The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (137 Viewers)

[Astute]

May is playing a game of political brinksmanship. Delaying the vote is doing two things; forcing Brexiteer MPs to choose between a Brexit of sorts, or risk not leaving at all and for Remain MPs, the risk of a no deal Brexit.

She’s in an impossible position. Brexiteer MPs consider a no deal Brexit increasingly attractive, and are backed up by the Tory membership on that. Since Labour have pledged to block a no deal, and are planning to whip its MPs on that. The Government risks facing a vote of no confidence and other humiliating Parliamentary defeats. The Government will probably crumble.

Moreover, the appetite for a second referendum is significant if May’s deal is rejected (64% polled in favour of new referendum).

Theresa May’s time as PM will be remembered as one crisis after another.

Which is what I have said for ages. Run the clock down and give hard choices. At least someone else who wants us to stay in the EU agrees with me at last.

I still put it even between leave without a deal,leave accepting the deal and ending up with another referendum. Parliament is full of self centred idiots.

 

---

[Ashdown]

Yes. Just shows how buttons are being pushed. I prefer EU migrants, whatever colour or religion, simply because of the reciprocal arrangements. We can have both EU and non EU as far as I am concerned, but if there has to be a choice, I would take countries which offer us the same rights as a priority over others which don’t. I certainly wouldn’t be stopping FOM which entails taking rights off British citizens.

And, as you say, the ones shouting Nazi find themselves on the same side as Nazis.

My brother claims he stands for free speech and people don’t have the right to be offended. Now he is hurt and upset because he had to take one of his FB posts down as it would make him „unemployable“ according to others. They don’t like it when people criticise them on SM. Snowflakes.

You're not close are you ?

 

[martcov]

You're not close are you ?

We don’t speak to each other.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Which is what I have said for ages. Run the clock down and give hard choices. At least someone else who wants us to stay in the EU agrees with me at last.

I still put it even between leave without a deal,leave accepting the deal and ending up with another referendum. Parliament is full of self centred idiots.

A ‘preferendum’ isn’t viable in my opinion for a two main reasons.

First, the likelihood of an absolutely majority that is above 50% of the popular vote is decreased and to me, it isn’t an optimal solution. A referendum, by contrast, offers a definite answer from the public.

Second, I actually think that would put the Leave campaign at an unfair disadvantage. This is because you’re splitting their vote between those who want to leave, but agree with May’s deal and those who disagree with May’s deal and think we should leave without a deal. Imagine a scenario where May’s deal got 30% of the vote, no deal got 25% but Remain got 45% of the vote. In this case, 55% would’ve voted for a Brexit of sorts but lost out to a Remain vote that was not split.

All sides are guilty of playing politics, ironically, the time for cooperation between Labour and Conservatives has passed. Attributing blame to anyone is harsh because whilst the Tories didn’t give Labour a seat at the table during negotiations, in fact tried to use Brexit to wipe Labour off the electoral map, it is also unlikely Labour would’ve wanted to put their name to a ‘Tory Brexit’ deal.

 

[Grendel]

A ‘preferendum’ isn’t viable in my opinion for a two main reasons.

First, the likelihood of an absolutely majority that is above 50% of the popular vote is decreased and to me, it isn’t an optimal solution. A referendum, by contrast, offers a definite answer from the public.

Second, I actually think that would put the Leave campaign at an unfair disadvantage. This is because you’re splitting their vote between those who want to leave, but agree with May’s deal and those who disagree with May’s deal and think we should leave without a deal. Imagine a scenario where May’s deal got 30% of the vote, no deal got 25% but Remain got 45% of the vote. In this case, 55% would’ve voted for a Brexit of sorts but lost out to a Remain vote that was not split.

All sides are guilty of playing politics, ironically, the time for cooperation between Labour and Conservatives has passed. Attributing blame to anyone is harsh because whilst the Tories didn’t give Labour a seat at the table during negotiations, in fact tried to use Brexit to wipe Labour off the electoral map, it is also unlikely Labour would’ve wanted to put their name to a ‘Tory Brexit’ deal.

