Also in the news

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Captain... said:

 

I am not saying remain vs May’s deal vs No deal most votes win as that would be an affront to democracy. There is a fair way of determining exactly what the country wants by referendum I don’t see why people are so opposed to it.

That is all I’m arguing against.

 

[StanSP]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

By not deciding we leave with no deal. They did vote and enshrine that into law (unless I’m mistaken), albeit a while back.

So not deciding something means we should just live with it? Just live with the country being left to run itself in to the shitter? 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

So not deciding something means we should just live with it? Just live with the country being left to run itself in to the shitter? 

By not deciding something, they are deciding something. The consequences of not doing so are not hidden. 

[StanSP]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

By not deciding something, they are deciding something. The consequences of not doing so are not hidden. 

By not deciding means they are deciding. That in itself sums up how much of a mess this Parliament is. 

I don't know the technical or linguistic term for that but it's just a complete shambles.

I know the consequences aren't hidden: that's not the point. The point is that the consequences of their indecisiveness has got us in to an embarrassing mess. 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

By not deciding means they are deciding. That in itself sums up how much of a mess this Parliament is. 

I don't know the technical or linguistic term for that but it's just a complete shambles.

I know the consequences aren't hidden: that's not the point. The point is that the consequences of their indecisiveness has got us in to an embarrassing mess. 

I don’t entirely agree, it was their eagerness and decisiveness that got us into this mess. They shouldn’t have rushed through everything without a knowing what would pass. You could argue we shouldn’t have had the referendum without exact instruction as to what leave would happen.

I think the governments handling off this has been abysmal, and if there was a shred of doubt that leaving was incorrect, it’s because our politicians have shown themselves to be largely ignorant, incompetent and self interested from all sides.

[Matt]

I’ll say it again, how and why is everyone so shocked and surprised?!

 

I expect no less from politicians, they’re all pathetic. I’m not saying it’s right but have people not learnt the same after all this time?!

 

Politics might be being spoke about more than ever but at the same time I think people are potentially most disinterested at this time, feels failed most at this time and turned people away from voting in the future - which is probably what they want tbh.

[deep blue]

3 hours ago, RobHawk said:

We go again on Monday with another set of indicitive votes now knowing what today's result was. Today was always going to be stage 1 of the process and this faux shock that none have been accepted is ridiculous. The reason for a 2 step process is no one expected any of them to pass. 

 

But parliament in one day have got closer to agreeing something. Mays deal could only dream of getting 8 votes away from passing.

Correct.

 

My first reaction was disappointment, but on reflection this result was to be expected on the first round of voting, and it represents considerable progress.

 

MPs, for the first time, now have some numerical idea of how opinion is spread in the House. I don't know if the second attempt will be refined in any way (it is, after all, an experiment) but if it is simply repeated then MPs have the opportunity to reflect and to consider whether, in the light of the first set of figures, they want to cast their votes differently or more intelligently.

 

For example, to change the closest vote to a positive result requires just 9 MPs moving from abstention to "aye", or 5 changing from "no" to "aye". MPs now have the ability to focus more clearly on what are their preferences and to use that knowledge to cast their votes more judiciously until they come to the greatest consensus. The government can use that as a much more accurate guide to find a better route to a solution that at least offends the fewest (which is probably the best we can hope for at this point, and maybe the best way to defuse divisive feelings).

 

Roll on the next round of voting!

[ozleicester]

[Foxxed]

So the MPs couldn't decide on an alternative Brexit with Ken Clarke's Custom Union coming closest.

 

The public voted for Brexit but with a lot of recent movement against that. The MPs don't like May's Brexit but can't agree on what they want. The EU doesn't know what we're doing. May doesn't think she can get her deal through. And a new referendum on the deal may, if done badly, leave us in Brexit limbo. Arran Banks and Farage have paralysed this country better than any foreign adversary could. It's actually impressive in a sick way.

[Buce]

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

It doesn’t change my opinion that it shouldn’t, If there is another referendum then it’s either leave vs remain. Or Types of leave pitted against each other. Anything else is an absolute affront to democracy.

We were never asked again after any of the treaties that have been signed either. So there is precedent.

How many people wanted the Maastricht Treaty or the Lisbon treaty? Deals we have been and our bound too now.

4

 

Not immediately, that's true, but we were asked again in 2016.

