|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 24, 2019 8:30:07 GMT 1
Not sure what you are referring to there. Did they what? Did parliament make the decision to hand the decision of the UK's membership of the EU to the people of the UK in the form a referendum? They did didn't they? Did the people then head out (in record numbers to boot) to make that decision and provide parliament with an answer? They did didn't they? Maybe I've missed what you are getting at but even with that said, the mental gymnastics that you see from those who clearly wish to remain is sommat else. It really doesn't matter how some will try and dress it up, how some wish to interpret it; Parliament asked the people of the UK to make that decision and the peopl e gave them the answer which was (and it doesn't hurt to remind people as it seems people wish to ignore or forget what was actually asked and the answer given)...to Leave the European Union. There was no turn to page two, no second question, it was unconditional. So sure, lets call it out for what it is. Someone ****ed up for sure. Remain ****ed up because they thought they would walk it. Now having made a mess of it and because they didn't get the result they wanted, remain are now trying their level best to unravel it all, annul the result of that first referendum and get people to vote until they get the result they want. This is clear for anyone to see. Its blatantly apparent. Lord know what will happen if there is a second referendum and leave were to win again. How they would then look to get out of it a second time of asking... Apologies in advance if this doesn't fully address, sleep deprived. I'm saying they didn't offer the referendum because parliament was split as you claimed "Well sure, we knew that from the off. We know parliament is split, we know parliament is unable to make a decision. That is the very reason why parliament made the decision to ask and allow the public to make that decision (in the form of a referendum) " They offered it because it was eating the Tory party. most parties prior to 2010 were suggesting a referendum on Europe, at least on further changes to our relationship with them if not an in/out decision. Labour pulled theirs from their manifesto shortly after, not sure about the others. The coalition government established the referendum lock that forced a referendum in the event of a renegotiation of terms of membership, which is of course what happened when Cameron famously went to Brussels. then they got skinned by UKIP at the EU elections and the rest is history Call it mental gymnastics if you want, but the reason for the referendum is almost irrelevant. it was established in law as an advisory referendum. It did NOT put the power to enact the result of the vote into the act, unlike the AV referendum. And, as ruled by the high court, a minister or government can promise whatever they like but they cannot deliver that promise without consent of parliament. The only reason this is really even relevant is because the brexit arguments seems to be predicated on "brexit MUST be delivered", and any MP or remainer who says otherwise is defying the will of the people. There is nothing legally or constitutionally that says brexit MUST happen. So the "traitor" talk aimed at judges and MPs is sheer petulance aimed at those attempting to find out what can be done with the expression of wish which is all the referendum amounts to. The tories have reinforced this again and again, "crush the saboteurs", to the point where everything going wrong is being spun as "remainer plots to frustrate brexit", as you've amply demonstrated. What should have happened is an (advisory) referendum as an opinion poll to see what the main concerns were, a period of consultation with the EU to see what assurances the UK gov could take back to those on the leave side, and an investigation of what the options are for leaving without the politically and emotionally charged atmosphere of the last three years. Then a binding referendum with options that are actually possible, and their consequences, would have resulted in something no one could argue with or feel "thwarted" by, as would be the case with any potential 2nd ref now. Disappointment, maybe, but that'll always be the case for someone. I think both sides would have been far more receptive to discussion and presentation of the opposition case, and the revelations made in researching the options for leaving, had the nature of the referendum arrangements not meant that immediately the day after we were reduced to "you lost, get over it". I don't know what you expected other than kickback and anger from immediately disenfranchising nearly half the voters i assume by quoting the unconditional nature of the referendum leave option you have always and will always be in favour of no deal and all the consequences of such, so you'll be as glad as i am to see johnson's deal flounder. but i'm afraid that's not what a lot of your fellows had in mind when lured with such promises as no need to leave the single market and i think you know that, especially with the clamouring from leave camps to get this deal through - whether or not you were a force unified in your brexit wishlists previously, it's quite clear now most are pursuing literally anything with a brexit label, and i'm glad some MPs are still trying to honour the result by investigation options but not supporting brexit at any cost. Well you certainly made up for lost time. Lot to get through there, hope I cover everything too... Of the three main parties, it was the Lib Dems who were the first to campaign for a referendum on EU membership. You'll even find footage of the current Lib Dem leader calling for a referendum in the HoC. The Lib Dems being the first to campaign for one because the question hadn't been asked for a while and they wanted to