Ridiculous. How isn’t it giving an unfair advantage if 55% express a desire to leave against a desire to stay. Your solution would mean a much lower turn out . All you want is to achieve remain at whatever way you can.

It’s desparate stuff

 

[Astute]

A referendum, by contrast, offers a definite answer from the public.

As in like the referendum we had in 2016? Would you count that as a definite answer from the public?

That is why others as well as myself think another referendum could cause more harm than good.

How much of a win would you say remain should get for us to remain? Would it be more than 52% v 48%? If not how do you think those who voted leave would feel? If leave got 52% again would you see it as acceptable? Would we keep voting until one side got a big win? Keep going until we get the remain result?

It isn't as easy as just having another referendum.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Ridiculous. How isn’t it giving an unfair advantage if 55% express a desire to leave against a desire to stay. Your solution would mean a much lower turn out . All you want is to achieve remain at whatever way you can.

It’s desparate stuff

You’ve misread my post. My argument is against a preferendum, not for it. A second referendum needs two options so the answer is decisive.

If there was a preferendum and voting for 3 options, you could get a skewed result as the largest % would win, no? In the scenario I laid out, Remain would win because 45% is a higher number than 35% and 25%. Despite 55% voting for Brexit but that vote is split between May’s deal and no deal.

This is a totally made up scenario to demonstrate why a referendum with two options is better than 3.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

As in like the referendum we had in 2016? Would you count that as a definite answer from the public?

That is why others as well as myself think another referendum could cause more harm than good.

How much of a win would you say remain should get for us to remain? Would it be more than 52% v 48%? If not how do you think those who voted leave would feel? If leave got 52% again would you see it as acceptable? Would we keep voting until one side got a big win? Keep going until we get the remain result?

It isn't as easy as just having another referendum.

Look, we’re going over old ground here.

Yes it was a definite answer. Which is why the UK Government invoked Article 50 and has spent the last 2 and a half years negotiating that deal.

But, in 2019, we’re in a position where Parliament is likely to reject that Brexit deal and the alternative to that is a no deal. The electorate did not know what kind of Brexit they voted for, so it seems logical to have a final say on the matter. Does the public approve of the Brexit deal negotiated on our behalf or not? Does the electorate want a no deal if Parliament rejects May’s deal? Does the electorate want to remain in the EU after all? These are perfectly valid questions and a referendum vote from 2016 cannot answer these. Hence the need to go back to the public with yet another referendum.

Thanks to your intervention, we know about 64% are in favour of a second referendum if May’s deal is rejected in parliament. The demand is there.

 

[martcov]

Who makes the rules? Whose job is it to make sure the rules are kept to? How did the USA deal with the matter?

The German government didn't want to do anything. The car makers put billions into diesel engines. It was a failed project. They needed breathing space until they could go electric.

So why do you say the EU did nothing and now chases the countries that bought the cars and not those who cheated their rules?

And I take it you are happy with the info I gave you as you have dropped the argument you tried to cause on the matter.

Dropped what argument? I wasn’t in one.

The report says the EU was thwarted by the car industry and that Germany had the intention to find out what was going on. Doesn’t seem like a deliberate cover by the EU. More like the car industry threatened the EU with loss of jobs.

 

[Grendel]

You’ve misread my post. My argument is against a preferendum, not for it. A second referendum needs two options so the answer is decisive.

If there was a preferendum and voting for 3 options, you could get a skewed result as the largest % would win, no? In the scenario I laid out, Remain would win because 45% is a higher number than 35% and 25%. Despite 55% voting for Brexit but that vote is split between May’s deal and no deal.

This is a totally made up scenario to demonstrate why a referendum with two options is better than 3.

I haven’t misread it. It’s staggering in its desire to try and fudge an outcome

You are intentionally saying leave voters take it leave the one deal on offer which means a substantial proportion of the population are denied a say

If it’s two only then it’s the same question abs before and down to Parliament to resolve

 

[Astute]

Look, we’re going over old ground here.

Yes it was a definite answer. Which is why the UK Government invoked Article 50 and has spent the last 2 and a half years negotiating that deal.

