Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Two years & the mother of all parliaments still can’t move forward. Shining example we are.

This should be pretty simple.

Parliament has a pro-EU majority, save for the 100+ Tory eurosceptics and a handful of other MPs.

However, as May has said, 80% of the electorate voted for parties that will honour the referendum result. So, Brexit in all likelihood is going to happen. It should happen.

A referendum though that was a simple yes or no to EU membership.

So the best option is clearly a soft (aka virtually pointless) Brexit that gets though parliament and also honours the referendum result.

If leavers still aren’t happy with a soft brexit, go & vote UKIP again.

The Tory eurosceptics should bite the bullet & feck off to UKIP. If they have the balls to that is.

This is one issue, but an issue that has caused the Tory party major problems for yonks. However, this is also the Tory Party that took us into Europe originally without a referendum!
 
Wibble said:
That makes no sense. There is no better deal available, lurching out with no deal would be an utter disaster and not what most leave voters thought they voted for and even in the unlikely event we get the same result it would be a vote for a specific exit - we would know the exact consequences of each option.

Sound very democratic to me.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to me but go ahead and have as many referendums until you get the right answer whatever that is.
 
Revan said:
They actually said that they will give a better deal if UK allows freedom of movement.

British people who want a much better deal than Norway while UK doesn't allow freedom of movement are living in a parallel universe. It ain't gonna happen. It doesn't matter that Britain Empire was the biggest empire ever and the sun never set on British Empire, it ain't gonna happen. The moment they realize it, the better for them.

At this moment, EU holds all the cards, and actually they have given a more than generous deal to UK. UK should stop bitching, either accept it, do hard Brexit or revoke Article 50.
Click to expand...

Well if it was so generous why was it rejected by such a massive margin.
 
Buster15 said:
It makes perfect sense to me but go ahead and have as many referendums until you get the right answer whatever that is.
Click to expand...

You are totally avoiding the point.

The original referendum was a clusterfeck of misinformation and lies. The subsequent debacle has fully demonstrated this and has resulted in zero palatable options and governmental gridlock. The sensible and possibly only way out is to go back to the people to see if they still want to leave and if so on what terms.
 
LuisNaniencia said:
Which begs the question for me, why are leave voters so unhappy with May's deal?

I can understand remain voters not liking the deal, but didn't her deal offer,

  • "Control" of our borders
  • No payments to the EU
  • No obligation to follow EU law
Aren't these the main points Leave voters wanted?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't mean that, they're still paying for the transition and follow EU laws whilst still in the SM and the borders stay the same.
 
Stanley Road said:
Saw 'call me dave' interviewed on the news. Said he didnt regret his decision to call ref, then ran off. Seem familiar?
Click to expand...

I hope that he is struggling to sleep at night and if he is then good job.
He has done more damage and caused more chaos than any other PM.
 
Buster15 said:
Well if it was so generous why was it rejected by such a massive margin.
Click to expand...

Because Brexitiers hate the backstop (feck NI Catholics) and others either don't want to piss their constituents off (minor) or don"t want to leave at all. Basically May's deal tried to please everyone and pleased nobody.
 
Wibble said:
You are totally avoiding the point.

The original referendum was a clusterfeck of misinformation and lies. The subsequent debacle has fully demonstrated this and has resulted in zero palatable options and governmental gridlock. The sensible and possibly only way out is to go back to the people to see if they still want to leave and if so on what terms.
Click to expand...

Am I really.
If you recall we were told by Cameron that this was a once in a lifetime vote.
Well I am still alive.

There is still time to do the thingthat should have been done in the first place and get cross party consensus.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Just name one, they may have exaggerated things but that is just predictions, I mean actual irrefutable facts.
Click to expand...

I guess in the same way people point to the 'additional £350m a week for the NHS' being a lie, others can point to the 'up to 820,000 jobs lost within two years of the vote' being a lie too.
 
Buster15 said:
Project fear. So many that they were even given a name.
Click to expand...

Project fear is a prediction. Think Osborne said something about emergency budget and Cameron said something about WW3 and plagues of locusts or something like that.

The real economic crisis will only happen if the Uk drops off the cliff at the end of March or whenever.

I'm talking about things like Leave said they had no control over immigrants, their borders , how much they paid to the EU, Turkey were about to join the EU etc etc which were all blatant lies. They were provably wrong .
 
Jacko21 said:
I guess in the same way people point to the 'additional £350m a week for the NHS' being a lie, others can point to the 'up to 820,000 jobs lost within two years of the vote' being a lie too.
Click to expand...

That was a Treasury impact assessment for the worst case of Brexit (not the vote). It was based on no deal and hardly looks like a lie to me.
 
Jacko21 said:
I guess in the same way people point to the 'additional £350m a week for the NHS' being a lie, others can point to the 'up to 820,000 jobs lost within two years of the vote' being a lie too.
Click to expand...

