It is increasingly looking on tonight's votes even if we end up with final votes on No Deal or Revoke, No Deal at most will get about 200 if slightly less, Revoke would get around 400 and win
I think it would be closer to the result on the Second Reading. Any Conservative who votes Revoke is bringing their career to an end.
most of Biden's votes will go to Sanders not Harris as polling shows Sanders is Biden voters second preference
Did you piss off an old gypsy psephologist lady because you seem to be cursed with knowing what all the polling numbers are, but not knowing what any of them mean
The correcting ones from the movers, and all of the government's apart from the one protecting its right to see extension in other circumstances. The other amendments were all ERG and all lost.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
On FOM as the number of new EU migrants has fallen, the number of non-EU migrants has risen, demonstrating that we need the workers regardless. So stopping immigration was never going to happen, Brexit or no.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
They won't deal with them and they have no desire to. They think they're the scum of the Earth and if they could take their vote away from them and throw them in the workhouse they would...
Exactly and I did say at the time they were premature
Though they were right. May should have gone then.
They were not right and their stupid action put TM in charge until December
Brexiteers are just not good at thinking
They were right which too many stupid Tory MPs who didn't realise it yet now realise.
Tory MPs can be too clever by half sometimes! I mean the 2001 leadership election for instance, they put Ken Clarke and IDS in the run off. I voted for Ken Clarke despite his European views and the problems it may cause within PCP as I did not think IDS was a serious politician then or now or anytime between.
That's where I disagree totally with the idea of "war gaming" one's vote. You almost always end up outsmarting yourself. If you want something, vote for it. If you don't want it, vote against it.
You mean, if you want Brexit, you should vote for it?
most of Biden's votes will go to Sanders not Harris as polling shows Sanders is Biden voters second preference
Did you piss off an old gypsy psephologist lady because you seem to be cursed with knowing what all the polling numbers are, but not knowing what any of them mean
As opposed to you I suppose who has some intrinsic understanding of everything.
Sanders is the same force as Corbyn, Brexit, Trump etc, Democratic voters finally want one of their own after the robotic, centrist, establishment Clinton many feel 'stole' the nomination and still lost and Harris is basically personality wise an African American Hillary
Tonight is the night ERG have been reduced to a rump of bitter losers
No 23/6/17 was the night it happened. When May's incompetence ensured the saboteurs won and the Remainers had a majority in Parliament.
Don't expect this Parliament to have the last word though.
The anger in this country is rising , Parliament and MPs are seen as the blockers of brexit and out of touch with ordinary people . They want us to think again because they think we gave the wrong answer last time . They are destroying our democracy
It is increasingly looking on tonight's votes even if we end up with final votes on No Deal or Revoke, No Deal at most will get about 200 if slightly less, Revoke would get around 400 and win
I think it would be closer to the result on the Second Reading. Any Conservative who votes Revoke is bringing their career to an end.
As most likely would any Labour, LD or SNP or TIG MP who votes for No Deal or who refuses to vote for revoke knowing that that means No Deal. However more Tory MPs voted for Revoke on the indicative votes than Labour, LD or SNP or TIG MPs voted for No Deal. Revoke only needs a simple majority to pass.
The likes of Field, Greening etc would lose their seats anyway if they voted for No Deal
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
They won't deal with them and they have no desire to. They think they're the scum of the Earth and if they could take their vote away from them and throw in the workhouse they would...
The issue is that, insofar as there are policies to address the economic and regional imbalances, they are all in a Corbyn's manifesto, and not things that come naturally to the Tories, despite May's warm words on taking office.
Exactly and I did say at the time they were premature
Though they were right. May should have gone then.
They were not right and their stupid action put TM in charge until December
Brexiteers are just not good at thinking
They were right which too many stupid Tory MPs who didn't realise it yet now realise.
Tory MPs can be too clever by half sometimes! I mean the 2001 leadership election for instance, they put Ken Clarke and IDS in the run off. I voted for Ken Clarke despite his European views and the problems it may cause within PCP as I did not think IDS was a serious politician then or now or anytime between.
That's where I disagree totally with the idea of "war gaming" one's vote. You almost always end up outsmarting yourself. If you want something, vote for it. If you don't want it, vote against it.
You mean, if you want Brexit, you should vote for it?
That's a novel concept.
A great example. The ERG's behaviour has damaged the cause they say they support.
