politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A second referendum conducted under AV maybe the only way to e

_Anazina_ said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Just watching Everton v Liverpool I had a flash back to standing on the terraces with my dear Father at the 1966 world cup match, Brazil v Portugal, with the greats, Pele and Eusebio on the same pitch. 53 years ago, over half a century - how time flies and many happy memories

You must have been watching a different game to me.

Floater said:

Wow

http://hurryupharry.org/2019/03/03/more-disturbing-revelations-of-labours-antisemitism-problem/

"dark forces" eh......

kle4 said:

Supposedly there's already a plan for MV3 should MV2 fail, as expected. Unless there's a referendum or revocation then even if we extend the issues are the same and so there would presumably be a MV3 since that at least is a known option.

stodge said:

kle4 said:

Supposedly there's already a plan for MV3 should MV2 fail, as expected. Unless there's a referendum or revocation then even if we extend the issues are the same and so there would presumably be a MV3 since that at least is a known option.

The strategy has been crystal clear since before Christmas - to allow fear to do the work. The prospect of leaving without a Deal has been couched in such apocalyptic terms that it's increasingly hard not to see the Deal as the least worst option.

It then comes down to who blinks first - May is clearly hoping the ERG and DUP will do the blinking and carry what many consider a far from perfect WA through the Commons.

Needless to say, we can already see the May apologists gearing up to proclaim the triumph when the WA gets passed - May will be lauded in almost Thatcher-esque terms and the siren calls to let her stay on and fight the next GE as Conservative leader will no doubt be heard. The Mail yesterday spoke of "garlands" being thrown at her - maybe.

The true cost of the months of delay, confusion and indecision on business, local authorities and others will of course not be mentioned or even considered in the euphoria (though the cost of the ads and the General Election should also be mentioned).

ydoethur said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

kyf_100 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 100, I fear that's a quite incredible option.

I agree, it's unlikely to happen in real life.

But it's an interesting thought experiment.

Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.

But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"

It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.

Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?

What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.

If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

It was. Against that it was an informal agreement, and therefore if the EU had chosen to ignore it (as at least one official said they would) there was nothing we could have done to stop them other than, er, leave.

kyf_100 said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

kyf_100 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 100, I fear that's a quite incredible option.

I agree, it's unlikely to happen in real life.

But it's an interesting thought experiment.

Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.

But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"

It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.

Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?

What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.

If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/

The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.

People smelled it for the B.S. it was.

kyf_100 said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

kyf_100 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 100, I fear that's a quite incredible option.

I agree, it's unlikely to happen in real life.

But it's an interesting thought experiment.

Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.

But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"

It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.

Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?

What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.

If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/

The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.

People smelled it for the B.S. it was.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate

MarqueeMark said:

kle4 said:

Liverpool just look so tired and desperate, you'd never thing to look at them in the last 5 or so games that they had daylight between them and City not that long ago. The worst thing is City probably do deserve to win the league.

Liverpool giving choking lessons to the Boston Strangler.....

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate

I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.

I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.

kyf_100 said:

Foxy said:

kyf_100 said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/

The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.

People smelled it for the B.S. it was.

Much the same as any Political Declaration accompanying the WA then.

The future is uncertain, who knew?

Let the people have the Final Say.

Fair enough. The final say should be something like:

"We are where we are. Do you desire closer integration with the EU, or a gradual splitting apart? Because there is no such thing as "remain" where we are now. Choose the direction of travel."

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate

I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.

I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.

The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.

No point before !!!!!!

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate

I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.

I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.

The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.

No point before !!!!!!

Then I hope Graham Brady's postman can get a trolley instead of a sack for that day.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate

I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.

I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.

The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.

No point before !!!!!!

Then I hope Graham Brady's postman can get a trolley instead of a sack for that day.

I very much doubt it will be needed.

nico67 said:

I voted Remain for many reasons but a big part was to stop the UK becoming a lapdog of the USA.

Bizarely some Leavers are happy to be bent over and banged by Trump. It’s like anything to do with the EU bad , anything to do with the USA great even when they have made it plain they want to screw the UK.

anothernick said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate

I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.

I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.

I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate

I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.

I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.

The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.

anothernick said:

I don't think she has anyone who supports her "more unconditionally". Pretty much everyone wants to see the back of her and if she manages to force her deal (which everyone thinks is crap) through they will dump her pronto.