But they didn't pay £350m net to the EU, I didn't mean what they were going to do with the money. 820000 was a prediction, that was rubbish, the UK are still even now in the EU and the markets are still waiting to see which way they are going to jump.
 
Jacko21 said:
I guess in the same way people point to the 'additional £350m a week for the NHS' being a lie, others can point to the 'up to 820,000 jobs lost within two years of the vote' being a lie too.
Click to expand...
One was a lie (that they admitted the next day after the referendum), the other a projection, which has turned to be wrong.

There is still time for it though.
 
Buster15 said:
Am I really.
If you recall we were told by Cameron that this was a once in a lifetime vote.
Well I am still alive.

There is still time to do the thingthat should have been done in the first place and get cross party consensus.
Click to expand...

Who give a toss about a soundbite from an idiot like Cameron? The idiot that got us into this mess. No more meaningful than 1000 other idiotic soundbites.

And there isn't time as a) there is no time and b) there is no concensus.
 
Buster15 said:
Project fear. So many that they were even given a name.
Click to expand...

We should be afraid. Leave with a deal will be an economic and social disaster but leaving without a deal will be worse by an order of magnitude.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
That was a Treasury impact assessment for the worst case of Brexit (not the vote). It was based on no deal and hardly looks like a lie to me.
Click to expand...

"This paper focuses on the immediate impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow"...

It then proceeded to state that at least 500,000 jobs would be lost and GDP would be 3.6% smaller within those two years.
 
A non binding referendum between “No deal” and “No Brexit” would be sensible. With the acknowledgement that parliament is still to try to get a satisfactory deal, but that they understand what the “default position” should be if an acceptable deal is not agreed upon.
 
May not budging on no deal & seemingly reluctant to ask to extend article 50:

Following her meeting on Thursday, Green MP Caroline Lucas said the PM refused to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

"I repeatedly urged her again and again to take 'no deal' off the table because I think it completely skews the talks because you know that cliff edge is there," she said.

Mrs May was also resisting the option of extending Article 50, Ms Lucas said.
 
Walrus said:
A non binding referendum between “No deal” and “No Brexit” would be sensible. With the acknowledgement that parliament is still to try to get a satisfactory deal, but that they understand what the “default position” should be if an acceptable deal is not agreed upon.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle, though I would be very afraid going into that referendum.

But I guess it would be the ultimate test of democracy. Does democracy give people the right to do something really, really stupid? Or should it only be given the right to choose between sensible options? How much should an electorate be protected from its own ignorance or self destructiveness?
 
Walrus said:
A non binding referendum between “No deal” and “No Brexit” would be sensible. With the acknowledgement that parliament is still to try to get a satisfactory deal, but that they understand what the “default position” should be if an acceptable deal is not agreed upon.
Click to expand...
Actually, that might be the best solution (not the stupid one I have yesterday).

Set the referendum between "no deal" and "no Brexit".

Let May continue discuss with EU for the remaining two months. At the end of it, she sets another vote in the parliament where the parliament decides if they accept May's deal (which might be better than what they have now, or not). If the parliament decides to accept it, then soft Brexit. Otherwise, the result of the referendum.

Or do the voting first, and the referendum later (something like the voting at end of February), and the referendum at end of March (while there is still time to revoke A50). Of course, if the parliament accepts May's deal, no reason for referendum.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
May not budging on no deal & seemingly reluctant to ask to extend article 50:

Following her meeting on Thursday, Green MP Caroline Lucas said the PM refused to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

"I repeatedly urged her again and again to take 'no deal' off the table because I think it completely skews the talks because you know that cliff edge is there," she said.

Mrs May was also resisting the option of extending Article 50, Ms Lucas said.
Click to expand...

So no change then. Take my deal or we lurch out hard Brexit style. May seems to be missing the fundamental nature of a consultation and negotiation.
 
Buster15 said:
Am I really.
If you recall we were told by Cameron that this was a once in a lifetime vote.
Well I am still alive.

There is still time to do the thingthat should have been done in the first place and get cross party consensus.
Click to expand...

Yeah whose lifetime though?

Cameron didn't have the power to block successive Prime Ministers from calling another referendum.

It was a meaningless statement.
 
Strachans Cigar said:
May not budging on no deal & seemingly reluctant to ask to extend article 50:

Following her meeting on Thursday, Green MP Caroline Lucas said the PM refused to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

"I repeatedly urged her again and again to take 'no deal' off the table because I think it completely skews the talks because you know that cliff edge is there," she said.

Mrs May was also resisting the option of extending Article 50, Ms Lucas said.
Click to expand...

The problem with ruling out no deal, is it leaves you no leverage in negotiation.

