “the will” of the voters? Why is a referendum vote more sacrosanct than a “meaningful vote” in parliament?

I get the whiff of expediency, even hypocrisy.
 
For those that voted for Brexit as a protest vote, did it possibly achieve their goal? Presumably it was never estimated how many of them there were, and not many people talked about that publicly for fear of backlash. Yet it was widely acknowledged that was one of the driving forces.

I would imagine even they would think that intention was not a particularly well thought through one at this stage. However if you put that aside, if the intention was to demonstrate that the people representing them are incompetent, self serving and pose real democratic issues, this is a particularly striking example with the eyes of the world looking on.

Many people will say that you didn't need Brexit feckups to prove that, but it's not just about what the UK public perceives - I think this is creating some alarm on an international level. A kind of cry for help when faith in your own govt. has been lost, in the way that Mexican folks were delighted with the international spotlight after the Ayotzinapa tragedy.

It's kind of amazing that some people need to be reminded that unleashing chaos actually isn't in their best interests, short-term or long-term. It's just an impulse that reasonable societies are forced to control to survive.
 
Brwned said:
For those that voted for Brexit as a protest vote, did it possibly achieve their goal? Presumably it was never estimated how many of them there were, and not many people talked about that publicly for fear of backlash. Yet it was widely acknowledged that was one of the driving forces.

I would imagine even they would think that intention was not a particularly well thought through one at this stage. However if you put that aside, if the intention was to demonstrate that the people representing them are incompetent, self serving and pose real democratic issues, this is a particularly striking example with the eyes of the world looking on.

Many people will say that you didn't need Brexit feckups to prove that, but it's not just about what the UK public perceives - I think this is creating some alarm on an international level. A kind of cry for help when faith in your own govt. has been lost, in the way that Mexican folks were delighted with the international spotlight after the Ayotzinapa tragedy.

It's kind of amazing that some people need to be reminded that unleashing chaos actually isn't in their best interests, short-term or long-term. It's just an impulse that reasonable societies are forced to control to survive.
Click to expand...
No.

Because Brexit is about taking control away from Europe and giving it to British politicians.
 
Mb194dc said:
Bercow hasn't ruled yet. Another vote on exactly the same motion is clearly against the rules in house of commons, it's absolutely clear in erksine May. It's not a rule that has had to be used recently, last time was in the 40's I think. It's there for exactly this kind of circumstance though. To prevent the government endlessly bringing back the same votes, browbeating and bullying MPs in to submission.

The government will probably try and argue the motion is different someway, it will be up to Bercow though to rule and decide on that, and I believe there is a very good chance it will be ruled out of order, unless May can get further concessions to substantially change the substance of the vote.

There is also a very good chance a decent proportion of MPs will reconsider the arguments about the "deal" this weekend, but then in dig in even further against it. The desperate shenanigans the government is up to, and the ludicrous stage managed propaganda moves May pulled will ensure that.
Click to expand...


Perhaps he already has, he's still in his job isn't he, whereas a few months back he was likely to be turfed out for bullying one of his staff... but that all went strangely quiet??
 
Dante said:
No.

Because Brexit is about taking control away from Europe and giving it to British politicians.
Click to expand...

You'll need to explain your understanding of what the intentions of the protest vote are before you can demonstrate why it didn't realise them. The few people I know who did put in a protest vote did not do it to take back control because they're acutely aware of the lack of control, influence or even worth that they have as citizens in this system. They just wanted other people to realise that too.

You just seem to be describing what you would've wanted the protest vote to represent, because at least it has a broader and more beneficial goal in mind. Lots of people don't think about the world that way.
 
I wonder how much these Brexit proceedings have cost the taxpayers in England and Europe, from the referendum itself to the time spent by politicians debating this nonsense rather than trying to make changes happen in parliament.
 
Mr Pigeon said:
He's a politician, they're usually the epitome of "do as I say, not as I do".

Except my local MSP, he's pretty awesome.
Click to expand...

In fairness to old Nige, none of them will. 50 old people walking 200 miles in 2 weeks based on self-certification of their ability to do it?

They'll have jacked it in by Northallerton.
 
The walk, which ends in two weeks with a rally in Westminster, is being coordinated by political activist Harry Todd.

He gave Sky News a guarantee he would walk every mile of the route despite admitting he had done no training.
Click to expand...

Brexit in a nutshell. :lol:
 
Buster15 said:
Not really.
There is a complete difference between a vote in the HoC and the whole country voting in a referendum.
Click to expand...
Not a fundemntal difference. In that, people cacn change their mind!

Also, we hav a general election every 5 years. BREXIT is arguably more final than a change of gervernment so why not have another referendum on the options we have in front of us now 2 years on? It doesn't make sense.
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
Not a fundemntal difference. In that, people cacn change their mind!

