Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

LeinsterDub

hotmail.com wrote: »

The 317 seats they won in 2017 are pretty much a certainty now. They will win Labour seats based on the current polling.

Lib Dems will be lucky to make small gains by the end of this. The first past the post system discriminates against them. Plus their leader isn't exactly a vote winner.

The seats in Scotland aren't nor are the seats in London Not all of the Lib Dems gains will come from LABOUR. At a guess I'd start the Tories off on a base of 300

Leroy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its not been great Negotiating though has it?

Nigel ...Unless you promise us a hard brexit and form an alliance with us we will run MPS everywhere over to you...

Boris...No on all that Nigel.

Nigel. Ok fair enough we won't run MPS everywhere.

Kind of sums up the entire Brexit mess doesn't it.

This was the man people were calling (mostly himself tbf) for the lead the negotiations with the EU. And the man certain that the UK has all the cards in any trade negotiations.

How many ways and how many times can one person be shown to be totally wrong before people will start to take notice?

An Claidheamh

trellheim wrote: »

Johnny Mercer MP was really strong on ensuring british soldiers would not be prosecuted for crimes committed -

this proviso was supposed to be in the Queens Speech a few weeks back but was omitted ; now we see PR from the tories "oh we'll do that" ... why didnt they put in the QS then something weird is going on

If they did that, a real Irish government would bring them to the ECHR or refuse extraditions to the UK on grounds they would not receive a fair trial - as happened in the past.

Furthermore, the Brits are probably running down the clock, if there are no prosecutions, Sinn Féin should name them.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Why should corbyn resign? Membership like him and are behind him. Endorsed him at conference recently. Farron resigned after a poor election performance, perhaps corbyn will too.

Just to post again, lib dem position 2017:

"Liberal Democrats believe the British people should have the final say. That’s why, when the terms of our future relationship with the EU have been negotiated, we will put that deal to a vote of the British people in a referendum, with the alternative option of staying in the EU on the ballot paper. We continue to believe that there is no deal as good for the UK outside the EU as the one it already has as a member. Every vote for the Liberal Democrats in this election is a vote to give the final say to the British people."

So all fair and good, but what deal do they propose to put in that referendum? Lib dem pm, in theory, how do they organise that vote? Lets forget revoke because they wont get away with that. At least labour are dealing with that tricky question, others just fudge it because there are no easy answers.

With a hypothetical Lib Dem majority how do you figure that "they won't get away with that"?

Surely if they campaign on a revoke platform, gain a majority for that platform, then they have no other option but to revoke?

I genuinely don't get the confusion over this.

hotmail.com

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The seats in Scotland aren't nor are the seats in London Not all of the Lib Dems gains will come from LABOUR. At a guess I'd start the Tories off on a base of 300

They could lose 5 or 6 seats in Scotland but gain seats in Northern and CENTRAL England.

The current polls have the Tories on about 40% and the rest over 10 points behind them.

This means they will get an overall majority.

Labour will be hoping Corbyn performs well in the debates and closes the gap.

hotmail.com

schmittel wrote: »

With a hypothetical Lib Dem majority how do you figure that "they won't get away with that"?

Surely if they campaign on a revoke platform, gain a majority for that platform, then they have no other option but to revoke?

I genuinely don't get the confusion over this.

The revocation of Article 50 is a minority opinion in Britain.

Irish people would love it of course but it's a non runner as far as England (at least) is concerned.

An Claidheamh

Farage the surrender monkey, he could have used the share of the vote as leverage to force the Cons to deliver Brexit.

He just wants this all to continue to stay relevant.

LeinsterDub

hotmail.com wrote: »

They could lose 5 or 6 seats in Scotland but gain seats in Northern and CENTRAL England.

You do realise this the opposite of what you're first post suggests. I was just pointing that out. Gaining 6 seats isn't enough they need 20 + and even that would be a shakey majority

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

With a hypothetical Lib Dem majority how do you figure that "they won't get away with that"?

Surely if they campaign on a revoke platform, gain a majority for that platform, then they have no other option but to revoke?

I genuinely don't get the confusion over this.

