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:
Why would it be hard to structure? Two part question, part one ‘Do you want to leave the EU or remain?’ part two ‘If Leave do want to leave with May’s deal or leave with no deal’. Simple.
Click to expand...
Why would it be that and not for example
3 picks... Leave no deal leave with Mays deal or remain

Why in your option do only those that pick to leave get to pick the nature of any deal

Why wouldn't it be a we decided to leave so pick if we leave with Mays deal or no deal and that's the only option

Why not a direct rerun of the previous question

Why not Mays deal or remain

You might think it's simple but I'm sureany would disagree

Av system with multiple options for example

I believe it won't happen anyway but your simple idea instantly throws up the why do only leavers get a say on deal / no deal?

Why not a second option is remain pursue reforms or not?

It's not simple and with the timescales involved I simply don't see it happening

Personally I'd love it to and I'd vote reminder but can't see it

If there was one I wouldn't put it past may to have 3 options
1 leave with no deal
2 leave with Mays deal
3 remain

But you have to put two X.... The option with the most wins .... If you only put one vote it's discounted... (Basically trying to ensure her option wins)
 
711 said:
McDonnell has u-turned on this. Before the party conference the Labour leadership was very much against a second referendum, and after great pressure from the rank and file to call for one they eventually weaseled a 'we're not ruling one out'. This morning on radio 4 he clearly said 'our preferred choice is a general election, but if not we want a second referendum. Could be different again next week though.
Click to expand...

He's been saying that for weeks, in fact that is all he's been saying. It doesn't matter what the question, that's all he says.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
No that's nonsense. To overturn a democratic vote is very serious. There's nothing wrong in having a second vote, and if remain wins, then the result should be honoured by leavers. However, that doesn't stop people being against EU membership.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure I understand - if you say there is nothing wrong with a second vote (and I am not advocating reversing Brexit without such a vote), then why is it so “serious”? The vote was incredibly close first time around (despite May initially acting like it was 80:20) and material new facts have emerged (or at least can no longer be denied), principally the fact that tbe EU is not going to give the UK a fantastic, cake and eat it deal. Therefore, as in every other area of life when circumstances change, the right course is to reassess whether we still want to proceed on that basis, knowing that the alternatives are not a bucaneering Britannia unchained but either chaos or an inferior version of the status quo.
 
Cheesy said:
Movement has been scarce but support for remaining within the EU has generally been higher than support for leaving for most of this year. That's fairly significant considering we're currently in the process of leaving, with that same process being highly criticised. It's also fairly notable considering neither of the main two parties are advocating remaining within the EU currently: the government continue to advocate a well-managed exit (even if they're incapable of it) and the opposition are at best tacitly wary of leaving, and generally supportive of doing so.

I do think there's something strange in those on the left defending Labour's stance on this based on polling when it was perfectly convenient for that to be ignored when Corbyn first came to power. Or when the country was keen on austerity. Obviously Labour need to be smart in their actions and there are risks in going against the vote itself, but the consistent argument from them under Corbyn has been to try and change the outlook of the British public on key issues instead of moving to the centre to accommodate such views. Yet on Brexit, an issue which will inherently impact everything a Corbyn government wants to do, they're fine to use the polling argument.
Click to expand...

Maybe you are right but why would there be movement by Leavers, they already have the decision they were after (whether the deal is what they want is clearly another matter)? I think the country is still very much divided.

I wish the referendum never happened, hearing the word Brexit pretty much everyday for 2 years has become unbearable.
 
Cheesy said:
Movement has been scarce but support for remaining within the EU has generally been higher than support for leaving for most of this year. That's fairly significant considering we're currently in the process of leaving, with that same process being highly criticised. It's also fairly notable considering neither of the main two parties are advocating remaining within the EU currently: the government continue to advocate a well-managed exit (even if they're incapable of it) and the opposition are at best tacitly wary of leaving, and generally supportive of doing so.

