politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit looks set to be the biggest non-election political bett
Options
Comments
-
It's not really going to impact Charles and his family though is it. So that's alright.IanB2 said:
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.Charles said:
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.IanB2 said:
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future0 -
Apparently unless it is super easy it must be overturned. Sucks for the SNP I guess.AmpfieldAndy said:
Hard to see a referendum taking place at all if there was no question or perceived desire about changing the status quo. As someone who values the Union and doesn’t want to see it broken up, I’d find it hard to justify not giving Scotland its independence if a subsequent referendum voted Yes.alex. said:
There is a fairly obvious difference. The result of all previous referendums re-affirmed the status quo. There are people who argue that a second referendum would justify the SNP securing a second referendum in Scotland. The counter argument is that it would ensure that any referendum future vote for independence would not be final.AmpfieldAndy said:
Fair comment - also honoured.Drutt said:
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?AmpfieldAndy said:williamglenn said:
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.eek said:
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look likeCharles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The0 -
Why should I care what a prat like JR-M thinks?Benpointer said:Charles said:
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic systemBenpointer said:
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.Charles said:
The electorate voted to leave.IanB2 said:
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
0 -
PClipp said:
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that. I certainly did not vote in favour of a reckless, damaging fall over the cliff edge, which is what May has brought us to. I was confident that Remain would win comfortably.AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.eek said:
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
Surprised you think that given how the Remain campaign avoided Cameron’s renegotiation like the plague during the referendum campaign.
I don’t think anyone, however they voted, imagined our politicians and civil service would be so bungling and incompetent in handling the negotiations.0 -
I've a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint. In fact it's the main reason why I personally am not that fazed about No Deal. If people vote for that sort of thing, they should be prepared to live with the consequences.Beverley_C said:
Sorry Peter. It looks like the UK needs to WTO to finally prove what a bunch of numpties we have around here.Peter_the_Punter said:
Nobody knows how bad it will be, but there is a conspicuous shortage of credible voices indicating that it's actually going to be good.kle4 said:
The EU and most of the Commons (leavers and remainers) seem to disagree with you about how dire no deal would be, they believe it will not be so bad as to be worth compromising for. The Irish seem pretty sanguine about that too.Beverley_C said:
I he actually knows what he is talking about.Yorkcity said:
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales .Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit.
It seemed very dire .
If there is one thing I am completely sick of it is MPs and the EU treating us all like idiots when their words demonstrate they may not prefer no deal, but they really do not mind it, yet they spew the same dishonesty words about fearing it. It's an insult every time they do that, and incredibly shameless to boot.
So, it's not going to be....like, terrible? Thanks.
So, either you and I will be in the Numpty brigade with the rest of the Remainers, or the Leavers and their cheerleaders will.
But at least we will finally have an answer.
At least it is quicker than building a computer called Deep Thought and giving it 7.5 million years to think about it....
0 -
Parliament and a referendum are not equivalent. The executive can bring what it likes to Parliament as the legislature can sack them if they want to.williamglenn said:
So no "do-overs" for May's deal in parliament?Charles said:
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic systemBenpointer said:
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.Charles said:
The electorate voted to leave.IanB2 said:
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.0 -
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.0 -
Big_G_NorthWales said:
I just wanted to be kind - we all need kindnessBeverley_C said:
Now I am lost for words.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Because we love youBeverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
In all my trips to New Zealand and Canada the one thing that stood out is how many people just want a 'hug'
Hugs are good. Too many people neglect them.0 -
Why should we care what you think ?Charles said:
Why should I care what a prat like JR-M thinks?Benpointer said:Charles said:
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic systemBenpointer said:
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.Charles said:
The electorate voted to leave.IanB2 said:
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
0 -
Benpointer said:Beverley_C said:
Now I am lost for words.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Because we love youBeverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Which is something of a disadvantage on a web forum.
PS I may not be quite as fulsome as Big_G but I do love your posts (mostly).
