Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Stop moaning ffs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

She's not an MP, she's a MSP.

I meant whatever seat she holds in Scotland. Will that have to be put to a poll to fill the seat or can she nominate a replacement?

GM228

VinLieger wrote: »

Do we really need to keep pointing out that voting leave does not mean they voted for no deal?

This is often pointed out but I'll play devil's advocate here and ask when has there ever been a referendum where there was a chance to vote on both a yes or no and the T&Cs associated with the decision?

Unfortunately a referendum allows a yes or no, how the result is achieved has never been in the hands of the public.

theguzman

I have always supported Brexit solely because I think all this will be the catalyst which will deliver a United Ireland along with the Protestant deomgraph decline and changing demographics in the North; add to that when the lineal Protestant planters lose their Single Farm Payment Cheques and livelihoods they may just hold their noses and accept a United Ireland.

Also Brexit will stroke Scottish Nationalism and I can see a United Ireland and Independent Scotland very soon; much sooner than even the optimistic forecasts. The little Englanders would be happy as Scotland and Northern Ireland cost them around £25bn per year, plus with the payments to the EU removed, little England could become a very rich monarchy oligarchy once again.

I don't want to divert into the pros and cons of a United Ireland and Independent Scotland but I see things headed this way.

As other posters have said all this chaos has the fingerprints of bannon and Trump, divert divert divert attention away and achieve what you set out to do. I could see some sort of putsch within Labour against Corbyn next and I really doubt if there will be any sort of anti-Brexit unity to stop a crash out.

Stop moaning ffs

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Davidson is an constituency MSP in the Scottish Parliament and unless she also resigns as an MSP there will be no by-election

She is not an MP so her relevance wrt to Brexit is minimal

Thats more like it thanks Dub.

Unlikely she’d resign from one an keep the seat tho no? I haven’t a clue about how it works in Scotland sorry for the dumb questions

Professor Moriarty

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I meant whatever seat she holds in Scotland. Will that have to be put to a poll to fill the seat or can she nominate a replacement?

She's stepping down as leader. I don't think she's giving up her seat.

Laois_Man

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Unlikely she’d resign from one an keep the seat tho no?

Theresa May did it!

Lemming

Bambi wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder what the mood in the DUP camp is like, loyalism has a long history of cutting off its nose to spite its face but, given the effect a no deal brexit will have on their constituents and their votes, you wonder if Alrene et al are getting a dose of the yips now.

Given what I heard her f@rting out of her mouth on BBC4 radio about 30 mins ago on my way home, Arlene is too busy fighting over who gets to sit in which deckchair on the HMS Titanic United Kingdom to notice what's going on around her. In short, not a yip to be found.

Calina

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Davidson is an constituency MSP in the Scottish Parliament and unless she also resigns as an MSP there will be no by-election

She is not an MP so her relevance wrt to Brexit is minimal

Her impact could be felt in the subsequent election though. How safe are those 13 Scottish Tory seats in Westminster? Bearing in mind tge current situation?

fash

brickster69 wrote: »

I know it is normal for referendum results that go against the EU to be re-run. But in the Uk it is normal to respect that result.

If you think it is the Will of the People, why are you so afraid to ask them?
(And the UK has a long tradition of ignoring voters and rerunning referendums - let's not forget this was the second EU referendum)

serfboard

fash wrote: »

If you think it is the Will of the People, why are you so afraid to ask them?

A no-deal Brexit was not the will of the people!

Nody

I have a odd idea here but is Boris aiming to get an election and lose? Hear me out on this, ok?

Here's the plan, Boris have been pushing for an election since pretty much day 1, we know that. He pushes for hard brexit to ensure he wipes out the Brexit party (in what ever form it is called) by going for a hard brexit but due to the remain/leave split he knows he'll end up with less then majority. That's ok however because he'll be kicked out directly after Brexit has happened and it will fall in Labour's lap to deal with it basically. He then remains as leader of the party on the ticket he delivered the people's promise, he would make a much better PM if he was in power rather than the blundering of Corbyn et al and everything bad is because Corbyn is a bad leader etc. Trump gets an excuse to go all out on his "America first" on UK in the FTA which ends up in not getting a FTA (as he knows as it would been blocked anyway) and bluster away about how Boris would have gotten a deal etc. Labour ends up in two years having to call an early election due to defections while Boris has kept the Tories relatively intact and rebuild the bridges with the remain side as Tory in power would be better than Labour to fix this even if we had disagreements before etc. Few years later and he sweeps the polls going into office as PM again but this time with a healed party, stronger backing and can sweep the next election or two as well while having delivered to his London master the chaos they wanted to ensure more money to back them in the future. Boris ends up with a reputation of getting things done; he delivered Brexit and he kept the party together by the time of the next election, his pals get rich on the chaos and he can sit and complain from the back bench while the worst chaos is going on and then take over the reigns when things are more stable again for a decade or so as PM. Strong legacy; deliver his promise to his backers and keeps the Tories together.

