Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Honest John]

I'm thinking towards the end result and I'm thinking of the current MPs who are in parliament on all sides.
You could have A50 revocation or extension - but who is going to do this?
You could have a referendum - No deal/May's deal/Remain - who's going to allow this? No deal has to be part of any referendum.
I don't see another deal.
I don't see either what extending A50 does either.

The only alternative I see to the situation is to cancel Brexit and quickly but nobody's going to do this.

This is all assuming that the only outcome to all this is Remain which none of the major parties want.

May wins tonights vote. Get's 'clarification' from the EU on the backstop - and the whips go back to work on her deal.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

What happens if remain wins by the same margin this time? Best two out of 3? First to 5?

Then you still have a strong role for the anti-EU contingent who can then come with a decent proposal to leave the EU in the future. Given how almost evenly split we are, the question is never going to go away. Problem Brexiteers would have in the long run is that they are likely to die off as time goes on.

 

[MoskvaRed]

What happens if remain wins by the same margin this time? Best two out of 3? First to 5?

No, this second referendum would be the end of the matter either way as it would be based on concrete alternatives rather than, as in 2016, one concrete option vs [insert your own fantasy here].

 

[Adisa]

Look at this fecking cnut.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Stick]

Then you still have a strong role for the anti-EU contingent who can then come with a decent proposal to leave the EU in the future. Given how almost evenly split we are, the question is never going to go away. Problem Brexiteers would have in the long run is that they are likely to die off as time goes on.

I find it so hard to call though. Even if it did go to a second vote.

 

[Raulduke]

A second referendum could be a 2 stage run-off style vote. First round options are No Deal, May's Deal, Norway Style and Remain and the top 2 options go into a run-off.

 

[Massive Spanner]

A second referendum could be a 2 stage run-off style vote. First round options are No Deal, May's Deal, Norway Style and Remain and the top 2 options go into a run-off.

Get Noel Edmonds to present, while we're at it.

 

[Smores]

I'm thinking towards the end result and I'm thinking of the current MPs who are in parliament on all sides.
You could have A50 revocation or extension - but who is going to do this?
You could have a referendum - No deal/May's deal/Remain - who's going to allow this? No deal has to be part of any referendum.
I don't see another deal.
I don't see either what extending A50 does either.

The only alternative I see to the situation is to cancel Brexit and quickly but nobody's going to do this.

This is all assuming that the only outcome to all this is Remain which none of the major parties want.

I'm not sure why no deal has to be part of any referendum? It wasn't part of the first one, in every debate they said they'll get a deal and no deal wasn't the target. Boris and Mogg don't have the numbers to force it on and i really don't see May adding it although crazier things happen.

If you're going to respect the will of the referendum it shouldn't now be an additional option.

If Mays deal passes a referendum MPs will vote for it. No MP would dare do otherwise.

 

[Hammerfell]

There will be a majority when the choice is No Deal or May’s Deal. Even as a remainer I can see that.

There absolutely won’t be.

 

[711]

The first part of the vote is the confidence one and if she get 49% she goes. It means that 51% have rejected her out-of-hand as party leader.

Then the leadership thing kicks in but each candidate has not been subject to a confidence vote of the whole party. So they start from a notional ranking position. Votes are cast and those with the lowest disappear the the remainers are voted on and if your guy/gal gets voted off you need to pick your next best candidate. Until 2 are left then the wider party members get to vote.

So it is quite possible that a leader with the support of 49% of MPs could be replaced by one with an initial support of only 15% of MPs. Furthermore the current leader might have the support of 80% of the party membership, but wouldn't be allowed to stand, and the two who did go to a membership vote might both be well down a list that the membership might have voted for if they got to choose who could stand. Bleeding shambles.

 

[Klopper76]

Assuming May's deal won't get through parliament, why not hold a final referendum on this with the two options being No Deal Brexit or Remain?

 

[Steerpike]

The point is your example of Greece doesn't work simply because we don't have to join the Eurozone because we are a much stronger country than Greece. Then this is the real point you need to understand what really messed greece up is not the EU, it was it's horrible problem of governments constantly coming in and lying about the countries national debt so they could continue to spend happily without any sanctions. Then they got called on it and went to get loans, but because their levels of trust were soo low they had to take horrible interest loans which crippled and indebted the country. Once the economic crisis happened Greece would then obviously be put in a worse situation as their two biggest industries which are tourism and shipping go down the drain during any recession.

