Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why didn't they form 2 years ago? It's most likely too late now

Takes time to get people together, build a base etc. Realistically to get anywhere they need a decade as they have to take on the old guard parties as well not to mention that FPTP also works againsy them.

Franz Von Peppercorn

The liberal party should be hoovering up those remain votes but it isn’t. I’m not sure the remain voters are going to peel off in any other direction.

flatty

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The liberal party should be hoovering up those remain votes but it isn’t. I’m not sure the remain voters are going to peel off in any other direction.

Depends on individual candidates being credible, and the leader being charismatic.

ancapailldorcha

First Past the Post means it takes ages to build up a support base. Then you need that support base to be sufficiently concentrated in certain areas so that you might actually land a seat or two and build from that. Being in the centre nowadays should be a boon.

The Liberal Democrats are being hampered by three things in my opinion. First is the specter of tuition fees. Second is the unrepresentative voting system that is First Past the Post. Finally, we are living in a society where political debate is becoming ever more polarised and insular. Nobody talks to the other side any more while their side veers off the reservation. Vince Cable is about as dull and dreary a leader as you could get. I hate to sound ageist but surely someone younger and livelier would be better suited to representing a party that is supposedly out for the young (a claim marred and undermined by the aforementioned tuition fees).

This is too little and too late. I have no idea who this woman is and she has nowhere near enough time to mount any sort of resistance. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Sam Russell

Remember the Social Democrats which was formed by 'the Gang of Four'. It eventually amalgamated with the Liberal Party to form the Lib Dems.

(from Wikipedia). The four left the Labour Party as a result of the January 1981 Wembley conference which committed the party to unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from the European Economic Community. They also believed that Labour had become too left-wing, and had been infiltrated at constituency party level by Trotskyist factions whose views and behaviour they considered to be at odds with the Parliamentary Labour Party and Labour voters.

Sounds familiar.

It might work, but it has to capture the Conservative non-Tory vote and the New Labour (Blairite) vote. It might get traction, but I doubt it. Its very entry to some constituencies might change the make up of the resulting HOC, but maybe not.

It needs quite a well thought out strategy, which is hard to get right from a zero start.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Brexit is in many ways a perfect storm of bad luck and bad polling.

You need the liberals to join a coalition with the conservatives and ruin their brand.

You need the Tories to originally promise a referendum two elections down the line; one which the leadership doesn’t agree with nor expects to happen as they expect another coalition. The polls are wrong and they win outright.

You need a tw... incompetent leader like Cameron in power with a full majority. Which he didn’t expect but it’s there and so he has to have the referendum. Then he makes no real effort to win the referendum as all of the main parties were in support and the polls are wrong again. He resigns, leaving the hapless (if tenacious) Theresa May in charge.

Labour is meanwhile run by a old school socialist who doesn’t really like the EU. Polling was wrong on him winning the leadership if I recall. Yet his remain supporters don’t defect because the only real defection is to the liberals. See point one.

Advised by incorrect polls again after the referendum the Tory prime minister has an election expecting this time to clean up, and .... loses the majority they didn’t expect in the previous election but did in that one. Worse they depend on the DUP and therefore can’t negotiate the border with Ireland\EU as they might like.

Sam Russell

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Brexit is in many ways a perfect storm of bad luck and bad polling.

You need the liberals to join a coalition with the conservatives and ruin their brand.

You need the Tories to originally promise a referendum two elections down the line; one which the leadership doesn’t agree with nor expects to happen as they expect another coalition. The polls are wrong and they win outright.

You need a tw... incompetent leader like Cameron in power with a full majority. Which he didn’t expect but it’s there and so he has to have the referendum. Then he makes no real effort to win the referendum as all of the main parties were in support and the polls are wrong again. He resigns, leaving the hapless (if tenacious) Theresa May in charge.

Labour is meanwhile run by a old school socialist who doesn’t really like the EU. Polling was wrong on him winning the leadership if I recall. Yet his remain supporters don’t defect because the only real defection is to the liberals. See point one.

Advised by incorrect polls again after the referendum the Tory prime minister has an election expecting this time to clean up, and .... loses the majority they didn’t expect in the previous election but did in that one. Worse they depend on the DUP and therefore can’t negotiate the border with Ireland\EU as they might like.

You missed the point that Cameron went to the EU to get a better deal for the UK but the EU said you already have a better deal than anyone else - and No - you cannot cherry pick the four freedoms the single market depends on.

This allowed the Brexiteers to claim the EU are bullies and not open to democracy and is run by undemocratic, faceless, un-elected bureaucrats. Of course, the UK is run by un-elected faceless Civil Servants, ruled over by Governments that have not enjoyed majority single party governments since 1932.

That was a strategic mistake that cost him the referendum. If he did not go to Brussels cap in hand, he could have claimed the the UK enjoyed the best deal of any EU states. He also tried 'project fear' instead of 'peerless privileged' to win.

