I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
Article 50 always had three possible conclusions:
Deal No deal Revocation
For Remainers to vote to invoke it was a smart tactical decision because it shut the trapdoor after the Brexiteers foolishly jumped in.
So you reckon dishonest. I think you're probably right.
You might more usefully ask why David Davis voted to invoke it without a plan agreed across government.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greeningr.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
Whether I agree with Dominic Grieve or not, I think he is a man of substance and honourable too.
Great - I think he is neither.
Predictable - he certainly is running rings round ERG
He is certainly running rings around May - with the collusion of Bercow, whom I assume you also admire. The ERG aren’t great but them then they are not trying to subvert the Gov and parliamentary procedure, unlike Grieve.
Assumptions are not wise. Bercow is obnoxious, self important and too political for his position and he should have resigned over the ongoing bullying scandal. He just adds to distrust and should go now
He is Grieve’s partner in crime in trying to subvert the Gov. Admiring Grieve but not the man who makes his Machiavellian machinations possible is illogical.
Where did I say I admire Grieve.
I think he is as bad as Johnson as I said earlier but the difference is Grieve has the political and technical knowledge to fight his cause which is lacking in Boris and the ERG
Bercow fails for me on many counts
Grieve has a predominantly Remain supporting parliament and the speaker on his side.
Neither Boris nor the ERG are trying to seize control of Parliament from the Gov, unlike Grieve.
They would if they could, they do not have the numbers
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
You may not like his principles, but Grieve at least has some.
He is very clever and seems to be the darling of remain but his principles must be questioned when he voted for A50 and stood on the manifesto
Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
No BoZo seized the entire political agenda to subvert his own government and further his own career
Nonsense.
Of course he did. Boris only cares about Boris. If I lived in Uxbridge I would campaign to see him booted out. And I am a conservative member. And by the way my wife, who is also a member, would beat me to it
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
Article 50 always had three possible conclusions:
Deal No deal Revocation
For Remainers to vote to invoke it was a smart tactical decision because it shut the trapdoor after the Brexiteers foolishly jumped in.
So you reckon dishonest. I think you're probably right.
You might more usefully ask why David Davis voted to invoke it without a plan agreed across government.
Yes, that was a big problem. Even this time last year they did not have a plan. That is one of the more unforgivable sins that can be laid directly at May.
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
You may not like his principles, but Grieve at least has some.
He is very clever and seems to be the darling of remain but his principles must be questioned when he voted for A50 and stood on the manifesto
It would be doing the English language some brutality to described Grieve as anyone’s darling.
Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
No BoZo seized the entire political agenda to subvert his own government and further his own career
Nonsense.
Of course he did. Boris only cares about Boris. If I lived in Uxbridge I would campaign to see him booted out. And I am a conservative member. And by the way my wife, who is also a member, would beat me to it
Great - but you don’t, so it’s irrelevant.
My son and his partner did before they emigrated to New Zealand
Lady on the Sky News thing saying that people who support no deal think it means staying in the EU. Is there polling to support this claim and to put a number on it?
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
Article 50 always had three possible conclusions:
Deal No deal Revocation
For Remainers to vote to invoke it was a smart tactical decision because it shut the trapdoor after the Brexiteers foolishly jumped in.
So you reckon dishonest. I think you're probably right.
You might more usefully ask why David Davis voted to invoke it without a plan agreed across government.
Davis isn't, so far as I remember, against no deal. Let alone utterly against brexit, as so many of those who voted to trigger it have proven to be. They're dishonest or ignorant.
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
Article 50 always had three possible conclusions:
Deal No deal Revocation
For Remainers to vote to invoke it was a smart tactical decision because it shut the trapdoor after the Brexiteers foolishly jumped in.
So you reckon dishonest. I think you're probably right.
You might more usefully ask why David Davis voted to invoke it without a plan agreed across government.
Yes, that was a big problem. Even this time last year they did not have a plan. That is one of the more unforgivable sins that can be laid directly at May.
