Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

  • Total voters
    1,081


mikeyjh

mikeyjh

Well-known member
Dec 17, 2008
4,485
Llanymawddwy
CHAPPERS said:
[tweet]1074372746384166920[/tweet]
Click to expand...

I don't know where to start with this one, it's utter rhetorical hogwash. Our location is certain, will never change and is, obviously, very important to our prosperity. WTF is character in this context? Stiff upper lip and all that, very imperialistic and 19th century. Twunt.
 




Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,559
Mellor 3 Ward 4 said:
And therein lies hte issue

The majority of MPs want to remain

The majority of the Country voted to leave.
Click to expand...

The Leave Campaign promised a Deal that was undeliverable which is why all of their leading lights have fled the scene.
 


ManOfSussex

ManOfSussex

We wunt be druv
Apr 11, 2016
14,744
Rape of Hastings, Sussex
Pavilionaire said:
May's actions delaying the meaningful vote do seem to point to her forcing her party towards accepting her Deal rather than crashing out with No Deal.

All this talk of ramping up preparations for No Deal is bullshit. Real preparation is the recruiting of ten of thousands of customs officers, vets, immigration officers, border staff, building roads and lorry parks in Kent.

As for Corbyn, what a weak, ineffective leader.
Click to expand...

Faced with their numbers being only circa 120 and the prospect of Parliament taking control afterwards if the withdrawal agreement is voted down and an Article 50 extension and possible further vote, The ERG/no deal proponents may well be singing a different tune next month when the withdrawal agreement is actually voted on. The delay to January of the vote, the dismissing of other options, the shortage of time, the 'threat' of a no deal exit - a free vote on it and the hope of the DUP abstaining among others and enough Labour votes may also be the way to go to get it over the line.
 


Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,156
Goldstone
Mellor 3 Ward 4 said:
The majority of MPs want to remain

The majority of the Country voted to leave.
Click to expand...
Indeed, an issue I've raised before.

Personally I expect another referendum, but it's odds against with the bookies, and I expect they have better insight than me. But if there's no second referendum, what will happen? It looks like her deal won't go through, and there's no way the house will go with no deal, so what is going to happen?
 


Pavilionaire

Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,559
I honestly believe that if there were a Second Referendum and the ballot paper choices were

1) In
2) Out
3) Shake it all about

then option 3 would win. It's a bit of a laugh, a bit of anarchy, two fingers to Westminster etc. I don't think the majority of British people really care enough about this issue, I don't think they ever did.
 




Blue Valkyrie

Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
CHAPPERS said:
Immigration White Paper also being pushed back. Wouldn't expect that to be available until January now. Insulting, frankly.
Click to expand...
After the *meaningful* vote. They are hiding something in it which they want kept under wraps until MPs have voted.
 


Mtoto

Mtoto

Well-known member
Sep 28, 2003
1,841
Triggaaar said:
No, I'm not. I got the details from reports about the poster.
It's not just misleading, it's wrong (unless they were stating what they measured, which they didn't).

Well the WTO model is what would happen if we were to fail to make a deal with anyone. That's never going to happen, so bringing that into it is daft. As one of the biggest economies in the world we'd expect to get one of the best deals. We wouldn't expect a deal worse than Norway's.

What they did is pick a bad deal, act as if that's definitely what we'd get, and then report the potential loss of GDP on that bad deal as if it would affect the average household by that amount, which it wouldn't. It was lies just the same as the £350m a week for the NHS.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's *relative* size that matters when it comes to trading arrangements. And once we've ripped ourselves out of the world's biggest free-trade zone, and the bleeding - which will be proportionally worse for us than it will for them - has finally stopped, we'll be just another second-tier economy trying to trade with the only top-tier economy in this part of the globe, and negotiating from a position of weakness bordering on desperation.

Yet you blithely "expect to get one of the best deals". Perhaps you need to expand a bit more on how and why before you start calling out liars.
 


ManOfSussex

ManOfSussex

We wunt be druv
Apr 11, 2016
14,744
Rape of Hastings, Sussex
Blue Valkyrie said:
After the *meaningful* vote. They are hiding something in it which they want kept under wraps until MPs have voted.
Click to expand...

It's being reported that one cabinet member is insisting the £30k a year minimum income proposal remains, while others want it reduced. Can you guess which one?

(Give you a clue - it's the one who likes the hostile environment policy and the tens of thousands target called Theresa.)
 
Last edited:




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,156
Goldstone
Mtoto said:
Unfortunately it's *relative* size that matters when it comes to trading arrangements. And once we've ripped ourselves out of the world's biggest free-trade zone, and the bleeding - which will be proportionally worse for us than it will for them - has finally stopped, we'll be just another second-tier economy trying to trade with the only top-tier economy in this part of the globe, and negotiating from a position of weakness bordering on desperation.
Click to expand...
Just because we're not a big economy compared to the US or the EU, we're still bigger than the likes of Norway, so for the Remain camp to suggest we'd have a much worse deal is ridiculous.

Yet you blithely "expect to get one of the best deals". Perhaps you need to expand a bit more on how and why before you start calling out liars.
Click to expand...
What? May's deal, which we don't want as it's not good enough, is already better than the deal the remain camp used for their forecast. The remain camp lied. Even the government's own Treasury Committee said the government shouldn't be making the false claim that households would be £4,300 worse off.

