Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Sassy Colin said:
Where am I dismissive of others opinions? Perhaps you should read people's posts before insulting them?

The fact remains that any right leaning poster is fighting a losing battle on this Forum as it is predominantly left leaning. That has always been the case and no one on here, left or right, would deny it.

btw, Lefties talk bollocks most of the time, as regards politics :)
Click to expand...

You're disregarding the opinions of others because of their political leaning, that's dismissive and i didn't insult you anywhere. There's a good few centre or right leaning posters who talk good sense on plenty of issues they're not hounded out.

Of course right leaning posters face more opposition but it's not partisan it's just you're in the minority view. No different to the football forum where people are in the minority sometimes, if the minority find the level of opposition discouraging that's their issue.
 
Sassy Colin said:
The problem is this is a left leaning Forum, so any right thinking posters get short shrift.

The poster that was constantly calling out Corbyn ending up getting banned, although, tbf, he didn't get banned for calling out Corbyn but for acting like a tit when he was prevented from calling out Corbyn.
Click to expand...

I think Oscie got banned for generally acting like a tit in this thread and the Corbyn one. The final straw was him going on a mad one (more than his usual) in here and the Corbyn thread on the same night, culminating in him calling someone a twat in this thread. I think he got a temporary for that, which was made permanent when he went on a huge rant in the Admin/Mod thread.

On topic though, Cameron gets a hammering because he made the decision to call the referendum purely to strengthen his hand in internal party politics and misjudged the public mood disastrously. If it had come off and he'd won the ref I think most would have grudgingly regarded it as a shrewd bit of politics. As it is he's both shown himself as intrinsically self-interested and incompetent to boot.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
If 50.1% voted for it, that means a majority of the people want to see the rules of their country altered accordingly. Undemocratic to say otherwise whether you agree with it or not.
Click to expand...
What if 51% of the country votes for massacring the other 49%? Is that a democratic decision and is therefore the sitting government obliged to carry out genocide?

Democracy is a lot more complicated than "whatever the majority wants, happens". Well, at least it SHOULD be more complicated.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
50 + 1 % isn’t enough to change anything? I’m sure remainers would have taken that result in a referendum with no quibbles whatsoever.

May as well keep the status quo forever then in your world. Or maybe you’d like a dictatorship-lite?

If you want a 2/3 majority for anything of any note, you’ll in all likelihood will be waiting a long time for any significant changes in any field that you propose. And potentially, civil unrest etc depending on the issue.

There is NO WAY the right wing would have voted for Cameron in 2015 on the terms you are proposing & simple fact is he wanted to win a Tory majority for the first time in 23 years and that was very much in the balance.

I think it’s unfair to keep blaming Cameron. Did Harold Wilson have any well crafted contingency plans for a no vote in 1975? Probably not. Lucky for him, he got the right result.

As regards it being reduced to a binary issue, let’s take the Brexiteers at their word and leave with no deal then. It’s what they voted for after all in its simplest form isn’t it? No EU.
Click to expand...
50%+1 is enough to change a lot of things. Its enough to change policy, to carry a motion in the House of Commons. But for a major constitutional change? No, I dont think it is. We are not talking about policies that come and go here, passed by one government and repealed by the next, this is for major, long term issue, the effects of which will be felt for generations, which require a high level of consensus.

That is why a two thirds majority is needed for significant constitutional amendments in a lot of countries, as I said before. This is not unusual, this is not me throwing out a wacky idea to thwart the will of the British people, there are rules like this in the US, there are rules like this in the EU. If Brexit had passed by a two third majority, rather than a paper thin majority, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in. To change a country so fundamentally you need an overwhelming number of people behind you or you are going to end up with the kind of acrimony and gridlock we see now. That is why Remainers would have taken a 50%+1 victory without a quibble: it was the status quo. There is no contradiction there.

Dictatorship lite? What are you talking about? Have a word.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Where he expects to negotiate a deal with the EU having exactly the same benefits as now without being in the EU or having any responsibilities regarding Freedom of Movement, the ECJ and still expecting to negotiate their own trade deals .
Same as the Tories back in 2016.
Click to expand...
I see, that’s a shame. I thought something remarkable had happened within those hallowed chambers, such as a question been answered truthfully and in full.
Corbyn the people’s true enemy.
 
So the second referendum petition has just 71 Labour MPs, highlights the issue really.
 
Siorac said:
What if 51% of the country votes for massacring the other 49%? Is that a democratic decision and is therefore the sitting government obliged to carry out genocide?

