politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Brexit deadlock: Some group has got to shift bit it is not
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Brexit deadlock: Some group has got to shift bit it is not clear who that will be
After another deadlocked day at Westminster the time is running out before the April 12th deadline and if the UK is not to slip out of the EU then without a deal then some grouping has got to change their previously set out strong position.
Comments
-
The EU should impose a faffing fee, it starts at 1 Euro then doubles every day0
-
Cage fighting.
Or, perhaps the EU will make a real hard deadline. I can't help feeling that their not very immutable deadlines aren't helping.0 -
Or toss a coin? Seriously.matt said:Cage fighting.
0 -
In Japan this would be settled with successive rounds of scissors-paper-stone0
-
I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.0 -
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.0 -
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.0 -
I'd prefer Battle Royale.edmundintokyo said:In Japan this would be settled with successive rounds of scissors-paper-stone
0 -
Would they?edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.
This ensures that we find the Concordet Winner, which is what we should all be aiming for, right?
Given the EU will not change the WA, this is the clear and only way out.
There's no real room for voters to game the system - or at least not without risking getting something they really don't want.
The current situation means people deliberately lie.
If you are a Leaver, and you want us to Leave without a Deal, then it is incumbent upon you to convince more moderate Leavers that you think the Deal is worse than Remain. Because that's the only way you'll get what you want. But in the system I propose, lying is a dangerous game.
If Remain really is the Concordet winner, then so be it.0 -
I think voters are able to play three rounds of "Would you rather {x} or {y}?"matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.0 -
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.
Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.0 -
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.
Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.0 -
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.0 -
That would be such a great betting eventbrokenwheel said:
I'd prefer Battle Royale.edmundintokyo said:In Japan this would be settled with successive rounds of scissors-paper-stone
0 -
I understand that point of view.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.
If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.
But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.0 -
I agree with all of that. I just don't see how you pass it through parliament. I mean, TMay could probably make it pass, but does she want to?rcs1000 said:
I understand that point of view.
However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.
If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.
But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.0 -
I take all of that. My concern with all of this is information flow. It's clear that MPs, who at least (in theory), are meant to be a relatively sophisticated and intelligent electorate, struggle with the options, the consequences and how they interact.rcs1000 said:
I understand that point of view.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.
If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.
But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.
How might the electorate differentiate between competing claims of "all aircraft will/won't be grounded", "supermarket chiller cabinets will/will not be empty" and the like? A cacophony of lies and misrepresentations.
You might make the same point re GEs but the arguments have the merit of being more familiar.
0 -
I think it's the best chance she has for selling her deal.edmundintokyo said:
I agree with all of that. I just don't see how you pass it through parliament. I mean, TMay could probably make it pass, but does she want to?rcs1000 said:
I understand that point of view.
However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.
If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.
But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.
You see, what has really scuppered her (IMHO) is that those who favour No Deal have pretended to the world that Remain was better than the Deal. Why? Because for those who voted Leave, if Deal was taken off the table, broke for No Deal. It was breathtakingly cynical, but it might well have worked.
Under my system honesty is rewarded.0 -
Fortunately, this video explains all:matt said:
I take all of that. My concern with all of this is information flow. It's clear that MPs, who at least (in theory), are meant to be a relatively sophisticated and intelligent electorate, struggle with the options, the consequences and how they interact.rcs1000 said:
I understand that point of view.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.
If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.
But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.
How might the electorate differentiate between competing claims of "all aircraft will/won't be grounded", "supermarket chiller cabinets will/will not be empty" and the like? A cacophony of lies and misrepresentations.
You might make the same point re GEs but the arguments have the merit of being more familiar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyahEuxvBUk0 -
We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.0 -
That’s not a problem - it means the people have changed their minds which they gave the right to doedmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.0 -
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.eek said:
That’s not a problem - it means the people have changed their minds which they gave the right to doedmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.0 -
Unfortunately, I'm somewhere with internet control and VPNs are blocked as much as possible. Makes PB comments slightly better generally as one can't see halfwitted cut and pastes from Twitter.rcs1000 said:
Fortunately, this video explains all:matt said:
I take all of that. My concern with all of this is information flow. It's clear that MPs, who at least (in theory), are meant to be a relatively sophisticated and intelligent electorate, struggle with the options, the consequences and how they interact.rcs1000 said:
I understand that point of view.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
However, many of those same Leavers seem hellbent on taking the UK towards a "No Deal" exit, which was certainly not on the agenda back in 2016.