Gardenwalker said:

Great quote from Denmark (another erstwhile close ally) in this report:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-for-a-smooth-brexit

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.

Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.

RobD said:

An AV thread

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AndyJS said:

Maybe the Welsh people should be given an opportunity to see if they've changed their minds since 1997 on whether to have an Assembly, given that it was approved by the very small margin of 50.3% to 49.7%.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/18/the-nearest-run-thing/

Theuniondivvie said:

There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Great quote from Denmark (another erstwhile close ally) in this report:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-for-a-smooth-brexit

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.

Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.

Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Great quote from Denmark (another erstwhile close ally) in this report:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-for-a-smooth-brexit

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.

Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.

Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week

We’ve been through this exhaustively.

Theuniondivvie said:

There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Great quote from Denmark (another erstwhile close ally) in this report:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-for-a-smooth-brexit

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.

Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.

Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week

We’ve been through this exhaustively.
You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.

Foxy said:

kyf_100 said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

kyf_100 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 100, I fear that's a quite incredible option.

I agree, it's unlikely to happen in real life.

But it's an interesting thought experiment.

Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.

But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"

It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.

Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?

What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.

If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/

The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.

People smelled it for the B.S. it was.

Much the same as any Political Declaration accompanying the WA then.

The future is uncertain, who knew?

Let the people have the Final Say.

brokenwheel said:

Theuniondivvie said:

There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.

#I'mwithOwen

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1083305997408587781

TudorRose said:

ydoethur said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

kyf_100 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 100, I fear that's a quite incredible option.

I agree, it's unlikely to happen in real life.

But it's an interesting thought experiment.

Remainers salivate at the possibility of splitting the leave vote between deal/no deal which would ultimately lead to us remaining, under AV, as others have pointed out below.

But the remain vote is not a monolith. If there is to be a second referendum, the question isn't just "what does leave look like?"

It should be "what does remain look like?" as well.

Remainers often say that leavers had no idea what leave would look like. Well, right back at you, remain. What happens if we stay?

What does remaining look like? What is there a mandate for? Is there one for ever closer union? The EU army? Tax harmonisation? I'm willing to bet the "people's" vote lot don't want to find out.

If we have a deal/no deal/remain referendum, the only fair choices would be deal/no deal/closer union/in but no closer union.

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

It was. Against that it was an informal agreement, and therefore if the EU had chosen to ignore it (as at least one official said they would) there was nothing we could have done to stop them other than, er, leave.

So, basically 'remain' is whatever the EU decide it is?

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Floater said:

Wow

http://hurryupharry.org/2019/03/03/more-disturbing-revelations-of-labours-antisemitism-problem/

"dark forces" eh......

It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit

If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?

There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.

When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Great quote from Denmark (another erstwhile close ally) in this report:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-for-a-smooth-brexit

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.

Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.

Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week

We’ve been through this exhaustively.
You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.

logical_song said:

MarqueeMark said:

stodge said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

You made a similar post a few days ago and while TM would receive a boost if her deal goes through and she would be PM for quite some time, fighting the next GE is a no, even for this moderate

I think those who support her more unconditionally would hail her triumph and strongly assert the quality of her leadership to the extent of precluding a challenge so the question then becomes whether May would step down voluntarily.

I don't see it but you may be right and the quid pro quo for the ERG's support in getting the WDA passed might very well be her departure in say 2020 or early 2021.

The letters go in again in December 2019.....at the latest.

Well we have heard it before. She doesn't seem to actually want to go, does she?

viewcode said:

kyf_100 said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/

The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.

People smelled it for the B.S. it was.

I've already done this (more than?) once before, and I suspect I'll have to do it again, but here goes. The use by the EU of things like Declarations is to cope with the fact that treaty changes to treaties take so long to sort out. The declaration is made and is then incorporated into the treaties at a later date. An example is the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland in 2009, when the declaration made was incorporated into the treaties when Croatia joined (2013?).

Parenthetically, I am sick to the bloody back teeth of the subset of political framing that slaps a word before or after another word to suit the person's politics. Examples include "technical recession" (it's a recession), "managed no-deal" (it's no-deal) or "political declaration" (it's a declaration)

kyf_100 said:

williamglenn said:

kyf_100 said:

Foxy said:

kyf_100 said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/

The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.

