Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Smores said:
The distinction has been a matter of debate all day and it's been a matter of press coverage all day, you're obviously looking in the wrong places.
Click to expand...
They may have debated it but they don’t seem to understand it. Why is a Norway++ arrangement or so-call CM 2 options being postulated as topics for indicative voting? First we have to decide how we leave. Either of those options will take time to set up. The EU have said that whatever we want as a trading relationship we have to actually leave the bloc before negotiations can start. So what on earth do our intrepid Parliamentarians envisage to be the route to whatever it is we wind up with? There has to first be a WA or we crash out. Then we negotiate Norway or whatever.

Convoluted arguments. Cart before horse.
 
Siorac said:
There were no nation states at that time. None. At least not in the way that term is usually defined.

If you use a VERY loose definition (a united country where most people speak the same language) then yeah, sure. But that's not how it's usually defined, at least on the continent.
Click to expand...

You are so going to show yourself up if you keep on with this crap.

Switzerland country or not?
 
NinjaFletch said:
You're talking about actual Danish occupation. The Danelaw refers to the bit of the country which had (as it would suggest) a different law code (although there is a great deal of dispute how different it looked). Those terms continue to be of relevance through to the late eleventh century (for example, Yorkshire Domesday has 'wapentakes' where as the south has Hundreds). I probably could have said Danelaw counties if I wasn't being lazy though.
Click to expand...

No, that's not correct.

The Danelaw defined the part of the country which came under and paid taxes to the Danish rulers based mainly in York. The whole issue is that for the first time that part of England (Yorkshire and the North east ) which had been controlled by the Danes came under a single Anglo-Saxon ruler while Athelstan was king as did East Anglia. The kingdoms around it were forced into fealty despite their attempt to stop it at Brunanburh . Which is why it is called England.

Later it was taken back under Danish control after Athelstan died and became, as the whole of England was, part of the North Sea empire.
 
711 said:
Well yeah, the major European states were cobbled together in recent times by England's standard. Can't help that I'm afraid :)
Click to expand...
Ehhh not what mean. The Kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000 but it wasn't a nation state.

But as I already got asked whether Switzerland was a country (???), I feel like it's a bit pointless to keep trying to get the distinction understood here.
 
Dante said:
#thuglife

Bercow is great!
Click to expand...

I dunno, he's funny and undoubtedly charismatic, but also seems a bit like the sort of up-his-own-arse comedy figure who's enjoying this more than he should, and who's a part of why parliament is in such a fecking state to the extent it currently is. Worth bearing in mind he's had a whole host of bullying allegations in the past to the point where one former employee was apparently diagnosed with PTSD after she stopped working for him. So, yeah, good for a spectacle. But also probably a cnut, if I'm being cynical.
 
Cheesy said:
I dunno, he's funny and undoubtedly charismatic, but also seems a bit like the sort of up-his-own-arse comedy figure who's enjoying this more than he should, and who's a part of why parliament is in such a fecking state to the extent it currently is. Worth bearing in mind he's had a whole host of bullying allegations in the past to the point where one former employee was apparently diagnosed with PTSD after she stopped working for him. So, yeah, good for a spectacle. But also probably a cnut, if I'm being cynical.
Click to expand...
To borrow from @Eboue, it's a bit of the "Welcome to the resistance" nonsense with Bercow.

He's clearly a cnut or at least suspicious given his history but him winding up the Tories is amusing.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
No, that's not correct.

The Danelaw defined the part of the country which came under and paid taxes to the Danish rulers based mainly in York. The whole issue is that for the first time that part of England (Yorkshire and the North east ) which had been controlled by the Danes came under a single Anglo-Saxon ruler while Athelstan was king as did East Anglia. The kingdoms around it were forced into fealty despite their attempt to stop it at Brunanburh . Which is why it is called England.

Later it was taken back under Danish control after Athelstan died and became, as the whole of England was, part of the North Sea empire.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you just aren't right. I think you've half remembered something from school. I can point you towards some reading if you'd like.
 
It never ends does it? if I thought that this latest development changed anything I'd be up for it, but it doesnt change the fundamentals as far as i can tell. There isnt a majority in the house for any one position, polling suggests a General Election would return the same Government with the same lack of majority, and Labour and the Tories are too polarised to sit down and work together. So its still deadlock. My guess for the most likely outcome at this point would be a No Deal by default.
 
EwanI Ted said:
It never ends does it? if I thought that this latest development changed anything I'd be up for it, but it doesnt change the fundamentals as far as i can tell. There isnt a majority in the house for any one position, polling suggests a General Election would return the same Government with the same lack of majority, and Labour and the Tories are too polarised to sit down and work together. So its still deadlock. My guess for the most likely outcome at this point would be a No Deal by default.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough the only position there is a majority for is “No No-Deal”.
 
Tomorrow will be interesting.

Fully expect to see May ignore whatever the House deems the best way forward, mind.
 
esmufc07 said:
Tomorrow will be interesting.