But, in 2019, we’re in a position where Parliament is likely to reject that Brexit deal and the alternative to that is a no deal. The electorate did not know what kind of Brexit they voted for, so it seems logical to have a final say on the matter. Does the public approve of the Brexit deal negotiated on our behalf or not? Does the electorate want a no deal if Parliament rejects May’s deal? Does the electorate want to remain in the EU after all? These are perfectly valid questions and a referendum vote from 2016 cannot answer these. Hence the need to go back to the public with yet another referendum.

Thanks to your intervention, we know about 64% are in favour of a second referendum if May’s deal is rejected in parliament. The demand is there.

Yes we are going over old ground. The vast majority of this thread is going over old ground.

But how about answering the same question. What % would you count as sufficient for a remain vote? What % would you count as sufficient for a leave vote?

Would you understand why millions of people would be pissed off if remain got 52% in another referendum and it meant that we remained in the EU?

 

[Astute]

Dropped what argument? I wasn’t in one.

The report says the EU was thwarted by the car industry and that Germany had the intention to find out what was going on. Doesn’t seem like a deliberate cover by the EU. More like the car industry threatened the EU with loss of jobs.

Do you mean the links I gave you that showed the EU commission knew about the scandal. And that the EU commission is supposed to uphold all rules that they bring in. And one was about emissions and not being able to use defeat technology?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I haven’t misread it. It’s staggering in its desire to try and fudge an outcome

You are intentionally saying leave voters take it leave the one deal on offer which means a substantial proportion of the population are denied a say

If it’s two only then it’s the same question abs before and down to Parliament to resolve

You have misread my argument because I’m against having 3 options on the ballot paper, which a couple of posters have suggested. I’m against it because it will split the Leave vote and that is wrong. I demonstrated this by imaging a scenario where Remain ‘won’ in an unfair way.

I’m in favour of a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the question of the UK remaining inside the EU. In the event of Leave winning again, there may be a need to have another referendum to decide between May’s deal and no deal, especially if Parliament rejects that deal — which is likely.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Yes we are going over old ground. The vast majority of this thread is going over old ground.

But how about answering the same question. What % would you count as sufficient for a remain vote? What % would you count as sufficient for a leave vote?

Would you understand why millions of people would be pissed off if remain got 52% in another referendum and it meant that we remained in the EU?

There wasn’t a super majority for the first one, so why would there be in second?

Simple majority wins, simple as that in my view. As I’ve stated previously, the issue of EU membership will not go away regardless of what happens this year, with regards to Brexit.

 

[martcov]

Yes we are going over old ground. The vast majority of this thread is going over old ground.

But how about answering the same question. What % would you count as sufficient for a remain vote? What % would you count as sufficient for a leave vote?

Would you understand why millions of people would be pissed off if remain got 52% in another referendum and it meant that we remained in the EU?

Only 48%. Which is a minority. As I have been repeatedly told.

 

[martcov]

You have misread my argument because I’m against having 3 options on the ballot paper, which Astute and a couple of others have suggested. I’m against it because it will split the Leave vote and that is wrong. I demonstrated this by imaging a scenario where Remain ‘won’ in an unfair way.

I’m in favour of a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to the question of the UK remaining inside the EU. In the event of Leave winning again, there may be a need to have another referendum to decide between May’s deal and no deal, especially if Parliament rejects that deal — which is likely.

That is the rule of the game we are playing. It would have been better to have had a qualified majority the first time round and we wouldn’t be in this farcical situation.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

I don't know anyone who voted Brexit who wanted any kind of "deal" at the time of the vote. They wanted out without a deal on referendum day.
Any second referendum should be to accept the deal currently on offer or leave with no deal. In other words , no deal.
I'm beginning to think this simply won't happen. The whole thing has been arranged in the time since then for disastrous situation to be "engineered " where a second referendum with the likelihood of remaining in the EU as an option to become reality. The whole thing has been deliberately fucked up to suit the remain option . If this happens there will be a public backlash the likes of which this country hasn't seen before and rightly so.