To make that happen he has to force the opposition with some Tories to force an election on him which is what he's trying to do by being the most complete sneaky bastard he can be seen as while ensuring leaks all around of his sneakiness basically.

serfboard

Nody wrote: »

he has to force the opposition with some Tories to force an election on him which is what he's trying to do

Agree with this but not the rest that Boris wants to lose an election.

Political parties tend to look very unfavourably on leaders who lose elections ...

BonnieSituation

serfboard wrote: »

Agree with this but not the rest that Boris wants to lose an election.

Political parties tend to look very unfavourably on leaders who lose elections ...

Unless you're called Micheal Martin

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

I have a odd idea here but is Boris aiming to get an election and lose? Hear me out on this, ok?

Here's the plan, Boris have been pushing for an election since pretty much day 1, we know that. He pushes for hard brexit to ensure he wipes out the Brexit party (in what ever form it is called) by going for a hard brexit but due to the remain/leave split he knows he'll end up with less then majority. That's ok however because he'll be kicked out directly after Brexit has happened and it will fall in Labour's lap to deal with it basically. He then remains as leader of the party on the ticket he delivered the people's promise, he would make a much better PM if he was in power rather than the blundering of Corbyn et al and everything bad is because Corbyn is a bad leader etc. Trump gets an excuse to go all out on his "America first" on UK in the FTA which ends up in not getting a FTA (as he knows as it would been blocked anyway) and bluster away about how Boris would have gotten a deal etc. Labour ends up in two years having to call an early election due to defections while Boris has kept the Tories relatively intact and rebuild the bridges with the remain side as Tory in power would be better than Labour to fix this even if we had disagreements before etc. Few years later and he sweeps the polls going into office as PM again but this time with a healed party, stronger backing and can sweep the next election or two as well while having delivered to his London master the chaos they wanted to ensure more money to back them in the future. Boris ends up with a reputation of getting things done; he delivered Brexit and he kept the party together by the time of the next election, his pals get rich on the chaos and he can sit and complain from the back bench while the worst chaos is going on and then take over the reigns when things are more stable again for a decade or so as PM. Strong legacy; deliver his promise to his backers and keeps the Tories together.

To make that happen he has to force the opposition with some Tories to force an election on him which is what he's trying to do by being the most complete sneaky bastard he can be seen as while ensuring leaks all around of his sneakiness basically.

I can certainly agree with the bit in bold.

Spanish Eyes

It is fascinating to be living through history.

But it is bizarre just the same. I suppose they are relying on the punch drunk electorate to say, great.... get on with it or something. Had to be done and all that.

British people in the main are stoic.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

GM228 wrote: »

Then you have to discount those who are not British Citizens or resident in the UK which is difficult to do like in the last few Brexit related votes where 1000s of the millions of votes were from all over the world. Granted some will fit the criteria, but I doubt for example in the Article 50 petition that the 84 who signed from Nigeria, or the 78 in Pakistan or the 228 in South Korea were all eligible to do so? Even North Korea provided 34 signatories (which is a surprise considering the unrestricted access allowed there).

The numbers whilst high are not accurate and voted in the thousands from nearly every country in the world.

It's acceptable to take votes from North Korea? Good information thanks.

I believe you but do you have a link? Would find it interesting to read over.

BonnieSituation

Just saw the clip from this morning of BJ announcing that there would be a Queens' Speech. He had a smirk on his face the whole time.

When asked would he "prorogue" parliament he just repeated about the legislative programme and said nothing.

Now I know that's not a surprise given all the commentary today but it was something just to see his mush being so disingenuous.