Its the idea of revoking on receiving somewhere short of 40% of the national vote. Even if we're indulging the fantasy, even if they do try to implement it, i think it will prove hugely controversial. But maybe it could happen, i certainly would be wrong to discount it 100%.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

How many ways and how many times can one person be shown to be totally wrong before people will start to take notice?

There's no limit to how many times because for that to happen it would mean these people were also wrong and they have been fed and fattened on a diet of narcissistic right wing garbage which makes that admission for them nigh impossible, barring some absolute unforeseen and monumental catastrophe the likes of which dwarfs all the garbage we have seen thus far that ultimately lays the whole thing bare for what it is.

hotmail.com

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You do realise this the opposite of what you're first post suggests. I was just pointing that out. Gaining 6 seats isn't enough they need 20 + and even that would be a shakey majority

Ok so they will lost a few seats in Scotland.

It's not the opposIte of anything.

Sam Russell

briany wrote: »

Once Farage stands down his candidates in Conservative areas, that has to be it surely. Easy majority for the Cons?

You might think so, but Tories voters are very conservative (I am talking about voters who are not members of the CP)

Would these people be happy to back a liar and Charlatan like Johnson? Or would they prefer Tory Light like Swinson? Many of them would never vote Labour, but would vote LibDem.

If enough of them are not prepared to hold their noses and vote Tory in the current guise, then they might prefer to take their chances with LibDems and perhaps remain in the EU now they realise that it might be better after all.

The only thing certain in my mind about this election is that the SNP will clean up in Scotland and the Tories will not.

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

There's no limit to how many times because for that to happen it would mean these people were also wrong and they have been fed and fattened on a diet of narcissistic right wing garbage which makes that admission for them nigh impossible, barring some absolute unforeseen and monumental catastrophe the likes of which dwarfs all the garbage we have seen thus far that ultimately lays the whole thing bare for what it is.

But even the media? I mean surely the next time Farage even pops into a studio people can simply say that he totally folder and got nothing from the Tories. Why would we think he has anything to add when clearly he has conceeded on a Brexit he said only a few weeks ago was totally unacceptable?

liamtech

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thats fair enough. Youre entitled to that view and probably not alone. However, while corbyns historic eurosceptism is well documented, the fact he is supporting a PV and insisting on maintaining close alignment with the EU kind of makes a mockery of using words like "rampant" i think. Seems ott to me.

Blaming corbyn for the leave vote in labour areas also seems unfair to me. Over 70% of labour voters voted remain, even in leave voting labour constituencies they voted majority remain. You dont have to give corbyn credit for that, but to suggest its his fault other voters didnt vote remain seems harsh i would say.

Six labour mps went against him in the recent big hoc votes, in the circumstances i dont think that's too bad. They stayed mostly with him around the time they were passing the no deal legislation too. There is division but not as much as is being portrayed i think. Might not even lose as many of those leave seats as predicted, though bp standing down wont help.

In addressing my use of the word Rampant, i would say that it is rampantly irresponsible for anyone to urge a leave vote - i absolve JC of that - absolutely. But it was also rampantly irresponsible for him to grade the EU 6.5 outta 10 - it hurt remain. If Jeremy is a 'fence sitter' as he is claiming to be at Ref 2 (if we get it), why didnt he do Remain a favor and keep his opinion to himself?

In blaming JC for labour leave voters i used the words partly responsible - and i genuinely believe he was and is. So to do i believe that he is responsible for a growing split in the Labour party himself - I believe too that to split the labour party, so that a sizeable portion of it is pro brexit, albeit soft, this i believe is dangerous. Anything that does not seek to unify the party around the best policy for UKNI, remain, is rampantly irresponsible

Finally, i again highlight the Tom Watson debacle

• Tom argues for a Peoples Vote as being the priority - ASAP - preferably before an election - sensible, correct, logical, pragmatic.
• Attacked and called to resign or be ousted. when that seemed impossible, calls for the abolition of the position of Deputy Leader
• Of course people will point out that JC stepped in and halted that - yes thats true - but look where it led? Watson is gone - I dont think its a stretch to say that Tom Watson left because Labor under Corbyn is not the real Labour party. Remember too calls from Momentum and Corbyniestas to deselect those who are not loyal to the Glorious leader

I hold that the above was rampantly irresponsible, and that JC is at the least partially responsible for it too -

Again happy to discuss - of course the discussion today will be focused more on Farage which i welcome - it is really hard to see how this is gonna work out

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Its the idea of revoking on receiving somewhere short of 40% of the national vote. Even if we're indulging the fantasy, even if they do try to implement it, i think it will prove hugely controversial. But maybe it could happen, i certainly would be wrong to discount it 100%.