cement our membership to the EU (as they thought, as we all did in 2016, that remain would win). Labour under Blair committed to hold a referendum on the Constitution for Europe and whether to give it the OK. But after referendums elsewhere knocked it back he didn't need to as the CfE was dropped (although its content was then included in the Lisbon Treaty). As Juncker said at the time; “If it's a yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a no we will say 'we continue'". So Blair could then say that no referendum was required (even though the CfE had effectively been included in the Lisbon Treaty). We all know about the infighting in the Tory party, so they offered a referendum and having been elected made good on that. Anyhow, when parliament voted to holding a referendum on EU membership, the one and only party who voted against doing so was the SNP. The Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems voted in favour of holding the referendum. I've already discussed the 'advisory ' aspect of the 2016 referendum and I think that is very much apart of those mental gymnastics that I refer to. As I have said; both sides fought on the basis that the result would be binding and it was on that basis that people voted. For sure we can talk all day about what should have happened and we'd no doubt most certainly agree on that. The referendum in 2016 was a complete mess and ill thought out. But again, as I have said before, I believe that was because people thought remain would win in a landslide and it would be a quick and easy solution to put the question of EU membership behind us. But we have to focus on what actually did happen. And that was the question put to the people of the UK and it was unconditional. And the remain side can not now simply turn around to those 17.4 million people and say "We ****ed it up. We got it wrong. You most certainty got it wrong. Can we have another go". People went out in good faith and in record numbers to vote in a referendum that was fought on the basis that the result would be binding. They were asked a question and they gave an answer. As for my own position, I didn't vote because I couldn't vote. I simply have to go with what is decided by others. I would have no option at all to simply accept the result of the referendum, whether leave or remain. And I am OK with that. But that is something I have done. At the end of the day leave won and therefore I think the UK should now leave the EU (because that was the result of the referendum). I would have accepted the result if remain would have won, no issue at all. I'm not remain or leave because I have an opinion on EU membership, I can take it or leave it, its out of my hands. However, I believe we should leave because when asked by parliament, that was the answer given by those who went out to register their answer. It really does not sit right with me at all to now turn around to those 17.4 million people that we have go through it all again because others made a mess of it and many on the remain side are now unwilling to accept the result. That just isn't right in my eyes. I'm certainly not in favour of leaving with no withdrawal agreement, I want to see a withdrawal agreement agreed and an orderly transition period. I do not wish to see Johnson's agreement voted down at all. I hope it does eventually make it through. So no, certainly not as glad as you are to see Johnson's deal flounder.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 24, 2019 8:37:03 GMT 1
It's a shame the General Election is all going to be about Brexit. Quite likely to end in stalemate again. If only we could have had a week or two to work the Brexit bill properly through parliament and then a confirmatory referendum so that when the election did come it really was setting us up for a five year term post whatever happens to Brexit exactly it. brexit is a cancer that is going to infect every single vote, local and national, until and way after it's resolved, if it ever is. I don't really know how polling will cope with, for instance, people who have always voted labour but won't support corbyn till he's firm on a 2nd ref (even though he is, conditions permitting - it seems people aren't getting that though), or leave for that matter; Tory voters who want brexit and don't trust boris, but aren't willing to vote Brexit PLC in case it dilutes the vote against labour; tory voters who would never, ever vote anything else but want to remain. Remain really suffer with corbyn making them balance between 2 evils - i want remain but not sure i can bring myself to vote yellow tory. and then you have to consider the contribution of FPTP... And I think this is why the next election is very difficult to predict (despite what the polls suggest).
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 24, 2019 9:50:11 GMT 1
Quite true salop27. His campaigning is so good that both his last two GE campaigns in Uxbridge have been swings toward Labour. Johnson didn't do to bad in two London mayor campaigns or that thing in 2016, can't remember what that was for now😉 Will come unstuck one day. You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
|
|
|
Post by Worthingshrew on Oct 24, 2019 10:36:42 GMT 1
Love it if Boris failed to hold Uxbridge.
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Oct 24, 2019 17:16:54 GMT 1
Another vote on a general election planned for Monday. I think everyone on here can agree we will not be leaving without a deal next week so let's get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Oct 24, 2019 17:39:34 GMT 1
I don't see the point of a general election while brexit remains unresolved. It's a distraction, people will vote on other issues and the result will either be that we're in a similar position with a renewed House of Commons or Johnson has a majority to do whatever it is he's trying to do.