The blame for A50 is shared by each and every mp who voted for A50. Remember 114 did not
The current disarray in parliament in less about the form Brexit takes, if it is not cancelled altogether, but about who controls it. If May recognised that she had lost control of Parliament and resigned that would be a step in the right direction. A new leader could then withdraw the whip from those who have no respect for the referendum upon which they were elected like Grieve, Soubry and Greening. Unencumbered by bandit Remainers and the baggage of May’s disastrous deal, a new leader has a chance to cobble something together that might satisfy no-one but at least achieves some common ground.
The best option would be a simple FTA akin to Canada’s but that seems unlikely to be acceptable to the EU because it does not entrap Britain in vassal status which is clearly their preferred option if they can’t derail Brexit altogether.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
You may not like his principles, but Grieve at least has some.
He is very clever and seems to be the darling of remain but his principles must be questioned when he voted for A50 and stood on the manifesto
It would be doing the English language some brutality to described Grieve as anyone’s darling.
I've sent an email to Grieve asking him why he voted for Article 50, and urged him to just admit that it was either dishonest or ignorant. I doubt I'll get a proper reply, but if I do I'll post it here.
Article 50 always had three possible conclusions:
Deal No deal Revocation
For Remainers to vote to invoke it was a smart tactical decision because it shut the trapdoor after the Brexiteers foolishly jumped in.
So you reckon dishonest. I think you're probably right.
You might more usefully ask why David Davis voted to invoke it without a plan agreed across government.
Davis isn't, so far as I remember, against no deal. Let alone utterly against brexit, as so many of those who voted to trigger it have proven to be. They're dishonest or ignorant.
Davis is against having to do any work. To him the threat of no deal is merely a tool to force the other side to do the work.
Why on earth did the brains of brexit and remainer favourite Grieve vote for Article 50? Was there any brexit deal he would have been happy with? Or had he just not read, or understood, what he was voting for?
I suspect the vast majority of the 498 mps voting for A50 had no idea no deal became default
Donald Tusk said publicly that it was revocable several months before MPs voted.
That is very different from the default position. Deal or decision to revoke or extend are all possible but if no one does something to agree one of those positions out we go. It amazes me how the support for no deal is rising and should be a sober warning to mps to get their act together
It’s not rising. Polls always showed high support for it, especially post-Chequers when it became clear what a realistic Brexit deal would look like.
Yet virtually no polls show No Deal ahead of the Deal head to head and as far as I am aware only Deltapoll has shown No Deal beating Remain head to head.
About 35% to 40% back No Deal but that is well short of the 50%+1 Leave needs to preserve for a majority. Leave won with 52%, at least a fifth of those Leave voters would likely switch to Remain if No Deal was on the cards having only voted Leave on the basis of a trade deal with the EU of some form. Hence No Deal likely means Brexit is no longer sustainable in the long-term as it no longer has majority support
Lady on the Sky News thing saying that people who support no deal think it means staying in the EU. Is there polling to support this claim and to put a number on it?
Do you mean a member of the public or one of the presenters
just following on from what Casino Royal said at the end of the last thread. You have been unfailingly reasonable and decent throughout the debates of the last few weeks. You certainly have nothing to apologise for.
That's very gracious of you, @Richard_Tyndall , thank you. And you also.
Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
No BoZo seized the entire political agenda to subvert his own government and further his own career
Nonsense.
Of course he did. Boris only cares about Boris. If I lived in Uxbridge I would campaign to see him booted out. And I am a conservative member. And by the way my wife, who is also a member, would beat me to it
Great - but you don’t, so it’s irrelevant.
My son and his partner did before they emigrated to New Zealand
Great but he’s still there and they don’t count now so also irrelevant.
Lady on the Sky News thing saying that people who support no deal think it means staying in the EU. Is there polling to support this claim and to put a number on it?
Do you mean a member of the public or one of the presenters
A member of the public made the claim, and I think I've seen it said on here - but some opinion polling would be useful.
I mean, I predicted that would the general idea, but I assumed there's be the hint of something else to cover for the fact that they'll just try the same thing again. How many times does it need to be made clear that the EU/Ireland have no interest in modifying or removing the backstop even if it means no deal?
Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
No BoZo seized the entire political agenda to subvert his own government and further his own career
Nonsense.