0 -
Making people vote again and again until they give the "right" answer - why should any leaver bother to vote?Beverley_C said:
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.0 -
Apparently during the Super Blood Wolf Moon event there was an actual meteorite strike much to the excitement of many0
-
This is the internet, no one should give a flying feckity doohdah what anyone thinks.Nigelb said:
Why should we care what you think ?Charles said:
Why should I care what a prat like JR-M thinks?Benpointer said:Charles said:
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic systemBenpointer said:
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.Charles said:
The electorate voted to leave.IanB2 said:
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.0 -
What do you not like about the original's legitimacy?Beverley_C said:
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.0 -
The only reason for a second referendum would be to specify what type of Leave was required. Remain was eliminated in the first ballot. Why else could Parliament ignore the expressed wish of the voters and one they promised to honour?0
-
s
Never vote for something, unless you want it to happen.PClipp said:
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that. I certainly did not vote in favour of a reckless, damaging fall over the cliff edge, which is what May has brought us to. I was confident that Remain would win comfortably.AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.eek said:
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like0 -
I explained that further downthread.kyf_100 said:
Making people vote again and again until they give the "right" answer - why should any leaver bother to vote?Beverley_C said:
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
[Edit: I am not asking them to vote again and again - just to clarify the current position since parliament is deadlocked and, unlike Charles, I am prepared to allow answers that differ from my viewpoint as well as ones that agree with it]0 -
This argument has one big flaw. It's logical.CD13 said:The only reason for a second referendum would be to specify what type of Leave was required. Remain was eliminated in the first ballot. Why else could Parliament ignore the expressed wish of the voters and one they promised to honour?
0 -
I thought the whole investigation was into his links to Russia.Scott_P said:
Now they are just searching for absolutely anything they can pin on him because they don't like him.0 -
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.0
-
Had we gone for a double referendum, the Leave vote in the first would have been huge, as it would have been a free hit.Benpointer said:Charles said:
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic systemBenpointer said:
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.Charles said:
The electorate voted to leave.IanB2 said:
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.0 -
Have you missed the part where a Russian agent who infiltrated the NRA pleaded guilty and there is a huge amount of evidence of financial links to Russia?Xenon said:
I thought the whole investigation was into his links to Russia.Scott_P said:
Now they are just searching for absolutely anything they can pin on him because they don't like him.0 -
Charles famously thought the European Medicines Agency was nothing to do with the EU and that it would be unaffected by Brexit, so I think it's right for him to be given another vote.Jonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
0 -
If Parliament is deadlocked, it is because they are refusing to carry out the result of the first referendum, which was to leave.Beverley_C said:
I explained that further downthread.kyf_100 said:
Making people vote again and again until they give the "right" answer - why should any leaver bother to vote?Beverley_C said:
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
[Edit: I am not asking them to vote again and again - just to clarify the current position since parliament is deadlocked and, unlike Charles, I am prepared to allow answers that differ from my viewpoint as well as ones that agree with it]
But of course Parliament isn't deadlocked. They voted to invoke Article 50, which means we leave, by default, on March 29th.
The only reason you are asking for further "clarification" is because you hope to lend a fig leaf of credibility to your desire to nullify the result of the 2016 referendum and tell 17.4 million people that their vote didn't count.0 -
Mr Cide,
You can ask for guidance on the sort of Leave favoured. Anything else, and it will be seen for what it is …. a re-run because Parliament didn't like the answer. Did they lie when they said they would honour the result?0 -
"Leave" has gone Soviet. The next referendum will have the following -Jonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
Tick only one box:
[ ] We should leave the EU
0 -
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendumJonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
0 -
I refer you to my answer above. It really is not that difficult to understand. "... I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds ..." and that might result in a bigger Leave vote but I am OK with that.ReggieCide said:
What do you not like about the original's legitimacy?Beverley_C said:
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.0 -
Remain told us that was not what it was about.PClipp said:
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that.AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.eek said:
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
0 -
Apologies if this is a stupid question.
Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition?
Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA?
I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit)
What am I missing0 -
Ms C,
The result of a re-run wouldn't actually matter. The insult to democracy would stand. If you do it once, why would any unwelcome result to Parliament matter, when a re-run can always be demanded?