If the will of the people really is for No Deal Brexit, then my system will discover it. If Remain really is better than Deal, then so be it.
But if it turns out that most people would like to confirm the first referendum result, without dynamiting the Channel Tunnel, then that will be revealed too.
How might the electorate differentiate between competing claims of "all aircraft will/won't be grounded", "supermarket chiller cabinets will/will not be empty" and the like? A cacophony of lies and misrepresentations.
You might make the same point re GEs but the arguments have the merit of being more familiar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyahEuxvBUk0 -
It seems the bulk of MPs, for different reasons, want profound disruptionAlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption.
0 -
So we get back to the question of when and how would the stories like to self destruct. Now by revoking, slightly later as someone negotiates the final agreements after May’s Deal or in a completely instructed way as things go wrong after a No Deal departureAlastairMeeks said:
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.eek said:
That’s not a problem - it means the people have changed their minds which they gave the right to doedmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.0 -
AlastairMeeks said:
We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.
Given that the cabinet was abstaining you can hardly blame MPs for being equally responsible and still hunting for the unicorn the cabinet are also looking for0 -
I disagree. The cabinet abstaining was implicitly suggesting that they will implement the instruction of MPs (a qualified neutrality if you will). MPs instruction appears to be an irresponsible, "we don't like anything".eek said:AlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.
Given that the cabinet was abstaining you can hardly blame MPs for being equally responsible and still hunting for the unicorn the cabinet are also looking for0 -
I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.
https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/11128464047189401620 -
I think it's simply the case of their having been arguing about this for such a very, very long time by now that a great many MPs are dug into entrenched positions from which they no longer feel able to move.AlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.
I think Parliament has three chances left to avoid No Deal: a majority for one option on Wednesday that the Government can then accept and have a reasonable chance of implementing; MV4 with some major concession tacked onto it (a referendum, perhaps, has the best chance of passing); and, if those both fail, a straight Revoke vs No Deal vote on April 10th or 11th. True, the EU might also let us extend the A50 deadline again for more general pissing about, but I don't see what they have to gain from this.
Anyway, we haven't long left to find out what the denouement will be.
If this does somehow end in a situation where we participate in the European Parliament elections then you may well get it - although, personally, I'd imagined that contest more as a bar room brawl from an old fashioned Western. The SNP ought to score a clear victory in Scotland, but South of the Border you could very easily see outright Dutchification: seven different parties (eight or nine in Wales) all within about ten points of each other.brokenwheel said:
I'd prefer Battle Royale.edmundintokyo said:In Japan this would be settled with successive rounds of scissors-paper-stone
0 -
How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?Recidivist said:I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.
https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/11128464047189401620 -
"I think it's simply the case of their having been arguing about this for such a very, very long time by now that a great many MPs are dug into entrenched positions from which they no longer feel able to move."
Western Front WW1. Who will play the roles of the Strosstruppen/Americans?
0 -
Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.Black_Rook said:
How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?Recidivist said:I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.
https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/11128464047189401620 -
This sort of crude characterisation really doesn't help. There are howling ultras dug in on both sides of this argument; most of the population - representing various shades of opinion from "the referendum should be respected" to "the referendum should be run again," and encompassing groups such as "this is all so confusing" and "what is this Brexit mullarkey anyway" are stuck between the warring factions. This includes at least a very large fraction of both the Tory and Labour votes.AlastairMeeks said:
It’s a problem for Conservatives, the bulk of whose voters have turned into moon-howling maniacs.eek said:
That’s not a problem - it means the people have changed their minds which they gave the right to doedmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.
