Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
711 said:
So it is quite possible that a leader with the support of 49% of MPs could be replaced by one with an initial support of only 15% of MPs. Furthermore the current leader might have the support of 80% of the party membership, but wouldn't be allowed to stand, and the two who did go to a membership vote might both be well down a list that the membership might have voted for if they got to choose who could stand. Bleeding shambles.
Click to expand...

She might not have got that. But yes I think that's how it works.
 
Steerpike said:
No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).
Click to expand...

You might hate that phase but thats as much thought that you have to really go through to believe it. Once you actually use fact and logic it falls completely apart.
 
Steerpike said:
No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).
Click to expand...
You can hate it all you want but that's essentially been your whole argument here, albeit in a very long winded way. You want Britain making its own decisions again (which it already does, but whatever) and not being in any way influenced by the EU, and outside entity, ergo.. you're taking back control.
 
mancan92 said:
So you are choosing to blame the EU and not the Government?

As I said bring in an example of a country that is comparable to the UK. You might aswell not have a central government in the UK according to you, you might aswell have each county have their own government.

It's completely thoughtless mentality.
Click to expand...
We're starting to get into the realms of identity politics here. Clearly there is a level at which populations require government. For me, the nation state is at the top of the tree in that respect, with some more local governance beneath that. Where government exists, I expect to be able to exert some influence over it by means of exercising my vote.

I personally identify as British, so the ideal for me is for the British government to be at the top of the governance hierarchy. That is why the political dimension of the EU gives me such a problem.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The 2016 referendum just asked if the UK should stay in or leave the EU but it didn't say whether there was any type of deal. Many people had many different opinions of what leaving the EU meant. Even now, two and a half years later, you can see that people still think it means many different things.
But no matter what any of us think there is a large enough proportion of Brexit voters who want no deal because they've been told that leaving with just WTO is nothing to be frightened of. Don't see how a government / parliament can deny that to the voters.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean but the words on the card matter little. The debates were informal manifestos and that was the basis of the votes, we've drawn red lines based on these but for some reason despite the fact that we were all told no deal would never happen it's become mandated.

Either way the goverment has a responsibility to do what's right for the country, we all know death sentences would pass a referendum but we don't do it for a good reason.
 
Steerpike said:
No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).
Click to expand...
That's a fair point of view.

I'm of the opinion though that if you asked five different people who voted leave why they did so, you'd get five different answers. It's why I think a second referendum with no deal and remain as the two options is the only way to go. You'd get far more clarity regarding what the will of the people really is if they're present with two clear options.

Leave vs Remain in 2016 wasn't clear because people voting leave were doing so for a variety of reasons, some directly contradicting one another imo. Also that whole campaign was full of BS presented by both sides.

It probably means pushing back the March deadline but I think it's needed to get some clarity.
 
Steerpike said:
We're starting to get into the realms of identity politics here. Clearly there is a level at which populations require government. For me, the nation state is at the top of the tree in that respect, with some more local governance beneath that. Where government exists, I expect to be able to exert some influence over it by means of exercising my vote.

I personally identify as British, so the ideal for me is for the British government to be at the top of the governance hierarchy. That is why the political dimension of the EU gives me such a problem.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but you clearly can see where your logic is completely flawed and fully based on zero information or thought.

You seem to not understand that we already make all our own laws the only things we dont are ones that involve making it easier for us to trade with other countries. Which is a good thing for us.
 
The idea of referendums in a democracy is a terrible. You cannot rely on the electorate to make an informed decision when most will not even be aware of all the necessary facts. I am therefore not sure why people keep suggesting yet another one is needed.
 
Steerpike said:
No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).
Click to expand...
You can dress it up any way you want mate, but what you have basically just said is 'taking back control'
 
Smores said:
I get what you mean but the words on the card matter little. The debates were informal manifestos and that was the basis of the votes, we've drawn red lines based on these but for some reason despite the fact that we were all told no deal would never happen it's become mandated.

Either way the goverment has a responsibility to do what's right for the country, we all know death sentences would pass a referendum but we don't do it for a good reason.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but who in parliament is doing what's best for the country.
You've got a section of the Tory party who want to leave under any circumstances, there's a section who want to remain and there's a section who want to leave but not under May's deal and some with it.
Labour have a large section who want to remain, have another section who want to leave but under some fantasy deal they think they're going to negotiate which is clearly not possible.