 

Personally, I don't think there's a convincing argument against another referendum, now it's clear that it's not going to be as great as certain politicians would have us believe and with evidence of a shift in public opinion. If Remainers now have a majority we are being held to ransom by a minority; if Leave has a majority, another referendum will merely confirm that.

[Finnegan]

As funny as it is to imagine they'll vote for her deal by landslide because she offered to quit if they do, surely everyone that wants rid of her wants rid of her because they hate her deal and think she's on borrowed time anyway? 

 

Isn't it a bit redundant? 

[MC Prussian]

5 hours ago, ozleicester said:

I agree to some extent, but then again, I'm not a big fan of politicians deciding over such questions on behalf of the voting population and/or the country.

It opens all doors to a certain type of dictatorship by government.

 

The EU question needs to be asked, the European Union needs to be observed critically and criticized for what it does wrong. And one can and should be skeptic with regards to a potential European Superstate.

People need to be more educated about it and discourse should be encouraged.

 

Still think the whole construct to be a mess thanks to the currency union. Would've been better off by sticking to the political union instead.

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

I agree to some extent, but then again, I'm not a big fan of politicians deciding over such questions on behalf of the voting population and/or the country.

It opens all doors to a certain type of dictatorship by government.

 

The EU question needs to be asked, the European Union needs to be observed critically and criticized for what it does wrong. And one can and should be skeptic with regards to a potential European Superstate.

People need to be more educated about it and discourse should be encouraged.

 

Still think the whole construct to be a mess thanks to the currency union. Would've been better off by sticking to the political union instead.

Agree with some of that.. however there are times when doing what is right, may not be doing what is popular.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Not immediately, that's true, but we were asked again in 2016.

 

Personally, I don't think there's a convincing argument against another referendum, now it's clear that it's not going to be as great as certain politicians would have us believe and with evidence of a shift in public opinion. If Remainers now have a majority we are being held to ransom by a minority; if Leave has a majority, another referendum will merely confirm that.

Like I said, I don’t take issue with a second referendum. I’m taking issue with the way a certain poster was claiming it was right to pitch remain vs 3 or 4 different types of leave. 

I wouldn’t be massively happy at the prospect but with deadlock I really don’t see any viable alternative.

[AKCJ]

For me, the Government should decide how we should leave the European Referendum and that should be pitched against Remain in a second referendum.

 

Pitching remain vs 4 leave options is obviously wrong.

[Strokes]

Just now, AKCJ said:

For me, the Government should decide how we should leave the European Referendum and that should be pitched against Remain in a second referendum.

 

Pitching remain vs 4 leave options is obviously wrong.

If the government can decide how we leave the EU, I see no need for a second referendum.

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

For me, the Government should decide how we should leave the European Referendum and that should be pitched against Remain in a second referendum.

 

Pitching remain vs 4 leave options is obviously wrong.

The problem with that is it encourages a Remain dominated government and parliament to get a deal so bad the public have to vote to Remain.

[Voll Blau]

11 hours ago, MattP said:

Maybe this could be the ballot paper for a second referendum...

 

REMAIN (Euro, Schengen)

REMAIN (EU Army)

REMAIN (Associate)

LEAVE

 

Now see how ridiculous that is? That's how your idea looks to us.

But Remain voters weren't sold those options by different campaign leaders at the referendum, were they? They were just sold "Remain" and whatever that may entail. Leave voters were sold Leave, and indeed voted Leave, because of a number of different factors and promises peddled by different factions - despite what the actual question and options were on the ballot paper. One thing's for certain though - nobody I know who voted Leave voted to be in this quagmire we're in right now.

[The Guvnor]

21 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

For me, the Government should decide how we should leave the European Referendum and that should be pitched against Remain in a second referendum.

 

Pitching remain vs 4 leave options is obviously wrong.

For me that is fundamentally wrong, any deal now concocted by Parliament looks like involving a Customs Union, ECJ rule taking, and a question mark over free movement of people so despite what some posters are repeatedly regurgitating about the leave vote not being prescriptive, which incidentally is a bit patronising to say the least as why would you vote leave only to have virtually the staus quo? So I can never see this outcome, what Parliament have concocted vote v remain for the reasons mentioned anything other than scandolous . The majority of these sorry bunch of arse holes would love im sure to put it back to the people no doubt and try and sanitise their decision by a massive act of sloping shoulders. If that is the final solution then ffs have the bollox to revoke article 50 and be prepared to accept the consequences. 

[Captain...]