When we next get to a General Election, the most important determinants of voting behaviour are still liable to be cultural/habit/robotic voting, and the perceived desirability or otherwise of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. The Leave/Remain divide is a factor, but it's not the be all and end all of everything. Not by a long chalk.0 -
I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.Recidivist said:
Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.Black_Rook said:
How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?Recidivist said:I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.
https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.0 -
There are ways of saying no respectfully.Black_Rook said:
I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.Recidivist said:
Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.Black_Rook said:
How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?Recidivist said:I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.
https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.0 -
FPT: Air France = Air Chance
Avoid.0 -
You could just as easily argue that a Revoke debate is about a relatively small minority of MPs representing a relatively small minority of voters telling the 52% to shove their Brexit where the Sun don't shine. That's hardly respectful either.Recidivist said:
There are ways of saying no respectfully.Black_Rook said:
I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.Recidivist said:
Who knows. If the polls are anything to go by there are about 2 million Tory voters who want to stay in the EU out there. They would have an above average incentive to sign the petition. I'd have thought that the Tories might have made some effort to keep them on board.Black_Rook said:
How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?Recidivist said:I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.
https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.
Yes, the Government could've sent a junior minister along to restate its long-held opinion that the will of the people, expressed in 2016, should be respected - but what would this have achieved? We knew this already. It would've been a waste of time.
If one were being crude then, theoretically, the whole event might best be described as one massive circle jerk for desperate hardcore Remainiacs. But I'm a good boy so will not stoop so low.0 -
Such a vote might not even be about the EU.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.0 -
The majority of Tory MPs and ministers seem to have settled on May’s Deal or No Deal. The PM is among them, so No Deal it will be. The full consequences of that are not knowable, but they do not look good for either the Tories or the country.0
-
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.
Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.0 -
For MPs No Deal is an abstract concept. It will largely happen to other people. At least until the next general election.Scott_P said:
It seems the bulk of MPs, for different reasons, want profound disruptionAlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption.
0 -
Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.0 -
I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.0 -
The ERG and Corbyn’s inner circle are as bad as each other.SouthamObserver said:
For MPs No Deal is an abstract concept. It will largely happen to other people. At least until the next general election.Scott_P said:
It seems the bulk of MPs, for different reasons, want profound disruptionAlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption.
Watching Steve Baker’s ego in full flood last night on BBC2’s Brexit documentary was nauseating.0 -
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...Pulpstar said:Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.0 -
I went to bed early last night and really can't believe that I am waking up to the rejection of every proposal once again. What is wrong with these people? It is not as if this slightly bizarre procedure made them choose. They could easily have voted yes to all 4 proposals if they are so minded and yet we cannot get a majority for anything.
A huge part of the problem lies with May. She sought to keep her party together with studied ambiguity for so long that both the ERG and the softest of remainers thought that they had her ear and support. Because they thought that they saw no need to compromise or to build a broader consensus. They still think the same way. If the ERG were persuaded that there was a real risk of no Brexit they would surely all compromise. Many did for May's deal last time out but enough still thought that if they just held on they could get their no deal fantasy. After last night they will be reinforced in that view.
The remainers/soft Brexiteers are in a slightly more difficult position. Until very recently, even yesterday, the momentum seemed to be with them and being in the CU with regulatory alignment seemed to have all the momentum. But the split between the CU and CM2.0 seems to have done for them as does the increasing number who will not support any Brexit without a second referendum.
Yesterday while driving I heard Jack Dromey and a female Conservative MP. They both represented constituencies which had car plants. They were in complete agreement and both entirely reasonable. What they were clearest about is the damage being done by the current uncertainty had to end and a choice had to be made. They will not be alone in their despair this morning.0 -
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.
Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
0 -
Yep.Casino_Royale said:
The ERG and Corbyn’s inner circle are as bad as each other.SouthamObserver said:
For MPs No Deal is an abstract concept. It will largely happen to other people. At least until the next general election.Scott_P said:
It seems the bulk of MPs, for different reasons, want profound disruptionAlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption.