Democracy is a lot more complicated than "whatever the majority wants, happens". Well, at least it SHOULD be more complicated.
Click to expand...

That's the Brexit vote, right?
 
Adebesi said:
50%+1 is enough to change a lot of things. Its enough to change policy, to carry a motion in the House of Commons. But for a major constitutional change? No, I dont think it is. We are not talking about policies that come and go here, passed by one government and repealed by the next, this is for major, long term issue, the effects of which will be felt for generations, which require a high level of consensus.

That is why a two thirds majority is needed for significant constitutional amendments in a lot of countries, as I said before. This is not unusual, this is not me throwing out a wacky idea to thwart the will of the British people, there are rules like this in the US, there are rules like this in the EU. If Brexit had passed by a two third majority, rather than a paper thin majority, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in. To change a country so fundamentally you need an overwhelming number of people behind you or you are going to end up with the kind of acrimony and gridlock we see now. That is why Remainers would have taken a 50%+1 victory without a quibble: it was the status quo. There is no contradiction there.

Dictatorship lite? What are you talking about? Have a word.
Click to expand...
Yes but that is two thirds majority in Parliament. Referendums (referenda?) rarely require a two-thirds majority.

Basically, the stupid thing was to hold a referendum that was non-binding and without actual tangible information about the consequences.
 
Siorac said:
To be fair, that's not necessarily the case.

For example, when the referendum - a legally binding one! - was held about whether Hungary should join the EU, the requirement was that 25% of all constituents vote the same way. That is to say, in the case of a 50% turnout, 50% + 1 "yes" vote would have been enough for a valid and legally binding result.
Click to expand...
OK well there will be some exceptions. But the point stands: setting such a significant constitutional issue as this up as a winner takes all on a simple majority is not normal among most advanced democracies. Not normal, and definitely not wise.

Ill repeat what I said above. If the Brexit had won with that kind of a majority, there would be a clear mandate to deliver it. We would not have the kind of chaos we have in the UK right now. @Strachans Cigar talks about civil unrest if we had set the terms of the referendum like that - which I think is complete nonsense BTW, but even if it were true - what have we got now? And what are we going to have if we leave without a deal? What will the 48% think if we leave on WTO terms and even half the predictions about how bad it will turn out are true? Are the majorities in cities, among educated, among young people, just going to shrug their shoulders and get on with it, because they lost an election by a paper thin margin, amid lies and broken election rules?

Conversely, what is going to happen if MPs decide to pull the plug on the whole thing and cancel Brexit altogether, because nobody can agree on what kind of Brexit they want, and 95% agree that leaving with no deal is sovereign suicide? I imagine the people who voted Brexit will be pretty damn pissed off, they will feel betrayed. I imagine there will be some serious civil unrest if that happens.

A lot of those same people, who voted Brexit and who would lose their shit if it was snatched away from them, would not have been similarly aggrieved if the terms of the original referendum had been clear. I think interest in the referendum would have been much lower, it would have been seen as a stitch up, there would have been grumbles from the minority of people who really, really give a shit about leaving the EU, rather than the many people who voted leave but if they hadnt been asked would have just got on with their lives. But nothing like the kind of shit that is brewing now.

Ultimately we live in a representative democracy. The idea that any referendum is the embodiment of our democracy is a complete nonsense. If people wanted to leave the EU that badly they should have voted UKIP in large enough numbers to force the issue in Parliament. But they never did. They may have posed a bit of a threat to the Tory party, but that is exactly the problem. The country is being torn apart right now because the Tory party wanted to shore up its support among nostalgic, grumpy old right wing dickheads. That is on Cameron.
 
Siorac said:
What if 51% of the country votes for massacring the other 49%? Is that a democratic decision and is therefore the sitting government obliged to carry out genocide?

Democracy is a lot more complicated than "whatever the majority wants, happens". Well, at least it SHOULD be more complicated.
Click to expand...

What if 99% of the country vote for massacring the 1% of people who's surnames start with the letter X.
 
Siorac said:
Yes but that is two thirds majority in Parliament. Referendums (referenda?) rarely require a two-thirds majority.

Basically, the stupid thing was to hold a referendum that was non-binding and without actual tangible information about the consequences.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

If the proposition is that referenda are a horrible idea, I agree. Even in the case of the People's Vote, though I cant see any better way out of this mess.
 
Adebesi said:
OK well there will be some exceptions. But the point stands: setting such a significant constitutional issue as this up as a winner takes all on a simple majority is not normal among most advanced democracies. Not normal, and definitely not wise.

