Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The deal splits the Tories whilst a referendum would split LAB

SystemSystem Posts: 11,003
edited November 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The deal splits the Tories whilst a referendum would split LAB as well

One of the arguments that pro-second referendum Tory MPs are using at the moment is that the Brexit deal basically splits the Tories and Labour gets off scot free in spite of its equivocation and huge policy differences. So it is being said that if there was a referendum then it would split Labour as well.

Read the full story here


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,572
    edited November 2018
    First, unlike May in a 'Who can give a straight answer?' competition.
  • Options

    As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

    Does camelcamelcamel only cover Amazon?
    Yes, Amazon and third party sellers on Amazon. However, with that combined data that is pretty good indicator of the "real" market value of an item.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    edited November 2018
    Fourth (was first, but Vanilla ate my post).
  • Options
    tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,546
    May's changing her tune again and again on what happens if the Deal is voted down.

    I guess there's only one way to find out...
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,894
    I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.

    My parents have known him for years. The stories they could tell...
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    Pulpstar said:

    I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.

    That's how the deal gets passed, then.
  • Options

    As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

    Does camelcamelcamel only cover Amazon?
    Yes, Amazon and third party sellers on Amazon. However, with that combined data that is pretty good indicator of the "real" market value of an item.
    If you use Chrome as your browser, the Keepa extension does the same thing for Amazon pages. Really useful.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    I see Sir John Hayes has named his price for supporting the Gov't.

    I am sure it is a total coincidence...
  • Options
    Good header.

    As I have said several times, clear your diaries for May/June.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,002
    On topic, this shows how much the mood has changed. Julia Hartley-Brewer's applause line is greeted with silence.

    https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1065895474870321152
  • Options
  • Options
    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    Immigration
  • Options
    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,609
    Well, even with that not a landslide perhaps.

    But I don't see how a ref is avoided if Mps actually believe what they say about no deal. For Tories it is a bit better than a GE after dividing so publicly and for labour they can claim to not back a side bit leave it to the people.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,543
    edited November 2018
    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    Good point. Can somebody remind me again why that was ruled out exactly?

    Edit: save yourselves the bother - just seen @TheWhiteRabbit's response
  • Options

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    Good point. Can somebody remind me again why that was ruled out exactly?
    Immigration
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578
    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,543

    As it is Black Friday, public service announcement. For those that don’t know camelcamelcamel is a great website for tracking historical prices on amazon so you can check if it really is a good deal or not.

    Does camelcamelcamel only cover Amazon?
    Yes, Amazon and third party sellers on Amazon. However, with that combined data that is pretty good indicator of the "real" market value of an item.
    Ok thanks. Looking for a non-contract iPhone SE to replace Mrs. P's old iPhone 5C. Refurbished doesn't sound like a good idea but there's a huge range of prices for a phone that is basically end of life.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,609

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    Maybe the Commons will have to stage a referendum about what the question should be in any second referendum.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I suspect turnout would be right down in a second referendum - with some boycotting.

  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
  • Options
    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited November 2018
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/22/cabinet-brexiteers-gambling-managed-no-deal-good-chance-bet/

    "The threat of the Tory whips – “May’s deal or no Brexit” – is fast losing its potency because a striking number of senior Brexiteers now believe that her deal is far worse. Thursday’s “political declaration” confirmed her plan: send £39 billion to Brussels with almost no assurances of what will be given in return. A free trade deal is spoken of, but not guaranteed.

    We learned on Thursday that, in spite of Britain promising to align with EU regulations, we are not even being promised frictionless trade. Astonishingly, Northern Ireland is ceded to the EU regulatory orbit – for as long as the EU wants it."

    "There might be a bigger Brexit deal in two years’ time, but having banked both our money and Ireland, the EU has almost no incentive to give us one. “Free movement will be next to go,” says one former Cabinet Brexiteer. “We’d be better staying in. No question.”"

    "As recently as last week, Mrs May had hoped that the passage of time would lead MPs to see her deal as the most pragmatic option. But they’re coming to believe that her deal – this blind Brexit with nothing clear at the end of it – would guarantee years of instability, making the Tories forever seen as the party that botched Brexit, reviving populism and near-guaranteeing victory for Jeremy Corbyn.