Watching Steve Baker’s ego in full flood last night on BBC2’s Brexit documentary was nauseating.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.0
-
I agree Alastair although I think a new referendum would increase the length of the uncertainty unacceptably at this point. I would rather revoke than go down that line. Alternatively, we might commit to a second referendum in 10 years time when people can see how whatever we end up with compares to membership. I would be ok with that.AlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.
But we have just got to find a way forward here.0 -
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.0 -
I expect Customs Union will pass on a 3rd attempt.Pulpstar said:Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
Looking at the votes last night it only failed by three and that was because the TIGers and some of LDs cynically voted it down and there was some weird switching.0 -
The reports over the weekend that Downing Street is looking to push a leadership contest into the Autumn. May has offered her head if her deal passes. But I don't think she envisages it passing, so then she can once again say nothing has changed, I am the leader, I have delivered Brexit, all kneel and praise me.edmundintokyo said:
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...Pulpstar said:Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
Truly truly wretched. I'd almost like to see a General Election just for the comedy value. Montgomery Brewster for PM.0 -
We have a Parliament from Little Britain.matt said:
I disagree. The cabinet abstaining was implicitly suggesting that they will implement the instruction of MPs (a qualified neutrality if you will). MPs instruction appears to be an irresponsible, "we don't like anything".eek said:AlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.
Given that the cabinet was abstaining you can hardly blame MPs for being equally responsible and still hunting for the unicorn the cabinet are also looking for
Andy Pipkins: "I want that one....."
Lou Todd: "Are you sure now?"
Andy Pipkins: "Don't like it...."
Lou Todd: "What a kerfuffle!"
Andy Pipkins: "Yeah I know....."
Lou Todd: "Now, shall we have another round of voting?"
Andy Pipkins: "I want that one....."
Lou Todd: "Are you sure now?"
Andy Pipkins: "Yeah....."
pause
Andy Pipkins: "Don't like it....."
0 -
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?edmundintokyo said:
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...Pulpstar said:Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.0 -
Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.Black_Rook said:I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.
David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.
A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.
One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx
https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/11129633467924152320 -
Ian Huntley and Levi Bellfield will be the new Gove and Boris as they are less despicable than the originals.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?0 -
I’d take a narrow referendum defeat, a fractious Government and a Tory party loss in GE2022 over a GE now, over/caused by No Deal, which I think would result in a crushing Tory defeat, with Corbyn as PM.DavidL said:
I agree Alastair although I think a new referendum would increase the length of the uncertainty unacceptably at this point. I would rather revoke than go down that line. Alternatively, we might commit to a second referendum in 10 years time when people can see how whatever we end up with compares to membership. I would be ok with that.AlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.
But we have just got to find a way forward here.
The main thing for me is keeping the Marxists hands off the Treasury, MoD, Foreign Office, and Home Office for as long as possible.0 -
Is there a compromise? Can we be in the CU for 10 years? In theory Governments can't bind their successors anyway. Morning all.DavidL said:
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?edmundintokyo said:
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...Pulpstar said:Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.0 -
With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?Casino_Royale said:
I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.0 -
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.Casino_Royale said:
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
0 -
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.DavidL said:
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?edmundintokyo said:
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...Pulpstar said:Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
0 -
The person who could potentially break the logjam here is Corbyn. If he said that he would whip his party to vote for the WA providing the PD commits the UK to the CU after the transitional period (where we are already committed to it) then the WA passes despite the ERG.
But I don't think that he thinks that it is in his interests to resolve this. That second GE opportunity is tantalisingly close.0 -
Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.SouthamObserver said:
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.DavidL said:
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?edmundintokyo said:
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...Pulpstar said:Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.0 -
Don’t be silly.Dura_Ace said:
Ian Huntley and Levi Bellfield will be the new Gove and Boris as they are less despicable than the originals.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?0 -
YesMarqueeMark said:
With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?Casino_Royale said:
I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.
They’ve calculated (I think correctly) that it’ll be the Conservatives that take the blame.0 -
So has the 'reasonable' Mr. Dromey voted for the deal? Or not?DavidL said:I went to bed early last night and really can't believe that I am waking up to the rejection of every proposal once again. What is wrong with these people? It is not as if this slightly bizarre procedure made them choose. They could easily have voted yes to all 4 proposals if they are so minded and yet we cannot get a majority for anything.