NOBODY wants no deal, but you have to at least be convincing that you are prepared to go down that road.

The fact that people, supposedly intelligent, and worldy wise dont understand that you cant win a poker game when you havent even got any cards quite frankly amazes me.

The very fact that on the 29th of March we will be leaving with no deal is THE BEST WAY TO BUT PRESSURE ON PEOPLE TO GET A DEAL.

Cast your mind back to last year and the noth Korea situation, nobody gave a feck about NK and their mad rantings, until the had nuclear weapons, then they had some leverage.

Nobody listens to Russia, until they turn the Gas off.

Nobody listens to the workers, until they strike,


For a supposedly left wingers , for them not to understand withdrawl of labour and disruption of service as a negotiating tool, incredible!
 
Last edited:
Ducklegs said:
The problem with ruling out no deal, is it leaves you no leverage in negotiation.

NOBODY wants no deal, but you have to at least be convincing that you are prepared to go down that road.

The fact that people, supposedly intelligent, and worldy wise dont understand that you cant win a poker game when you havent even got any cards quite frankly amazes me.
Click to expand...
This again.

The problem is this is not really comparable to other types of negotiation where walking away is a plausible option. If you are haggling over the price of something you can threaten to walk away and all that happens is there is no sale. In this instance, we walk away with no deal and we plunge the country into unfathomable chaos. There is no point pretending this isnt the case because everyone knows it is. Our side knows it, their side knows it, most informed people debating in this thread know it. We tried pretending we didnt know it but it didnt work, they called our bluff and May is no longer saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" because she looked ridiculous and nobody bought it. The only people still pretending are the likes of JRM and Johnson, but they know it too and no doubt they have arranged their finances to protect their assets if no deal does happen, because as unscrupulous as they might be, they arent complete morons.

A better analogy would be trying to talk someone down off a ledge, threatening to throw themselves off unless they get their old job back / their wife comes back / they can see their kids every other weekend. One side is standing at the bottom of the building trying to reason with the person standing on the ledge, wondering a) how serious they are b) whether what they are asking for is even possible and c) if this nutter actually goes through with this, what does it mean for me?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Because you can't take no deal off the table unless you are prepared to cancel Brexit and his ridiculous Brexit strategy is a non-starter as it was for the Tories in 2016.
Click to expand...
Phillip Hammond as said that no deal could be taken of the table in days.
 
Ducklegs said:
The problem with ruling out no deal, is it leaves you no leverage in negotiation.

NOBODY wants no deal, but you have to at least be convincing that you are prepared to go down that road.

The fact that people, supposedly intelligent, and worldy wise dont understand that you cant win a poker game when you havent even got any cards quite frankly amazes me.

The very fact that on the 29th of March we will be leaving with no deal is THE BEST WAY TO BUT PRESSURE ON PEOPLE TO GET A DEAL.

Cast your mind back to last year and the noth Korea situation, nobody gave a feck about NK and their mad rantings, until the had nuclear weapons, then they had some leverage.

Nobody listens to Russia, until they turn the Gas off.

Nobody listens to the workers, until they strike,


For a supposedly left wingers , for them not to understand withdrawl of labour and disruption of service as a negotiating tool, incredible!
Click to expand...

That's true, it's worked very well so far :lol:

Which people are you suggesting it gets leverage over? Parlaiment who can circumvent May or the EU who we're no longer negotiating with?
 
Wibble said:
We should be afraid. Leave with a deal will be an economic and social disaster but leaving without a deal will be worse by an order of magnitude.
Click to expand...

I am pleased that you are feeling so positive.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Because you can't take no deal off the table unless you are prepared to cancel Brexit and his ridiculous Brexit strategy is a non-starter as it was for the Tories in 2016.
Click to expand...

You're being flippant. When he and the other parties are saying off the table they're clearly not talking about removing it from the world of potential outcomes but the options of choice.

May can declare she's willing to extend if the EU allow or revoke if they don't to avoid it.
 
Drifter said:
Phillip Hammond as said that no deal could be taken of the table in days.
Click to expand...

Yes, which would mean that parliament could agree to cancel Brexit.
The problem is that the leaders of both major parties don't want to cancel Brexit and according to both their manifestoes said they would leave the EU.

And to get to the next stage , even if Corbyn's unicorns were possible you still have to have a withdrawal agreement which has been resoundly rejected.
It's gridlock and the Uk could easily slip off the edge with nothing.
 
Drifter said:
Phillip Hammond as said that no deal could be taken of the table in days.
Click to expand...
It seems pretty obvious to me corbyns play is to try to get may to take no deal off the table
at which point he launches another confidence motion thinking that with no deal ruled out enough of the ERG might rebel against her
As such I dont see her doing that... its basically the equivalent of her saying she would welcome talks with Jeremy corbyn provided he agrees to rule out a second referendum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.