Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Massive Spanner said:
Impossible to say. I'd like to think in the last 2.5 years enough leaver's would have swayed to remain based on all the negativity since then, but also it's likely they haven't and are more determined than ever to go.

Remain would probably win by a very narrow margin which wouldn't solve anything, that's the problem with a second ref.
Click to expand...
My feeling is that it would be a Tory landslide because of the first past the post system and the loss of Labour marginals that clearly voted leave.

Whether the realities of leaving has dented the leave vote is difficult to say. Many would vote the same through sheer bloody mindedness.
 
JPRouve said:
@Paul the Wolf, you remember the mention of pallets in this thread?:lol:
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the pallets.:lol:

Packing materials are extremely important.

It was amusing when our rivals shipped containers of material to the West Coast USA and were inspected by US Customs only to have them shipped back to where they came from at enormous costs because they didn't use the correct packing.
 
Mb194dc said:
Yes just revoke article 50, need some honesty from our politicians. This process is a shambles with no good options, they just need to admit that and kill it.

It leaves it open to be dealt with in the future, giving something to everyone as still hope for leave, also plenty of time to reflect on the whole process from 2016, examine why it's all gone horribly wrong, from the announcement of the 2016 vote to now and come up with sensible solutions.

Part of that need to be everyone realising that the 2016 arguments were made based on us negotiating with the EU to get what we wanted, not just a unilateral decision we could take by ourselves. No one considered how they would implement a leave vote and that seems to be the crux of the problem to me. Leaving us with the squalid farce May has cooked up that would not satisfy anyone, except May.

The idea a second referendum would be accepted and solve anything seems ludicrous to me. It will further division, I suspect leave would boycott it, wouldn't be surprised to see mass demonstrations and "blood" on the streets. Why not have a 3rd and 4th one, what about Scotland etc. Just a nightmare of an idea.
Click to expand...

In recent times the UK has had two what could be called Constitutional Referenda (only we don't have a written constitution to refer to for guidance) in one Parliament got its way, but in the other it didn't; in both referendums the losing sides wanted a re-run (what a surprise). You are right, a second referendum solves nothing whatever the outcome, even if the margin for whichever side wins was larger than before, the genie is out of the bottle, because the initial referendum question defined the terms.

Another solution has to be found, either cancel Art 50 (and thereby Brexit) or Leave without a deal (because no deal can be found that satisfies a majority, either way!).Its time we moved on, May has to decided but whatever she decides will continue to haunt the UK for decades, so we might as well get on with it, whatever that 'it' is!
 
Maticmaker said:
In recent times the UK has had two what could be called Constitutional Referenda (only we don't have a written constitution to refer to for guidance) in one Parliament got its way, but in the other it didn't; in both referendums the losing sides wanted a re-run (what a surprise). You are right, a second referendum solves nothing whatever the outcome, even if the margin for whichever side wins was larger than before, the genie is out of the bottle, because the initial referendum question defined the terms.

Another solution has to be found, either cancel Art 50 (and thereby Brexit) or Leave without a deal (because no deal can be found that satisfies a majority, either way!).Its time we moved on, May has to decided but whatever she decides will continue to haunt the UK for decades, so we might as well get on with it, whatever that 'it' is!
Click to expand...

How would a remain vote in a second referendum solve nothing? It solves everything and whether leave voters accepted it or not is irrelevant. UKIP types already bemoan every element of life in this country and the pensioners who carried leave are dying out anyway.

It might have future impact in causing a rise of the far right parties but the idea they'd be riots is ridiculous.
 
Mb194dc said:
Yes just revoke article 50...

The idea a second referendum would be accepted and solve anything seems ludicrous to me. It will further division, I suspect leave would boycott it, wouldn't be surprised to see mass demonstrations and "blood" on the streets. Why not have a 3rd and 4th one, what about Scotland etc. Just a nightmare of an idea.
Click to expand...
Those two statements just dont compute.
 
Honest John said:
My feeling is that it would be a Tory landslide because of the first past the post system and the loss of Labour marginals that clearly voted leave. Whether the realities of leaving has dented the leave vote is difficult to say. Many would vote the same through sheer bloody mindedness.
Click to expand...