I do think there's something strange in those on the left defending Labour's stance on this based on polling when it was perfectly convenient for that to be ignored when Corbyn first came to power. Or when the country was keen on austerity. Obviously Labour need to be smart in their actions and there are risks in going against the vote itself, but the consistent argument from them under Corbyn has been to try and change the outlook of the British public on key issues instead of moving to the centre to accommodate such views. Yet on Brexit, an issue which will inherently impact everything a Corbyn government wants to do, they're fine to use the polling argument.
Click to expand...
Great post. Have found Sweet Square’s recent posts in this thread to be particularly infuriating.
 
sun_tzu said:
Why would it be that and not for example
3 picks... Leave no deal leave with Mays deal or remain

Why in your option do only those that pick to leave get to pick the nature of any deal

Why wouldn't it be a we decided to leave so pick if we leave with Mays deal or no deal and that's the only option

Why not a direct rerun of the previous question

Why not Mays deal or remain

You might think it's simple but I'm sureany would disagree

Av system with multiple options for example

I believe it won't happen anyway but your simple idea instantly throws up the why do only leavers get a say on deal / no deal?

Why not a second option is remain pursue reforms or not?

It's not simple and with the timescales involved I simply don't see it happening

Personally I'd love it to and I'd vote reminder but can't see it

If there was one I wouldn't put it past may to have 3 options
1 leave with no deal
2 leave with Mays deal
3 remain

But you have to put two X.... The option with the most wins .... If you only put one vote it's discounted... (Basically trying to ensure her option wins)
Click to expand...

You’re right that the second part should have just been ‘if the vote is leave, would you prefer May’s deal or no deal’. As for all the ‘why nots’ you posed, I’m just interested in the simplest most effective answer. You could quibble about variations until the cows come home, but the one I suggested covers the bases in a way that would be fair to both sides. You certainly can’t have a 3 answer question like the one you suggested because it would be a flagrant attempt to rig the vote for Remain.
 
There's going to what 70-80 (ERG + Boris' posse?) Tory votes against the deal? So they'll need somewhere in the region of 70 votes from opposition parties to pass the vote, maybe less if the LDs keep up their form and forget to vote.
 
ThierryHenry said:
Great post. Have found Sweet Square’s recent posts in this thread to be particularly infuriating.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's another version of what I'm calling 'Schrödinger's Corbyn' where his incompetence is passed off as a breath of fresh air because he's 'genuine' and 'not a normal politician' when he's scoring own goals like changing his story about why he was laying a wreath, but also where he's a machiavellian, political savvy schemer who isn't interjecting into the Brexit debate because he has a cunning plan.
 
Silva said:
There's going to what 70-80 (ERG + Boris' posse?) Tory votes against the deal? So they'll need somewhere in the region of 70 votes from opposition parties to pass the vote, maybe less if the LDs keep up their form and forget to vote.
Click to expand...

Surely they can’t get that many. Labour can’t capitulate that hard without tying themselves to the consequences.
 
Silva said:
You'd think so. The majority of Labour Brexil rebels are full on remainers and would rather a second referendum.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can’t think of more than about half a dozen like Field, Mann and Hoey who might go along with it.
 
Kentonio said:
Yeah I can’t think of more than about half a dozen like Field, Mann and Hoey who might go along with it.
Click to expand...
They're no dealers anyway, it's unlikely they'll vote for the deal. The government needs to turn remainer opposition MPs to dealers. The SNP are a no because they want the Scottish parliament to get a say. Lib Dems want a second referendum. And Labour wants another general election. It's really hard to see where the votes come from unless the ERG capitulates after they lose the vote of no confidence against May.
 
Silva said:
They're no dealers anyway, it's unlikely they'll vote for the deal. The government needs to turn remainer opposition MPs to dealers. The SNP are a no because they want the Scottish parliament to get a say. Lib Dems want a second referendum. And Labour wants another general election. It's really hard to see where the votes come from unless the ERG capitulates after they lose the vote of no confidence against May.
Click to expand...
My assumption is that a version of May’s deal ultimately passes.