    There are, now, no safe Brexit options. The Brexiteers’ plan – betting on her losing next month’s vote, then pushing for a managed no-deal – is a massive gamble. But a great many Tories are coming to believe that nodding through Mrs May’s Brexit deal might be the most reckless gamble of all."
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    Good question. Someone should ask them.
  • Options

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    The problem is that several groups would see the benefit of voting down the deal and causing no deal. Labour because it believes the Conservatives will get the blame; the ERG because it doesn't want a deal; the DUP because of NI; possibly Scottish Conservative MPs and some of the SNP on fisheries; and pro-Remain Tory MPs because they believe it will lead to a second referendum.

    Labour will say, if it comes to a debate on a second referendum, it wants a GE instead and so vote against it and I can't see enough Conservatives supporting it either.
  • Options
    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I suspect turnout would be right down in a second referendum - with some boycotting.

    Yes, many who fear their side will lose will no doubt cry off.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,955
    TGOHF said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/22/cabinet-brexiteers-gambling-managed-no-deal-good-chance-bet/

    "The threat of the Tory whips – “May’s deal or no Brexit” – is fast losing its potency because a striking number of senior Brexiteers now believe that her deal is far worse. Thursday’s “political declaration” confirmed her plan: send £39 billion to Brussels with almost no assurances of what will be given in return. A free trade deal is spoken of, but not guaranteed.

    We learned on Thursday that, in spite of Britain promising to align with EU regulations, we are not even being promised frictionless trade. Astonishingly, Northern Ireland is ceded to the EU regulatory orbit – for as long as the EU wants it."

    "There might be a bigger Brexit deal in two years’ time, but having banked both our money and Ireland, the EU has almost no incentive to give us one. “Free movement will be next to go,” says one former Cabinet Brexiteer. “We’d be better staying in. No question.”"

    "As recently as last week, Mrs May had hoped that the passage of time would lead MPs to see her deal as the most pragmatic option. But they’re coming to believe that her deal – this blind Brexit with nothing clear at the end of it – would guarantee years of instability, making the Tories forever seen as the party that botched Brexit, reviving populism and near-guaranteeing victory for Jeremy Corbyn.

    There are, now, no safe Brexit options. The Brexiteers’ plan – betting on her losing next month’s vote, then pushing for a managed no-deal – is a massive gamble. But a great many Tories are coming to believe that nodding through Mrs May’s Brexit deal might be the most reckless gamble of all."

    Isn't it because the EU won't negotiate anything on the future relationship until the UK is a third party? A50 only says that "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."
  • Options
    ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    edited November 2018

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

    Perhaps Mr Hodges can write an article in the DM giving us the benefit of his knowledge, basic services. So the water will be turned off, the rubbish not collected, the potholes filled even less than they are now. I look forward to it.
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Mrs May might have played a blinder here! We shall see.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    Good question. Someone should ask them.
    It's not rocket science. I voted Leave because I want to Leave, not to take part in some weird Parliamentary game between the different Conservative factions.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,955

    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
    Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,609
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

    It will be the 1979 winter of discontent. Bodies unburried, bins uncollected spectre that will be hung around the cons neck for twenty years.

    Beginnning to feel that a no deal would cause disruption but it would be a black Wednesday type of shock that will totally detach us from the European project and do so for ever.
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

  • Options
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
    Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?
    Yes, but do remember that the plea bargain burns at both ends. Cases which do not end with a conviction at all in the UK end with a plea bargain in the US, not just those cases which would go to trial in the UK.
  • Options
    currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,917
    edited November 2018

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

    The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Anazina said:

    There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    It was all over the campaign though.

    All of the targeted ads with questionable funding sources. There is no question it motivated voters.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.

    Grr.. there was no option for that. Leave or remain. EFTAis leave. Modify our welfare state so it’s less atttractive and let’s get on with it.
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,572

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

    Perhaps Mr Hodges can write an article in the DM giving us the benefit of his knowledge, basic services. So the water will be turned off, the rubbish not collected, the potholes filled even less than they are now. I look forward to it.
    He probably means that there won't be any Good Brie.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,609

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    The problem is that several groups would see the benefit of voting down the deal and causing no deal. Labour because it believes the Conservatives will get the blame; the ERG because it doesn't want a deal; the DUP because of NI; possibly Scottish Conservative MPs and some of the SNP on fisheries; and pro-Remain Tory MPs because they believe it will lead to a second referendum.