People smelled it for the B.S. it was.

Much the same as any Political Declaration accompanying the WA then.

The future is uncertain, who knew?

Let the people have the Final Say.

Fair enough. The final say should be something like:

"We are where we are. Do you desire closer integration with the EU, or a gradual splitting apart? Because there is no such thing as "remain" where we are now. Choose the direction of travel."

Gradual splitting apart as the UK is undeliverable. It can only be done by gradual disintegration of the UK.

Let us assume there is no such thing as remain or leave. There is only direction of travel, in an advisory referendum. Closer union, or further apart. Which would win? And what would be the consequences of our politicians ignoring that advice?

Somewhat close, I expect, to the situation we are in today.

Gardenwalker said:

Great quote from Denmark (another erstwhile close ally) in this report:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-Itfor-a-smooth-brexit

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.

Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.

Gardenwalker said:

Great quote from Denmark (another erstwhile close ally) in this report:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-for-a-smooth-brexit

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.

Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.

viewcode said:

kyf_100 said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/

The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.

People smelled it for the B.S. it was.

I've already done this (more than?) once before, and I suspect I'll have to do it again, but here goes. The use by the EU of things like Declarations is to cope with the fact that treaty changes to treaties take so long to sort out. The declaration is made and is then incorporated into the treaties at a later date. An example is the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland in 2009, when the declaration made was incorporated into the treaties when Croatia joined (2013?).

Parenthetically, I am sick to the bloody back teeth of the subset of political framing that slaps a word before or after another word to suit the person's politics. Examples include "technical recession" (it's a recession), "managed no-deal" (it's no-deal) or "political declaration" (it's a declaration)

FF43 said:

Sandpit said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Gardenwalker said:

Great quote from Denmark (another erstwhile close ally) in this report:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/03/liam-fox-extending-article-50-may-be-only-option-for-a-smooth-brexit

The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, defended his own pledge to never put his country’s membership of the EU to a referendum by highlighting the damage to the British economy in which “one car factory after another stops or cancels planned production”.

Rasmussen said the British public had been taken in by “some rhetorically skilled politicians who turned out to be untrustworthy conmen who subsequently left the sinking ship”. He also described Westminster as a circus and “a paralysed political system that is about to melt down”.

Pity that he is using fake news on the car industry. Also JLR announced big investment in the UK for EV's this week

We’ve been through this exhaustively.
You have to be in denial not to believe that Brexit is playing a part in the ongoing divestment in the British economy.

JLM will only produce hybrid or ev from 2020

The media themselves confirmed the lost production was due to the collapse of diesel sales and with the new EU - Japan trade deal Japan can sell direct into the EU tariff free thereby negating their need to build in the EU

These decisions would have happened no matter that we were in the EU

When even the BBC say it is not brexit related it is time to accept the reality of the disaster facing the car industry worldwide, as no one in the car industry has accepted they are not ready to go all ev but the public will not buy diesels anymore

As was discussed last week on here, the British automative industry is in rude health, with the smaller top-end manufacturers and their suppliers opening new facilities, hiring extra staff and with long waiting lists for new models - not to mention all the motorsport companies and F1 teams.

JLR are suffering for the same reasons as their competitors in Germany, because of crap diesels and not-quite-developed electric powertrains.

Not really. The UK is missing out on an investment cycle at the time when investment is piling into other countries for electric vehicles. The SMMT and UK based senior staff have been making some very anxious noises.

Pulpstar said:

viewcode said:

kyf_100 said:

TudorRose said:

OllyT said:

For the immediate future Remain would look exactly like it did before we triggered A50. What happens in years to come is always open to speculation but I believe w have the opt-outs and vetos to prevent us doing too much that we are opposed to. Do we not have an opt out re closer political union?

Brexit, on the other hand, is less than a month away and we still don't know how it will look then let alone in 5 years time.

The reality of the situation has nothing to do with whether remainers are "salivating" at the split in leavers. There is a split, that is simply a factual statement. Whether we go for No Deal or May's Deal, large numbers of leavers would be opposed.

This has been Leave's Achille's heel from the off. No version of Brexit could be ruled out without leave losing votes. That was fine if all that mattered was flopping over the referendum finishing line. It then meant that as soon as any "real" Brexit options were outlined some leavers wouldn't like it.