So the EU is not responsible for it. The actual people running the country are responsible. The country was run badly and by greedy people thats what happens normally to ruin most political and economic organisations.

It's disingenuous to suggest that the EU bears no responsibility for the situation in Greece. The EU wanted to make it as easy as possible for countries to join the Euro, and even though they established rules designed to ensure that a country's economy was sufficiently robust, they made little attempt to validate the submission made by countries proposing to join. Did anybody seriously believe that the Greek economy met the criteria? Indeed, it would come as no surprise if it transpired that the EU provided assistance to Greece to ensure its submission passed the tests.

I agree that the specific example of Greece wouldn't be applicable to the UK, but the principle of putting central control ahead of local democracy remains relevant.

I agree with you regarding the economic mismanagement in Greece, and the binge the country went on when it suddenly had a combination of a strong currency (compared to the Drachma) and benign economic conditions. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to suffer as a result of that imprudence. Nevertheless the people of Greece voted for a government committed to take one path, and the EU imposed an entirely different one. My point is about democracy, not economics.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Assuming May's deal won't get through parliament, why not hold a final referendum on this with the two options being No Deal Brexit or Remain?

Because that would be way too sensible for these clowns.

 

[Honest John]

The fact that the original card didn't clarify the terms under which the we'd leave the EU has handed Farage and the Brexiteers the means of talking up the desire for no-deal

 

[Massive Spanner]

It's disingenuous to suggest that the EU bears no responsibility for the situation in Greece. The EU wanted to make it as easy as possible for countries to join the Euro, and even though they established rules designed to ensure that a country's economy was sufficiently robust, they made little attempt to validate the submission made by countries proposing to join. Did anybody seriously believe that the Greek economy met the criteria? Indeed, it would come as no surprise if it transpired that the EU provided assistance to Greece to ensure its submission passed the tests.

I agree that the specific example of Greece wouldn't be applicable to the UK, but the principle of putting central control ahead of local democracy remains relevant.

I agree with you regarding the economic mismanagement in Greece, and the binge the country went on when it suddenly had a combination of a strong currency (compared to the Drachma) and benign economic conditions. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to suffer as a result of that imprudence. Nevertheless the people of Greece voted for a government committed to take one path, and the EU imposed an entirely different one. My point is about democracy, not economics.

Just to clarify, your reasons for voting to leave are, at a basic level ... "Take back control", right?

 

[17 Van der Gouw]

I'm not convinced she's going to win the confidence vote actually.

Whilst it seems the most likely outcome, if we've learned anything in the last few years it's that basically anything can happen; Corbyn becoming Labour leader, Trump getting elected, Britain voting leave.

Wouldn't be massively surprised if she goes.

 

[711]

Assuming May's deal won't get through parliament, why not hold a final referendum on this with the two options being No Deal Brexit or Remain?

That would be the logical conclusion but Labour will complicate things by claiming Corbyn would use his superior negotiating skills and wisdom to gain a magical wonder-deal which should be part of the vote, despite the evidence to the contrary. Great contribution Jeremy.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I'm not sure why no deal has to be part of any referendum? It wasn't part of the first one, in every debate they said they'll get a deal and no deal wasn't the target. Boris and Mogg don't have the numbers to force it on and i really don't see May adding it although crazier things happen.

If you're going to respect the will of the referendum it shouldn't now be an additional option.

If Mays deal passes a referendum MPs will vote for it. No MP would dare do otherwise.

The 2016 referendum just asked if the UK should stay in or leave the EU but it didn't say whether there was any type of deal. Many people had many different opinions of what leaving the EU meant. Even now, two and a half years later, you can see that people still think it means many different things.
But no matter what any of us think there is a large enough proportion of Brexit voters who want no deal because they've been told that leaving with just WTO is nothing to be frightened of. Don't see how a government / parliament can deny that to the voters.

 

[mancan92]

It's disingenuous to suggest that the EU bears no responsibility for the situation in Greece. The EU wanted to make it as easy as possible for countries to join the Euro, and even though they established rules designed to ensure that a country's economy was sufficiently robust, they made little attempt to validate the submission made by countries proposing to join. Did anybody seriously believe that the Greek economy met the criteria? Indeed, it would come as no surprise if it transpired that the EU provided assistance to Greece to ensure its submission passed the tests.