0 -
No, it’s the other way around. If want to leave you just drop your ballot straight into the ballot box. If you want to remain, you have to mark your ballot by going into a polling booth that happens to have a Leave militsioner sitting next to it.Beverley_C said:
"Leave" has gone Soviet. The next referendum will have the following -Jonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
Tick only one box:
[ ] We should leave the EU0 -
No. I actually do not give a monkeys whether we leave or not. I am totally convinced that it will be a screw-up but if the UK is prepared to allow itself to be railroaded into the oncoming shambles then so be it.kyf_100 said:If Parliament is deadlocked, it is because they are refusing to carry out the result of the first referendum, which was to leave.
But of course Parliament isn't deadlocked. They voted to invoke Article 50, which means we leave, by default, on March 29th.
The only reason you are asking for further "clarification" is because you hope to lend a fig leaf of credibility to your desire to nullify the result of the 2016 referendum and tell 17.4 million people that their vote didn't count.
I have stated on here, many times - including this evening - that WTO Brexit may be the only way to kill off this stupid, insular, xenophobic nostalgia that has transformed a large chunk of the Conservative Party into an English Nationalist party.
0 -
You're a passionate remainer, and you feel it is a grave mistake to leave the EU. That's a logical and honourable position. You want a second referendum in the hope that it will swing your way. Passionate leavers don't want a second referendum because they feel there has already been one and would like the result to be implemented (although what flavour of Brexit isn't clear). Surely you must be able to understand the frustration for leavers that their vote might be nullified because "they voted the wrong way"?Beverley_C said:
"Leave" has gone Soviet. The next referendum will have the following -Jonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
Tick only one box:
[ ] We should leave the EU0 -
They may have told you. They certainly didn`t tell me. The Remain campaign (headed by top Tories) was a disaster from start to finish.kle4 said:
Remain told us that was not what it was about.PClipp said:
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that.AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.eek said:
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like0 -
Fine. So we go ahead and wreck the country. No chance of a rethink now that reality looms large.CD13 said:Ms C,
The result of a re-run wouldn't actually matter. The insult to democracy would stand. If you do it once, why would any unwelcome result to Parliament matter, when a re-run can always be demanded?
Ok.0 -
...and they are shitting themselves that the public might have changed their minds.twistedfirestopper3 said:Passionate leavers don't want a second referendum because they feel there has already been one
They are terrified of asking the public.
Anti-democrats, all.0 -
Ms C,
" I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds .."
You forgot to add "if I don't like the result,"
Therein ;lies the problem. If Remain had won by the same margin would you be making that same statement?
If not, you're guilty of something beginning with H and having nine letters. Honesty only has seven.0 -
Evening all
At this time of crisis, I'm left with two questions:
1) Will my local Patisserie Valerie survive?
2) Will you still love me tomorrow?0 -
I think it would be possible but only by abrogating on the WA, which would certainly undermine our credibility in future treaty discussions.edb said:Apologies if this is a stupid question.
Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition?
Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA?
I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit)
What am I missing0 -
Brexiteers on this thread have a touch of the Hartley-Brewers tonight...
0 -
Your second question is predicated on a misconceptionstodge said:Evening all
At this time of crisis, I'm left with two questions:
1) Will my local Patisserie Valerie survive?
2) Will you still love me tomorrow? 0 -
You're the sort of fella that makes me hope for a complete clusterfuck of a no deal brexit just so that you end up with yer shitty pants on you head and pencils stuffed up your nose going full wibble.Scott_P said:
...and they are shitting themselves that the public might have changed their minds.twistedfirestopper3 said:Passionate leavers don't want a second referendum because they feel there has already been one
They are terrified of asking the public.
Anti-democrats, all.0 -
That’s exactly what Corbyn is sayingwilliamglenn said:
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.Charles said:
Electorate: I want you to do thisIanB2 said:
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.Charles said:
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.IanB2 said:
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?0 -
No. That is you projecting what you want me to say. I was quite clear. I saidCD13 said:Ms C,
" I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds .."
You forgot to add "if I don't like the result,"
"... I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds ..." and that might result in a bigger Leave vote but I am OK with that.
If Remain had won then none of these conversations would be taking place. "Remain" is not the destroyer and wrecker that Brexit is.CD13 said:Therein ;lies the problem. If Remain had won by the same margin would you be making that same statement?
When you start altering my words to make them appear to mean the opposite of what I said then I am not the one with the honesty problem.CD13 said:Honesty only has seven.
