Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, Lex Luthor said:

Well why mention it in an obvious attempt to disparage her? 

I mentioned it in an obvious attempt to explain her bizarre political journey from Labour to For Britain made even more bizarre by the fact that she was born and bred in Ireland!

[RJRB 688]

1 hour ago, Lex Luthor said:

Well why mention it in an obvious attempt to disparage her? 

 

Do you often label people you think may have 'fairly serious mental health issues' as a 'crackpot'? 

At least it would help to explain her obnoxious views.

Failing that she is just a self publiciser prepared to spread her objectionable views by whatever vehicle she jumps on.

Thankfully these views are only shared by crackpots or those with extremist racial attitudes.

 

[apelike 10]

23 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The original result  vs what people want now? No contest!

It would be a very close contest as very little has changed in those 3 years to give a remain vote the majority as many already know, and Sir John Curtice is one of them. Its is still a very close call and one of the reasons parliament dont want another referendum as it could just mean more of the same.

[melthebell 863]

3 minutes ago, apelike said:

It would be a very close contest as very little has changed in those 3 years to give a remain vote the majority as many already know, and Sir John Curtice is one of them. Its is still a very close call and one of the reasons parliament dont want another referendum as it could just mean more of the same.

nope, they dont want one cos theyre saying theyre honouring the vote but skirting around the outside as they know it will damage us. On the other hand the leavers dont want one and keep coming up with democracy excuses as they know the games up if there is a second one and they will lose the win of a lifetime

[apelike 10]

Just now, melthebell said:

 On the other hand the leavers dont want one and keep coming up with democracy excuses as they know the games up if there is a second one and they will lose the win of a lifetime

The main person in this that I do trust is not on SF but is the person that has done plenty of work for the BBC and that is John Curtice. If he says it would be a very close call and no one at the moment would be guaranteed to win, then I believe that and that is from just a few weeks ago.

[tinfoilhat 11]

8 minutes ago, melthebell said:

nope, they dont want one cos theyre saying theyre honouring the vote but skirting around the outside as they know it will damage us. On the other hand the leavers dont want one and keep coming up with democracy excuses as they know the games up if there is a second one and they will lose the win of a lifetime

I’m not entirely convinced a no deal wouldn’t win if presented on a ballot paper at the right time. There are still large sections of the press that are very pro brexit, there’s really only the post-Dacre Mail that’s toned it down a bit.

[Litotes 63]

20 minutes ago, apelike said:

It would be a very close contest as very little has changed in those 3 years to give a remain vote the majority as many already know, and Sir John Curtice is one of them. Its is still a very close call and one of the reasons parliament dont want another referendum as it could just mean more of the same.

Too often we have had the rejection of the polls by the beleavers as not being representative of the actual result, and yet here you use a predictive outcome from a poll as a reason to restrict the democratic opportunity for the electorate.

 

If there is that much uncertainty - shouldn't the electorate have their chance to show that they have changed their minds - after all that it what democracy is about (cf David Davis).

 

And if it is still hung, then we shouldn't leave until there is a clear majority and reason to choose one direction over the other.

5 minutes ago, apelike said:

The main person in this that I do trust is not on SF but is the person that has done plenty of work for the BBC and that is John Curtice. If he says it would be a very close call and no one at the moment would be guaranteed to win, then I believe that and that is from just a few weeks ago.

But on what basis do you believe his opinion? Where is he getting this knowledge from that the rest of us aren't party to?

Many leavers who have switched their opinion to remain are afraid to reveal this in public due to the backlash they think may occur - a confidential (private) vote is the only way forward.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Litotes

[Top Cats Hat 10]

21 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

I’m not entirely convinced a no deal wouldn’t win if presented on a ballot paper at the right time. 

That would require a significant number of remainers to support a no deal which to put it mildly is highly unlikely.

[apelike 10]

2 minutes ago, Litotes said:

Too often we have had the rejection of the polls by the beleavers as not being representative of the actual result, and yet here you use a predictive outcome from a poll as a reason to restrict the democratic opportunity for the electorate.