Also, we hav a general election every 5 years. BREXIT is arguably more final than a change of gervernment so why not have another referendum on the options we have in front of us now 2 years on? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

What would be the reason for a second referendum. The situation is complicated enough already and extremely divisive.
Another leave vote wouldn't help and a remain vote would beg yet another vote.
Not necessary IMHO.
 
Buster15 said:
What would be the reason for a second referendum. The situation is complicated enough already and extremely divisive.
Another leave vote wouldn't help and a remain vote would beg yet another vote.
Not necessary IMHO.
Click to expand...
I do agree on the fact it could be more divisive. But that can of worms has already been opened by David Cameron.

The only 3 realistic options I can see are.
-Hard Brexit (No Deal)
-Mays Deal
-Remain

Parliment cannot decide on which option so why not have these 3 options in a referendum?
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
I do agree on the fact it could be more divisive. But that can of worms has already been opened by David Cameron.

The only 3 realistic options I can see are.
-Hard Brexit (No Deal)
-Mays Deal
-Remain

Parliment cannot decide on which option so why not have these 3 options in a referendum?
Click to expand...

No deal has been rejected but is not legally binding yet.
Remain is not currently an option as the leave result was passed into law. Leave on 29/3.
So. Mrs May deal is the only option aside from delayed leave date.
 
Buster15 said:
Yes it is. Leaving the EU as a result of the referendum was passed into law.
Click to expand...
No it wasn't the house had to vote to enact Article 50. It was a vote in commons that means we are leaving the EU not the referendum. The referendum would have been meaningless with out Parliament voting.
 
Fully Fledged said:
No it wasn't the house had to vote to enact Article 50. It was a vote in commons that means we are leaving the EU not the referendum. The referendum would have been meaningless with out Parliament voting.
Click to expand...

OK split hairs if you want to.
 
Buster15 said:
What would be the reason for a second referendum. The situation is complicated enough already and extremely divisive.
Another leave vote wouldn't help and a remain vote would beg yet another vote.
Not necessary IMHO.
Click to expand...
FFS you repeating this over and over does not make it so...
 
Fluctuation0161 said:
I do agree on the fact it could be more divisive. But that can of worms has already been opened by David Cameron.

The only 3 realistic options I can see are.
-Hard Brexit (No Deal)
-Mays Deal
-Remain

Parliment cannot decide on which option so why not have these 3 options in a referendum?
Click to expand...

You’d have to have it as a two stage with Leave-Remain and then If Leave - Deal or No Deal. Otherwise it would split the Leave vote and they’d rightly raise hell.
 
Buster15 said:
Sorry for that. I was responding to previous posts but accept your point.

Maybe you should reprimand the PM as well. Doubt you will get an apology from her....
Click to expand...
She had her reasons for repeating it what are yours? I've made a few posts in this thread about why this arguement is utter bollocks and not one poster has challenged them...

Tired of hearing it tbh. Nothing personal...
 



D1yHsRSW0AADiUi.jpg:small
 
Last edited:
Buster15 said:
No deal has been rejected but is not legally binding yet.
Remain is not currently an option as the leave result was passed into law. Leave on 29/3.
So. Mrs May deal is the only option aside from delayed leave date.
Click to expand...
They've already spoken about a possible extension. If a referendum was agreed upon then the law could be changed accordingly.
 
Kentonio said:
You’d have to have it as a two stage with Leave-Remain and then If Leave - Deal or No Deal. Otherwise it would split the Leave vote and they’d rightly raise hell.
Click to expand...
Good point. Sounds reasonable to me.

All this talk of "will of the people" feels disingenuous. Especially considering it was such a fine margin and so much has changed in the last 2 years.
 
Brwned said:
You'll need to explain your understanding of what the intentions of the protest vote are before you can demonstrate why it didn't realise them. The few people I know who did put in a protest vote did not do it to take back control because they're acutely aware of the lack of control, influence or even worth that they have as citizens in this system. They just wanted other people to realise that too.

You just seem to be describing what you would've wanted the protest vote to represent, because at least it has a broader and more beneficial goal in mind. Lots of people don't think about the world that way.
Click to expand...

There were actually quite a few people who voted to leave as a thumb in the eye to the Tories for austerity. They knew they were mad and vented in the only way in which they could.
 
Kentonio said:
You’d have to have it as a two stage with Leave-Remain and then If Leave - Deal or No Deal. Otherwise it would split the Leave vote and they’d rightly raise hell.
Click to expand...

I reckon that would still cause tremendous arguments. We're talking about an electorate that is mostly only used to FPTP, introducing STV or a multi question referendum (which would be a great time to use the word referenda if
Drainy said:
There were actually quite a few people who voted to leave as a thumb in the eye to the Tories for austerity. They knew they were mad and vented in the only way in which they could.
Click to expand...

Which is, as you know, insane.
 
The danger with putting a no deal option in a second referendum is that a significant number of people fail to understand the question, thinking the “deal” is an addition to the status quo rather than a means of avoiding chaos while the UK transitions to being a fully non-EU country.
 
The media has been shit wrt informing the general public what this all means tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.