It did not work.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Sam Russell wrote: »

You missed the point that Cameron went to the EU to get a better deal for the UK but the EU said you already have a better deal than anyone else - and No - you cannot cherry pick the four freedoms the single market depends on.

This allowed the Brexiteers to claim the EU are bullies and not open to democracy and is run by undemocratic, faceless, un-elected bureaucrats. Of course, the UK is run by un-elected faceless Civil Servants, ruled over by Governments that have not enjoyed majority single party governments since 1932.

Not sure who you are blaming here, the EU or the UK.

That was a strategic mistake that cost him the referendum. If he did not go to Brussels cap in hand, he could have claimed the the UK enjoyed the best deal of any EU states. He also tried 'project fear' instead of 'peerless privileged' to win.

Can’t see that changing too many leave voters minds.

McGiver

serfboard wrote: »

And who is the largest? The EPP, a grouping that also includes Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia and the Hungarian Far-Right party Fidesz. In fact:

Barosso's political party, the Social Democrats, are actually a centre-right party, so I don't know where you're getting Socialist from. They are also in the EPP as well, by the way, which is another indication.

Barosso also disgracefully intervened in the Scottish Independence Referendum, but that's probably for another thread.

Fidesz isn't far-right, just cynically populist. The same goes for Forza. And both are on the fringe of the EPP, they have no other EU party to go to so they don't have much choice (Liberals and Socialists clearly not for them).

I wasn't aware that PSD were in the EPP, that would be rather anomaly as all other social democratic parties would be in the PES (Party of European Socialists) including traditional social democratic parties, socialist parties as well as Labour parties.

Sam Russell

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

You missed the point that Cameron went to the EU to get a better deal for the UK but the EU said you already have a better deal than anyone else - and No - you cannot cherry pick the four freedoms the single market depends on.

This allowed the Brexiteers to claim the EU are bullies and not open to democracy and is run by undemocratic, faceless, un-elected bureaucrats. Of course, the UK is run by un-elected faceless Civil Servants, ruled over by Governments that have not enjoyed majority single party governments since 1932.

That was a strategic mistake that cost him the referendum. If he did not go to Brussels cap in hand, he could have claimed the the UK enjoyed the best deal of any EU states. He also tried 'project fear' instead of 'peerless privileged' to win.

It did not work.

Not sure who you are blaming here, the EU or the UK.



Can’t see that changing too many leave voters minds.

The fault lies with Cameron for thinking the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU. It would only need to change the minds of 2% or 3% of the voting public to change the result. It is the attitude it presented to the electorate that the EU was a bully that would not listen.

An Ciarraioch

Interesting to see Stephen Kinnock support Norway+, no he just needs to convert his own leader!

Leroy42

I see the debate* in the HoC is going well for TM and government!

But JRM is still stating that the UK is getting nothing for the £39bn payoff to the EU. To be fair to TM, I am not sure how she doesn't just tell him to STFU and that it has to do with previously entered commitments.

If the 'debate' is still stuck on nonsense such as that there really is no hope.



*by debate I obviously mean a string on people to get up and complain and TM to valiantly make a purse out of a pigs ear.

Tell me how

Sam Russell wrote: »

The fault lies with Cameron for thinking the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU. It would only need to change the minds of 2% or 3% of the voting public to change the result. It is the attitude it presented to the electorate that the EU was a bully that would not listen.

Not sure that was the case. He tried to put the Brexit thing to bed for at least another generation but it failed spectacularly.
He made plenty of errors but I suspect he always knew the importance of the EU to the UK but still couldn't silence the Brexiteers, due in part to the influence which the media still has on public opinion there.

igCorcaigh

11 December for the parliament vote

serfboard

Via a torturous metaphor, Philip Boucher Hayes on DriveTime (Radio 1) put the Parliamentary arithmetic as follows:

For the Deal: 230
Against: 400

Anyone care to hazard their own guesses or dispute those numbers?

Inquitus

igCorcaigh wrote: »

11 December for the parliament vote

11th December it gets voted down, there are then 10 days til Parliament recesses until the 7th Jan, wonder if it will get to a 2nd vote before the recess, or if they will keep sitting given the circumstances.

trellheim

11 December for the parliament vote

What will matter here is the procedural issues around the vote - is it straight up or down . Bercow has said it will be amendable but an amended vote leads you off into la-la land

" that all words after 'This House Approves' be stricken and replaced with 'wibble' " . Carried 649 to 1 ...

Nody

serfboard wrote: »

Via a torturous metaphor, Philip Boucher Hayes on DriveTime (Radio 1) put the Parliamentary arithmetic as follows:

For the Deal: 230
Against: 400

Anyone care to hazard their own guesses or dispute those numbers?

Those numbers sounds similar to the once I've seen other make. Even with a fairly wide margin of error the chance of it passing seems to be very slim atm.

Strazdas

Tell me how wrote: »

Not sure that was the case. He tried to put the Brexit thing to bed for at least another generation but it failed spectacularly.
He made plenty of errors but I suspect he always knew the importance of the EU to the UK but still couldn't silence the Brexiteers, due in part to the influence which the media still has on public opinion there.