Brexit may have divided the country into two but it has divided parliament into five or six factions or more and I don't see how having a GE or referendum will resolve this.
 
Honest John said:
May's Deal vs No Deal - this is the only 2nd referendum that respects the original leave vote.
Click to expand...

You can't hold a referendum that excludes half the population that voted in the last one and completely ignores the shift in public opinion since the vote.
 
0le said:
The idea of referendums in a democracy is a terrible. You cannot rely on the electorate to make an informed decision when most will not even be aware of all the necessary facts. I am therefore not sure why people keep suggesting yet another one is needed.
Click to expand...
Yes. They are a blunt implement generally offering a two-way choice on a complicated issue.

I think that you would need to search long and hard to find, on this planet, a more complicated issue on which to have given the people a binary choice.
 
mancan92 said:
Fair enough but you clearly can see where your logic is completely flawed and fully based on zero information or thought.

You seem to not understand that we already make all our own laws the only things we dont are ones that involve making it easier for us to trade with other countries. Which is a good thing for us.
Click to expand...
I don't want to put an inappropriate level of emphasis on the legal framework that exists within the EU, or the extent to which we are required to conform with it, but your statement is not completely true. There have been plenty of instances where the ECJ has passed down a judgement where UK law has been in conflict with European law (the example of prisoners having the right to vote springs to mind).

Within a trading bloc I can absolutely understand legislation aimed at preserving standards and preventing unfair competition. The difficulties come when EU legislation strays beyond that remit.
 
Steerpike said:
I don't want to put an inappropriate level of emphasis on the legal framework that exists within the EU, or the extent to which we are required to conform with it, but your statement is not completely true. There have been plenty of instances where the ECJ has passed down a judgement where UK law has been in conflict with European law (the example of prisoners having the right to vote springs to mind).

Within a trading bloc I can absolutely understand legislation aimed at preserving standards and preventing unfair competition. The difficulties come when EU legislation strays beyond that remit.
Click to expand...
You can appeal those EU judgements and you dont have to write them into law. How is a case brought to the ECJ?
 
Ultimate Grib said:
You can't hold a referendum that excludes half the population that voted in the last one and completely ignores the shift in public opinion since the vote.
Click to expand...
Probably not but the main argument against another referendum is that having it throws the opinion of 17.4m people under a bus.
 
Honest John said:
Probably not but the main argument against another referendum is that having it throws the opinion of 17.4m people under a bus.
Click to expand...

Well they all get the same chance to vote the same way they did the first time if they want - except this time everybody understands what they are voting for. They still get to express their opinion.
 
Huh?? What could May have possibly told Foster to in any way reassure her over the backstop? She seems to have no wiggle room there at all.

 
Raulduke said:
Huh?? What could May have possibly told Foster to in any way reassure her over the backstop? She seems to have no wiggle room there at all.

Click to expand...


Can only be some sort of clarification on the temporary/indefinite nature of the backstop. EU may be prepared to give on that a little.
 
balaks said:
Can only be some sort of clarification on the temporary/indefinite nature of the backstop. EU may be prepared to give on that a little.
Click to expand...

But Foster was demanding the backstop be completely removed from the withdrawal agreement as recently as last night. Would be a major climb down for Foster to accept a clarification at this stage.
 
Raulduke said:
But Foster was demanding the backstop be completely removed from the withdrawal agreement as recently as last night. Would be a major climb down for Foster to accept a clarification at this stage.
Click to expand...

What she says in public and what she does behind closed doors clearly are two different things.
 
0le said:
The idea of referendums in a democracy is a terrible. You cannot rely on the electorate to make an informed decision when most will not even be aware of all the necessary facts. I am therefore not sure why people keep suggesting yet another one is needed.
Click to expand...

The reason we might have to resort to another referendum, is because the whole process was started by one. There's precedence in this matter. If you've already asked the people whether you should trigger A50 or not, it only makes sense that you'd ask them to either: a) ratify the withdrawal agreement or b) go for no-deal Brexit. Maybe even an option c) to bin the project.

If the government can't force the deal through the House, what other options are there? To crash out on no-deal? Is that what people voted for?
 