Of course he did. Boris only cares about Boris. If I lived in Uxbridge I would campaign to see him booted out. And I am a conservative member. And by the way my wife, who is also a member, would beat me to it
Great - but you don’t, so it’s irrelevant.
My son and his partner did before they emigrated to New Zealand
Great but he’s still there and they don’t count now so also irrelevant.
Lady on the Sky News thing saying that people who support no deal think it means staying in the EU. Is there polling to support this claim and to put a number on it?
Do you mean a member of the public or one of the presenters
A member of the public made the claim, and I think I've seen it said on here - but some opinion polling would be useful.
I have said it on here. I have met a few who think no deal means, in effect, no change of any kind. Some may think that means Remaining, but others are very much of the opinion it means we leave the EU, with none of the drawbacks from the deal. We leave, but keep all the benefits. No idea how widespread this view is, but it is definitely out there. At least one said they favoured No Deal, because Brexit has caused too much change and disruption already.
A new leader with no Commons majority, depending on a minor, regional party to keep the party in office, might not be so cavalier as you about withdrawing the whip from its MPs.
They are not following the whip now and the Tories already rely on the DUP. Don’t see what your problem is.
Not following the whip and having the whip withdrawn are two very different matters
Indeed they are which is why I suggested it.
I am in the position that if Dominic Grieve should have the whip withdrawn so should Boris Johnson
They are both as bad as each other
You may not like his principles, but Grieve at least has some.
He is very clever and seems to be the darling of remain but his principles must be questioned when he voted for A50 and stood on the manifesto
It would be doing the English language some brutality to described Grieve as anyone’s darling.
Good point
The two main parties operate a market duopoly and do jolly well out of it. Hardly anyone can pursue a political career by joining any other party. No wonder Grieve, who's only 63, feared disobeying the hierarchy of his party. It can end careers.
If he's removed, I hope he gets a peerage and comments in due course on the conflict he faced between his conscience and his career.
Clarke did the right thing on A50 but is near the end of his career anyway. So he's free to vote however he likes. Also he has a history of being outspoken and standing up to bullies
I mean, I predicted that would the general idea, but I assumed there's be the hint of something else to cover for the fact that they'll just try the same thing again. How many times does it need to be made clear that the EU/Ireland have no interest in modifying or removing the backstop even if it means no deal?
What a bunch of incompetents.
I know they can't back down, but the Irish position on the backstop is still ridiculous unless they genuinely believe that no deal won't happen.
They've got themselves into a position where the thing preventing a deal from happening is something that won't exist in the event of no deal. It would make perfect sense if the alternative to a deal was remain. It makes no sense if the alternative is no deal Brexit.
Boris is however, different from Grieve, in that he is not trying to seize control of the parliamentary agenda and subvert his own Gov.
No BoZo seized the entire political agenda to subvert his own government and further his own career
Nonsense.
Of course he did. Boris only cares about Boris. If I lived in Uxbridge I would campaign to see him booted out. And I am a conservative member. And by the way my wife, who is also a member, would beat me to it
Great - but you don’t, so it’s irrelevant.
My son and his partner did before they emigrated to New Zealand
Great but he’s still there and they don’t count now so also irrelevant.
Actually he lives in Vancouver now
Beautiful city, one of my favourites, but still irrelevant
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
Lady on the Sky News thing saying that people who support no deal think it means staying in the EU. Is there polling to support this claim and to put a number on it?
Do you mean a member of the public or one of the presenters
A member of the public made the claim, and I think I've seen it said on here - but some opinion polling would be useful.
I have said it on here. I have met a few who think no deal means, in effect, no change of any kind. Some may think that means Remaining, but others are very much of the opinion it means we leave the EU, with none of the drawbacks from the deal. We leave, but keep all the benefits. No idea how widespread this view is, but it is definitely out there. At least one said they favoured No Deal, because Brexit has caused too much change and disruption already.
Thank you. I'd suggest that irrespective of their idea of what would happen in the event of no deal, it only matters if people think no deal means not leaving.
I mean, I predicted that would the general idea, but I assumed there's be the hint of something else to cover for the fact that they'll just try the same thing again. How many times does it need to be made clear that the EU/Ireland have no interest in modifying or removing the backstop even if it means no deal?