I agree that the specific example of Greece wouldn't be applicable to the UK, but the principle of putting central control ahead of local democracy remains relevant.

I agree with you regarding the economic mismanagement in Greece, and the binge the country went on when it suddenly had a combination of a strong currency (compared to the Drachma) and benign economic conditions. I'm not saying that they don't deserve to suffer as a result of that imprudence. Nevertheless the people of Greece voted for a government committed to take one path, and the EU imposed an entirely different one. My point is about democracy, not economics.

So you are choosing to blame the EU and not the Government?

As I said bring in an example of a country that is comparable to the UK. You might aswell not have a central government in the UK according to you, you might aswell have each county have their own government.

It's completely thoughtless mentality.

 

[Steerpike]

Just to clarify, your reasons for voting to leave are, at a basic level ... "Take back control", right?

No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).

 

[Ultimate Grib]

There will be a majority when the choice is No Deal or May’s Deal. Even as a remainer I can see that.

It will never be between no deal and May's deal. A simple motion for revoking Article 50 will ensure the cliff edge is entirely avioded and we remain if it was coming close to crashing out with no deal. Opposition parties plus Conservative rebels have the numbers for that and there are scores of others that will join them to avoid no deal.

 

[Stick]

No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).

Which nation?

 

[Honest John]

So it is quite possible that a leader with the support of 49% of MPs could be replaced by one with an initial support of only 15% of MPs. Furthermore the current leader might have the support of 80% of the party membership, but wouldn't be allowed to stand, and the two who did go to a membership vote might both be well down a list that the membership might have voted for if they got to choose who could stand. Bleeding shambles.

She might not have got that. But yes I think that's how it works.

 

[mancan92]

No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).

You might hate that phase but thats as much thought that you have to really go through to believe it. Once you actually use fact and logic it falls completely apart.

 

[Massive Spanner]

No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).

You can hate it all you want but that's essentially been your whole argument here, albeit in a very long winded way. You want Britain making its own decisions again (which it already does, but whatever) and not being in any way influenced by the EU, and outside entity, ergo.. you're taking back control.

 

[Steerpike]

So you are choosing to blame the EU and not the Government?

As I said bring in an example of a country that is comparable to the UK. You might aswell not have a central government in the UK according to you, you might aswell have each county have their own government.

It's completely thoughtless mentality.

We're starting to get into the realms of identity politics here. Clearly there is a level at which populations require government. For me, the nation state is at the top of the tree in that respect, with some more local governance beneath that. Where government exists, I expect to be able to exert some influence over it by means of exercising my vote.

I personally identify as British, so the ideal for me is for the British government to be at the top of the governance hierarchy. That is why the political dimension of the EU gives me such a problem.

 

[Smores]

The 2016 referendum just asked if the UK should stay in or leave the EU but it didn't say whether there was any type of deal. Many people had many different opinions of what leaving the EU meant. Even now, two and a half years later, you can see that people still think it means many different things.
But no matter what any of us think there is a large enough proportion of Brexit voters who want no deal because they've been told that leaving with just WTO is nothing to be frightened of. Don't see how a government / parliament can deny that to the voters.

I get what you mean but the words on the card matter little. The debates were informal manifestos and that was the basis of the votes, we've drawn red lines based on these but for some reason despite the fact that we were all told no deal would never happen it's become mandated.

Either way the goverment has a responsibility to do what's right for the country, we all know death sentences would pass a referendum but we don't do it for a good reason.

 

[Klopper76]

No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).

That's a fair point of view.

I'm of the opinion though that if you asked five different people who voted leave why they did so, you'd get five different answers. It's why I think a second referendum with no deal and remain as the two options is the only way to go. You'd get far more clarity regarding what the will of the people really is if they're present with two clear options.

Leave vs Remain in 2016 wasn't clear because people voting leave were doing so for a variety of reasons, some directly contradicting one another imo. Also that whole campaign was full of BS presented by both sides.

It probably means pushing back the March deadline but I think it's needed to get some clarity.

 

[Honest John]

May's Deal vs No Deal - this is the only 2nd referendum that respects the original leave vote.

 

[mancan92]

We're starting to get into the realms of identity politics here. Clearly there is a level at which populations require government. For me, the nation state is at the top of the tree in that respect, with some more local governance beneath that. Where government exists, I expect to be able to exert some influence over it by means of exercising my vote.