Podge_irl

GM228 wrote: »

This is often pointed out but I'll play devil's advocate here and ask when has there ever been a referendum where there was a chance to vote on both a yes or no and the T&Cs associated with the decision?

Unfortunately a referendum allows a yes or no, how the result is achieved has never been in the hands of the public.

I mean, our constitutional referendums are more or less exactly that. Not really sure where you are going with this one.

GM228

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

It's acceptable to take votes from North Korea? Good information thanks.

I believe you but do you have a link? Would find it interesting to read over.

From the current petition:-

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157.json

From the previous Article 50 petition:-

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584.json

Spanish Eyes

What the UK doesn't understand is that they are really not the centre of the UNIVERSE.

I do realise that a No Deal Brexit or whatever you like to call it will affect us all. We cannot capitulate now. Please tell me we won't.

Better to be inside the tent now. And hopefully EU will protect us from UK intransigence.

But funnilly enough, I think this prorogueing and so so on is designed to make EU capitulate.

God I hope that doesn't happen. We are totally slapped down if it does. But I live in hope.

GM228

Podge_irl wrote: »

I mean, our constitutional referendums are more or less exactly that. Not really sure where you are going with this one.

When someone says "they voted to leave", it's often met with the counter "but they didn't vote for no deal" type argument.

The point is it's not really a valid argument because you never get a vote on the terms of any referendum or the means of achieving the result of such a referendum.

A Dub in Glasgo

Calina wrote: »

Her impact could be felt in the subsequent election though. How safe are those 13 Scottish Tory seats in Westminster? Bearing in mind tge current situation?

Most of them are in jeopardy with or without Davidson

briany

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

What the UK doesn't understand is that they are really not the centre of the UNIVERSE.

If you go to UK-based forums, you will see Brexiteers voicing their opinions with a lot more confidence, and one big opinion is that after a no-deal Brexit, the advantage turns toward the UK. Once the UK has left the EU and is deprived of the UK's spending power, the EU will realise its bluff has been called and come back to the table and negotiate a trade deal on the UK's terms.

There are those in the UK who are absolutely adamant that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, and the whole past 3 years has just been one long conspiracy to discourage and thwart the UK's attempted exit from the EU.

Stop moaning ffs

GM228 wrote: »

When someone says "they voted to leave", it's often met with the counter "but they didn't vote for no deal" type argument.

The point is it's not really a valid argument because you never get a vote on the terms of any referendum or the means of achieving the result of such a referendum.

Well that’s cos in any sensible normal referendum everything is thought out and explained to all involved and especially the public before hand.

They did none of this.

serfboard

GM228 wrote: »

you never get a vote on the terms of any referendum or the means of achieving the result of such a referendum.

That's what we have the Referendum Commission for.

Foghladh

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Well that’s cos in any sensible normal referendum everything is thought out and explained to all involved and especially the public before hand.

They did none of this.

In the event of a referendum on the Unification of Ireland how do you envisage it being worded?

j8wk2feszrnpao

GM228 wrote: »

When someone says "they voted to leave", it's often met with the counter "but they didn't vote for no deal" type argument.

The point is it's not really a valid argument because you never get a vote on the terms of any referendum or the means of achieving the result of such a referendum.

Well, you kinda do, if it's detailed properly to begin with and then discussed appropriately.
The discussion in the UK was full of "easiest deal in history", "we'll get a better deal than Norway", etc.....

fash

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Well that’s cos in any sensible normal referendum everything is thought out and explained to all involved and especially the public before hand.

They did none of this.

The other thing with a proper referendum is that the government supports the change and fights to status quo. It's their job to explain and sell the change they seek.
Having a referendum where the government supports the status quo- allowing others to describe a super vague and unrealistic change was a really stupid idea

Joe_ Public

I honestly never saw them going down this route, obviously underestimated them. Cant but not think its a huge mistake though, thousands already gathering in parliament square and they sound mad as hell. This cant end well for Johnson, can it? If he wants to stoke a reaction from the other side, put the ball in their court as it were, he'll get all that with a bit of interest i think.

Fr Tod Umptious

Foghladh wrote: »

In the event of a referendum on the Unification of Ireland how do you envisage it being worded?

It will likely come in the form of a constitutional amendment.

We have a written constitution and referendums are to allow or reject changes to that written constitution.