Ill repeat what I said above. If the Brexit had won with that kind of a majority, there would be a clear mandate to deliver it. We would not have the kind of chaos we have in the UK right now. @Strachans Cigar talks about civil unrest if we had set the terms of the referendum like that - which I think is complete nonsense BTW, but even if it were true - what have we got now? And what are we going to have if we leave without a deal? What will the 48% think if we leave on WTO terms and even half the predictions about how bad it will turn out are true? Are the majorities in cities, among educated, among young people, just going to shrug their shoulders and get on with it, because they lost an election by a paper thin margin, amid lies and broken election rules?

Conversely, what is going to happen if MPs decide to pull the plug on the whole thing and cancel Brexit altogether, because nobody can agree on what kind of Brexit they want, and 95% agree that leaving with no deal is sovereign suicide? I imagine the people who voted Brexit will be pretty damn pissed off, they will feel betrayed. I imagine there will be some serious civil unrest if that happens.

A lot of those same people, who voted Brexit and who would lose their shit if it was snatched away from them, would not have been similarly aggrieved if the terms of the original referendum had been clear. I think interest in the referendum would have been much lower, it would have been seen as a stitch up, there would have been grumbles from the minority of people who really, really give a shit about leaving the EU, rather than the many people who voted leave but if they hadnt been asked would have just got on with their lives. But nothing like the kind of shit that is brewing now.

Ultimately we live in a representative democracy. The idea that any referendum is the embodiment of our democracy is a complete nonsense. If people wanted to leave the EU that badly they should have voted UKIP in large enough numbers to force the issue in Parliament. But they never did. They may have posed a bit of a threat to the Tory party, but that is exactly the problem. The country is being torn apart right now because the Tory party wanted to shore up its support among nostalgic, grumpy old right wing dickheads. That is on Cameron.
Click to expand...
I agree with all that. As I said: setting up the referendum was stupid in itself, regardless of the minutiae of its rules of validity. It was an uninformed choice - and it's not just the public that was ignorant, the leadership didn't have the faintest clue what leaving would entail either.

To cite my earlier example, when Hungary was about to join the EU, the issue was put up to a referendum only after all terms had been thoroughly discussed with the EU. The information was available to make an informed choice. That's the big difference, in my opinion.
 
Something as big as this shouldn't have been left to the public. Cameron treated it as some kind of reality TV vote off, with soundbites (it's YOUR vote, the power is in YOUR hands) and basically allowed himself and his government to sleepwalk into the matter. There were no proper safeguards in place for an actual leave win, no fail-safes, nothing.

This is on him. I do have a grain of sympathy for May because simply no one else wanted to follow on from Cameron. Boris, Raab, Mogg, all self-servicing opportunists who talk, but aren't willing to get stuck in. Happy to trash her deal, but support her in tonight's vote because they are scared of the repercussions.
 
I don't think the idea of the deceased providing a lasting mandate is discussed enough. We must be around 1million leave voters having died since the referendum, that's very close to the difference in leave and remain.

Are we really saying that ignoring the wishes of the dead is a democratic betrayal?
 
Adebesi said:
Fair enough.

If the proposition is that referenda are a horrible idea, I agree. Even in the case of the People's Vote, though I cant see any better way out of this mess.
Click to expand...
I think they have their place but need to be handled carefully. Definitely not as tools in political games, as Cameron did.
 
Adebesi said:
Definitely.

I think history will judge May as a PM that was dealt a horrible hand, and played it badly. Whereas Cameron was someone who was dealt a perfectly good hand and played it catastrophically.
Click to expand...
She took on the impossible job. TBF to her she did something no one thought she'd do: put in a draft agreement and get the backing of the EU. But then again she managed to unite the leavers and remainers. :lol:

I think someone who has been overlooked in all of this is Gina Miller, although she was not responsible for the meaningful vote she fought a hard case for parliament to have the final say. History will be a lot kinder to her when the right-wing press described her as a saboteur.
 
Rolandofgilead said:
I am a Corbyn supporter, but his decision to table a no confidence motion is baffling to me. There is no way on earth that he is going to win. The Tories won't oust themselves and the DUP will clearly support the Tories. I think he has well and truly got this wrong.
Click to expand...
On the one hand the leader of the opposition is doing what he has to do. On the other, it is futile because May will get the support she needs.

Corbyn is playing a blinder or is tactically incompetent whichever way you look at it. He is vague on his position on the result and a second referendum so he isn't alienating the Labour supporters who voted out and in the North East there were big numbers. But his refusal to back a "People's vote" and not putting anything on the table is damaging to his own party and its constituents.