    Labour will say, if it comes to a debate on a second referendum, it wants a GE instead and so vote against it and I can't see enough Conservatives supporting it either.
    Labour do want a GE but one is probably coming anyway as the Tories are done, DUP or not. They're too divided to last with no or a small majority. So they can try for GE and fail then back a ref.

    Enough labour remainers could be tempted for a ref as they believe remain will win, so do enough Tories support that or think it's the only way to maybe get the deal done.

    I do think remain would win. Most remainers will vote the same and we know not all leavers would with this dealm
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,112
    I have been somewhat under the weather of late and struggling to keep up with all the twists and turns of this but I must confess that the position of Raab and seemingly others that May's deal is worse than remaining confounds me completely.

    It is true that May's deal is a soft Brexit; that it gives the EU far more say over our future laws and regulations than many would like and that it contains the infamous backstop which potentially gives the EU even more power and say over the laws of NI. It also leaves us rather more beholden to them in respect of a future FTA than I would like. This is all unfortunate and regrettable but a fairly inevitable consequence of the incompetence with which the negotiations have been conducted. Some of it was always inevitable regardless standing the comparative strength of the parties.

    OTOH it gets us out of the political mechanisms of the EU, it provides a necessary transitional period, it keeps the disruption to trade to a minimum, it makes it clear that it will be our decision whether we wish to keep free movement once that transitional period is over, it gets us out of the CAP, it largely leaves the decision about whether we remain in the CFP at the end of the transitional period down to us, it prevents the EU from seeking to impose any laws on us outwith the scope of the SM and even there we are simply being asked to accept that if we choose to pass laws incompatible with the SM that we are accepting the consequences of that.

    I really don't think that you have to be a glass half full kind of guy or gal to recognise that this is a major step away from the EU, that it is consistent with the referendum result and that it also reflects the fact that the decision to leave was close. I can understand, even if I disagree, with those who say that no deal would be better, that we can make the mini deals to protect residents, transport links etc but we should not agree to any of this. I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,609

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

    The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.
    They need years of quiet to rebuild. But they won't get that.
  • Options
    ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,241
    edited November 2018
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    Because it wasn't about Leave winning per se

    1) People like Boris were only interested in furthering their career, he thought backing Leave would see him become Tory Leader/PM

    2) Gove thought Leave would lose 70/30 if Leave was fronted by the likes of IDS and Farage, so he backed a much harder form of Brexit as a way of getting Leave to 45% to tell the EU this far and no further. He never expected to deliver on his promises and campaign. Why do you think he regrets the nasty xenophobic focus on Turkey

    3) Some Leavers weren't BOOers until the referendum, they were reformers, so they hadn't really thought about the practicalities of Leaving but concluded Remaining wasn't an option. cf Raab and Dover/Calais.
  • Options
    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,609
    DavidL said:

    I have been somewhat under the weather of late and struggling to keep up with all the twists and turns of this but I must confess that the position of Raab and seemingly others that May's deal is worse than remaining confounds me completely.

    It is true that May's deal is a soft Brexit; that it gives the EU far more say over our future laws and regulations than many would like and that it contains the infamous backstop which potentially gives the EU even more power and say over the laws of NI. It also leaves us rather more beholden to them in respect of a future FTA than I would like. This is all unfortunate and regrettable but a fairly inevitable consequence of the incompetence with which the negotiations have been conducted. Some of it was always inevitable regardless standing the comparative strength of the parties.

    OTOH it gets us out of the political mechanisms of the EU, it provides a necessary transitional period, it keeps the disruption to trade to a minimum, it makes it clear that it will be our decision whether we wish to keep free movement once that transitional period is over, it gets us out of the CAP, it largely leaves the decision about whether we remain in the CFP at the end of the transitional period down to us, it prevents the EU from seeking to impose any laws on us outwith the scope of the SM and even there we are simply being asked to accept that if we choose to pass laws incompatible with the SM that we are accepting the consequences of that.