What a bunch of incompetents.
I know they can't back down, but the Irish position on the backstop is still ridiculous unless they genuinely believe that no deal won't happen.
They've got themselves into a position where the thing preventing a deal from happening is something that won't exist in the event of no deal. It would make perfect sense if the alternative to a deal was remain. It makes no sense if the alternative is no deal Brexit.
It doesn't make much sense to me to cause something because you are so intent on preventing that very thing, but but as you say they cannot back down now, politically. Sucks for all of us.
Lady on the Sky News thing saying that people who support no deal think it means staying in the EU. Is there polling to support this claim and to put a number on it?
Do you mean a member of the public or one of the presenters
A member of the public made the claim, and I think I've seen it said on here - but some opinion polling would be useful.
I have said it on here. I have met a few who think no deal means, in effect, no change of any kind. Some may think that means Remaining, but others are very much of the opinion it means we leave the EU, with none of the drawbacks from the deal. We leave, but keep all the benefits. No idea how widespread this view is, but it is definitely out there. At least one said they favoured No Deal, because Brexit has caused too much change and disruption already.
Thank you. I'd suggest that irrespective of their idea of what would happen in the event of no deal, it only matters if people think no deal means not leaving.
It should be added that almost nobody among the general public could articulate what they don't like about May's deal. Or at least articulate it in a way that was consistent with what May's deal actually does.
The public opinion of the deal is almost entirely formed through the prism of the opposition of various MPs and the media.
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
The Labour position seems to have evolved to being - argue for a deal which removes the red line on freedom of movement (with a referendum a back up). Despite the fact that the biggest driver of the Labour leave vote was, er, ending freedom of movement.
It is a position being put together by remainers, not Labour MPs in leave constituencies.
Lady on the Sky News thing saying that people who support no deal think it means staying in the EU. Is there polling to support this claim and to put a number on it?
Do you mean a member of the public or one of the presenters
A member of the public made the claim, and I think I've seen it said on here - but some opinion polling would be useful.
I have said it on here. I have met a few who think no deal means, in effect, no change of any kind. Some may think that means Remaining, but others are very much of the opinion it means we leave the EU, with none of the drawbacks from the deal. We leave, but keep all the benefits. No idea how widespread this view is, but it is definitely out there. At least one said they favoured No Deal, because Brexit has caused too much change and disruption already.
Thank you. I'd suggest that irrespective of their idea of what would happen in the event of no deal, it only matters if people think no deal means not leaving.
It should be added that almost nobody among the general public could articulate what they don't like about May's deal. Or at least articulate it in a way that was consistent with what May's deal actually does.
The public opinion of the deal is almost entirely formed through the prism of the opposition of various MPs and the media.
Indeed, though again, given that MPs on both sides are against the deal, I think it's understandable that some people are thinking "well, f*** it, let's leave with no deal."
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
What kind of ruthless, awful organisation do you think they are that they would, against all their words of wanting a deal, happily see a no deal so that it destroys another nation? I thought you liked the EU?
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The people in Leeds want no deal
So long as the rest of us pay their dole money and triple locked pensions.
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The people in Leeds want no deal
The people in the UK in the national poll though do not want No Deal, there are barely 50 in the studio audience
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The people in Leeds want no deal
The people in the UK in the national poll though do not want No Deal, there are barely 50 in the studio audience
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
I do agree No Deal makes a United Ireland almost inevitable and an independent Scotland 50/50.
If we go to No Deal it may end up being just England and Wales that really commits to it and even then I cannot see that being sustained for too long
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
What kind of ruthless, awful organisation do you think they are that they would, against all their words of wanting a deal, happily see a no deal so that it destroys another nation? I thought you liked the EU?
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
What kind of ruthless, awful organisation do you think they are that they would, against all their words of wanting a deal, happily see a no deal so that it destroys another nation? I thought you liked the EU?
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The people in Leeds want no deal
The people in the UK in the national poll though do not want No Deal, there are barely 50 in the studio audience
National poll by Sky last week was 50/50
It was 54% No to No Deal 46% Yes to No Deal tonight nationally.
Lady on the Sky News thing saying that people who support no deal think it means staying in the EU. Is there polling to support this claim and to put a number on it?
