Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I dunno, it's a nice idea in principle but I'd argue it can end up being overly conservative in how it can prohibit necessary changes to society that lack just enough support to pass through. If, say, 60% of the country want something to happen but can't reach a two-thirds threshold then you're in a situation where the majority of the country clearly want something to be implemented, and will continue pushing for it to happen until it does. The issue doesn't really go away (if it's important) but just finds itself being continually contested instead. Imagine if, for example, a two thirds threshold had been there in 2016 and Leave had won with 58%. Farage and co would've been outraged and wouldn't have stopped going on about it.
For me the problem with the EU ref was that the question itself was so ill-defined as to what Brexit would mean, allowing people to project their own perceptions onto the vote. The question should have specifically been either to Leave but remain in the SM/CU, or leave everything. The problem is the Leave side would've never opted for that because they know it would've failed: the latter would've been too minimal to campaign strongly on, while the latter would've been rejected as being too radical.
Yeah, really.
There sure was Euroscepticism, but it was never a majority sentiment, a ground swell. Leave winning was, to most, unexpected. If that was really voter movement for the referendum, then there is surely even more voter movement for a second referendum?
To be fair, I would expect her to mean that we’re effectively still in the EU but with no seat at the table.
I personally agree... I just think some Calling for a second referendum don't realise how divisive it would be... How hard it would be to structure... how unusual it would be not to enact the first referendum and mostly just how close it would probably be... Then what round 3?
But both are polling at around 40%. If people actually care about staying in the EU or changing both parties stances than there's this awful little liberal party that people can vote for. But no one is.
Your right but there's nothing particular left wing about the EU at all, the left isn't going to get be hide something like those awful god EU marches. So there's simply isn't the energy for changing people minds on EU membership as there was with the fight against austerity(Your pretty much asking the left to actively campaign to join a club that will completely feck you over once your in government.)
UKIP won about 1 million votes in the European election and more important the tories won a election with manifesto that included a referendum on EU membership.
I think people repeatedly voting for parties that either advocate Brexit or promise the opportunity for Brexit is a fair sign of voter movement, a sign validated by Leave then actually winning the popular vote when it came around. I mean people could have voted for something else at any point but they didn't.
As for a Leave win being unexpected, it shouldn't have been that unexpected given that polling prior to the vote showed that there was a very real possibility of that outcome happening. If people were deeply surprised it was because they misread the situation.
There may well be a similar sentiment for reversing the vote. Unfortunately no major party seems keen to give a re-vote the platform that the Tories gave to Brexit.
I agree with your worries tbf. I just think something so deliberately polarising as a referendum, on something so fundamental to a country as how it functions legally, politically and economically, is always going to lead to the kind of ructions and ridiculousness that we have now. We're 6 months from leaving and it gets worse by the week.
I realise you're likely thinking of Scotland and that it would make independence that much harder, and it's an interesting case given the SNP are literally a party founded upon the idea and had won parliamentary elections multiple times before the vote. It's tough to strike a balance, but it just seems to me that the current way of doing it is insane
It would also doom any chances of electoral reform here, but let's be honest, that's not happening anyway.UKIP winning a million votes isn't a voter movement. I don't think Tories won in 2015 because they had the referendum in the manifesto.
It's because of attitudes like yours that forced idiots to vote idiotically.
If only you were nice then they would have changed their minds and increased their reasoning faculties.
No responsibility at all should be placed upon the idiots themselves. It's all your fault.
MEP elections had shockingly low turnout though didn’t they? The eurospectics were mainly the only ones who cared enough to vote, because we did such a shit job of explaining to people what the EU actually does for us.
According to Brexiters the UK never have had any representation in the EU, it's all run by Bureaucrats, not the time to suddenly realise they did.
So a anti eu party winning seats and a election wining manifesto that included a eu referendum isn't movement ?
Ken’s right. Barely anyone voted in the MEP elections besides those with a vested interest in Europe i.e. UKIP voters.
I have never voted in a European election and don’t recall ever even knowing when a vote happened.
I have never voted in a European election and don’t recall ever even knowing when a vote happened.
It is, but it was fuelled by both Labour and the Tories using the EU as a punching bag for everything, especially blaming it for voters concerns about immigration and both parties failure to take sensible and legal measures which other EU states did.
No. Not in my view. If your argument is there was a movement for a Brexit referendum, then there is also a movement for a second referendum, if not more so.
I think Dorries might be the least inteligebin of the bunch.
Isn't she the one who writes fiction?
Yes, both in and out of work:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/oct/21/nadine-dorries-mp-blog-70-fiction
Why would it be hard to structure? Two part question, part one ‘Do you want to leave the EU or remain?’ part two ‘If Leave do want to leave with May’s deal or leave with no deal’. Simple.