A huge part of the problem lies with May. She sought to keep her party together with studied ambiguity for so long that both the ERG and the softest of remainers thought that they had her ear and support. Because they thought that they saw no need to compromise or to build a broader consensus. They still think the same way. If the ERG were persuaded that there was a real risk of no Brexit they would surely all compromise. Many did for May's deal last time out but enough still thought that if they just held on they could get their no deal fantasy. After last night they will be reinforced in that view.
The remainers/soft Brexiteers are in a slightly more difficult position. Until very recently, even yesterday, the momentum seemed to be with them and being in the CU with regulatory alignment seemed to have all the momentum. But the split between the CU and CM2.0 seems to have done for them as does the increasing number who will not support any Brexit without a second referendum.
Yesterday while driving I heard Jack Dromey and a female Conservative MP. They both represented constituencies which had car plants. They were in complete agreement and both entirely reasonable. What they were clearest about is the damage being done by the current uncertainty had to end and a choice had to be made. They will not be alone in their despair this morning.0 -
The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.Scott_P said:
Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.Black_Rook said:I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.
David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.
A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.
One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx
https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/1112963346792415232
0 -
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.SouthamObserver said:
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.Casino_Royale said:
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.0 -
That and the fact that TMay or whatever unlucky Tory gets lumbered with her job would most likely proceed to ignore the PD and negotiate whatever they needed to stop the ERG and the DUP from throwing their toys out of the pram.DavidL said:The person who could potentially break the logjam here is Corbyn. If he said that he would whip his party to vote for the WA providing the PD commits the UK to the CU after the transitional period (where we are already committed to it) then the WA passes despite the ERG.
But I don't think that he thinks that it is in his interests to resolve this. That second GE opportunity is tantalisingly close.0 -
That is the real problem with Mays deal. Everyone expects the PD to be torn up the day after it passes, from ERG to Revokers.edmundintokyo said:
That and the fact that TMay or whatever unlucky Tory gets lumbered with her job would most likely proceed to ignore the PD and negotiate whatever they needed to stop the ERG and the DUP from throwing their toys out of the pram.DavidL said:The person who could potentially break the logjam here is Corbyn. If he said that he would whip his party to vote for the WA providing the PD commits the UK to the CU after the transitional period (where we are already committed to it) then the WA passes despite the ERG.
But I don't think that he thinks that it is in his interests to resolve this. That second GE opportunity is tantalisingly close.0 -
A plague on all their houses.0
-
What are you banging on about? The cabinet supports the WA, not some half baked CM2 or CU that the EU hasn't agreed to. The WA is the only game in town to avoid no deal, the sooner the cowards in the Labour party realise the sooner we'll be out of this mess.eek said:AlastairMeeks said:We have now reached the stage where any responsible MP would be voting yes to any option that did not result in profound disruption. So, yes to Theresa May’s Deal, yes to Common Market 2.0, yes to a customs union and yes to a new referendum.
Britain has few responsible MPs.
Given that the cabinet was abstaining you can hardly blame MPs for being equally responsible and still hunting for the unicorn the cabinet are also looking for0 -
They already have a problem combining social liberal freemarketerrs with socially conservative nativist protectioneers. It is a support base as divided as Labours Islington set and Northern towns.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.Scott_P said:
Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.Black_Rook said:I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.
David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.
A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.
One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx
https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/11129633467924152320 -
Her Deal only passes with Labour votes. That means concessions written into law and that, too, brings down her government. She has no good options left, so she’ll take the least worst one. For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.DavidL said:
Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.SouthamObserver said:
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.DavidL said:
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?edmundintokyo said:
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...Pulpstar said:Who will fold ?
Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
0 -
There is a problem with the PD not being binding on either party. And of course if we are irrevocably committed to it the EU may well up the price of membership of it considerably.edmundintokyo said:
That and the fact that TMay or whatever unlucky Tory gets lumbered with her job would most likely proceed to ignore the PD and negotiate whatever they needed to stop the ERG and the DUP from throwing their toys out of the pram.DavidL said:The person who could potentially break the logjam here is Corbyn. If he said that he would whip his party to vote for the WA providing the PD commits the UK to the CU after the transitional period (where we are already committed to it) then the WA passes despite the ERG.
But I don't think that he thinks that it is in his interests to resolve this. That second GE opportunity is tantalisingly close.0 -
-
I think you're wrong, remember our voters want no deal, it's Labour voters that are watching their party vote against the WA despite it being the only realistic way of avoiding no deal. That isn't going unnoticed. If Corbyn scuppers MV4 (it's coming back) then I'm certain he will get shat on by Labour voters who want to avoid no deal.Casino_Royale said:
YesMarqueeMark said:
With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?Casino_Royale said:
I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.
They’ve calculated (I think correctly) that it’ll be the Conservatives that take the blame.0 -
That only keeps the party together until the food runs out...SouthamObserver said:For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.
0 -
I'd agree. But Brexit is a plague on all our houses.SquareRoot said:A plague on all their houses.
0 -
Interestingly signatures are more likely to come from Tory-held seats than Labour-held seats (for the same Remain vote in the referendum).Black_Rook said:
How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?Recidivist said:I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.
https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162
http://propolis.io/dataviz/referendum_vs_petition/tool.html0 -
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.Casino_Royale said:
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.SouthamObserver said:
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.Casino_Royale said:
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is thatCalvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
0 -
-
I was rather surprised that my Tory voting, County set secretary had signed for #revoke.OblitusSumMe said:
Interestingly signatures are more likely to come from Tory-held seats than Labour-held seats (for the same Remain vote in the referendum).Black_Rook said:
How many of those were thinking of voting Tory anyway?Recidivist said:I think there will be 6 million people who are not remotely impressed with the Conservatives over this.
https://twitter.com/UK4Europe/status/1112846404718940162
http://propolis.io/dataviz/referendum_vs_petition/tool.html0 -
Oh I think they can.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.Scott_P said:
Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.Black_Rook said:I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.
David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.
A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.
One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx
https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/11129633467924152320 -
“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”SouthamObserver said:
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.Casino_Royale said:
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.SouthamObserver said:
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.Casino_Royale said:
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is thatCalvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.0 -
Well if you are so confident let's get out the pencils.Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing to do with being intelligent and thoughtful. If they were intelligent and thoughtful they wouldn't change their minds based on the brexit negotiations turning out the way intelligent and thoughtful people already expected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is that the voters would probably choose Remain, so Tories don't want to give them that option, partly for tactical reasons and partly because Leave voters would justifiably feel like they were playing Calvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy. And I really don't see what the problem with doing it this way.
So, @Philip_Thompson would probably choose:
1. No Deal
2. Remain
3. No Deal
@Richard_Tyndall would probably go for:
1. No Deal
2. Deal
3. Deal
Etc.
Remain would be favourite because Leave only just squeaked in before, so there's no scope to lose voters, and they'd lose some to Remain when faced with either of the specific ways of leaving that would be on the ballot. Plus, it's going worse than floating voters expected, and a lot of them are sick of it. Plus, the combination of Trump, a better economy and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.0 -
A blue one saying “a moron lived here 2010-2019”?SquareRoot said:A plague on all their houses.
0 -
I agree with Edmund. And add that the real risk here is Remain winning on a lower turnout, and Leavers forever arguing that the result does not therefore have the mandate to override the original.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.0 -
Mr. Observer, that sounds like a repeat, in part, of the last campaign.
I said then that the "Little England" line taken by Cameron was bloody stupid, and so it was. Adding Nigel Farage's name didn't improve it.