Surely you'd have a block of new remain voters though? Sure most leave voters (but not all) will dig in and stick to their guns, but there'll be those that voted leave but have since changed their minds, and those that didn't vote before out of apathy (more likely remain), and those that are now eligible to vote (more likely remain).
 
Wibble said:
It won't happen but that woulld be great.

And then we never speak of this silliness again.
Click to expand...

Massive Spanner said:
If the government had any courage that's exactly what they'd do, cancel it. A vote like that should never have been put to the public in the first place, a vote that most people didn't understand. They elect politicians to deal with these issues, not to put them to their vote. The government should be cancelling this mess now when it's become apparent how much it's going to feck up the UK.

But they won't, because they only care about votes and themselves, so here we are, on the cliff edge.
Click to expand...

It was all just a bad dream. They lived happily ever after. THE END

*roll credits*
 
Smores said:
How would a remain vote in a second referendum solve nothing? It solves everything and whether leave voters accepted it or not is irrelevant. UKIP types already bemoan every element of life in this country and the pensioners who carried leave are dying out anyway.

It might have future impact in causing a rise of the far right parties but the idea they'd be riots is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, we really don't know what we are doing do we?
 
Maticmaker said:
In recent times the UK has had two what could be called Constitutional Referenda (only we don't have a written constitution to refer to for guidance) in one Parliament got its way, but in the other it didn't; in both referendums the losing sides wanted a re-run (what a surprise). You are right, a second referendum solves nothing whatever the outcome, even if the margin for whichever side wins was larger than before, the genie is out of the bottle, because the initial referendum question defined the terms.

Another solution has to be found, either cancel Art 50 (and thereby Brexit) or Leave without a deal (because no deal can be found that satisfies a majority, either way!).Its time we moved on, May has to decided but whatever she decides will continue to haunt the UK for decades, so we might as well get on with it, whatever that 'it' is!
Click to expand...

Referendums.

'Referenda' makes no sense in this context in Latin or English. If you're going to create pseudo-legal terms to try and give your point more gravitas at least get it right. :smirk:
 
Well at least we’ll get to see just how irrelevant Labour’s position actually is.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Referendums.

'Referenda' makes no sense in this context in Latin or English. If you're going to create pseudo-legal terms to try and give your point more gravitas at least get it right. :smirk:
Click to expand...

Thank you for the correction, it should have been referendums!

Nothing to do with gravitas as such, I was simply trying to make the point that not having a written constitution to aid Governments when framing Referendums, can lead to unintended consequences, interpreting the outcomes
 
NinjaFletch said:
Referendums.

'Referenda' makes no sense in this context in Latin or English. If you're going to create pseudo-legal terms to try and give your point more gravitas at least get it right. :smirk:
Click to expand...
You are also wrong about the Latin btw, 'referendum' (=to-be-referred-thing) is the gerundive of 'referre' and 'referenda' is the correct plural form.
 
Sassy Colin said:
Sorry, but it is the plural of referendum.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ref...da&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...
horsechoker said:
It's correct though, I checked Cambridge dictionary and Merriam Webster both of which say referendums or referenda can be used.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/referendum
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's an issue of dictionaries being descriptive of usage rather than prescriptive.

It's a Latin gerundive (and can't be used as a noun). In Latin 'referenda' would mean 'things (plural) to be decided'.

Its use in English is entirely a construct of the English language, so would get a standard plural s ending. It's a nonsense to give it a plural 'a' ending, as bad as 'irregardless' to mean 'regardless' and 'literally' to mean 'not literally' (both of which you will also find in the dictionary), and on a par with words like octopus being pluralised 'octopi' because people incorrectly assume it's a Latin second declension.
 
ctp said:
You are also wrong about the Latin btw, 'referendum' (=to-be-referred-thing) is the gerundive of 'referre' and 'referenda' is the correct plural form.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. See above. 'referenda' is the plural form of the gerundive, but it doesn't mean 'two referendums' it means 'things (plural) to be brought'.
 