I personally identify as British, so the ideal for me is for the British government to be at the top of the governance hierarchy. That is why the political dimension of the EU gives me such a problem.

Fair enough but you clearly can see where your logic is completely flawed and fully based on zero information or thought.

You seem to not understand that we already make all our own laws the only things we dont are ones that involve making it easier for us to trade with other countries. Which is a good thing for us.

 

[balaks]

And if Leave won again, parliament will again say no deal is not acceptable and then what?

Presumably there will be a renewed mandate for the deal and Parliament will support it - so the current deal goes through.

 

[0le]

The idea of referendums in a democracy is a terrible. You cannot rely on the electorate to make an informed decision when most will not even be aware of all the necessary facts. I am therefore not sure why people keep suggesting yet another one is needed.

 

[Rolandofgilead]

No - I hate that phrase. It's misleading, and I don't ever recall having used it.

I believe in the concept of the nation state, and of democratically elected institutions accountable to the people they serve. My view is that the direction of travel of the EU is not compatible with either (see longer post earlier).

You can dress it up any way you want mate, but what you have basically just said is 'taking back control'

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I get what you mean but the words on the card matter little. The debates were informal manifestos and that was the basis of the votes, we've drawn red lines based on these but for some reason despite the fact that we were all told no deal would never happen it's become mandated.

Either way the goverment has a responsibility to do what's right for the country, we all know death sentences would pass a referendum but we don't do it for a good reason.

I agree with this but who in parliament is doing what's best for the country.
You've got a section of the Tory party who want to leave under any circumstances, there's a section who want to remain and there's a section who want to leave but not under May's deal and some with it.
Labour have a large section who want to remain, have another section who want to leave but under some fantasy deal they think they're going to negotiate which is clearly not possible.

Brexit may have divided the country into two but it has divided parliament into five or six factions or more and I don't see how having a GE or referendum will resolve this.

 

[Ultimate Grib]

May's Deal vs No Deal - this is the only 2nd referendum that respects the original leave vote.

You can't hold a referendum that excludes half the population that voted in the last one and completely ignores the shift in public opinion since the vote.

 

[Honest John]

The idea of referendums in a democracy is a terrible. You cannot rely on the electorate to make an informed decision when most will not even be aware of all the necessary facts. I am therefore not sure why people keep suggesting yet another one is needed.

Yes. They are a blunt implement generally offering a two-way choice on a complicated issue.

I think that you would need to search long and hard to find, on this planet, a more complicated issue on which to have given the people a binary choice.

 

[Steerpike]

Fair enough but you clearly can see where your logic is completely flawed and fully based on zero information or thought.

You seem to not understand that we already make all our own laws the only things we dont are ones that involve making it easier for us to trade with other countries. Which is a good thing for us.

I don't want to put an inappropriate level of emphasis on the legal framework that exists within the EU, or the extent to which we are required to conform with it, but your statement is not completely true. There have been plenty of instances where the ECJ has passed down a judgement where UK law has been in conflict with European law (the example of prisoners having the right to vote springs to mind).

Within a trading bloc I can absolutely understand legislation aimed at preserving standards and preventing unfair competition. The difficulties come when EU legislation strays beyond that remit.

 

[Stick]

I don't want to put an inappropriate level of emphasis on the legal framework that exists within the EU, or the extent to which we are required to conform with it, but your statement is not completely true. There have been plenty of instances where the ECJ has passed down a judgement where UK law has been in conflict with European law (the example of prisoners having the right to vote springs to mind).

Within a trading bloc I can absolutely understand legislation aimed at preserving standards and preventing unfair competition. The difficulties come when EU legislation strays beyond that remit.

You can appeal those EU judgements and you dont have to write them into law. How is a case brought to the ECJ?

 

[Honest John]

You can't hold a referendum that excludes half the population that voted in the last one and completely ignores the shift in public opinion since the vote.

Probably not but the main argument against another referendum is that having it throws the opinion of 17.4m people under a bus.

 

[balaks]

Probably not but the main argument against another referendum is that having it throws the opinion of 17.4m people under a bus.

Well they all get the same chance to vote the same way they did the first time if they want - except this time everybody understands what they are voting for. They still get to express their opinion.