0 -
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendumJonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.0 -
...anti-democratic, and charming with it.twistedfirestopper3 said:makes me hope for a complete clusterfuck of a no deal brexit
0 -
Christ on a bike, man, get over yourself.Scott_P said:
...anti-democratic, and charming with it.twistedfirestopper3 said:makes me hope for a complete clusterfuck of a no deal brexit
0 -
Sure it will.Benpointer said:
It's not really going to impact Charles and his family though is it. So that's alright.IanB2 said:
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.Charles said:
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.IanB2 said:
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future0 -
The problem is that nobody knew precisely what they were voting for. A Remain vote could have been anything from an endorsement of Cameron to a vote for greater integration and joining the Euro. A Leave vote could have meant anything from tearing up all our treaties and sinking the economy (which is Mrs May`s subsequent interpretation) to removing just one restraint which each individual might have taken a dislike to - but of course keeping all the good bits.AmpfieldAndy said:
Surprised you think that given how the Remain campaign avoided Cameron’s renegotiation like the plague during the referendum campaign.PClipp said:
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that. I certainly did not vote in favour of a reckless, damaging fall over the cliff edge, which is what May has brought us to. I was confident that Remain would win comfortably.AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.eek said:
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
I don’t think anyone, however they voted, imagined our politicians and civil service would be so bungling and incompetent in handling the negotiations.
I agree with most of you send paragraph though, except that I would not blame the civil service. They are just following the instructions of their political masters, and it just so happens that the present gang of incompetents is divided and self-contradictory, and on top of that, not prepared to listen to professional guidance from the civil service. But the Conservatives always do belittle people in the public service, don`they? and try to undermine them as much s they can.
0 -
Ms C,
I understand you believe you are right. Many people do, and you may be right in this instance. But that is missing the point.
I suspect we are not going to agree. That's life. I accepted what I thought was going to be a Remain victory on midnight June 23rd 2016 because that's the way democracy works.0 -
Absolutely, but you are forgetting the comedy value too, when the true costs of Brexit hit and people start saying "What have you done?" and the politicians say "It was the will of the nation - all 37% of you"Scott_P said:
Always money to be made from catastrophe, right?Charles said:Sure it will.
And then we start queuing for turnips and mouldy potatoes.
On that happy note, goodnight!0 -
I’m not a fan of a second referendum (or of any referenda). But since politicians asked the question they are obligated to inplement it. They can ask for clarification (deal or no deal) if they can’t be arsed to do their job, but they can’t try to overturn the decision because they don’t like itBeverley_C said:
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.0 -
A bit of momentum beginning to build here.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/22/no-deal-brexit-panic-grips-major-uk-firms
What next? Wetherspoons to move all their pubs to Belguim would be a great one
0 -
Great, let's have an election.Charles said:
That’s exactly what Corbyn is sayingwilliamglenn said:
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.Charles said:
Electorate: I want you to do thisIanB2 said:
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.Charles said:
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.IanB2 said:
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?0 -
Seems that adding no deal option to the WA would be no worse for the EU than present situation.
Making the WA broadly acceptable to ALL leavers might seem like can kicking but crucially it gets you into transition, or at least, dares parliament not to brexit. Once in transition the situation seems better: there is enough time for a real debate (and GE??) on the future relationship, and no particular cliff edge to a default option. Those hoping to crash out by default or remain by stealth would have to choose a plan B, which could of course be campaigning to rejoin or invoke real "managed WTO no deal", but might not be in many cases.0 -
You don’t have to. I’m participating in a discussion and you can join inor ignore it.Nigelb said:
Why should we care what you think ?Charles said:
Why should I care what a prat like JR-M thinks?Benpointer said:Charles said:
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic systemBenpointer said:
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.Charles said:
The electorate voted to leave.IanB2 said:
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
But just posting a random quote from a minor politician isn’t an argument.0 -
An election would probably generate a result very similar to the one we already have in terms of the party totals.williamglenn said:
Great, let's have an election.Charles said:
That’s exactly what Corbyn is sayingwilliamglenn said:
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.Charles said:
Electorate: I want you to do thisIanB2 said:
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.Charles said:
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.IanB2 said:
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?0 -
-
A bit of momentum beginning to build here.Benpointer said:A bit of momentum beginning to build here.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/22/no-deal-brexit-panic-grips-major-uk-firms
What next? Wetherspoons to move all their pubs to Belguim would be a great one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46958560-1 -
It turns out you can’t have your cake and eat it.stodge said:Evening all
At this time of crisis, I'm left with two questions:
1) Will my local Patisserie Valerie survive?