Tonight is the night ERG have been reduced to a rump of bitter losers
No 23/6/17 was the night it happened. When May's incompetence ensured the saboteurs won and the Remainers had a majority in Parliament.
Don't expect this Parliament to have the last word though.
The anger in this country is rising , Parliament and MPs are seen as the blockers of brexit and out of touch with ordinary people . They want us to think again because they think we gave the wrong answer last time . They are destroying our democracy
If, as Hammond said, the country is at an inflection point, wouldn't you rather give that decision than leave it to parliament?
Would it be unpardonably frivolous of me to say that Corbyn’s new glasses really suit him? And that he is really quite fine looking for a 70 year old (tho’ his teeth could do with straightening)?
He looks the part. Just imagine this. He gets in and does well. Tory nightmare.
Why Tory nightmare? It would be a massive relief. Unfortunately there's zero hope that he'd do well.
Because politics is largely about representing conflicting values and interests, and Corbyn would be promoting those of his supporters, which generally conflict with those of the people the Conservatives represent.
Sanders is the same force as Corbyn, Brexit, Trump etc, Democratic voters finally want one of their own after the robotic, centrist, establishment Clinton many feel 'stole' the nomination and still lost and Harris is basically personality wise an African American Hillary
That may or may not be true but it's not a conclusion you can draw from asking people who only know about two of the candidates which one their second preference is.
It is increasingly looking on tonight's votes even if we end up with final votes on No Deal or Revoke, No Deal at most will get about 200 if slightly less, Revoke would get around 400 and win
I think it would be closer to the result on the Second Reading. Any Conservative who votes Revoke is bringing their career to an end.
As most likely would any Labour, LD or SNP or TIG MP who votes for No Deal or who refuses to vote for revoke knowing that that means No Deal. However more Tory MPs voted for Revoke on the indicative votes than Labour, LD or SNP or TIG MPs voted for No Deal. Revoke only needs a simple majority to pass.
The likes of Field, Greening etc would lose their seats anyway if they voted for No Deal
10 Tories voted for Revoke on the indicative votes. I expect Revoke would pass, but not by a majority of 2/1.
If there's a tie, Bercow will pass the motion at this stage as the matter has already been 'discussed' - he alluded to that in his earlier Point of Order.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just over 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
Tonight is the night ERG have been reduced to a rump of bitter losers
No 23/6/17 was the night it happened. When May's incompetence ensured the saboteurs won and the Remainers had a majority in Parliament.
Don't expect this Parliament to have the last word though.
The anger in this country is rising , Parliament and MPs are seen as the blockers of brexit and out of touch with ordinary people . They want us to think again because they think we gave the wrong answer last time . They are destroying our democracy
If, as Hammond said, the country is at an inflection point, wouldn't you rather give that decision than leave it to parliament?
They didn’t listen last time why would they listen again until they get the answer they want
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just under 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
Lots of Remain voters were not exactly happy about freedom of movement.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
On FOM as the number of new EU migrants has fallen, the number of non-EU migrants has risen, demonstrating that we need the workers regardless. So stopping immigration was never going to happen, Brexit or no.
So how does Rotherham benefit from thousands of East European Roma having moved there using FOM ?
Though I’d never vote Labour, I will actively work against the Tories at the next election, possibly through the Brexit Party, to channel my energy into a worthwhile cause.
Would it be unpardonably frivolous of me to say that Corbyn’s new glasses really suit him? And that he is really quite fine looking for a 70 year old (tho’ his teeth could do with straightening)?
He looks the part. Just imagine this. He gets in and does well. Tory nightmare.
Why Tory nightmare? It would be a massive relief. Unfortunately there's zero hope that he'd do well.
Because politics is largely about representing conflicting values and interests, and Corbyn would be promoting those of his supporters, which generally conflict with those of the people the Conservatives represent.
Sure, but that's better than his actually implementing his crazy ideas and plunging us into disaster.
The ERG nut job amendment to force an exit on April 13 crashed and burned . 105 lunatics voted for it and should be sectioned !
Thankfully 509 MPs voted against .
There's a hell of a lot of voters who think those 509 should be the ones sectioned. How they have voted on Brexit is going to appear on a lot of election literature. And in many cases, not their own.....
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just under 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
Lots of Remain voters were not exactly happy about freedom of movement.