Do you mean a member of the public or one of the presenters
A member of the public made the claim, and I think I've seen it said on here - but some opinion polling would be useful.
I have said it on here. I have met a few who think no deal means, in effect, no change of any kind. Some may think that means Remaining, but others are very much of the opinion it means we leave the EU, with none of the drawbacks from the deal. We leave, but keep all the benefits. No idea how widespread this view is, but it is definitely out there. At least one said they favoured No Deal, because Brexit has caused too much change and disruption already.
Thank you. I'd suggest that irrespective of their idea of what would happen in the event of no deal, it only matters if people think no deal means not leaving.
Tbh, it never occurred to me to ask whether they thought no deal would mean no change because we wouldn't leave, or that we would leave but everything would stay the same. I think I will next time it is raised, and report back.
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
I do agree No Deal makes a United Ireland almost inevitable and an independent Scotland 50/50.
If we go to No Deal it may end up being just England and Wales that really commits to it and even then I cannot see that being sustained for too long
You would have thought you would have learned by now to be a little more circumspect in your 'certainty' about what will happen in the future...
The political and economic obstacles to a United Ireland are significant. If something as minor as a bit of economic hardship caused by no deal was all that it took to make it inevitable it would have happened a long time ago...
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The people in Leeds want no deal
The people in the UK in the national poll though do not want No Deal, there are barely 50 in the studio audience
National poll by Sky last week was 50/50
It was 54% No to No Deal 46% Yes to No Deal tonight nationally.
So fewer Leavers back No Deal than Leave overall
And as always with you and polls
There are others available and Skys national poll was 50/50
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
What kind of ruthless, awful organisation do you think they are that they would, against all their words of wanting a deal, happily see a no deal so that it destroys another nation? I thought you liked the EU?
I thought you were talking about the SNP until the last part.
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The people in Leeds want no deal
The people in the UK in the national poll though do not want No Deal, there are barely 50 in the studio audience
National poll by Sky last week was 50/50
It was 54% No to No Deal 46% Yes to No Deal tonight nationally.
So fewer Leavers back No Deal than Leave overall
And as always with you and polls
There are others available and Skys national poll was 50/50
Tonight's national poll was 54% opposed No Deal and the poll was from Datapoll, who are the only pollsters I can recall who ever had a poll putting No Deal ahead of Remain, though it also even in that poll had Deal ahead of No Deal
The part of the programme I saw suggested it was because it was from Leeds and if so you can see why so many labour mps from leave areas are against a referendum
People may not want another referendum but they also do not want No Deal, at the end of the day something has to give
The people in Leeds want no deal
Yorkshire wants to leave the U.K.?
Was only a matter of time I suppose.
If Yorkshire left the UK I expect the UK would have a clear Remain majority
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
I do agree No Deal makes a United Ireland almost inevitable and an independent Scotland 50/50.
If we go to No Deal it may end up being just England and Wales that really commits to it and even then I cannot see that being sustained for too long
You would have thought you would have learned by now to be a little more circumspect in your 'certainty' about what will happen in the future...
The political and economic obstacles to a United Ireland are significant. If something as minor as a bit of economic hardship caused by no deal was all that it took to make it inevitable it would have happened a long time ago...
According to LucidTalk 55% of Northern Ireland voters would vote for a United Ireland if No Deal, just 42% to stay in the UK.
No Dealers are dicing with death with the Union and if you want to ignore the evidence fine, do not say you were not warned!
Yes, well, May was right the first time she told them, they didn't listen, and now they won't get a deal because of it. You think the EU will count that as them winning?
No deal = the break up of the UK and reaccession of the pieces to the EU.
I do agree No Deal makes a United Ireland almost inevitable and an independent Scotland 50/50.
If we go to No Deal it may end up being just England and Wales that really commits to it and even then I cannot see that being sustained for too long
You would have thought you would have learned by now to be a little more circumspect in your 'certainty' about what will happen in the future...
The political and economic obstacles to a United Ireland are significant. If something as minor as a bit of economic hardship caused by no deal was all that it took to make it inevitable it would have happened a long time ago...