If there is another referendum then Remain, assuming that's an option, should emphasise what they see as the positives of membership.0 -
If you really think all conservative voters want no deal, that is a massively misreading. A very large proportion don't (especially in the middle ground where elections are won).MaxPB said:
I think you're wrong, remember our voters want no deal, it's Labour voters that are watching their party vote against the WA despite it being the only realistic way of avoiding no deal. That isn't going unnoticed. If Corbyn scuppers MV4 (it's coming back) then I'm certain he will get shat on by Labour voters who want to avoid no deal.Casino_Royale said:
YesMarqueeMark said:
With the bulk of the ERG onside, the problems we are experiencing in our democracy are now entirely down to Remainer MPs refusing to back the deal on offer from the EU. Do MPs really think the voters can't see this?Casino_Royale said:
I’d reluctantly back one - along the lines Robert is suggesting - if Parliament is incapable of making a decision, and it gets us out of this.edmundintokyo said:
That's certainly a possibility. Against that Remainiacs are riled up in a way they weren't originally.rcs1000 said:
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
But that answers your other question. Rightly or wrongly leavers don't feel they should have to win another referendum. So it's just really hard to get leavers in general, and Tory MPs specifically, to back the idea of having another referendum, no matter how it's set up.
But, it would need to be imposed by Parliament under Letwin as legislation led by Parliament in recognition it had failed to do so.
They’ve calculated (I think correctly) that it’ll be the Conservatives that take the blame.0 -
If you want to hold Francois, Bridgen, Rees Mogg and co as representative of a majority demographic in the UK, good luck!TGOHF said:
“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”SouthamObserver said:
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.Casino_Royale said:
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.SouthamObserver said:
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.Casino_Royale said:
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is thatCalvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
Remain would countries.
None of it's at all a cert, that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
0 -
May is one of the worst politicians that we have ever had as PM, totally incapable of building a consensus about anything, but she is not stupid. What the indicative vote nonsense has shown is that her deal and the red lines on which it is based comes closer to meeting most peoples' aspirations than anything else, not least because it leaves so much up for grabs in the PD.
So much of the debate yesterday are about options that will still be on the table if the WA goes through. I know it has already been trialed and failed on Friday but for me the current solution is to approve the WA but say to the EU we are still trying to decide what our future relationship with the EU should be so we would prefer not to have a PD at the moment. I think that they would be ok with that.
I think that the logical outcome of that would be that there would be a GE well within the 2 years of the transitional agreement so that a new Parliament with a new PM can decide what the arrangement with the EU should be.0 -
Corbyn is treading a fine line and so far doing it reasonably well. In the North, there remain a lot of old-fashioned Labour voters, distinct from the younger Jezzarites. They instinctively distrust the Tories, but they feel forgotten by their natural party which seems to have embraced the new, shiny policies natural to the famous 'metropolitan elite'. In the words of some … "transgender toilets are more important than wage rises."
The EU Leave vote was boosted by this exasperation. if Jezza were to go full-fat revoke or second referendum, he'd get a boost in the South, a temporary one at least. But that has to be weighed against the potential for a possible hand-sitting display in the North at the next GE.
Labour need to decide where its future lies, in the same way the Tory party does.
0 -
It was increasingly accurate though.Morris_Dancer said:I said then that the "Little England" line taken by Cameron was bloody stupid, and so it was.
0 -
Why don’t you fight on the virtues of the EU ?SouthamObserver said:
If you want to hold Francois, Bridgen, Rees Mogg and co as representative of a majority demographic in the UK, good luck!TGOHF said:
“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”SouthamObserver said:
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.Casino_Royale said:
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.SouthamObserver said:
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think.Casino_Royale said:
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is thatCalvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the
Easypeasy.
Etc.
Remain would countries.
None of it's at all a cert, that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
Why does it have to be an intersectional battle against your own white mans guilt ?
0 -
You cannogt stop the nutters campaigning, just as you cannot stop those who think there is no difference between the EU and Hitler. They will not be representative on either side though.TGOHF said:
“Come sneer with us at the gammons and the white proles that thought they knew better than us”SouthamObserver said:
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.Casino_Royale said:
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.SouthamObserver said:
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.Casino_Royale said:
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is thatCalvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three
Etc.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.