But by voting Remain they were willing to accept it.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
They won't deal with them and they have no desire to. They think they're the scum of the Earth and if they could take their vote away from them and throw them in the workhouse they would...
If there's a tie, Bercow will pass the motion at this stage as the matter has already been 'discussed' - he alluded to that in his earlier Point of Order.
Other way round, isn't it? He'd vote in favour if it allowed further discussion, but against in any final vote because he won't create a majority where there isn't one.
Would it be unpardonably frivolous of me to say that Corbyn’s new glasses really suit him? And that he is really quite fine looking for a 70 year old (tho’ his teeth could do with straightening)?
He looks the part. Just imagine this. He gets in and does well. Tory nightmare.
Why Tory nightmare? It would be a massive relief. Unfortunately there's zero hope that he'd do well.
Because politics is largely about representing conflicting values and interests, and Corbyn would be promoting those of his supporters, which generally conflict with those of the people the Conservatives represent.
Sure, but that's better than his actually implementing his crazy ideas and plunging us into disaster.
Agreed, if you think that the country would end up like Venezuela then you've set the bar pretty low for what you'd consider a good outcome.
If he doesn't have any skeletons and doesn't stick his foot in his mouth he looks like a very good candidate. He certainly seems to be reasonable and measured and singularly lacking in ideology for its own sake.
I am expecting a first debate surprise. But to be honest he is now 9 on BF for Dem nominee. Not sure I would go in at that price.
Well, with Biden not standing, and Sanders managing to cut his head in the shower and looking even older than he is, the field is wide open.
My view:
Beto is this year's Rubio. Young and theoretically looks good, but an empty suit. Sell. Harris: With Biden and Sanders out (yeah, sue me), she's probably rightly the front runner. Hold. Warren: unpopular even in her own state. Sell. Booker. Who? Buttigieg. Could be... Klobuchar. Could be... Yang. Please god no. Castro. If he makes it to the debate, he'll get a good bounce. Impressive guy. A buy here. Hickenlooper. Fingers crossed... Gillibrand. Who? Insless. Who?
Harris is not frontrunner, Sanders is, he already has almost 3 times the support of Harris, better organisation in Iowa and NH and most of Biden's votes will go to Sanders not Harris as polling shows Sanders is Biden voters second preference
Look at this image and tell me that Sanders is a front runner:
He makes Michael Foot in 1983 look a viable candidate.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
On FOM as the number of new EU migrants has fallen, the number of non-EU migrants has risen, demonstrating that we need the workers regardless. So stopping immigration was never going to happen, Brexit or no.
So how does Rotherham benefit from thousands of East European Roma having moved there using FOM ?
It lowers the statistical incidence of child molesting in the town?
It is increasingly looking on tonight's votes even if we end up with final votes on No Deal or Revoke, No Deal at most will get about 200 if slightly less, Revoke would get around 400 and win
I think it would be closer to the result on the Second Reading. Any Conservative who votes Revoke is bringing their career to an end.
As most likely would any Labour, LD or SNP or TIG MP who votes for No Deal or who refuses to vote for revoke knowing that that means No Deal. However more Tory MPs voted for Revoke on the indicative votes than Labour, LD or SNP or TIG MPs voted for No Deal. Revoke only needs a simple majority to pass.
The likes of Field, Greening etc would lose their seats anyway if they voted for No Deal
10 Tories voted for Revoke on the indicative votes. I expect Revoke would pass, but not by a majority of 2/1.
I was probably being a bit overexaggerating the Revoke numbers yes but you are right Revoke looks likely if that is the only alternative left to No Deal
Tonight is the night ERG have been reduced to a rump of bitter losers
No 23/6/17 was the night it happened. When May's incompetence ensured the saboteurs won and the Remainers had a majority in Parliament.
Don't expect this Parliament to have the last word though.
The anger in this country is rising , Parliament and MPs are seen as the blockers of brexit and out of touch with ordinary people . They want us to think again because they think we gave the wrong answer last time . They are destroying our democracy
If, as Hammond said, the country is at an inflection point, wouldn't you rather give that decision than leave it to parliament?
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just over 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
Honestly those kind of comments are just riduculous, because there are Remainers who disagree with FOM but who voted to stay because they work in the city and worry about the risk to their (very high) income.
You think a referendum on FOM would be won by those who want to keep it?