    I really don't think that you have to be a glass half full kind of guy or gal to recognise that this is a major step away from the EU, that it is consistent with the referendum result and that it also reflects the fact that the decision to leave was close. I can understand, even if I disagree, with those who say that no deal would be better, that we can make the mini deals to protect residents, transport links etc but we should not agree to any of this. I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    Some believe remaining will see such a backlash that we will proper brexit in short order. Same as remainers who back no deal thinking we will rejoin sooner due to the pain.

    Or perhaps they simply don't actually think the EU is so bad as they claim .
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    DavidL said:

    I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.
    That would be rational, but having read the ravings of people like Andrew Lilico on twitter, I think some of them truly believe what they're saying
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

    The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.
    They need years of quiet to rebuild. But they won't get that.
    Nor do they deserve it. No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    notme said:

    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

    And all 6 of them post here regularly
  • Options
    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
    Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?
    Plea bargains are pretty corrupt most of the time IMO. If you say to someone who's protesting their innocence that you'll offer them five years in jail if they plead guilty compared to life imprisonment if they plead not guilty and are found guilty, 99% of people are going to plead guilty even if they know they're innocent.
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    Scott_P said:

    notme said:

    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

    And all 6 of them post here regularly

    I thought it was the message on the bus that was the clincher? That was about the club fees and how we could spend them better in the uk.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.

    This applies to Labour at least as much as the Tories
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    The problem is that several groups would see the benefit of voting down the deal and causing no deal. Labour because it believes the Conservatives will get the blame; the ERG because it doesn't want a deal; the DUP because of NI; possibly Scottish Conservative MPs and some of the SNP on fisheries; and pro-Remain Tory MPs because they believe it will lead to a second referendum.

    Labour will say, if it comes to a debate on a second referendum, it wants a GE instead and so vote against it and I can't see enough Conservatives supporting it either.
    Labour will only vote for a second referendum if it is clear that it can't get a GE. However, it's not likely that the government could survive a second referendum so in practice a Labour-led government is likely to result from either a GE or a referendum. If a referendum backs remain I think a general election would follow very quickly, it's hard to see how the Tories could avoid a split in those circumstances.
  • Options
    notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
  • Options

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,955
    AndyJS said:

    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:

    In some ways it's surprising that in the United States they still require all 12 jurors to agree on a verdict.

    As part of a wider system that sees far few decisions in court (but more juries compared to judges' decisions)
    Isn't some insanely high percentage of prosecutions are by plea-bargain, like over 90%?
    Plea bargains are pretty corrupt most of the time IMO. If you say to someone who's protesting their innocence that you'll offer them five years in jail if they plead guilty compared to life imprisonment if they plead not guilty and are found guilty, 99% of people are going to plead guilty even if they know they're innocent.
    Yes, it's a rotten system. They need magistrates' courts.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,200

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    Because it wasn't about Leave winning per se

    1) People like Boris were only interested in furthering their career, he thought backing Leave would see him become Tory Leader/PM

    2) Gove thought Leave would lose 70/30 if Leave was fronted by the likes of IDS and Farage, so he backed a much harder form of Brexit as a way of getting Leave to 45% to tell the EU this far and no further. He never expected to deliver on his promises and campaign. Why do you think he regrets the nasty xenophobic focus on Turkey

    3) Some Leavers weren't BOOers until the referendum, they were reformers, so they hadn't really thought about the practicalities of Leaving but concluded Remaining wasn't an option. cf Raab and Dover/Calais.
    They wanted to stick it to the man.

    Problem is that the man is the one that fills the supermarket shelves for them.
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.
    Perhaps because it is impossible. Convenient to have the cult of betrayal running early though.
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    I heard lots of stuff during the referendum campaign. Including pledges on buses and the like.

    So what?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,112

    DavidL said:

    I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.
    It's completely bonkers. It makes people think that remaining would not be so bad after all and that it is ok to disregard the public vote because even those who argued for leave have now recognised it is all too difficult. As a negotiating tactic its right up there with playing Russian roulette where you have one go aiming at your own head and the next go aiming at your own feet.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    DavidL said:

    It's completely bonkers.

