Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Full "intregration" with the EU has never been proposed by anyone as far as I am aware and Is not desirable even for most Remainers. Where has this come from?

Yes I spotted it after posting and changed while you were posting :)

Its an option considering the apparent ground swell of support for the European Union,  and a once in a lifetime (yes I know) vote sets the mood for any future government and its interaction with the EU.

 

Edited by perthblue02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be realised, that since May said she wouldn’t lead the Tories into the next election, she is becoming more irrelevant by the day. No one trusts her even in her own party and others are already riding over her, in particular and only a matter of days after her “announcement” - Rudd and Mordant . Expect May to be sidelined even further until she leaves. 

Everythings up for grabs, but I don’t expect Mays stance of my deal or no deal to last much longer. Already there’s a clamour for cross party working. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Paul said:

Is it a "proper majority for a choice."? I do not believe in any form of Brexit and will never vote for such.

An STV system can only be fair if one is allowed to express a single choice. I wouldn't vote if for my vote to qualify I'm forced to go:

1. Remain

2. May's deal

3. No deal

If we are to be fair about this we should not be introducing, what I think is a new voting system, for the UK. It has the potential to force voters to make choices they would not otherwise make, heavily biases the vote in favour of May's deal (the lesser of two evils) and I suspect would confuse sections of the electorate.

It would just about be acceptable to have three choices but only a single vote for one option.

The only fair second referendum is to repeat the original question. The electorate can then make a more informed choice. Any other approach will leave the country divided, which it probably will be anyway for a generation.

Thanks for the response. I can see two issues however with what you suggest.

1) 3 options with a single vote will not produce a clear outcome. We could end up with the choice selected only being say 38% of the votes cast.  That you can't move forward with imo.

2) Repeating the original question does not draw a distinction between Mays deal and no deal, and that will been seen as deeply unfair by the hard brexit population.

Given the incredibly split dynamic at play there needs to be a transferrable or preferred vote to try show one clearly preferred option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

 

Full "intregration" with the EU has never been proposed by anyone as far as I am aware and Is not desirable even for most Remainers. Where has this come from?

What does full integration even mean? I think we are fully integrated at the moment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should have said further integration, basically being a good little member  .

Start by adopting the Euro as currency and joining the Schengen area.

Abolish our veto rights , as Mr Junker wants all the EU countries to do

Opting in to the Charter for fundamental rights of the European Union

Getting rid of our opt out of the area of freedom, security and justice

Edited by perthblue02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, perthblue02 said:

Maybe I should have said further integration, basically being a good little member  .

Start by adopting the Euro as currency and joining the Schengen area.

Abolish our veto rights , as Mr Junker wants all the EU countries to do

Opting in to the Charter for fundamental rights of the European Union

Getting rid of our opt out of the area of freedom, security and justice

No one would vote for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, joey_big_nose said:

What does full integration even mean? I think we are fully integrated at the moment?

 Hardly. We have so many opt-outs and special clauses. We have a brilliant deal with the EU - we're already having our cake and eating it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

Thanks for the response. I can see two issues however with what you suggest.

1) 3 options with a single vote will not produce a clear outcome. We could end up with the choice selected only being say 38% of the votes cast.  That you can't move forward with imo.

2) Repeating the original question does not draw a distinction between Mays deal and no deal, and that will been seen as deeply unfair by the hard brexit population.

Given the incredibly split dynamic at play there needs to be a transferrable or preferred vote to try show one clearly preferred option.

I'd agree with you and it does highlight the enormity of the issue. It looks increasingly like the only solution will be a second referendum. Whatever the question it's going to leave a significant number unhappy. For example a win for May's deal under a transferable vote means Remainers and No Dealers are unhappy. Those who don't believe in a second referendum unhappy. While not endless the list is long!

While I'm strongly in favour of a second vote what I really want is Parliament to do it's job. We elect MPs to act in our best interests, they should do so by voting to reject May's deal and revoke Article 50. When did any politicians take a long term view and act accordingly? Most can't see beyond five years.