Hmm, this result doesn't exactly give a clear direction from parliament which would encourage the EU to give us a bit of leeway. This is not enough to take a catastrophic accidental No Deal off the table.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just over 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
Honestly those kind of comments are just riduculous, because there are Remainers who disagree with FOM but who voted to stay because they work in the city and worry about the risk to their (very high) income.
You think a referendum on FOM would be won by those who want to keep it?
Who knows? But we didn't have a referendum on FOM, did we?
If he doesn't have any skeletons and doesn't stick his foot in his mouth he looks like a very good candidate. He certainly seems to be reasonable and measured and singularly lacking in ideology for its own sake.
I am expecting a first debate surprise. But to be honest he is now 9 on BF for Dem nominee. Not sure I would go in at that price.
Well, with Biden not standing, and Sanders managing to cut his head in the shower and looking even older than he is, the field is wide open.
My view:
Beto is this year's Rubio. Young and theoretically looks good, but an empty suit. Sell. Harris: With Biden and Sanders out (yeah, sue me), she's probably rightly the front runner. Hold. Warren: unpopular even in her own state. Sell. Booker. Who? Buttigieg. Could be... Klobuchar. Could be... Yang. Please god no. Castro. If he makes it to the debate, he'll get a good bounce. Impressive guy. A buy here. Hickenlooper. Fingers crossed... Gillibrand. Who? Insless. Who?
Harris is not frontrunner, Sanders is, he already has almost 3 times the support of Harris, better organisation in Iowa and NH and most of Biden's votes will go to Sanders not Harris as polling shows Sanders is Biden voters second preference
Look at this image and tell me that Sanders is a front runner:
He makes Michael Foot in 1983 look a viable candidate.
So does Jeremy Corbyn but we live in volatile times
Tonight is the night ERG have been reduced to a rump of bitter losers
No 23/6/17 was the night it happened. When May's incompetence ensured the saboteurs won and the Remainers had a majority in Parliament.
Don't expect this Parliament to have the last word though.
The anger in this country is rising , Parliament and MPs are seen as the blockers of brexit and out of touch with ordinary people . They want us to think again because they think we gave the wrong answer last time . They are destroying our democracy
On the contrary, our politicians are doing a marvelous job at representing the British public in all its contradictory and irreconcilable beliefs. Westminster has taken back control. Isn't that what the people wanted?
Hmm, this result doesn't exactly give a clear direction from parliament which would encourage the EU to give us a bit of leeway. This is not enough to take a catastrophic accidental No Deal off the table.
If it came to a real choice between extension and no deal, no deal would be defeated comprehensively.
Hmm, this result doesn't exactly give a clear direction from parliament which would encourage the EU to give us a bit of leeway. This is not enough to take a catastrophic accidental No Deal off the table.
The Commons also voted for extension beyond May 22nd thus enabling participation in the EU elections.
Plus on tonight's numbers if no other alternative to No Deal hard to see how a majority of MPs do not vote to revoke Art 50 and cancel Brexit
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just over 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
A few days before the referendum a yougov poll had 42% of Leave voters saying they would prefer an EEA Brexit which retained FoM to 45% wanting a Brexit which did not.
EEA is what we should have been aiming for all along.
A much smaller margin than I would have expected, at the beginning of the day.
Yet still a majority, tonight's 313 to 312 vote could almost be a proxy for a Revoke v No Deal vote, which means it is possible Fiona Onasanya could cast the final decisive vote that revokes Article 50 and cancels Brexit
Hmm, this result doesn't exactly give a clear direction from parliament which would encourage the EU to give us a bit of leeway. This is not enough to take a catastrophic accidental No Deal off the table.
If it came to a real choice between extension and no deal, no deal would be defeated comprehensively.
The problem is the transmission mechanism between parliament deciding that and it actually happening, which isn't clear. Cooper's bill provides a mechanism, which is the important missing bit of the jigsaw, but it looks a bit flaky (and still has to pass the Lords).
Tonight is the night ERG have been reduced to a rump of bitter losers
No 23/6/17 was the night it happened. When May's incompetence ensured the saboteurs won and the Remainers had a majority in Parliament.
Don't expect this Parliament to have the last word though.
The anger in this country is rising , Parliament and MPs are seen as the blockers of brexit and out of touch with ordinary people . They want us to think again because they think we gave the wrong answer last time . They are destroying our democracy
On the contrary, our politicians are doing a marvelous job at representing the British public in all its contradictory and irreconcilable beliefs. Westminster has taken back control. Isn't that what the people wanted?