53 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Like I said, I don’t take issue with a second referendum. I’m taking issue with the way a certain poster was claiming it was right to pitch remain vs 3 or 4 different types of leave. 

I wouldn’t be massively happy at the prospect but with deadlock I really don’t see any viable alternative.

Nobody is saying it should be a most votes wins with 2 or more options splitting the leave vote. 

 

Any decision by referendum needs a majority as we currently have 3 options with possibly more heading our way, then a referendum with rounds of voting or a transfereable vote system is the only way to guarantee a majority without an overly simplified binary vote which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

Whenever people say they want remain as part of a second referendum they mean as part of a fair ballot where any one option requires a 50% majority to win (however that is achieved) if they genuinely don’t mean that then they really aren’t worth arguing with.

[Captain...]

6 minutes ago, The Guvnor said:

For me that is fundamentally wrong, any deal now concocted by Parliament looks like involving a Customs Union, ECJ rule taking, and a question mark over free movement of people so despite what some posters are repeatedly regurgitating about the leave vote not being prescriptive, which incidentally is a bit patronising to say the least as why would you vote leave only to have virtually the staus quo? So I can never see this outcome, what Parliament have concocted vote v remain for the reasons mentioned anything other than scandolous . The majority of these sorry bunch of arse holes would love im sure to put it back to the people no doubt and try and sanitise their decision by a massive act of sloping shoulders. If that is the final solution then ffs have the bollox to revoke article 50 and be prepared to accept the consequences. 

Re: keeping the status quo. Because some people voted leave to get such a deal, some people wanted us to leave the EU but keep our borders open to people and trade just have greater sovereignty.

 

That’s the whole point about the leave vote not being prescriptive. It was a vote for everyone who wanted to see the EU burn to those who think that the status quo is pretty good but we would benefit from taking a small step back and not letting the EU have final say over everything.

[Strokes]

16 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Nobody is saying it should be a most votes wins with 2 or more options splitting the leave vote. 

 

Any decision by referendum needs a majority as we currently have 3 options with possibly more heading our way, then a referendum with rounds of voting or a transfereable vote system is the only way to guarantee a majority without an overly simplified binary vote which is what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

Whenever people say they want remain as part of a second referendum they mean as part of a fair ballot where any one option requires a 50% majority to win (however that is achieved) if they genuinely don’t mean that then they really aren’t worth arguing with.

It’s not true, the post I originally responded too was suggesting that, which is why I took umbrage. You then jumped in and completely misunderstood my opinion, I’m not against a second referendum if parliament cannot break the deadlock, in fact it’s inevitable. I was against the way he planned to design the referendum.

 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, StanSP said:

May has said 'back the deal and I'll go'.

I'm obviously thick but I still don't get this. 

 

Why does May quitting for an unknown leader make the Deal acceptable?

 

Surely the deal which cannot then be changed is either acceptable or not and May is either acceptable or not. They are independant and if people don't want May they can get rid of her whenever they want and if the deal is acceptable, May being there changes nothing.

 

By not voting for an alternative the MPS are voting for leaving without a DEAL. I'm sure they are wise enough to understand that.

 

A new referendum would certainly involve rounds or transferable votes - not sure what the argument on here is about.

 

 

[EnderbyFox]

1 minute ago, FIF said:

I'm obviously thick but I still don't get this. 

 

Why does May quitting for an unknown leader make the Deal acceptable?

 

Surely the deal which cannot then be changed is either acceptable or not and May is either acceptable or not. They are independant and if people don't want May they can get rid of her whenever they want and if the deal is acceptable, May being there changes nothing.

 

By not voting for an alternative the MPS are voting for leaving without a DEAL. I'm sure they are wise enough to understand that.

 

A new referendum would certainly involve rounds or transferable votes - not sure what the argument on here is about.

 

 

 

Because the majority of the Tory MPs that haven't backed the deal in the first two votes are "Extreme" brexiteers. May saying she will leave paves the way for a potential "harder" Brexit figure taking them into the second stage of negotiations.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

Because the majority of the Tory MPs that haven't backed the deal in the first two votes are "Extreme" brexiteers. May saying she will leave paves the way for a potential "harder" Brexit figure taking them into the second stage of negotiations.

 

Thanks

 

So does that mean that the agreed May's option then wouldn't be the agreed option and could be changed?

 

This also raises the questions of why non extreme brexiteers would then vote for the deal and also how do the extreme brexiteers know that an extreme brexiteer would become leader?