Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

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

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Redlambs said:
51% of the people though, on a question not an actual vote right?

So basically they are doing what they think saves their skins and nothing more? Which brings me back around again to who the hell we vote for in a GE, because frankly neither party seem fit at all. It's all rather depressing :(
Click to expand...

The vote was technically advisory, but no major politician was arguing against implementing the result before the vote. So doing so would've always gone down poorly, no matter how they tried to spin it.

The bigger problem was that the question itself was incredibly vague and didn't define what sort of Brexit we'd be undertaking. Hence Brexiteers were able to project their own varying visions onto the question. And it's clearly ridiculous that a narrow win for Brexit should mean we get the hardest of Brexit's imaginable. The reverse of that would've been Cameron using a narrow Remain win as a mandate for full-on federalism. Which would've had Brexiteers screeching with horror.
 
Redlambs said:
51% of the people though, on a question not an actual vote right?

So basically they are doing what they think saves their skins and nothing more? Which brings me back around again to who the hell we vote for in a GE, because frankly neither party seem fit at all. It's all rather depressing :(
Click to expand...

People often say that the government should also be representing the 49% remain vote in Brexit discussions but that works for party politics too so i find the idea that either party would just pick a remain/leave position as a bit wishful. For both parties a soft brexit is the compromise, unfortunately the PM is too scared of the UKIP threat to not just given to the far right within her party.
 
Buster15 said:
Some MP'S are stupidly acting out tribalism.
I have to say that you are probably right. They are intent on voting against everything not because it is the right thing to do but because of bravado.

Britain used to be recognised for its sense and ability to compromise.
Sadly no longer.
Click to expand...

Agreed, this could go on for years and parliament would not agree.
There has to be a free vote and politicians voting for the best of the country, but that is probably asking too much of the politicians.
 
Adebesi said:
Not really. This is what happens when you have a representative system and ask representatives to deliver something they don't want but their electorates do.
Click to expand...
Hmm... Somehow I still think this needs testing. Be that 2nd ref (preferably) or GE...
 
Silva said:
He didn't want to do a Miliband from indyref and lose England as well as Scotland
Click to expand...

Problem is though that the Scotland/England comparison doesn't really work in that regard. The SNP already had a much more solid base in Scotland than UKIP did in the north of England. UKIP hadn't come close to winning a single seat; the SNP had basically already taken Glasgow at Holyrood in 2011, and had pretty much been making steady gains on Labour for the most part of a decade. Indyref gave them the catalyst to go on and annihilate Labour in 2015, yes, but Labour's problems up here ran a lot deeper than that, and 2015 would've probably gone poorly for them no matter what. Indeed, while it's something I'd probably need to see data to verify, I suspect the SNP would've done a lot better up here had Labour not been led by Brown, who was more well-liked up in Scotland for obvious reasons than down south.

Had Corbyn hypothetically gone full-blown Remainer, his popularity would've potentially been dented a bit in the north, but not to the point where it'd have actually cost him seats he already had a 30% advantage on. Especially considering UKIP collapsed, and the Tories remain toxic in such areas. These areas voted Leave, sure, but many of them narrowly voted Leave - if there's a 45% Remain vote in said area, and most of those Remainers want to vote for you, then you've basically got the seat in the bag provided it's not an absolute two-horse race.

Most of Labour's voter demographic was primarily voting Remain in the Brexit referendum. But indyref saw key Labour areas/voter demographics opt for a Yes vote (Glasgow, young people etc). The two cases were quite different.
 
Cheesy said:
Problem is though that the Scotland/England comparison doesn't really work in that regard. The SNP already had a much more solid base in Scotland than UKIP did in the north of England. UKIP hadn't come close to winning a single seat; the SNP had basically already taken Glasgow at Holyrood in 2011, and had pretty much been making steady gains on Labour for the most part of a decade. Indyref gave them the catalyst to go on and annihilate Labour in 2015, yes, but Labour's problems up here ran a lot deeper than that, and 2015 would've probably gone poorly for them no matter what. Indeed, while it's something I'd probably need to see data to verify, I suspect the SNP would've done a lot better up here had Labour not been led by Brown, who was more well-liked up in Scotland for obvious reasons than down south.

Had Corbyn hypothetically gone full-blown Remainer, his popularity would've potentially been dented a bit in the north, but not to the point where it'd have actually cost him seats he already had a 30% advantage on. Especially considering UKIP collapsed, and the Tories remain toxic in such areas. These areas voted Leave, sure, but many of them narrowly voted Leave - if there's a 45% Remain vote in said area, and most of those Remainers want to vote for you, then you've basically got the seat in the bag provided it's not an absolute two-horse race.

Most of Labour's voter demographic was primarily voting Remain in the Brexit referendum. But indyref saw key Labour areas/voter demographics opt for a Yes vote (Glasgow, young people etc). The two cases were quite different.
Click to expand...
it's not safe northern seats, it's the marginals across the country which matter. if corbyn did what the remain campaign wanted, go out there hand in hand with david cameron, labour would have lost credibility with his biggest support group: people who really fecking hate the tories. it would have killed his biggest draw - a life long to commitment to telling the tories to suck his dick
 
Cheesy said:
The vote was technically advisory, but no major politician was arguing against implementing the result before the vote. So doing so would've always gone down poorly, no matter how they tried to spin it.