Fully expect to see May ignore whatever the House deems the best way forward, mind.
Click to expand...

100%.

Bercow already addressed this specifically in a point of order. He said that while it’s a legitimate concern, they must vote with absolute belief, conviction and respect for the traditions of the house and if it comes to that point then they will have to address it.

I wondered if that was hinting at the possibility of another motion of contempt against May.
 
esmufc07 said:
Click to expand...

The hypothesis of a "structural break" is interesting. Anna Soubry said the same thing last night (in a very passionate speech) - when the Conservatives lost their majority, that should have been the point at which the referendum result also lost its legitimacy.
 
I am at a complete loss as to what's happened the last week or so with regards to MPs being able to get rid of the PM when we're at this stage of the proceedings, the speaker using 400odd year old laws to do what he wants.
 
Honest John said:
I am seriously starting to believe that very few of this lot actually understand the difference between the WA and the future relationship. When I watch parliament the two are conflated all the time, especially by Corbyn who starts a sentence by saying that May’s deal is a disaster then finishes it by offering a CU/SM as an alternative - which is clearly a trade arrangement.
Click to expand...

I think it's clear most of them have no idea what they are doing and this has been evident for a long time.
Most of the options have already been voted down so what are they going to vote for on Wednesday.

What I find so ridiculous is that they won't vote for the WA because it will tie them to the EU but other than no deal all the other options tie them to the EU anyway.

And this is before the very slender chance that parliament would have a majority for any of the options anyway and that's before the EU agree.
 
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
 
There's a little clique which happens to - increasingly tenuously - hold power, and can't understand why dissenters just won't do what they're told. Just like when the arrogant and vindictive Iain Duncan Smith was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, May & company show utter disregard for the law and anyone who thwarts them. They're a disgrace; if their party colleagues weren't so gutless, we'd be free of their incompetence, self-interest and boneheaded self-righteousness.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...

I would fully expect Farage and his Brexit party to campaign for another referendum, and they are entitled to do so.

But now everyone knows what leaving actually is and what it entails they should be entitled to a final vote to determine whether it truly is the 'will of the British people' to leave the EU at any cost.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...
There may be calls for anything. However, if the UK remains now after a 2nd referendum , neither Tory nor Labour will go forward with yet another one for the foreseeable future. The only way for that to happen is if something like UKIP wins a majority.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...

Who gives a feck, we'll still be in the EU and that's the main thing.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...

According to The Guardian at least even when MPs talk about a second referendum they don't mean a re-run of the previous Brexit/no-Brexit one:

"A second referendum between leaving and staying in the EU – essentially a replay of the 2016 vote – would be a separate option but nobody in parliament is seriously calling for that. Instead, a referendum could be attached as a condition of approval of one of the other options above. Or there could be a three-choice referendum, between a range of the above options, although three-way referenda are unusual internationally."

So it's unlikely a second referendum would directly overrule the previous one, I think.
 
Penna said:
The hypothesis of a "structural break" is interesting. Anna Soubry said the same thing last night (in a very passionate speech) - when the Conservatives lost their majority, that should have been the point at which the referendum result also lost its legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Why though? I don't really understand the logic behind that. In theory, the referendum had nothing to do with party politics and party manifestos.

Now I do know that in practice it had everything to do with party politics but its legitimacy should have little to do with General Elections - unless a party that campaigned for Remain gained majority. Then I would understand the logic but that didn't happen because neither Labour nor Conservatives were pro-Remain in the campaign (as far as I'm aware) and what's more, the Tories still have a relative majority.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...
Not a hope in hell of any Government offering another referendum after this shit show.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
If you somehow hold a second referendum which results in a Remain majority and overrules the previous one, what's to say there won't be calls for a third referendum a few years down the line to overrule the second one? Surely that's not a viable option?
Click to expand...
Almost like ... Elections every four years?
 
I actually think that establishing a third referendum four years after the second would be a good way to go unless the second referendum is also leave in which case there is no point.

The brexiteers who would moan about the 'election' being stolen can campaign for another four years to make sure everyone gets it right the third time and the population can soak in another four years of EU and see how they feel about it now that they have learned that you can't actually have your cake and eat it too.

And winning a second referendum where there has been plenty of time for reflection and seeing more clearly what's at stake ought to be a quite definitive stance for the population at large.
 
esmufc07 said:
I would fully expect Farage and his Brexit party to campaign for another referendum, and they are entitled to do so.

But now everyone knows what leaving actually is and what it entails they should be entitled to a final vote to determine whether it truly is the 'will of the British people' to leave the EU at any cost.
Click to expand...

Do they? I'm genuinely asking, since as an outsider I do not know much beyond the online articles I read or videos I watch. I was under the impression that even now there are some MPs who still don't understand or don't care what Leave truly entails. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, off the top of my head (with the admittedly limited knowledge I have of them).

There will never be a point when the electorate is completely informed, in my opinion. It is a time-based learning curve - five tears down the line into a hypothetical Remain scenario, you could argue that the UK 'has learned from its mistakes, has understood what it needs to do differently, is more informed than ever, and is now ready to tackle a strong WA that puts country first'.