Sir Chris Patten said a few weeks ago that the referendum was extremely ill judged and that even if Cameron had 'won' it, it wouldn't have settled anything and the arguments over Europe would have carried on apace (for starters, it may have emboldened UKIP and the Tory Right rather than weakened them).

Strazdas

serfboard wrote: »

Via a torturous metaphor, Philip Boucher Hayes on DriveTime (Radio 1) put the Parliamentary arithmetic as follows:

For the Deal: 230
Against: 400

Anyone care to hazard their own guesses or dispute those numbers?

Crikey....there's no guarantee even a second vote on the deal would be passed at this rate. It would require 90 or so MPs to do a dramatic u-turn.

I think it's more likely we might be into GE, second referendum or extending A50 territory.

Imreoir2

Inquitus wrote: »

11th December it gets voted down, there are then 10 days til Parliament recesses until the 7th Jan, wonder if it will get to a 2nd vote before the recess, or if they will keep sitting given the circumstances.

Quite possible May just lets them stew over Christmas, let them all go back to their constitutiencies and explain to business people, NHS staff etc etc how No-Deal is supposed to work.

Zubeneschamali

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Quite possible May just lets them stew over Christmas, let them all go back to their constitutiencies and explain to business people, NHS staff etc etc how No-Deal is supposed to work.

Sterling will have a heart attack if she does, might encourage them to see sense.

McGiver

Strazdas wrote: »

Crikey....there's no guarantee even a second vote on the deal would be passed at this rate. It would require 90 or so MPs to do a dramatic u-turn.

I think it's more likely we might be into GE, second referendum or extending A50 territory.

I think Labour, or rather Corbyn mostly, are betting on:
1. WA voted down in HoC
2. GE called
4. HMG will ask the EU for an extension to facilitate the GE

Now, EU may be willing to grant an extension (how exactly?) but would need some promises, which obviously cannot be made before the GE if the outcome isn't known. Thin ice.

BonnieSituation

McGiver wrote: »

I think Labour, or rather Corbyn mostly, are betting on:
1. WA voted down in HoC
2. GE called
4. HMG will ask the EU for an extension to facilitate the GE

Now, EU may be willing to grant an extension (how exactly?) but would need some promises, which obviously cannot be made before the GE if the outcome isn't known. Thin ice.

What would be the reasoning for the EU to grant an extension?

Bar the revocation of A50 there really is none.

Imreoir2

McGiver wrote: »

I think Labour, or rather Corbyn mostly, are betting on:
1. WA voted down in HoC
2. GE called
4. HMG will ask the EU for an extension to facilitate the GE

Now, EU may be willing to grant an extension (how exactly?) but would need some promises, which obviously cannot be made before the GE if the outcome isn't known. Thin ice.

If May does not want to grant a GE, and I can't see why she would, then there won't be one.
There is no time for anyone other than May to take Brexit through, a leadership challenge would take to long, a GE would take to long and the only person that can ask for an extension to A50 is May herself. The looming deadline is her biggets ally now, an extension only gives her enemies more time to move against her.

Imreoir2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

What would be the reasoning for the EU to grant an extension?

Bar the revocation of A50 there really is none.

The suggestion is that the EU would allow an extension for a referendum in the hopes that Brexit would be cancelled. I don't see this as being a very likely outcome though.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1067126406050664448


This sounds amazing. For those who don't want to click, some in Downing Street want a TV debate with May v Jez.
I want to see May pretending that she believes leaving is a good idea and Jez pretending to oppose it with a zillion cliches floating about for good measure.

Over/Under "will of the people" shout outs.:p

May though will probably bottle it last minute and send Rudd again though.:(

Capt'n Midnight

listermint wrote: »

New Fledgling political party in the UK

https://www.renewparty.org.uk/

More pious platitudes and unicorns.


We believe in a society of unlimited opportunities working with compassion towards the common good and the promotion of self-reliance.

We aim for a government that encourages and rewards human endeavour in an enterprise culture that spans the social, public and private sectors, minimizing disadvantage by removing barriers to personal growth, while fostering economic and social mobility for all.

Actually that's from Renua but it's dead easy to churn out this twaddle. And where are Renua these days ?


At the previous election UKIP, the Greens and Lib Dems between them got 10 seats from over 6 million votes. FPTP is very much all or nothing.

Imreoir2

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1067126406050664448


This sounds amazing. For those who don't want to click, some in Downing Street want a TV debate with May v Jez.
I want to see May pretend to support Brexit and Jez pretend to oppose it with a zillion cliches floating about. Over/Under "will of the people" shout outs.:p

May though will probably bottle it last minute and send Rudd again though.:(

How is this supposed to help? This is "anything to be said for another mass" territory.

Spanish Eyes

FPTP in UK has stifled anything other than Red or Blue. Totally undemocratic IMV. But there we are.

No new party has a fn chance at all under that system.

No wonder the voters don't give a sht. There is no point anymore.