Labour are in no position to call a GE because right now they are a shambles. They may have big membership numbers but Corbyn is not savvy enough to lead the country. If he came out and backed a second ref or even outlined his vision after Brexit in the hypothetical manifesto then maybe, just maybe he will get people voting for them. And those who support leave can understand where he's coming from. They may not vote for his party but at least they get a clear idea.
 
I have a bit of sympathy with May on the Freedom of Movement red line. In the sense that I think she was probably correct in her assessment that what people were voting for more than any other single issue when they voted Leave was for an end to freedom of movement.

I think people are mistaken in blaming their problems on immigrants and that immigration has been a net positive for the country. But I do think people wanting to "take back control" wanted, more than anything, to see less immigration. And so I understand why May thought a workable deal on Brexit that satisfied the people that voted for it would require an end to freedom of movement.
 
Adisa said:
Click to expand...

Frankly, if you give up opposing freedom of movement then there's not much point to Brexit anyway. I'm pretty sure 80+% of Leavers would be deeply unhappy with such a deal.

So yeah, I wouldn't blame May for that. From what I as an outsider can see, it's hard to see Parliament accepting a deal that leaves freedom of movement in place.
 
Adebesi said:
50%+1 is enough to change a lot of things. Its enough to change policy, to carry a motion in the House of Commons. But for a major constitutional change? No, I dont think it is. We are not talking about policies that come and go here, passed by one government and repealed by the next, this is for major, long term issue, the effects of which will be felt for generations, which require a high level of consensus.

That is why a two thirds majority is needed for significant constitutional amendments in a lot of countries, as I said before. This is not unusual, this is not me throwing out a wacky idea to thwart the will of the British people, there are rules like this in the US, there are rules like this in the EU. If Brexit had passed by a two third majority, rather than a paper thin majority, we wouldnt be in the mess we are in. To change a country so fundamentally you need an overwhelming number of people behind you or you are going to end up with the kind of acrimony and gridlock we see now. That is why Remainers would have taken a 50%+1 victory without a quibble: it was the status quo. There is no contradiction there.

Dictatorship lite? What are you talking about? Have a word.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should have a look to see how the UK joined the EEC in the first place. No two thirds majority there. Indeed no referendum at all before “major constitutional change”.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
Maybe you should have a look to see how the UK joined the EEC in the first place. No two thirds majority there. Indeed no referendum at all before “major constitutional change”.
Click to expand...
As I conceded to @Siorac above, maybe the two thirds majority for a referendum was a bad idea. Im happy to revise my position to say this question should never have been put to a referendum at all. That is still on Cameron though.
 
Siorac said:
Frankly, if you give up opposing freedom of movement then there's not much point to Brexit anyway. I'm pretty sure 80+% of Leavers would be deeply unhappy with such a deal.

So yeah, I wouldn't blame May for that. From what I as an outsider can see, it's hard to see Parliament accepting a deal that leaves freedom of movement in place.
Click to expand...

Immigration isn't going away. We need a more grown up conversation about it. One the one hand, our population is ageing. We're going to need people to care for them. On the other, a condition of all these post-Brexit trade deals will be immigration alongside them. Immigration will be a fact of life whatever happens.
 
nickm said:
Immigration isn't going away. We need a more grown up conversation about it. One the one hand, our population is ageing. We're going to need people to care for them. On the other, a condition of all these post-Brexit trade deals will be immigration alongside them. Immigration will be a fact of life whatever happens.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you'll have a hard time selling that to Leavers. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, seemingly.
 
Siorac said:
Yeah, you'll have a hard time selling that to Leavers. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, seemingly.
Click to expand...
After Brexit there won't be any cake. We'll be foraging for nuts and berries within 18 months.
 
Siorac said:
Yes but that is two thirds majority in Parliament. Referendums (referenda?) rarely require a two-thirds majority.
Click to expand...

Because we are a parliamentary democracy, referenda have been few and far between so we haven't really nailed down when they are needed or how they should work. Which is no longer sustainable. They've become a thing recently because constitutional reform has been handled piecemeal and poorly, so they've become a bit of a filler for political cracks in the system. But there's no real constitutional rules on how they are supposed to work. Brexit is a constitutional crises as much as a political one - encompassing how the UK regions are represented, our voting system, the role of parliament, our unwritten constitution etc etc. The UK could break up over this.
 
Runner said:
May destroying Corbyn :wenger:
Click to expand...

This is what I imagine in my mind

0ec.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.