The first vote will obviously fail. After that, either the EU gives May something that she can take home/ makes the deal optically easier to swallow for the Brexiteers, or they refuse to negotiate, and May’s negotiating position in the commons becomes stronger as the countdown to no-deal gets ever closer. The latter seems more likely, though completely terrifying.
 
NinjaFletch said:
No small irony that Brexiteers are planning on using a vote that they bitterly whinged and moaned about mind.
Click to expand...
Indeed... Similarly I'm sure the brexiteers will briefly love the European courts if they declare UK can't unilaterally revoke article 50
(Yet are aghast at the fact we Won't be able to revoke the backstop unilaterally)
 
402a6e75-c33a-4ab7-ac36-81957400a57e.jpg


The worst nightmare of all worst nightmares, Bojo, Davis and Mogg running the country :nervous:
 
Ultimate Grib said:
402a6e75-c33a-4ab7-ac36-81957400a57e.jpg


The worst nightmare of all worst nightmares, Bojo, Davis and Mogg running the country :nervous:
Click to expand...

The optimistic side of me hope it happens, we do Brexit for a week, everyone realises how shit it is, and the EU readmit us on the same terms. :(
 
Sweet Square said:
But both are polling at around 40%. If people actually care about staying in the EU or changing both parties stances than there's this awful little liberal party that people can vote for. But no one is.


Your right but there's nothing particular left wing about the EU at all, the left isn't going to get be hide something like those awful god EU marches. So there's simply isn't the energy for changing people minds on EU membership as there was with the fight against austerity(Your pretty much asking the left to actively campaign to join a club that will completely feck you over once your in government.)
Click to expand...

People who support remaining within the EU didn't vote Lib Dem for a multitude of reasons: the fact they're quite right-wing economically, the fact they screwed over students when in the coalition, and due to the fact they just weren't very good at campaigning last year, somehow managing to get outflanked by the fecking Tories on LGBT rights due to Farron. This is (again) a fairly selective point anyway though because if you're arguing the Lib Dems doing poorly is a reason not to go against Brexit then I could easily argue that Labour were daft for sticking with Corbyn between 2015 and 2017 (until the election) when he was generally polling poorly. Again - the point of politics is largely to convince the voting public that your own stance is right. Corbyn's generally done that, and it's why the left like him. Why's it suddenly the case that polling matters more on Brexit than it did on a whole array of other matters where Tory policies or ideas were often winning out?

The EU isn't left-wing but then unless we want to feck things up in Northern Ireland we're basically going to maintain a fairly similar relationship with them, but just without the perks that membership brings. If you want to drive the EU to the left then I'd argue the best way to do that is by getting left-wing parties across Europe to work together with the aim of making Brussels more left-wing. If left-wing parties actually focus on the EU election, there's no reason this can't happen. We're going to be closely tied to them anyway: it makes sense to try and work toward a more left-wing society within that framework instead of pretending we don't have to work closely with countries with whom we'll continue trading heavily with. The left probably had some solid arguments against the EU historically but that boat has passed now and we've moved toward a more globalised society anyway. That's not going to change.
 
Anyone been following Carol Cadwallader's exploits on Twitter?

We need a Mueller style investigation into Banks, Farage, Bannon, Mercers, et al.
 
Ubik said:
I agree with your worries tbf. I just think something so deliberately polarising as a referendum, on something so fundamental to a country as how it functions legally, politically and economically, is always going to lead to the kind of ructions and ridiculousness that we have now. We're 6 months from leaving and it gets worse by the week.

I realise you're likely thinking of Scotland and that it would make independence that much harder, and it's an interesting case given the SNP are literally a party founded upon the idea and had won parliamentary elections multiple times before the vote. It's tough to strike a balance, but it just seems to me that the current way of doing it is insane :lol: It would also doom any chances of electoral reform here, but let's be honest, that's not happening anyway.
Click to expand...