The people voted to leave . Remain lost . They have not enacted the people’s wishes . In a democracy the majority wins . Leave won . To subvert that vote is democratic betrayal . There will be riots on the streets if brexit is betrayed
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just over 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
Honestly those kind of comments are just riduculous, because there are Remainers who disagree with FOM but who voted to stay because they work in the city and worry about the risk to their (very high) income.
You think a referendum on FOM would be won by those who want to keep it?
Who knows? But we didn't have a referendum on FOM, did we?
My favourite piece of polling on FOM is the poll that similtaneously supported FOM for Britons in the EU and opposed it for Europeans in Britain. Sadly not to hand.
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leave the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just over 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
A few days before the referendum a yougov poll had 42% of Leave voters saying they would prefer an EEA Brexit which retained FoM to 45% wanting a Brexit which did not.
EEA is what we should have been aiming for all along.
Hmm, this result doesn't exactly give a clear direction from parliament which would encourage the EU to give us a bit of leeway. This is not enough to take a catastrophic accidental No Deal off the table.
The Commons also voted for extension beyond May 22nd thus enabling participation in the EU elections.
Plus on tonight's numbers if no other alternative to No Deal hard to see how a majority of MPs do not vote to revoke Art 50 and cancel Brexit
Revoke was not one of the choices tonight. That vote would be very different
There seems to be an assumption that the people who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for, and didn't really want to leavee the EU... if we were to accept that argument, and the establishment managed somehow to wriggle out of actually leaving, what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?
It seems to me that a "business as usual" / "pretend it never happened" attitude prevails, the formation of Chuka/TIG being the most glaring example.
"...what would they do to address the concerns of the majority of 2016 referendum voters?"
Anyone?
You raise a very good point. I think this is worthy of a thread header. How do you think these concerns should be addressed?
Thank you.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
If even just over 3.5% of Leave voters were willing to accept a Brexit that included retaining FOM, then there was NO majority against FOM at the 2016 referendum.
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
Honestly those kind of comments are just riduculous, because there are Remainers who disagree with FOM but who voted to stay because they work in the city and worry about the risk to their (very high) income.
You think a referendum on FOM would be won by those who want to keep it?
Who knows? But we didn't have a referendum on FOM, did we?
We didn’t, but you said that there was no majority for ending it
Tonight is the night ERG have been reduced to a rump of bitter losers
No 23/6/17 was the night it happened. When May's incompetence ensured the saboteurs won and the Remainers had a majority in Parliament.
Don't expect this Parliament to have the last word though.
The anger in this country is rising , Parliament and MPs are seen as the blockers of brexit and out of touch with ordinary people . They want us to think again because they think we gave the wrong answer last time . They are destroying our democracy
On the contrary, our politicians are doing a marvelous job at representing the British public in all its contradictory and irreconcilable beliefs. Westminster has taken back control. Isn't that what the people wanted?
No they haven't. They have made preparations to make sure they never have control sgain. .
Comments
Don't expect this Parliament to have the last word though.
I think it is impossible to address those concerns whilst we are a member of the EU, because the concerns all stem from FOM, which appears to be non negotiable. But I’d be interested to hear how people who want to ignore the result would deal with them
That's a novel concept.
Sanders is the same force as Corbyn, Brexit, Trump etc, Democratic voters finally want one of their own after the robotic, centrist, establishment Clinton many feel 'stole' the nomination and still lost and Harris is basically personality wise an African American Hillary
The likes of Field, Greening etc would lose their seats anyway if they voted for No Deal
Thankfully 509 MPs voted against .
https://m.soundcloud.com/unherd-confessions/maurice-glasman-rec
I do not believe that over 96.35% of Leave voters were voting to end FOM. Do you?
Letwin/Cooper becomes law, subject to the Lords tomorrow. No 'no deal' (hopefully - ultimately any extension is up to the EU).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/03/like-many-tory-members-can-no-longer-stay-party/
Edit: Academic now!
1 will do it.
You think a referendum on FOM would be won by those who want to keep it?
Plus on tonight's numbers if no other alternative to No Deal hard to see how a majority of MPs do not vote to revoke Art 50 and cancel Brexit
EEA is what we should have been aiming for all along.
I wonder if Francois expected things to proceed like this when he was slagging off the WDA before it had even been published.