Wasn't the 'ever closer union' opt-out part of Cameron's plan that wasn't accepted because we went for a referendum?

Cameron promised an "opt out" from ever closer union, but it was a political promise rather than a legal one.

https://fullfact.org/europe/renegotiating-ever-closer-union/

The so-called opt out would not have had any legal effect.

People smelled it for the B.S. it was.

I've already done this (more than?) once before, and I suspect I'll have to do it again, but here goes. The use by the EU of things like Declarations is to cope with the fact that treaty changes to treaties take so long to sort out. The declaration is made and is then incorporated into the treaties at a later date. An example is the second Lisbon referendum in Ireland in 2009, when the declaration made was incorporated into the treaties when Croatia joined (2013?).

Parenthetically, I am sick to the bloody back teeth of the subset of political framing that slaps a word before or after another word to suit the person's politics. Examples include "technical recession" (it's a recession), "managed no-deal" (it's no-deal) or "political declaration" (it's a declaration)

The referendum suddenly became "advisory" after the nation voted the wrong way

ydoethur said:

brokenwheel said:

Theuniondivvie said:

There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.

#I'mwithOwen

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1083305997408587781

Can't argue with that!

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Floater said:

Wow

http://hurryupharry.org/2019/03/03/more-disturbing-revelations-of-labours-antisemitism-problem/

"dark forces" eh......

It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit

If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?

There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.

When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.

SandyRentool said:

Cyclefree said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Floater said:

Wow

http://hurryupharry.org/2019/03/03/more-disturbing-revelations-of-labours-antisemitism-problem/

"dark forces" eh......

It is beyond my comprehension that such hatred is endemic in the labour party and centred on Corbyn and his cabal. How can any labour mp remain in such a toxic culture without being implicit

If a bunch of BNP entryists joined the Conservatives, I don't believe you would leave the party. You would stay and fight, and try to purge the extremists. Why should Labour members and representatives do otherwise?

There is not much evidence that they are fighting and trying to purge the extremists. If anything it looks as if the extremists have taken over and are purging those repelled by what the extremists have wrought.

When that happens, staying makes you passively complicit.

I turn up at Branch and CLP meetings, speak and vote against their loopy motions and vote against their unsuitable candidates for executive officer positions.

When I get outvoted by nutters, I have to respect the democratic process.

I have not personally witnessed any antisemitism from party members, but you can be sure that if I did I wouldn't let it pass.

Theuniondivvie said:

brokenwheel said:

Theuniondivvie said:

There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.

#I'mwithOwen

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1083305997408587781

Golly, I know Jim Murphy is a neo lib apostle of British nationalism who hings oot wi' the Henry Jackson Society, but even I'd baulk at calling him a Nazi.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

nico67 said:

I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .

The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .

Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .

They should certainly not do anything to enable a political triumph for May. That alone would surely justify moves to deselect.

How about what is best for the country to move matters on

Big_G_NorthWales said:

justin124 said:

nico67 said:

I have less irritation with the right wingers pushing Brexit than the left wingers who somehow have bought the garbage that out of the EU a socialist nirvana can happen .

The only protection against the right wing capitalism on steroids is staying in the EU . There’s no guarantee of a Labour government anytime soon so the lefties who voted to Leave have handed the keys over to Mogg and co .

Any Labour MP enabling a Tory Brexit should hang their heads in shame , instead of Flint and the others trashing a second vote they should be making the case that a Tory Brexit will be a disaster for their supporters .

They should certainly not do anything to enable a political triumph for May. That alone would surely justify moves to deselect.

How about what is best for the country to move matters on

Foxy said:

Theuniondivvie said:

brokenwheel said:

Theuniondivvie said:

There seems to be something of a dearth of criticism of Jezza being egged. I'm sure all those who prolapsed when Jim Murphy was assaulted by un ouef (brownshirts, violent thugs, obnoxious, ugly, abusive, bitter, twisted) will be along later to express their disapproval.

#I'mwithOwen

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1083305997408587781

Golly, I know Jim Murphy is a neo lib apostle of British nationalism who hings oot wi' the Henry Jackson Society, but even I'd baulk at calling him a Nazi.

Owen Jones tweet is about Nick Griffin.