2) Will you still love me tomorrow?0 -
This is true. Also, even if the EU had agreed to negotiate, people wouldn't have belived the negotiation was the real negotiation: They'd have said the EU was offering a deliberately shitty deal on purpose, to win the second referendum, and once people voted to confirm the Leave vote the real negotiation would begin.Sean_F said:
Had we gone for a double referendum, the Leave vote in the first would have been huge, as it would have been a free hit.
These things don't apply to deciding to have the second referendum now, though. It has the democratic benefit the Rees Mogg was identifying then, but without the practical problems you'd have had if Cameron had announced that as the plan.0 -
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake newsJonathan said:
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendumJonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all0 -
A lot can change during a campaign as we saw last time.AndyJS said:
An election would probably generate a result very similar to the one we already have in terms of the party totals.williamglenn said:
Great, let's have an election.Charles said:
That’s exactly what Corbyn is sayingwilliamglenn said:
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.Charles said:
Electorate: I want you to do thisIanB2 said:
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.Charles said:
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.IanB2 said:
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?0 -
-
Define "can't".Charles said:
I’m not a fan of a second referendum (or of any referenda). But since politicians asked the question they are obligated to inplement it. They can ask for clarification (deal or no deal) if they can’t be arsed to do their job, but they can’t try to overturn the decision because they don’t like itBeverley_C said:
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
I'm pretty sure that, given an advisory referendum and a parliament democratically elected at a General Election, those democratically elected MPs can do what the hell they like. If you think otherwise you're welcome to pursue a legal case.0 -
No. That’s not accurate but I will put it down to false recall on your part not a deliberate lie.williamglenn said:
Charles famously thought the European Medicines Agency was nothing to do with the EU and that it would be unaffected by Brexit, so I think it's right for him to be given another vote.Jonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I said that the sensible outcome would be for the U.K. to remain part of the EMA. (And I still believe that is the sensible outcome).
However - which I didn’t realise - was that you have to be a member of the EU to be a member of the EMA. I think that’s a stupid rule, but if that’s a rule that’s important to them we’ll just have to beef up the MHRA instead.0 -
Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
0 -
The EU has explicitly ruled that out. Once in the backstop you can only leave with their permission (unless you repudiate)edb said:Apologies if this is a stupid question.
Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition?
Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA?
I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit)
What am I missing0 -
Oh, come off it.YBarddCwsc said:Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are ending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Turns out that quite a lot of socialists and social democrats are Remainers. Socialists and social democrats generally think that a Big Fund for left-behind places is a great idea, irrespective of Brexit.
You're welcome to compare how progressive the voting records are of your average Leave MP vs your average Remain MP. What was it Boris said about Liverpool again?0 -
The remain campaign was board - Sainsbury, Mandleson, Clegg and Damian Green. The exec was Will Straw and some top lib dem strategist. Cameron and Osborne had to take over this shambles because they were getting mullerd.PClipp said:
They may have told you. They certainly didn`t tell me. The Remain campaign (headed by top Tories) was a disaster from start to finish.kle4 said:
Remain told us that was not what it was about.PClipp said:
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that.AmpfieldAndy said:
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.eek said:
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
But I will complement the original remain campaign for having the most memorable honest statement in the whole campaign when they were asked what happens to wages in the event of a vote to leave. They will rise was the correct honest answer.0 -
Some senior politicians predict catastrophe, other equally well briefed politicians claim it will be fine. With just weeks to go there is no official line on no deal. What are the facts? What does the government really think will happen? We need to know. No spin. No negotiating position. Just facts, unvarnished.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake newsJonathan said:
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendumJonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all
0 -
Apparantly we have to tell the EU what we want, what we really, really want.AlastairMeeks said:
It turns out you can’t have your cake and eat it.stodge said:Evening all
At this time of crisis, I'm left with two questions:
1) Will my local Patisserie Valerie survive?