This was not pulled from a poll but taken from a report by Curtice who analyzes the data and forms a conclusion from it. I am also not restricting anything and have previously stated on here that I would accept what parliament decrees as to whether we get another referendum or not. 

 

2 minutes ago, Litotes said:

If there is that much uncertainty - shouldn't the electorate have their chance to show that they have changed their minds - after all that it what democracy is about (cf David Davis).

Two things: The data shows that very little has changed so holding another referendum could cause more problems than its worth and that is the sticking point and parliament I'm sure know that. After this farce it is very unlikely that any referendums will be held in the next several decades as they are normally held when the governments are certain of a result in their favour. The referendum on staying in the EEC and the AV referendum went the government of the days way. In this case Parliament were lacking and Cameron made a gamble that backfired badly.

 

Oh and the other thing: When Davis made that comment he was talking about how it was almost impossible for a member of the EU once it had joined to change its mind while a member, hence "If democracy cannot change its mind" etc. so once in you abide by the rules no matter what. Given that context and also Brexit it puts a different perspective on it. 

 

2 minutes ago, Litotes said:

And if it is still hung, then we shouldn't leave until there is a clear majority and reason to choose one direction over the other.

That is what parliament should now be deciding but the clock is still ticking regardless.

[Phanerothyme 12]

 

1 hour ago, apelike said:

This was not pulled from a poll but taken from a report by Curtice who analyzes the data and forms a conclusion from it. I am also not restricting anything and have previously stated on here that I would accept what parliament decrees as to whether we get another referendum or not. 

 

Two things: The data shows that very little has changed so holding another referendum could cause more problems than its worth and that is the sticking point and parliament I'm sure know that. After this farce it is very unlikely that any referendums will be held in the next several decades as they are normally held when the governments are certain of a result in their favour. The referendum on staying in the EEC and the AV referendum went the government of the days way. In this case Parliament were lacking and Cameron made a gamble that backfired badly.

 

Oh and the other thing: When Davis made that comment he was talking about how it was almost impossible for a member of the EU once it had joined to change its mind while a member, hence "If democracy cannot change its mind" etc. so once in you abide by the rules no matter what. Given that context and also Brexit it puts a different perspective on it. 

 

That is what parliament should now be deciding but the clock is still ticking regardless.

 

Agree - Asking for another referendum is inviting further discord, only this time everyone has worked up a proper head of steam already. The result is likely to be close (again) and regardless of the winners and the losers, I can't see the campaign being more enlightened, less vituperative or generally being characterised by an atmosphere of conciliation and concession, either in the house or in the public discourse.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

That would require a significant number of remainers to support a no deal which to put it mildly is highly unlikely.

Not so, it would require a lot of remainers to go “screw it, we’ll win anyway” or “the football/glasto etc etc” is on, we’ll be fine” just like last time.

 

im against another vote, even if remain won we’ll have to listen to the “best of three” shouts from the leavers until the end of time. Besides, would they have a point, certainly if we went with three or more options on the ballot. 

 

No, we just need our exceptionally incompetent government to screw it all up and let the whole thing stagger to a halt before it rolls over and dies. 

[Justin Smith 10]

On ‎04‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 13:40, Penistone999 said:

So , lets say we have a second referendum and the Remoaners win . Leavers will be unhappy, so do we have best of three ? best of five ? or maybe first to ten would be a good idea ? 

 

 

I think you're forgetting a load of stuff here.

In a Democracy people can vote to change things all the time, that`s the definition of democracy. It`s not a best of two or three or whatever. Voters have the right, at every General Election to vote to leave the EU, they do so by voting UKIP, which, truth be told, was always going to be the only way this country would have a hard Brexit because our democratic system is not set up for a simplistic question (which raised more questions than it answered) to force Parliament to adopt something which was never closely defined anyway.

To recap, since 1993 (or whenever UKIP was formed) people had the opportunity to vote to leave the EU, but they didn`t because until Cameron embarked on his ill considered gamble to reunite the Tory party (and Leave got going with its lies), the VAST majority of people in this country weren`t bothered about the EU one way or the other.

 

Brexit, a solution looking for a problem :

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Justin Smith