It'll be like a contract renewal scenario where the player threatens to leave every time the contract is running down - sometimes the club can offer you a better deal and sometimes it'll be better to just leave.
 
Honest John said:
They may have debated it but they don’t seem to understand it. Why is a Norway++ arrangement or so-call CM 2 options being postulated as topics for indicative voting? First we have to decide how we leave. Either of those options will take time to set up. The EU have said that whatever we want as a trading relationship we have to actually leave the bloc before negotiations can start. So what on earth do our intrepid Parliamentarians envisage to be the route to whatever it is we wind up with? There has to first be a WA or we crash out. Then we negotiate Norway or whatever.

Convoluted arguments. Cart before horse.
Click to expand...

They understand all this perfectly it's just the two documents have to be agreed together as a package according to the EU (happy to be corrected). Our government wouldn't and won't seperate these as terms of debate because they don't want an alternative discussed hence we have mixed discussions where different people are arguing in different aspects of the package.

The WA agreement itself would pass parlaiment there isn't really any dispute on that.
 
B20 said:
Almost like ... Elections every four years?
Click to expand...

In fairness, referendums aren't designed to be held repeatedly every four years in the way general elections are. I'm very sure the EU have zero interest in the uncertainty that would come from the UK repeatedly weighing up whether to leave or not, nor do the various businesses currently operating in the UK. Whereas general elections every few years by their nature don't carry the same level of potential long-term disruption.

If there was another referendum that would realistically be it for quite a long while.
 
Smores said:
They understand all this perfectly it's just the two documents have to be agreed together as a package according to the EU (happy to be corrected). Our government wouldn't and won't seperate these as terms of debate because they don't want an alternative discussed hence we have mixed discussions where different people are arguing in different aspects of the package.

The WA agreement itself would pass parlaiment there isn't really any dispute on that.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that parliament will agree to being in the Customs Union and not be able to do their own trade deals?
 
The Firestarter said:
There may be calls for anything. However, if the UK remains now after a 2nd referendum , neither Tory nor Labour will go forward with yet another one for the foreseeable future. The only way for that to happen is if something like UKIP wins a majority.
Click to expand...

I do not know enough of UK politics to understand why you think so. I was thinking of it purely from a matter of principle and precedent. I might be quite wrong, of course.

Sassy Colin said:
Who gives a feck, we'll still be in the EU and that's the main thing.
Click to expand...

For now, yes. What about 5 years later when the Leave campaigns start again? How long will the EU tolerate a wantaway player who causes so much drama? What precedent does it set for the other members?

sullydnl said:
According to The Guardian at least even when MPs talk about a second referendum they don't mean a re-run of the previous Brexit/no-Brexit one:

"A second referendum between leaving and staying in the EU – essentially a replay of the 2016 vote – would be a separate option but nobody in parliament is seriously calling for that. Instead, a referendum could be attached as a condition of approval of one of the other options above. Or there could be a three-choice referendum, between a range of the above options, although three-way referenda are unusual internationally."

So it's unlikely a second referendum would directly overrule the previous one, I think.
Click to expand...

Ah, this would make a lot of sense. A repeat will potentially set up a loop, but a follow up question will settle things down for a good while.

B20 said:
Almost like ... Elections every four years?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
They should vote to stay in the single market. It is the only solution that makes any sense. Was it worth all the fuss? No, not at all, but then it never was.

I think the 'we have to leave first, then negotiate the relationship' is only because of the red lines. If we say we want to stay in the single market, the whole act of withdrawal is simple and there is no complex relationship to work out.
 
Gandalf Greyhame said:
Do they? I'm genuinely asking, since as an outsider I do not know much beyond the online articles I read or videos I watch. I was under the impression that even now there are some MPs who still don't understand or don't care what Leave truly entails. Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, off the top of my head (with the admittedly limited knowledge I have of them).

There will never be a point when the electorate is completely informed, in my opinion. It is a time-based learning curve - five tears down the line into a hypothetical Remain scenario, you could argue that the UK 'has learned from its mistakes, has understood what it needs to do differently, is more informed than ever, and is now ready to tackle a strong WA that puts country first'.

It'll be like a contract renewal scenario where the player threatens to leave every time the contract is running down - sometimes the club can offer you a better deal and sometimes it'll be better to just leave.
Click to expand...

I think it's universally accepted that everyone now has a much clearer picture of the options and impacts of leaving the EU. That alone gives value to another referendum and that's without going into the legitimacy of the previous one.

As for a future referendum that will be decided by voters in general elections to come but they'd be no more unicorns. After the inevitable public enquiry i think the process itself will be corrected so we avoid this type of shitshow.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
So you are saying that parliament will agree to being in the Customs Union and not be able to do their own trade deals?
Click to expand...

We'll find out surely but i think It'll be the price they're willing to accept to get brexit through.

And yes i know it's pointless
 
You must log in or register to reply here.