2) Will you still love me tomorrow?
Will Zig a Zig Ah really cut it as an answer?
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1087684519736590336?s=19
0 -
Nicely puttwistedfirestopper3 said:
You're a passionate remainer, and you feel it is a grave mistake to leave the EU. That's a logical and honourable position. You want a second referendum in the hope that it will swing your way. Passionate leavers don't want a second referendum because they feel there has already been one and would like the result to be implemented (although what flavour of Brexit isn't clear). Surely you must be able to understand the frustration for leavers that their vote might be nullified because "they voted the wrong way"?Beverley_C said:
"Leave" has gone Soviet. The next referendum will have the following -Jonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
Tick only one box:
[ ] We should leave the EU0 -
I bet there are more super-affluent Leavers than super-affluent Remainers.YBarddCwsc said:Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.0 -
It’s a poor reference. One Become Two.Foxy said:
Apparantly we have to tell the EU what we want, what we really, really want.AlastairMeeks said:
It turns out you can’t have your cake and eat it.stodge said:Evening all
At this time of crisis, I'm left with two questions:
1) Will my local Patisserie Valerie survive?
2) Will you still love me tomorrow?
Will Zig a Zig Ah really cut it as an answer?
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1087684519736590336?s=190 -
I think Remain is the mostly likely outcome now, but in no way does it resolve the EU question. At best we will be back to how things were in early 2016, but in the event of Remain winning a second referendum it will lead to an extremely angry and large Brexiteer block becoming a permanent fixture of UK politics.Jonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
No Deal and May's Deal may be bad outcomes of the first referendum, but Remain would also be a bad outcome for a second referendum. We need a looser relationship with the EU that reflects the UK's broad skepticism of the whole EU project and its direciton of travel, and until we arrive at such a destination this issue will not die down.
There simply aren't enough die-hard Europhiles in the UK to justify continuing on the current track as though nothing much has changed.0 -
The government are publishing the facts as they see them but they are not believed, which no doubt is, in part, caused by the failure of the last referendum by project fearJonathan said:
Some senior politicians predict catastrophe, other equally well briefed politicians claim it will be fine. With just weeks to go there is no official line on no deal. What are the facts? What does the government really think will happen? We need to know. No spin. No negotiating position. Just facts, unvarnished.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake newsJonathan said:
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendumJonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all0 -
I bet you are wrong.Benpointer said:
I bet there are more super-affluent Leavers than super-affluent Remainers.YBarddCwsc said:Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
However, the point is that it is the Remainers who want the rules bent. They want another referendum, so what are they prepared to concede to get it?
A second bit at the cherry don't come for free, you know.0 -
Leave will deliver the square root of fuck all for Stoke, Hull, and the Welsh Valleys, but the scadenfreude will be shortlived.YBarddCwsc said:Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.0 -
Yes, the important thing to worry about right now is party politics.Scott_P said:0 -
Well my biggest asset is a house in north London that has already fallen in value, while half my business (risk on public equity) has disappeared. So yes, like every other middle class professional, it will impact on meScott_P said:
Always money to be made from catastrophe, right?Charles said:Sure it will.
As for my brother - who I suspect that @Benpointer was meaning - he has significant exposure to London property and many of his clients are bankers and lawyers so he’s likely to be impacted as well.0 -
Ah, fuck the EU. On the day the mask finally slipped on its ambitions to create a European army, the full-on Franco-German federalist axis reboot, and tax raising powers for the EU Commission; we’re well shot of it.
Goodnight.0 -
I go back and forth. The stupidity of the ERG makes it easy for Remain MP's to prevail. But, the latter fear public opinion.glw said:
I think Remain is the mostly likely outcome now, but in no way does it resolve the EU question. At best we will be back to how things were in early 2016, but in the event of Remain winning a second referendum it will lead to an extremely angry and large Brexiteer block becoming a permanent fixture of UK politics.Jonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
No Deal and May's Deal may be bad outcomes of the first referendum, but Remain would also be a bad outcome for a second referendum. We need a looser relationship with the EU that reflects the UK's broad skepticism of the whole EU project and its direciton of travel, and until we arrive at such a destination this issue will not die down.