Why would it be that and not for example
3 picks... Leave no deal leave with Mays deal or remain
Why in your option do only those that pick to leave get to pick the nature of any deal
Why wouldn't it be a we decided to leave so pick if we leave with Mays deal or no deal and that's the only option
Why not a direct rerun of the previous question
Why not Mays deal or remain
You might think it's simple but I'm sureany would disagree
Av system with multiple options for example
I believe it won't happen anyway but your simple idea instantly throws up the why do only leavers get a say on deal / no deal?
Why not a second option is remain pursue reforms or not?
It's not simple and with the timescales involved I simply don't see it happening
Personally I'd love it to and I'd vote reminder but can't see it
If there was one I wouldn't put it past may to have 3 options
1 leave with no deal
2 leave with Mays deal
3 remain
But you have to put two X.... The option with the most wins .... If you only put one vote it's discounted... (Basically trying to ensure her option wins)
He's been saying that for weeks, in fact that is all he's been saying. It doesn't matter what the question, that's all he says.
I’m not sure I understand - if you say there is nothing wrong with a second vote (and I am not advocating reversing Brexit without such a vote), then why is it so “serious”? The vote was incredibly close first time around (despite May initially acting like it was 80:20) and material new facts have emerged (or at least can no longer be denied), principally the fact that tbe EU is not going to give the UK a fantastic, cake and eat it deal. Therefore, as in every other area of life when circumstances change, the right course is to reassess whether we still want to proceed on that basis, knowing that the alternatives are not a bucaneering Britannia unchained but either chaos or an inferior version of the status quo.
In fact, he doesn't really want a General Election, he just wants the Torys to 'stand aside'. What ever that means.
Another Brexiter who seems to have more knowledge of what people voted for than everyone else.
Maybe you are right but why would there be movement by Leavers, they already have the decision they were after (whether the deal is what they want is clearly another matter)? I think the country is still very much divided.
I wish the referendum never happened, hearing the word Brexit pretty much everyday for 2 years has become unbearable.
Great post. Have found Sweet Square’s recent posts in this thread to be particularly infuriating.
You’re right that the second part should have just been ‘if the vote is leave, would you prefer May’s deal or no deal’. As for all the ‘why nots’ you posed, I’m just interested in the simplest most effective answer. You could quibble about variations until the cows come home, but the one I suggested covers the bases in a way that would be fair to both sides. You certainly can’t have a 3 answer question like the one you suggested because it would be a flagrant attempt to rig the vote for Remain.
There's going to what 70-80 (ERG + Boris' posse?) Tory votes against the deal? So they'll need somewhere in the region of 70 votes from opposition parties to pass the vote, maybe less if the LDs keep up their form and forget to vote.
Yep, it's another version of what I'm calling 'Schrödinger's Corbyn' where his incompetence is passed off as a breath of fresh air because he's 'genuine' and 'not a normal politician' when he's scoring own goals like changing his story about why he was laying a wreath, but also where he's a machiavellian, political savvy schemer who isn't interjecting into the Brexit debate because he has a cunning plan.
Surely they can’t get that many. Labour can’t capitulate that hard without tying themselves to the consequences.
You'd think so. The majority of Labour Brexil rebels are full on remainers and would rather a second referendum.
Yeah I can’t think of more than about half a dozen like Field, Mann and Hoey who might go along with it.
They're no dealers anyway, it's unlikely they'll vote for the deal. The government needs to turn remainer opposition MPs to dealers. The SNP are a no because they want the Scottish parliament to get a say. Lib Dems want a second referendum. And Labour wants another general election. It's really hard to see where the votes come from unless the ERG capitulates after they lose the vote of no confidence against May.
These figures sound about right to me
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...an-may-get-her-brexit-deal-through-parliament
She's probably fecked
Also fair play to Gina miller
Without her this bill would (probably) simply have been passed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Miller
Without her this bill would (probably) simply have been passed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Miller
My assumption is that a version of May’s deal ultimately passes.
The first vote will obviously fail. After that, either the EU gives May something that she can take home/ makes the deal optically easier to swallow for the Brexiteers, or they refuse to negotiate, and May’s negotiating position in the commons becomes stronger as the countdown to no-deal gets ever closer. The latter seems more likely, though completely terrifying.
I'm happy to believe you, he's been so low profile I'm not sure exactly when Mcdonnell u-turned, I was just updating sun, as he'd missed it altogether.
Last edited:
No small irony that Brexiteers are planning on using a vote that they bitterly whinged and moaned about mind.