 

[martcov]

Do you mean the links I gave you that showed the EU commission knew about the scandal. And that the EU commission is supposed to uphold all rules that they bring in. And one was about emissions and not being able to use defeat technology?

What is the Commission doing about it now?

 

[Grendel]

Only 48%. Which is a minority. As I have been repeatedly told.

But you’d be demanding a third I’m sure

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

But you’d be demanding a third I’m sure

hahah. I can only guess what the Fourth Reich has been banging on about. I've still got him on ignore. Bliss.

 

[martcov]

But you’d be demanding a third I’m sure

Not for a while. It would be off you go guys... sooner or later common sense will prevail..

 

[Grendel]

Not for a while. It would be off you go guys... sooner or later common sense will prevail..

The fourth Reich speaks

 

[martcov]

hahah. I can only guess what the Fourth Reich has been banging on about. I've still got him on ignore. Bliss.

What a plonker. He has me on ignore and is still talking about me. He calls that bliss. Nuff said.

 

[martcov]

The fourth Reich speaks

You and Dugdale are on the same level now. Two peas in a pod.

 

[Astute]

You have misread my argument because I’m against having 3 options on the ballot paper, which Astute and a couple of others have suggested.

Err. Hello. When did I suggest such a thing? Have you misread something?

I feel another disagreement coming on here. I don't like people saying I have said something that I haven't. I have not said I am in favour of another vote or referendum in any way.

 

[skybluetony176]

The fourth Reich speaks

Were you in London yesterday by any chance?

 

[Astute]

There wasn’t a super majority for the first one, so why would there be in second?

Simple majority wins, simple as that in my view. As I’ve stated previously, the issue of EU membership will not go away regardless of what happens this year, with regards to Brexit.

There wasn’t a super majority for the first one, so why would there be in second?

Simple majority wins, simple as that in my view. As I’ve stated previously, the issue of EU membership will not go away regardless of what happens this year, with regards to Brexit.

So are you saying that you would be happy for us to leave if we had another referendum and 52% voted leave again?

And would you be happy for another referendum if remain got 52% in another referendum?

 

[Astute]

What is the Commission doing about it now?

You mean now it is too late and tens of thousands of people are going to die because they did nothing?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

So are you saying that you would be happy for us to leave if we had another referendum and 52% voted leave again?

And would you be happy for another referendum if remain got 52% in another referendum?

I wouldn’t be happy with the result, but I’d consider the issue done and dusted either way.

Where would the demand be for an immediate third referendum after second one? The issue would be resolved until there was a demand for third. If that was a year, 10, 20, 30+ years then it’s not inconceivable there would be third referendum. The cloth cuts both ways here irrespective of result.

 

[Astute]

I wouldn’t be happy with the result, but I’d consider the issue done and dusted either way.

Where would the demand be for an immediate third referendum after second one? The issue would be resolved until there was a demand for third. If that was a year, 10, 20, 30+ years then it’s not inconceivable there would be third referendum. The cloth cuts both ways here irrespective of result.

Exactly. Call another referendum and there will always be calls for more. Those who voted remain will have seen that they can get another so will keep on about getting another....As you said from a year onwards. And if a second one went the way of remain those who voted leave would see moaning about the result and keeping pressure on for another referendum works. So it would be their turn.

So where would it end?


And have you found where I said I wanted a choice of 3 yet?

 

[Sick Boy]

Thank god for parliamentary sovereignty

 

[Captain Dart]

Vassal state here we come.

 

[skybluetony176]

No deal brexit just became a little less likely Ministers defeated over no-deal Brexit plans May’s deal or no Brexit look the most likely outcomes. This has probably just given May’s Brexit deal a shot in the arm at a guess.

 

[IrishSkyBlue]

can somebody explain to me what vote was and what it would do, does it mean UK cant leave without a deal or ?

 

[Astute]

No deal brexit just became a little less likely Ministers defeated over no-deal Brexit plans May’s deal or no Brexit look the most likely outcomes. This has probably just given May’s Brexit deal a shot in the arm at a guess.

And how much of an idiot was I not long ago when questioning those who said there was no chance of the Mayhem deal going through?