I understand the argument re democracy and the "will of the people" but this is so vital to our longterm future Parliament should act.

Edited by Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, perthblue02 said:

Maybe I should have said further integration, basically being a good little member  .

Start by adopting the Euro as currency and joining the Schengen area.

Abolish our veto rights , as Mr Junker wants all the EU countries to do

Opting in to the Charter for fundamental rights of the European Union

Getting rid of our opt out of the area of freedom, security and justice

A bit like having a referendum on Rovers with an option to bring Coyle back!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul said:

I'd agree with you and it does highlight the enormity of the issue. It looks increasingly like the only solution will be a second referendum. Whatever the question it's going to leave a significant number unhappy. For example a win for May's deal under a transferable vote means Remainers and No Dealers are unhappy. Those who don't believe in a second referendum unhappy. While not endless the list is long!

While I'm strongly in favour of a second vote what I really want is Parliament to do it's job. We elect MPs to act in our best interests, they should do so by voting to reject May's deal and revoke Article 50. When did any politicians take a long term view and act accordingly? Most can't see beyond five years.

I understand the argument re democracy and the "will of the people" but this is so vital to our longterm future Parliament should act.

If parliament unilaterally cancels brexit without a referendum to underwrite that action it would lead to a very very serious legitimacy crisis.

I don't think that's a serious option for anyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbyn tables a motion of no confidence in May over not holding a meaningful vote immediately (Maybe ! its changing hourly, ), 

Link

  • Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour will table a motion of no confidence in Theresa May personally because she has delayed the vote on her Brexit deal. This is not the same as a proper motion of no confidence in the government and, unlike a proper motion of no confidence, the government does not have to allow time for it to be debated. Labour could hold a debate on the motion when it next gets allocated a day for an opposition debate, at some point in the new year, or it may never get put to a vote at all. (Labour sources have so far not clarified this point.) But the Labour party is arguing that, if the government does not allow time for a debate itself, that shows it is scared of losing and that May does not have the confidence of the Commons.

Edit: Other opposition leaders have put down an amendement to Corbyns motion of no confidence, to make it a full blown one (tweet from

 BBC journalist

Edited by perthblue02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read most of it but it was hard going for a non political person like myself. Basically it boils down to what I said yesterday - the EU holds all the aces and most of the rest of the picture cards, or if you were playing dominoes with cards all the 7s 6s and 8s and only one other card which is probably a 5 or a 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, philipl said:

For anyone who really wants to understand Brexit, here is the speech by Sir Ivan Rogers at Liverpool University.

Ivan is the guy May stupidly sacked as lead negotiator.

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

 

Did he not resign a few months before his role was to end after the "leak"?

 

UK to remain in Common Transit Convention after Brexit

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-remain-in-common-transit-convention-after-brexit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2018 at 20:35, Ewood Ace said:

Over 83% of voters voted for candidates in 2017 that  stood on manifesto's committed to leaving the EU, the single market and the custom's union. It's just a shame that many of them have shown since that they didn't believe the Manifesto's that they stood on. 

This is a nonsense you effectively have a 2 party state and both parties were saying they were in favour of brexit people didnt have a lot of choice but to vote for a brexit supporting candidate. Its a bit like Saddam Hussein getting 97% of the vote he must have been really popular????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, perthblue02 said:

Corbyn tables a motion of no confidence in May over not holding a meaningful vote immediately (Maybe ! its changing hourly, ), 

Link

  • Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour will table a motion of no confidence in Theresa May personally because she has delayed the vote on her Brexit deal. This is not the same as a proper motion of no confidence in the government and, unlike a proper motion of no confidence, the government does not have to allow time for it to be debated. Labour could hold a debate on the motion when it next gets allocated a day for an opposition debate, at some point in the new year, or it may never get put to a vote at all. (Labour sources have so far not clarified this point.) But the Labour party is arguing that, if the government does not allow time for a debate itself, that shows it is scared of losing and that May does not have the confidence of the Commons.