If Tories get a majority we could be looking at a hard brexit on somewhere 40% of the national vote. Would that be democratically suspect as well?

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

If Tories get a majority we could be looking at a hard brexit on somewhere 40% of the national vote. Would that be democratically suspect as well?

Of course. Simply follows, doesnt it? On balance those arguing for referendum before election were probably right. Just couldnt get to that position.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Of course. Simply follows, doesnt it? On balance those arguing for referendum before election were probably right. Just couldnt get to that position.

Yes I'd agree it follows that if you think LDs revoking in that scenario is suspect, then clearly Tory's hard Brexiting would also be suspect.

Then to my mind it simply follows that if Labour get a majority on somewhere shy of 40% then a second referendum would be suspect too.

i.e if you seriously question one party, any party, implementing a policy on the back of a successful election campaign, then you must question all of them.

And it that scenario it simply follows that one cannot really accept the outcome of any election, leading to the abandonment of the concept of loser's consent.

And what then?

Blame the Russians for the deadlock I suppose!

hotmail.com

schmittel wrote: »

Yes I'd agree it follows that if you think LDs revoking in that scenario is suspect, then clearly Tory's hard Brexiting would also be suspect.

Then to my mind it simply follows that if Labour get a majority on somewhere shy of 40% then a second referendum would be suspect too.

i.e if you seriously question one party, any party, implementing a policy on the back of a successful election campaign, then you must question all of them.

And it that scenario it simply follows that one cannot really accept the outcome of any election, leading to the abandonment of the concept of loser's consent.

And what then?

Blame the Russians for the deadlock I suppose!

The referendum of 2016 decided the matter.

trellheim

The referendum of 2016 decided the matter

I must have missed the last 3 and half year of arguing so

that referendum didnt even bother to define the question properly

hotmail.com

trellheim wrote: »

I must have missed the last 3 and half year of arguing so

that referendum didnt even bother to define the question properly

True and it's a complete mess but that's seemingly want they want.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

Yes I'd agree it follows that if you think LDs revoking in that scenario is suspect, then clearly Tory's hard Brexiting would also be suspect.

Then to my mind it simply follows that if Labour get a majority on somewhere shy of 40% then a second referendum would be suspect too.

i.e if you seriously question one party, any party, implementing a policy on the back of a successful election campaign, then you must question all of them.

And it that scenario it simply follows that one cannot really accept the outcome of any election, leading to the abandonment of the concept of loser's consent.

And what then?

Blame the Russians for the deadlock I suppose!

I think blaming the russians is good, if only to make a change of always blaming corbyn!

But on a serious note, i think its fair to say we're at a point where we are talking about least worst options. On the basis i dont believe there is anything fundamentally undemocratic about going back to the people, that is the position i would support. I recognise some difficulties with it, but still it is better, and fairer, than the other two imo.

trellheim

but that's seemingly want they want.

pick any 3 randos off a nottingham high street ... q:tell me exactly what Brexit means ... three different answers but all the same caveat, "just stop beating me over the head with it"

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

But even the media? I mean surely the next time Farage even pops into a studio people can simply say that he totally folder and got nothing from the Tories. Why would we think he has anything to add when clearly he has conceeded on a Brexit he said only a few weeks ago was totally unacceptable?

And he will deny and change topic and they won't have the guts to push him hard enough or actual skill at their job to realise whats happening. In all likelihood he will confuse them on a topic they aren't read up on and make them look foolish.



He wont be taking interviews for a while unless he's guaranteed a friendly set of questions and also he is the media he has his own fecking daily show on LBC to reframe whatever narrative he wants to his die hards

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think blaming the russians is good, if only to make a change of always blaming corbyn!