There simply aren't enough die-hard Europhiles in the UK to justify continuing on the current track as though nothing much has changed.
0 -
The government is not consistent. Fox says one thing. Rudd says another. There is next to no information on no deal. We need to kno what that really looks like. Not as a device to get us to fall in line behind a deal, but to start to prepare.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The government are publishing the facts as they see them but they are not believed, which no doubt is, in part, caused by the failure of the last referendum by project fearJonathan said:
Some senior politicians predict catastrophe, other equally well briefed politicians claim it will be fine. With just weeks to go there is no official line on no deal. What are the facts? What does the government really think will happen? We need to know. No spin. No negotiating position. Just facts, unvarnished.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake newsJonathan said:
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendumJonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all0 -
Politicians have been given an instruction to leave the EU.Scott_P said:
Which can of course include clarification of whether the will of the people has changed at all...Charles said:They can ask for clarification
If you concede the public has a right to vote (which of course they do) you can't restrict the choices.
That would not be democratic
The details are up to them0 -
-
Probably. The super-rich already have Freedom of Movement, it is the plebs that will lose it.Benpointer said:
I bet there are more super-affluent Leavers than super-affluent Remainers.YBarddCwsc said:Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
Sell villas on the Costas, buy caravans in Skegness. That is the future for retired Leavers.0 -
It is the Treasury who provide the adviceJonathan said:
The government is not consistent. Fox says one thing. Rudd says another. There is next to no information on no deal. We need to kno what that really looks like. Not as a device to get us to fall in line behind a deal, but to start to prepare.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The government are publishing the facts as they see them but they are not believed, which no doubt is, in part, caused by the failure of the last referendum by project fearJonathan said:
Some senior politicians predict catastrophe, other equally well briefed politicians claim it will be fine. With just weeks to go there is no official line on no deal. What are the facts? What does the government really think will happen? We need to know. No spin. No negotiating position. Just facts, unvarnished.Big_G_NorthWales said:
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake newsJonathan said:
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.Big_G_NorthWales said:
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendumJonathan said:Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all0 -
Mr glw,
"I think Remain is the mostly likely outcome now, but in no way does it resolve the EU question."
I fear that is correct. Why would it resolve anything when cheats rule? That will be the feeling strongly, and not just by extremists.0 -
Surely they would think about conceding this if the threatened alternative was immediate chaotic no deal?Charles said:
The EU has explicitly ruled that out. Once in the backstop you can only leave with their permission (unless you repudiate)edb said:Apologies if this is a stupid question.
Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition?
Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA?
I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit)
What am I missing0 -
“Shouldn’t” or “can’t without undermining democracy in this country”El_Capitano said:
Define "can't".Charles said:
I’m not a fan of a second referendum (or of any referenda). But since politicians asked the question they are obligated to inplement it. They can ask for clarification (deal or no deal) if they can’t be arsed to do their job, but they can’t try to overturn the decision because they don’t like itBeverley_C said:
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds.Charles said:
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.Beverley_C said:
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....Charles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Why do I subject myself to this place?
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
I'm pretty sure that, given an advisory referendum and a parliament democratically elected at a General Election, those democratically elected MPs can do what the hell they like. If you think otherwise you're welcome to pursue a legal case.
Thank you for pointing that out0 -
Great, bring it on alongside the worst ever incarnation of no deal brexit. You'll have to by yer underpants in bulk!Scott_P said:0 -
williamglenn said:AndyJS said:williamglenn said:Charles said:williamglenn said:
One reason TM did worse than she expected last time was that the public perceived the Election as unnecessary. It wasn't the only or the biggest reason, but it was a factor. I suspect it would be a factor again if she called one now.Charles said:
A lot can change during a campaign as we saw last time.IanB2 said:
An election would probably generate a result very similar to the one we already have in terms of the party totals.Charles said:
Great, let's have an election.IanB2 said:
That’s exactly what Corbyn is sayingCharles said:
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.Beverley_C said:
hey’ll change their mindCharles said:
The electorate has determined leave vs remainBeverley_C said:
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.Danny565 said:I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?0
This discussion has been closed.