According to LucidTalk 55% of Northern Ireland voters would vote for a United Ireland if No Deal, just 42% to stay in the UK.
No Dealers are dicing with death with the Union and if you want to ignore the evidence fine, do not say you were not warned!
Don't be an idiot, i was querying your comment about it being "inevitable". And i'm in favour of May's deal.
FFS forget opinion polls as a certain predictor of the future. We had an actual ballot on leaving the EU and even that seems in doubt at the moment. Not least because "the political and economic obstacles to it happening" are significant.
No deal may make people in Northern Ireland worse off. It doesn't follow that a United Ireland will improve their situation.
They just want to get on with it and leave with no deal and do not want a referendum
Not what the Sky national poll showed though and that is more important, nationally voters opposed No Deal and narrowly thought Brexit wrong.
Though nationally voters still do not back a second referendum yet
What on earth are you talking about. This was a live programme and is not connected to your utter obsession with polls
It was a studio audience of a handful of people, the national Sky polls were not the same on 2/3 of the issues to the results in the studio
On which, am I the only one fed up with vox pops and invited audiences taking up more and more space on news and current affairs, crowding out informative analysis and actual news?
Comments
Upload your pic
Post the jpg link it gives you in a comment
One of the most memorable lines by David Cameron related to that and he was correct
About 35% to 40% back No Deal but that is well short of the 50%+1 Leave needs to preserve for a majority. Leave won with 52%, at least a fifth of those Leave voters would likely switch to Remain if No Deal was on the cards having only voted Leave on the basis of a trade deal with the EU of some form. Hence No Deal likely means Brexit is no longer sustainable in the long-term as it no longer has majority support
I mean, I predicted that would the general idea, but I assumed there's be the hint of something else to cover for the fact that they'll just try the same thing again. How many times does it need to be made clear that the EU/Ireland have no interest in modifying or removing the backstop even if it means no deal?
What a bunch of incompetents.
Should we delay leaving the EU
Yes 46% No 54%
Fridays national poll was
50/50
Without clarification on that it is a meaningless question.
At least one said they favoured No Deal, because Brexit has caused too much change and disruption already.
If he's removed, I hope he gets a peerage and comments in due course on the conflict he faced between his conscience and his career.
Clarke did the right thing on A50 but is near the end of his career anyway. So he's free to vote however he likes. Also he has a history of being outspoken and standing up to bullies
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/05/ken-clarke-on-brexit-ive-never-seen-anything-as-mad-or-chaotic-as-this.
They've got themselves into a position where the thing preventing a deal from happening is something that won't exist in the event of no deal. It would make perfect sense if the alternative to a deal was remain. It makes no sense if the alternative is no deal Brexit.
(Edit: unfuck html)
The public opinion of the deal is almost entirely formed through the prism of the opposition of various MPs and the media.
It is a position being put together by remainers, not Labour MPs in leave constituencies.
Was only a matter of time I suppose.
If we go to No Deal it may end up being just England and Wales that really commits to it and even then I cannot see that being sustained for too long
So fewer Leavers back No Deal than Leave overall
The audience though said Brexit was right
They just want to get on with it and leave with no deal and do not want a referendum
The political and economic obstacles to a United Ireland are significant. If something as minor as a bit of economic hardship caused by no deal was all that it took to make it inevitable it would have happened a long time ago...
Though nationally voters still do not back a second referendum yet
There are others available and Skys national poll was 50/50
Let's see if this works.
No Dealers are dicing with death with the Union and if you want to ignore the evidence fine, do not say you were not warned!
https://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/no-deal-brexit-irish-unification
Although anecdotally we've been told they're all off home as a rusher because of our xenophobia.
FFS forget opinion polls as a certain predictor of the future. We had an actual ballot on leaving the EU and even that seems in doubt at the moment. Not least because "the political and economic obstacles to it happening" are significant.
No deal may make people in Northern Ireland worse off. It doesn't follow that a United Ireland will improve their situation.
May is to blame of course; she’s never confronted the extremists in her own party, in fact she’s enabled them.
Historians will not be kind.
Not something you see very often.
Especially not given how cold it is right now.
Oh, and O'Sullivan is 7 down with 8 to play, also not something you see too often.