The bigger problem was that the question itself was incredibly vague and didn't define what sort of Brexit we'd be undertaking. Hence Brexiteers were able to project their own varying visions onto the question. And it's clearly ridiculous that a narrow win for Brexit should mean we get the hardest of Brexit's imaginable. The reverse of that would've been Cameron using a narrow Remain win as a mandate for full-on federalism. Which would've had Brexiteers screeching with horror.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If the original question had been ‘Should the UK leave the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union’ I’d bet anything it would have lost badly. Even prominent Leave leaders like Daniel Hammon were saying shit like ‘Absolutely no one is talking about leaving the Single Market’. Then somehow this became that all Leave voters wanted out of everything.
 
May's realised that she's in big trouble:

_105991324_mediaitem105991323.jpg
 
Kentonio said:
Indeed. If the original question had been ‘Should the UK leave the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union’ I’d bet anything it would have lost badly. Even prominent Leave leaders like Daniel Hammon were saying shit like ‘Absolutely no one is talking about leaving the Single Market’. Then somehow this became that all Leave voters wanted out of everything.
Click to expand...

Should have also included, do you want your mobile phone bill to quadruple when you go on holiday.
 
Kentonio said:
Indeed. If the original question had been ‘Should the UK leave the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union’ I’d bet anything it would have lost badly. Even prominent Leave leaders like Daniel Hammon were saying shit like ‘Absolutely no one is talking about leaving the Single Market’. Then somehow this became that all Leave voters wanted out of everything.
Click to expand...
Not sure i agree, i dont think the majority of Brexit voters care about the distinction tbh. Out means out, no more immigrants etc.

I think the original question provides wriggle room for a soft Brexit, which i think is where we are headed after tonight.
 
Telegraph:

So what will Theresa May do tonight in event she suffers defeat over meaningful vote?

Hearing rumours from good sources - not verified yet - she could announce she is requesting short A50 extension

Thinking is it averts damaging defeats and buys her time

Let's see...
Click to expand...
 
Can’t see the Commons letting her get away with that, after the crap she’s been pulling lately. Expecting MPs to try and take control instead. What they actually do with it though, god only knows..
 
At this moment a backstop against May would have been handy.
 
She's been getting away with it for months and will continue to do so.
 
Enough is enough with her time wasting - MPs have to take control if she loses again tonight. Juncker and Barnier should also release a statement that they will not entertain any further discussion on the withdrawal agreement and will not change a comma.
 
MoskvaRed said:
Enough is enough with her time wasting - MPs have to take control if she loses again tonight. Juncker and Barnier should also release a statement that they will not entertain any further discussion on the withdrawal agreement and will not change a comma.
Click to expand...
They already have, comments today about this being a second chance, and there being no third chance
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The vote on no deal is totally meaningless - to stop no deal there has to be a deal or cancel brexit.

At the moment my no deal likelihood meter is at 99.9%. Hopefully something will change.
Click to expand...

Thank you Paul, I've been trying to make this point for a while. There has to be a deal of some sort, even if its no deal (by default) or to cancel Brexit the only way to cancel Brexit now is to rescind, not simply delay, A50.

May will not (so people believe) rescind A50, they think she would resign first (as I've speculated elsewhere). I think she might do both, that is to resign as leader of the Tory party, her last act being to rescind A50, because its the one thing the majority of members in the HoP can agree on, and that will get wholehearted support from the EU.
May would then presumably gain the support of all remainers and be viewed by them perhaps even as a national heroine. Even the Tories (ERG included) would, with their capacity for self survival, see there was no other choice and with no 'backstop' shackles, they live to fight another day.

Specifically that would allow May's successor as the leader of the Tory Party/PM to remain in power for another 2 or more years, until after the EU elections, then to 'go again' to initiate the result of the referendum, to seek, this time with a euro-sceptic leader of the party, and as they would see it, to do Brexit properly this time. Yes, they risk losing some voters, but only in bye-elections, by the time the next GE is due, they will have learned from their mistakes... or then they will go under!.
 
Maticmaker said:
Thank you Paul, I've been trying to make this point for a while. There has to be a deal of some sort, even if its no deal (by default) or to cancel Brexit the only way to cancel Brexit now is to rescind, not simply delay, A50.

May will not (so people believe) rescind A50, they think she would resign first (as I've speculated elsewhere). I think she might do both, that is to resign as leader of the Tory party, her last act being to rescind A50, because its the one thing the majority of members in the HoP can agree on, and that will get wholehearted support from the EU.
May would then presumably gain the support of all remainers and be viewed by them perhaps even as a national heroine. Even the Tories (ERG included) would, with their capacity for self survival, see there was no other choice and with no 'backstop' shackles, they live to fight another day.

Specifically that would allow May's successor as the leader of the Tory Party/PM to remain in power for another 2 or more years, until after the EU elections, then to 'go again' to initiate the result of the referendum, to seek, this time with a euro-sceptic leader of the party, and as they would see it, to do Brexit properly this time. Yes, they risk losing some voters, but only in bye-elections, by the time the next GE is due, they will have learned from their mistakes... or then they will go under!.
Click to expand...
We hope and pray
 
Dobba said:
Good old Woke Soubz claiming she'd never vote for something that would make her constituents poorer.

Whatever you do, don't look up her voting record.
Click to expand...
How dare you? Mentioning her voting record is bullying. apparently
 
I for one am looking forward to the 'yelling at an old woman' event to come this evening.
 
Why does not she just resigns and walks away saying that if they can't sign up for her deal then that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.