But on a serious note, i think its fair to say we're at a point where we are talking about least worst options. On the basis i dont believe there is anything fundamentally undemocratic about going back to the people, that is the position i would support. I recognise some difficulties with it, but still it is better, and fairer, than the other two imo.

I have no disagreement on the point of a second referendum, going back to the people is a pragmatic and reasonable solution to the current problem.

And I certainly don't have any problem with Labour delivering on it should they win the election.

I just think that as an election strategy the Lib Dems makes more sense to me than Labour's. In the same way that posters here seem to get frustrated at the suggestion that Labour's strategy is not clear, I get frustrated at the suggestion that the LDs strategy is undemocratic!

26000 Elephants

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Farage the surrender monkey, he could have used the share of the vote as leverage to force the Cons to deliver Brexit.

He just wants this all to continue to stay relevant.

Unlikely. His votes might cause a 2nd referendum or avert Johnson's deal, which is not Brexit. Or something. I dont think he even knows himself.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

I have no disagreement on the point of a second referendum, going back to the people is a pragmatic and reasonable solution to the current problem.

And I certainly don't have any problem with Labour delivering on it should they win the election.

I just think that as an election strategy the Lib Dems makes more sense to me than Labour's. In the same way that posters here seem to get frustrated at the suggestion that Labour's strategy is not clear, I get frustrated at the suggestion that the LDs strategy is undemocratic!

I dont think i said or implied it was undemocratic. Or i didnt intend to anyway.

I can see how it makes more sense to them. It maintains their position as the most unambiguous remain party as well as avoiding the tricky second referendum questions that labour have to continuously field. Thats clever, i have to acknowledge. The thing i dont like is jo swinsons constant swipes at labour being a leave party. Not helpful or accurate i feel.

quokula

schmittel wrote: »

I have no disagreement on the point of a second referendum, going back to the people is a pragmatic and reasonable solution to the current problem.

And I certainly don't have any problem with Labour delivering on it should they win the election.

I just think that as an election strategy the Lib Dems makes more sense to me than Labour's. In the same way that posters here seem to get frustrated at the suggestion that Labour's strategy is not clear, I get frustrated at the suggestion that the LDs strategy is undemocratic!

As an election strategy for a small party that wants to get some cheap digs on Labour and win a bunch more seats it totally makes the most sense yes.

As an election strategy for one of the main two parties who actually want to win the election it would alienate a huge part of the population and would be completely unworkable.

As a genuine policy position to get the UK out of the mess it’s in, it is utterly divisive and dangerous. Labour’s strategy is by far the best route through this mess while trying to bring the country back together.

hometruths

quokula wrote: »

As an election strategy for a small party that wants to get some cheap digs on Labour and win a bunch more seats it totally makes the most sense yes.

I suspect winning a bunch more seats is the ambition for all parties in the election.

quokula wrote: »

As an election strategy for one of the main two parties who actually want to win the election it would alienate a huge part of the population and would be completely unworkable.

The Lib Dem policy is also attractive to a huge part of the population as much as it alienates others.

Labour's strategy runs the risk of being the least attractive to everybody, which is not a sensible strategy for one of the main two parties who actually want to win the election.

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/1193886462695084032

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartlepool_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#:~:targetText=Despite%20this%20intense%20Euroscepticism%20in,majority%20in%20Hartlepool%20since%202001.

Interesting. Definitely a winnable seat for a brexiter, but 2 running would **** their chances up. Bear in mind their is a few thousand people who will vote Tory no matter the candidate, will the tories step aside?

Ignore Farage, Tories have no issues telling him to **** of but Tice is the man who calls the shots in the brexit party.

VinLieger

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/JoshHalliday/status/1193886462695084032

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartlepool_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#:~:targetText=Despite%20this%20intense%20Euroscepticism%20in,majority%20in%20Hartlepool%20since%202001.

Interesting. Definitely a winnable seat for a brexiter, but 2 running would **** their chances up. Bear in mind their is a few thousand people who will vote Tory no matter the candidate, will the tories step aside?

Ignore Farage, Tories have no issues telling him to **** of but Tice is the man who calls the shots in the brexit party.

Will traditional Conservative "no matter what" voters switch to the BP or will they just not show up on the day?