Why do you think it's ok to call out the Leave campaign on their lie about having £350m spare, but not call out the Remain camp on their lie of how much money leaving would cost each family?
 


nicko31

nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,562
Gods country fortnightly
So we have a quarter of schools in budget deficit and the government wants to spend £2B on no deal planning.

Sunny uplands, Blue Passports, Fish....
 






Blue Valkyrie

Blue Valkyrie

Not seen such Bravery!
Sep 1, 2012
32,165
Valhalla
ManOfSussex said:
It's being reported that one cabinet member is insisting the £30k a year minimum income proposal remains, while others want it reduced. Can you guess which one?

(Give you a clue - it's the one who likes the hostile environment policy and the tens of thousand target called Theresa.)
Click to expand...
Yes. The one who wants to end our right of freedom of movement to the EU at all costs.
 


Blue3

Blue3

Well-known member
Jan 27, 2014
5,567
Lancing
Triggaaar said:
Just because we're not a big economy compared to the US or the EU, we're still bigger than the likes of Norway, so for the Remain camp to suggest we'd have a much worse deal is ridiculous.

Norway remember is resource rich population poor they still had massive oil and gas reserves and unlike the UK who sold all the oil and gas rights away they kept there's and invested 1% into a national investment fund which now worth trillions and is being used to fund new start up buissness if they are using new technologies, huge building program building roads bridges tunnels rail links to connect what is a very mountainous country they thought about the future it gave them this huge buffer Sadley we did not then and we are not now


The U.K. Also sold the rights to maintaining the oil rigs which Norway snapped up
Click to expand...
 


Baldseagull

Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
10,941
Crawley
Triggaaar said:
No, I'm not. I got the details from reports about the poster.
It's not just misleading, it's wrong (unless they were stating what they measured, which they didn't).

Well the WTO model is what would happen if we were to fail to make a deal with anyone. That's never going to happen, so bringing that into it is daft. As one of the biggest economies in the world we'd expect to get one of the best deals. We wouldn't expect a deal worse than Norway's.

What they did is pick a bad deal, act as if that's definitely what we'd get, and then report the potential loss of GDP on that bad deal as if it would affect the average household by that amount, which it wouldn't. It was lies just the same as the £350m a week for the NHS.
Click to expand...

Absolutely we should expect a deal worse than Norways, we want out of the single market, they are in and take the rules, we are saying no to that.

I believe the WTO model was trading with the EU on WTO but included rolling over of some if not all of our current arrangements with other countries via the EU and FTA's with the US, and others. This is what many Brexit supporters propose, isn't it?

I have accepted it is an unfair way to present the data, I think "lie" is too strong though. You have highlighted that the Treasury warned against further use of the figures in that way, and I don't believe it was used officially in that way again. I believe the ONS said something similar about the £350 million though, yet you can still find it being used by leave supporting Politicians today.
 




Simster

Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,166
Surrey
Plooks said:
Nope. If AV is not good enough for a general election why is it good enough for a referendum? If you don't think it should be used at general elections then how can you support it for this? Ohhhh because you think you will lose.
Click to expand...

You seriously think it would be acceptable to have ONE single remain option and TWO leave options, where the option with the highest poll takes all? You don't think that splitting the leave vote AFTER THEY'VE ALREADY WON IN 2016 is a touch unreasonable?
 




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,156
Goldstone
Baldseagull said:
Absolutely we should expect a deal worse than Norways, we want out of the single market, they are in and take the rules, we are saying no to that.
Click to expand...
May's deal is pretty much like being in the single market. Regardless, May's deal is not like Canada's deal.

I believe the WTO model was trading with the EU on WTO but included rolling over of some if not all of our current arrangements with other countries via the EU and FTA's with the US, and others. This is what many Brexit supporters propose, isn't it?
Click to expand...
By 'many Brexit supporters' I assume you mean 'a lot less than half our voters', and about none of our MPs.

I have accepted it is an unfair way to present the data, I think "lie" is too strong though. You have highlighted that the Treasury warned against further use of the figures in that way, and I don't believe it was used officially in that way again. I believe the ONS said something similar about the £350 million though, yet you can still find it being used by leave supporting Politicians today.
Click to expand...
Really? Which leave supporting politicians are claiming we'll have £350m a week? Regardless, this discussion is about lies before the referendum, in order to influence the vote. Both sides did it.
 






Simster

Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,166
Surrey
Plooks said:
So, explain why AV is ok in referendums but not in a GE?
Click to expand...

The first thing to note is that a single binary referendum has already been played out. The only sensible argument for a re-run is that the government have been unable to deliver a Brexit that looks like it could remotely be in the public interest, so perhaps we go back to the people to decide what should be done.

But the key issue here is the delicate nature of doing so. It's not an ideal solution because the risk of alienating 30-40% upwards of the electorate from ever voting again is extremely high. The fact that it is even being considered just shows what a mess the government is making of delivering Brexit. But if a second vote is deemed necessary, what absolutely MUST happen is that it is as fair as possible, and your dumb idea of AV where Leave in split is like driving a bus through the wishes of that 30-40% who are already highly suspicious.

The fact that you are even suggesting it is remotely fair to do so puts you in the Donald Trump sphere of retarded politics - you know, like when he moved his embassy to Jerusalem, or shuts down trade and climate change agreements for selfish short term gain. That's how bad your idea is.

Now your turn - why is ok to have a different GE (FPTP) and EU (d'Hondt ) voting systems? According to you, that isn't right. Funny though, you've never mentioned that before.
 


nicko31

nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,562
Gods country fortnightly


You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here