The anti-government vote will switch to anti-Brexit, and there may well be significantly different demograpghic splits to voting. Not nailed on but a #peoplesvote definitely favours Remain. It is why Leavers are afraid of it.0 -
It would be intriguing to see the Tories become the party of higher taxes and borrowing.Recidivist said:
Oh I think they can.SouthamObserver said:
The Tories can do the hard right English nationalism. They can’t do the public spending. That’s their problem.Scott_P said:
Rachel Sylvester's article in the Times this morning is instructive.Black_Rook said:I'm still not surprised that Conservatives don't want to be seen flirting with the idea of Revocation. Whilst I think that Brexit won't be the most important factor in the next General Election, failing to deliver any form of Brexit at all has much greater potential consequences for them in terms of loss of trust and fragmentation of their voter coalition than any Brexit outcome does - even No Deal, save perhaps if the consequences thereof turn out to be apocalyptic.
Or, to put it more succinctly, it's not possible to please everyone.
David Cameron's plan was to distance the Conservative party from UKIP. May has chosen to embrace them instead.
A Brexit-supporting minister is convinced that there is a reservoir of potential voters in Leave-voting constituencies who “want a sense of belonging” and could be won over to a patriotic Tory party. “One of the missing elements of ‘Modernisation 1.0’ was the failure to secure the support of working-class voters and people in the north and the Midlands,” he says. “They’re the people who have now come over.
One MP on the liberal wing concedes that the Tory party could turn itself into a right-wing populist party with working-class appeal: socially conservative, tough on crime and immigration, in favour of public spending. “It would be a kind of Ukip-lite, forcing Labour out of its northern strongholds, except in urban areas,” he says. “But it’s not a Tory party I would ever be able to be part of.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/ukip-infiltrators-will-tear-the-tories-apart-7jntwh5zx
https://twitter.com/JimHacker/status/1112963346792415232
0 -
Leave would make it about "Who governs us? MPs - or voters? Let them know...."SouthamObserver said:
Remain would seek to make it a referendum on Francois, Farage, Grayling, Bridgen, Rees Mogg, Johnson, Trump, etc. If they’re for Leave, aren’t you against? It will be a pretty strong calling card if played probably. That said, I can’t see a referendum happening.Casino_Royale said:
I agree with that. Nevertheless a public vote isn’t necessarily about its leaders or what its leaders want it to be about.SouthamObserver said:
Leave’s problem would be that any of those leading it would be extremely polarising. I think both campaigns would start with significant difficulties to overcome.Casino_Royale said:
The Prime Minister, who may not be Theresa May.SouthamObserver said:
Who do you think will front the Leave campaign?Casino_Royale said:
Indeed.rcs1000 said:
I'm not sure that's true.edmundintokyo said:
No, it's nothing toexpected them to.matt said:
The other problem is there's an implicit assumption that voters are as intelligent and thoughtful as you and your common circle are.edmundintokyo said:
The problem is thatCalvinball.rcs1000 said:I really don't see what's wrong with my proposal:
The ballot paper has three either/or questions:
1. "Remain or No Deal"
2. "Remain or Deal"
3. "Deal or No Deal"
Whichever option wins both times it's up is the winner.
In the incredibly unlikely event that Remain beats No Deal, Deal beats Remain, and No Deal beats Deal, (or some other each option wins one round), then we simply choose the one with the highest "net" score.
Easypeasy.
Etc.
Remain would be and the Syrian refugee crisis easing has made immigration less unpopular than it was in developed countries.
None of it's at all a cert, but if you're a Leave supporter, and you've already won, you obviously don't want to roll the dice for anything less than a strong probability of a win, and they definitely don't have that.
Usually, if you go back to the voters and ask a question a second time, then they will tend to resent being asked again. I might point to the numerous times that byelections have been called due to some minor infraction of electoral law.
I don’t see anything in the campaign approach of Remain that shows they’ve learnt anything from the 1st: I expect they’d talk to themselves very loudly, and broadcast “I told you so” to everyone else.
I’d also expect Cummings to come back to Vote Leave.0 -
Let's just leave, please. I'm a committed European and they've suffered enough.0