    That is the Brexiteers favoured zone...
  • Options
    currystar said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
    But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

    A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

    I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
    "you could argue that it was a subset of number one" is among the weakest lines of argument I have ever heard on this. The options were Leave or Remain. That's it.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    kle4 said:

    This is a few hours old now, but is I think correct. The Tories will be decimated if a no Deal Brexit happens:

    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1065887927559962626

    The Tories will be decimated if we Remain as well. Actually just losing one in ten would be the very least they could expect. I would not be surprised to see them destroyed as a political force.
    They need years of quiet to rebuild. But they won't get that.
    Nor do they deserve it. No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.
    That's actually been the case for most of my adult life. Time and again, the Conservatives form a circular firing squad.
  • Options
    matt said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.
    Perhaps because it is impossible. Convenient to have the cult of betrayal running early though.
    Of course it wasn't impossible. There were plenty of Brexits that would have been beneficial but apparently they wouldn't have been a 'proper Brexit' according to the Remainers (including May).
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    I do not understand how anyone who apparently wanted to leave would say that they would rather stay as an alternative. Do they really think that there is a chance in hell that the UK would want to revisit this issue again for another 40 years? I mean, seriously?

    I think it's a negotiating tactic: only by threatening to vote against can they hope to get the deal toughened up. Playing with fire, as I said earlier, but there is a certain rationale.
    It's completely bonkers. It makes people think that remaining would not be so bad after all and that it is ok to disregard the public vote because even those who argued for leave have now recognised it is all too difficult. As a negotiating tactic its right up there with playing Russian roulette where you have one go aiming at your own head and the next go aiming at your own feet.

    The odious Jake Rees has a third gun, permanently wedged up his anal passage.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    currystar said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
    No but we might have realised this much sooner - perhaps 18 months ago and got ready for a clean Brexit.
  • Options
    currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    currystar said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
    But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

    A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

    I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
    With their treatment of Greece I just can't see the EU acting any differently towards us.
  • Options
    Sobering reading for PB Tories from Goodwin:

    " ‘Corbynomics’, which is cutting through."

    https://unherd.com/2018/11/corbynomics-winning-britain/
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,112

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987
    TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I suspect turnout would be right down in a second referendum - with some boycotting.

    That would be good if the boycotting was done by Leavers. They would have even less reason to complain at the result.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    currystar said:

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Do you really think if a brilliant brexiteer was in charge the deal would have been any different. The EU would still be the same EU
    But there were plenty of people accurately pointing out the mistakes that were being made before they were even agreed. I mean people who genuinely wanted things to go well rather than hardline opponents on either side. It was obvious from the start that agreeing the EU scheduling was a ridiculous idea. If the UK had stood their ground on that and made a cogent argument even the EU would have seen it was daft. Agreeing the Irish backstop was another daft idea. Deciding to represent only the views of a tiny hardline minority of the electorate rather than having a Brexit for the widest number of people.

    A moderate Brexit supporter would have been able to see these things - as did many on both sides of the referendum divide - and would have had a far better chance of selling a sensible compromise than someone who clearly did not understand or even want to understand why people voted Brexit.

    I can well imagine May sat in meetings in Brussels saying ' look I am really sorry about this. I didn't vote for Brexit and have no idea why people did'. It may be a way to keep friends in the EU but it is no way to try and run a negotiation.
    Even if that was the case, such a PM would probably have faced the same difficulties with his/her own side. There are people who regard any compromise as betrayal.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Sobering reading for PB Tories from Goodwin:

    " ‘Corbynomics’, which is cutting through."

    https://unherd.com/2018/11/corbynomics-winning-britain/

    Why is his best PM rating falling like a house brick then ?
  • Options

    notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
    So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    TGOHF said:

    Sobering reading for PB Tories from Goodwin:

    " ‘Corbynomics’, which is cutting through."

    https://unherd.com/2018/11/corbynomics-winning-britain/

    Why is his best PM rating falling like a house brick then ?
    The message may be popular but the messenger isn't, as the Tories found in the Noughties.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
    Of course. Only this afternoon, this bloke who said his name was Sergei knocked on my door. He said he was an DPD delivery driver and could he borrow my car and mobiles for the afternoon, so he could finish his rounds.