Edit: Other opposition leaders have put down an amendement to Corbyns motion of no confidence, to make it a full blown one (tweet from

 BBC journalist

Bit of a weird one that... seems like it doesn't really have much of an impact as it can just ignore it as it's not a vote of no-confidence in the government as a whole, only May personally.

Tis nothing but a fleshwound... hmm.

I really wish we had someone credible in opposition. To have two complete no-hopers in charge of both parties is extraordinarily depressing. Can't think when it's been this bad? Thought Cameron-Milliband was pretty bad. But this is another level. Blair and Thatcher for their faults actually had an agenda and drove policy. We've been agendaless for years (unless you count never ending austerity...). 

Labour should really bin Corbyn and bring in Keir Starmer and give him a whirl. Corbyn just has too much baggage and is too toxic for most in the centre, let alone the right. Bring in a new amenable candidate and they would make 10% on the polls virtually overnight.

Edited by joey_big_nose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, joey_big_nose said:

Bit of a weird one that... seems like it doesn't really have much of an impact as it can just ignore it as it's not a vote of no-confidence in the government as a whole, only May personally.

Tis nothing but a fleshwound... hmm.

I really wish we had someone credible in opposition. To have two complete no-hopers in charge of both parties is extraordinarily depressing. Can't think when it's been this bad? Thought Cameron-Milliband was pretty bad. But this is another level. Blair and Thatcher for their faults actually had an agenda and drove policy. We've been agendaless for years (unless you count never ending austerity...). 

Labour should really bin Corbyn and bring in Keir Starmer and give him a whirl. Corbyn just has too much baggage and is too toxic for most in the centre, let alone the right. Bring in a new amenable candidate and they would make 10% on the polls virtually overnight.

That's probably true but it won't happen. Corbyn's supporters have it sewn up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 47er said:

That's probably true but it won't happen. Corbyn's supporters have it sewn up.

Well at some point they'll twig it might be better to have a compromise candidate in power as opposed to an idealogically pure candidate that can't win. But I think it's probably going to take a loss at the next election to drive that message home.

This Tory government is arguably in the worst electoral position since the second world war (eight years of austerity and a horrendous car crash of a brexit process) and Labour can barely get them neck and neck in the polls. Absolutely extraordinary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, perthblue02 said:

Did he not resign a few months before his role was to end after the "leak"?

 

UK to remain in Common Transit Convention after Brexit

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-remain-in-common-transit-convention-after-brexit

No he was fired.

Only 35 more agreements to go before the planes keep flying after Brexit..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rafael Behr notes that with so little time left, there are now three places to go:

Option one: exit with a deal almost exactly like the one May has negotiated. Option two: membership of the EU – the best available outcome in strategic and economic terms, but one that incurs serious political cost by enraging already furious leavers. Option three: exit with no deal, an appalling idea recommended only by fools, liars and vandals. Option one requires approval of the withdrawal agreement and an implementation bill in parliament. Option two is reached by rescinding article 50, which should for democracy’s sake be done after a referendum. Option three involves carrying on as we are, bickering about process, failing to cross tribal party lines in pursuit of consensus, refusing to be honest about what is available. Those are the choices. They aren’t complicated. The EU identified them two years ago and spelled them out clearly. The British public is bored with watching their politicians arguing about the wrong questions. The EU is bored with watching British politicians refuse to level with the public about the right questions. Everyone should be afraid of what happens in the absence of clear answers, because disaster by inaction is the default option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Government argued that May Deal is what the voters voted for in June 2016.

Now the Government says No Deal is what the voters voted for in June 2016. 

Government has just made the clinching argument for the second referendum.

In practical terms, May Deal and No Deal are far more different from each other than the platforms of Remain and the official Leave campaign were in 2016.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that bit about giving money to the NHS?

This is what you voted to spend it on:

“I have become the largest buyer of fridges in the world. I didn’t expect that”, according to Health Minister Matt Hancock.

We’re filling fridges with drug stockpiles at huge cost to the NHS because nobody has a clue what’s going to happen.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.