The Scotland case is obviously interesting, although not necessarily my only reason for being wary of the two-thirds approach for referendums. I'd also argue secession from a country is generally a unique case: with any other subject, if people want a referendum then can ultimately vote in a party who promises one; with a country breaking away that's not necessarily possible if the country in question doesn't make up a majority of its sovereign state.

Ultimately I think a significant part of the problem is that referendums should ideally be largely unnecessary in parliamentary democracies. In a way you could argue elections should almost be seen as referendums in their own unique way: if people wanted us to leave the EU, for example, then they should have voted for a party whose manifesto explicitly included that desire to leave. Things like electoral reform could be viewed through a similar lens: if it's something you really want then you should vote for a party who promises to implement it, and if you can't do that then the issue may not be important enough for you anyway. Obviously it doesn't really work like that, but to an extent there is arguably a silliness in holding referendums concerning big political decisions for the country when we elect our MP's for that specific purpose.
 
MoskvaRed said:
I’m not sure I understand - if you say there is nothing wrong with a second vote (and I am not advocating reversing Brexit without such a vote), then why is it so “serious”? The vote was incredibly close first time around (despite May initially acting like it was 80:20) and material new facts have emerged (or at least can no longer be denied), principally the fact that tbe EU is not going to give the UK a fantastic, cake and eat it deal. Therefore, as in every other area of life when circumstances change, the right course is to reassess whether we still want to proceed on that basis, knowing that the alternatives are not a bucaneering Britannia unchained but either chaos or an inferior version of the status quo.
Click to expand...

Somebody mentioned the possibility of simply revoking article 50. I was reply to that.
 
NinjaFletch said:
No small irony that Brexiteers are planning on using a vote that they bitterly whinged and moaned about mind.
Click to expand...

We whinged about her interference at the time because her intent was to try and stop brexit. However, the irony of ensuring that the article 50 bill had to pass through parliament meant that it would became law for the UK to leave the EU in March 2019 if the bill passed. It did pass, and it means there can be no reversal. So her attempt to stop it, led to it being sealed by law.
 
Cheesy said:
In a way you could argue elections should almost be seen as referendums in their own unique way: if people wanted us to leave the EU, for example, then they should have voted for a party whose manifesto explicitly included that desire to leave. Things like electoral reform could be viewed through a similar lens: if it's something you really want then you should vote for a party who promises to implement it, and if you can't do that then the issue may not be important enough for you anyway. Obviously it doesn't really work like that, but to an extent there is arguably a silliness in holding referendums concerning big political decisions for the country when we elect our MP's for that specific purpose.
Click to expand...

Cameron included an EU referendum in his manifesto in order to win over UKIP voters and get a majority government. He then had to deliver on it.
 
Kentonio said:
You have a NATO like agreement where the EU army is automatically used to defend any nations state that comes under attack. Beyond that, you only allow aggressive action if it’s agreed by all member states.
Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty much what we've got now? I'm sure if any European country came under attack then there would be a significant number of countries stepping in to help, whether that country was in the EU or not.
 
pocco said:
Isn't that pretty much what we've got now? I'm sure if any European country came under attack then there would be a significant number of countries stepping in to help, whether that country was in the EU or not.
Click to expand...

Without structure and coordination armies are very ineffective.

If you add 27 countries and languages, it is actually quite complicated.
 
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...e-things-weve-learned-about-public-opinion-br

There really Isn't a clear way forwards

Perhaps we should just build a wall down the middle of the country... The west stays in Europe and the east leaves with no deal... And people move where they want... Yes it's impractical unworkable in reality and would be unpopular... But looking at those polls so is
2nd referendum (which looks unlikely to deliver anything other than a very close result)
Staying in the EU
Leaving with this deal
Renegotiation of the deal
And no deal

I recall reading the Republic by Plato and him saying democracy is doomed to fail

Might have been onto something as it does seem fertile ground for some despotic populist (a UK trump if you will) to come to power
 
You must log in or register to reply here.