    Should I be getting worried he hasn't returned yet?
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    The referendum result doesn't deserve respect. It was based on widespread ignorance and corrupt practices. Why respect it?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,894
    DavidL said:

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
    Live look at a couple of the juror's latest tweets :

    https://twitter.com/LenMcCluskey/status/1065880780025577472
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    DavidL said:

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
    It reminds me of former MP Mark Devine who got a VAT invoice from some bloke down the pub who he couldn't trace.
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    No party has an inherent right to exist and given how badly they have screwed up the most important job they have had to do in the last 50 years they deserve no sympathy and no help. They are unfit to exist as a potentially governing party.

    This applies to Labour at least as much as the Tories
    I agree. It applies to any party but it was the Tories who were in charge for the last 3 years so it was their responsibility to sort this out.
  • Options
    felix said:

    OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.

    Raab and the others in the ERG display an IQ of the kindergarten

    Going round saying this is worse than remain invites 48% of the Country saying we have told you so for the last two years so let's agree to remain

    Indeed almost guaranteeing a substantial remain vote in a referendum

  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    notme said:

    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.

    And all 6 of them post here regularly
    TSE's poll posting puts that little myth to bed.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:

    Sean_F said:


    A second referendum would split the Tories too.

    I think that an awful lot would turn on the question that was actually put to the voters.

    I guess it will be remain or May's deal. I don't think Parliament would risk a no deal option.
    In which case remain could well win. Too manyleavers publicly saying deal is worse than remain to change tack.
    Why did they bother supporting Leave in the first place?
    They took a gamble that they would get perfect brexit and are pretending the question was more than it was. If they genuinely feel some brexits are not worth it then they must feel duty bound to support remain should they fail to get support for no deal.
    I don't think anyone predicted that remainer May would serve up such a terrible deal. The assumption was it would be Cameron or somebody competent.

    Dom Cummings did, he is on record as saying that current MP's and the Civil Service could not deliver a beneficial Brexit or his definition of a beneficial Brexit.
    Yes - he won the referendum then was proved right again that the civil service isn't fit for much at all apart from "managed decline".

  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    felix said:

    OT: A second referendum would be a just reward for the idiots on the extrme right of the Tory party. I firmly believe it would be a vote to Remain in the EU.

    Believe is the right word for it. There isn't much evidence from the polls that another referendum would produce a significantly different result.
  • Options
    ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    edited November 2018
    DavidL said:

    This jury are being very slow. Unlike Ms Onasanya's car.

    Joyridden by a mystery Russian...
    Surely this happens to your car all the time. And you lend out both your phones at the same time of course. Nothing surprising about that at all.
    Will this come down to a technicality? As I understand it the offence is that the NIP form was filled in incorrectly. If the prosecution can not prove that she had knowledge of the filling in of the form has she not broken that law?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,002

    notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
    So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.
    The principal decision that people would want to be taken here is deciding who can come here. For many, "sovereignty" was just code for immigration.
  • Options

    notme said:

    Anazina said:

    notme said:

    Can we not just have sodding membership of efta, must of this drama would disappear. The Eu cannot be relied on to hold to any agreement of understanding for future trading deal.

    EFTA doesn’t respect the referendum result which voted to end free movement.
    Nope. Not you as well. There was nothing about free movement on the ballot paper.

    I fear a 'word cloud' is heading my way.
    Were you in a coma during the referendum, did you miss all the stuff about ending free movement?
    Some people voted leave for reasons other than migration.
    I know but it was the second most important reason, in fact you could argue that it was a subset of number one.

    image
    So as we have said all along, immigration was not the main driving factor behind the Leave vote and yet we have sacrificed every other possible Brexit on the alter of ending EU migration. I hope HYUFD sees that.
    Wrong, because there is other polling available that reinforces my point.

    Britain’s vote to leave the EU was the result of widespread anti-immigration sentiment, rather than a wider dissatisfaction with politics, according to a major survey of social attitudes in the UK.

    Findings from the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey published on Wednesday show Brexit was the result of widespread concern over the numbers of people coming to the UK – millions of whom have done so under the EU’s freedom of movement rules in recent years.


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-latest-news-leave-eu-immigration-main-reason-european-union-survey-a7811651.html#
This discussion has been closed.