Last edited:
afrocentricity said:
Surely you'd have a block of new remain voters though? Sure most leave voters (but not all) will dig in and stick to their guns, but there'll be those that voted leave but have since changed their minds, and those that didn't vote before out of apathy (more likely remain), and those that are now eligible to vote (more likely remain).
Click to expand...
The current polling on Leave or Remain has Remain in front. But 78% of the Labour marginal seats were heavily in favour of Leave. In a GE (which isn't PR), Labour's new stance could see those seats lost to the Tories.
 
Honest John said:
The current polling on Leave or Remain has Remain in front. But 78% of the Labour marginal seats were heavily in favour of Leave. In a GE (which isn't PR), Labour's new stance could see those seats lost to the Tories.
Click to expand...

I think you are right, most traditional Labour voters that I know (not scientific I realise) wouldn't vote labour again, ever... almost regardless of the official stance on Brexit. Its one reason I suspect Corbyn has decided to swap horses on the second referendum in order to cut his losses and hope for a swing to labour in remain voters in the South .

If the Labour parties private polling in these once heavily labour inclined seats is anything like my personal experience, they know they will definitely lose seats , maybe not all but enough, in their once famous strongholds in the North.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Ah yes, the pallets.:lol:

Packing materials are extremely important.

It was amusing when our rivals shipped containers of material to the West Coast USA and were inspected by US Customs only to have them shipped back to where they came from at enormous costs because they didn't use the correct packing.
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken it's a bad mistake to make because customs will put you in a list of importers to check closely.
 
Honest John said:
Do you think that saying you would support an amendment for a 2nd ref is accepting the referendum result?
Click to expand...

The position was and still is to try and get a labour brexit deal agreed first and then only if that couldn't be achieved to put it back to the people. That hasn't changed, there's no u-turn.

Labour have never taken a position that no-deal is respecting the result.

Maticmaker said:
Oh dear, we really don't know what we are doing do we?
Click to expand...

Useful, I'll assume you are unable to answer the simple question.
 
JPRouve said:
If I'm not mistaken it's a bad mistake to make because customs will put you in a list of importers to check closely.
Click to expand...

Yes they will check every container for a while and charge for the inspection. If a shipper or importer gets on that list it will cost them a fortune. Continual infringements would lead to a ban.
 
Smores said:
The position was and still is to try and get a labour brexit deal agreed first and then only if that couldn't be achieved to put it back to the people. That hasn't changed, there's no u-turn.

Labour have never taken a position that no-deal is respecting the result.
Click to expand...

But would you not say that a 2nd ref with remain as an option is disrespecting it?

That's how it will play in the marginals.

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

Nothing here about a 2nd referendum with remain on the paper.
 
Farage suggests leavers should boycott any referendum offering choice between May's deal and remain

On Sky’s All Out Politics Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, said that the government did ever end up offering a referendum with a choice between remain and Theresa May’s deal (as Labour is proposing – see 9.35am), he would abstain. He said:

I tell you what I do resist - the very idea, that it appears Emily Thornberry [the shadow foreign secretary] is putting forward, that the referendum would be between remain and Mrs May’s deal, which is Brexit in name only. I have to tell you, in those circumstances, I would not campaign and I would not vote. Because it would not offer me Brexit.

When it would put to him that this would suit his opponents, Farage went on to suggest that leavers should organise a mass abstention, in the hope of delegitimising the result. “You have to have a certain level of turnout for any referendum to be valid,” he said.

Actually, that is not true. In most referendums in the UK there has been no turnout threshold, although, as Farage pointed out, in the 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution, there was a turnout threshold saying that the vote would only be valid if 40% of all registered voters, as well as a majority, voted yes. This was widely seen as a wrecking amendment and, although there was a narrow majority for devolution, the result was invalid because the turnout was not high enough.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b00307e95aa9d5#block-5c750c0ae4b00307e95aa9d5
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:

Agree with this or not?
Click to expand...


I reckon she loses and extends the process. She just won't admit to taking no deal off the table publically because it takes away whatever little leverage she has in negotiations right now.
 
VP89 said:
I reckon she loses and extends the process. She just won't admit to taking no deal off the table publically because it takes away whatever little leverage she has in negotiations right now.
Click to expand...

Call me cynical but I don’t think no deal is leverage any more at this point.
 
The pound is currently the strongest it's been in ages, 1.16 to the Euro.

Surely even leavers would prefer we remain as we were than take May's deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.