Stick said:
You can appeal those EU judgements and you dont have to write them into law. How is a case brought to the ECJ?
Click to expand...
You shouldn't have to appeal them - they had no business being made in the first place.

I don't know how cases are brought to the ECJ - presumably in the example I brought, it was a prisoner who raised it.
 
Steerpike said:
You shouldn't have to appeal them - they had no business being made in the first place.

I don't know how cases are brought to the ECJ - presumably in the example I brought, it was a prisoner who raised it.
Click to expand...

You know the UK also has a say in the EU Laws and regulations. As one of the leading states we actually had quite a large say in what the rules were. So at times we've even been able to bend the will of europe to what we want and believe in as a nation and used it to our benefit.
 
Steerpike said:
No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).
Click to expand...

That's a funny one, given the UK's unique "nations within a nation" approach to the nation state. And the house of Lords, etc.

The EU strikes me as much lesser threat to democratic sovereignty than your presently accepted status quo.
 
I will never understand why people will actively and knowingly damage the life of themselves, their families and the country as a whole just in the name of pointless things with no real logic behind them like sovereignty or austerity.

Surely the most important thing is to make sure you and your family are put in the best situation possible in their lives.
 
Steerpike said:
You shouldn't have to appeal them - they had no business being made in the first place.

I don't know how cases are brought to the ECJ - presumably in the example I brought, it was a prisoner who raised it.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem with a third person arbitrarily looking over rulings where an objective opinion is required. Yes it likely was and the UK created and signed up for rulings from the ECJ but there is still an appeals process. Much like I would say there is a high court in the UK.
 
Avatar said:
Disagree with the bold part. That's what happens in all democratic elections. You elect politicians thinking they will do so and so , and then you realize only post-election that you were misinformed. Positions are usually clarified after election results, not before that.

I agree though that a couple of chaotic years may provide a justification somehow for a second referendum without violating democratic principles. But from following the news, I understand that like 40%+ of the British people are still pro-Brexit. That's a lot even if not a majority. A second referendum may seriously divide your country more and risk distrust in democratic values, as well as a sense of apathy towards participation in any future referendums or elections.
Click to expand...

Stop repeating this, it's wrong. More people didn't vote than voted leave the first time around. 17.4m is about a quarter of the population, and by all polls has shrunk since.
 
C3Pique said:
Stop repeating this, it's wrong. More people didn't vote than voted leave the first time around. 17.4m is about a quarter of the population, and by all polls has shrunk since.
Click to expand...
That would be the whole population and not the voting population
 
Honest John said:
Probably not but the main argument against another referendum is that having it throws the opinion of 17.4m people under a bus.
Click to expand...

Why? They would have the opportunity together with the rest of the country to vote on the leave negotiated by the government firstly on their behalf and for the rest of the country.

I can tell you that 17.4m voters all voted for different reasons with a very big majority of them doing it to control immigration at any cost while some were swayed by the lies of the leave campaign and would understandably be angry that the promises are not materialising.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
Why? They would have the opportunity together with the rest of the country to vote on the leave negotiated by the government firstly on their behalf and for the rest of the country.

I can tell you that 17.4m voters all voted for different reasons with a very big majority of them doing it to control immigration at any cost while some were swayed by the lies of the leave campaign and would understandably be angry that the promises are not materialising.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just saying that once that result was in then for the democratic purists any 2nd referendum should only have the methods of leaving on the paper.
 
C3Pique said:
Irrelevant. Such huge changes should require a majority of the population to vote for it. We're being driven off a cliff by a fraction of the populace.
Click to expand...
About 37% of the voting population. Wheres Remain got 35%. Turnout was 72% Voting population was 46m. So 28% people or nearly 13m didn't vote.

Maybe, and I am thinking on the fly here, another referendum could be offered, now that the choices were more 'informed' where voting was to be made mandatory.
 
Ultimate Grib said:
Why? They would have the opportunity together with the rest of the country to vote on the leave negotiated by the government firstly on their behalf and for the rest of the country.

I can tell you that 17.4m voters all voted for different reasons with a very big majority of them doing it to control immigration at any cost while some were swayed by the lies of the leave campaign and would understandably be angry that the promises are not materialising.
Click to expand...

I think the pretence it was anything else is gradually dying, listening to Sky News, all you hear is "people voted because they wanted to stop freedom of movement , even the presenters are saying it". We know, you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.