Neither of those is a desirable outcome.
I wish politicians would stop telling us everyone's fed up with brexit as though that justified caving in to whatever fresh nonsense the government has come up with. No deal brexiteers never tire of telling us how we (or rather, previous generations) endured wartime hardship etc so brexit will be a pushover. I expect previous generations were fed up of the war too but they didn't bleat about it. Just get on with doing your jobs diligently, MPs, and stop telling us that we're fed up or, even worse, that you are.
|
|
|
Post by zenfootball2 on Oct 24, 2019 18:25:13 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/mps-reject-all-alternative-brexit-optionsA first attempt by MPs to find a consensus route forward for Brexit has ended in deadlock and confusion after the Commons rejected every option put forward, albeit with a near-even split on the idea of joining a customs union. Oliver Letwin, the veteran Conservative MP who led the process which allowed backbenchers to seize control of the order paper to hold a series of indicative votes, said the results were “disappointing” but he hoped a new round of votes would be held on Monday. All eight indicative vote options on Brexit defeated by MPs – as it happened Read more The Speaker, John Bercow, said he would allow this to take place, prompting shouts of protests from many MPs. The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, said the results strengthened the government’s view that Theresa May’s Brexit deal was the best and only way forward. Advertisement On the lack of a majority for any of the eight alternatives put to the vote on Wednesday, he said: “It demonstrates that there is not easy option here, that there is no easy way forward.” Groups of MPs had suggested 15 ideas, of which eight were selected by Bercow for votes. The closest result was a commitment for the government to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Put forward by the pro-EU Tory veteran Ken Clarke and others, it was voted down by 271 votes to 265. The only other relatively close vote was on a plan drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, and tabled by the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, to require a referendum to confirm any Brexit deal. This was lost by 268 votes to 295. Other softer Brexit options sustained heavier defeats. A plan for “common market 2.0”, involving UK membership of the European Free Trade Association (Efta) and European Economic Area (EEA), had 188 votes in support and 283 against. The Labour frontbench plan for a softer Brexit was defeated by 237 to 307, while a motion tabled by the Conservative MP George Eustice, which proposed staying in Efta and the EEA without a customs union, only gained 64 votes, with 377 against. The final three votes were also decisive, and concerned other areas of Brexit. A Conservative Brexiter plan to propose leaving the EU without a deal on 12 April lost by 160 votes to 400; a Scottish National party plan to revoke article 50 lost by 184 to 293; and another Brexiter plan seeking preferential trade arrangements with the EU if there is no withdrawal agreement lost by 139 to 422. this happened in march so how on earth are we going to get any concensus to break the deadlock?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Oct 24, 2019 18:32:50 GMT 1
www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/mps-reject-all-alternative-brexit-optionsA first attempt by MPs to find a consensus route forward for Brexit has ended in deadlock and confusion after the Commons rejected every option put forward, albeit with a near-even split on the idea of joining a customs union. Oliver Letwin, the veteran Conservative MP who led the process which allowed backbenchers to seize control of the order paper to hold a series of indicative votes, said the results were “disappointing” but he hoped a new round of votes would be held on Monday. All eight indicative vote options on Brexit defeated by MPs – as it happened Read more The Speaker, John Bercow, said he would allow this to take place, prompting shouts of protests from many MPs. The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, said the results strengthened the government’s view that Theresa May’s Brexit deal was the best and only way forward. Advertisement On the lack of a majority for any of the eight alternatives put to the vote on Wednesday, he said: “It demonstrates that there is not easy option here, that there is no easy way forward.” Groups of MPs had suggested 15 ideas, of which eight were selected by Bercow for votes. The closest result was a commitment for the government to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Put forward by the pro-EU Tory veteran Ken Clarke and others, it was voted down by 271 votes to 265. The only other relatively close vote was on a plan drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, and tabled by the former foreign secretary Margaret Beckett, to require a referendum to confirm any Brexit deal. This was lost by 268 votes to 295. Other softer Brexit options sustained heavier defeats. A plan for “common market 2.0”, involving UK membership of the European Free Trade Association (Efta) and European Economic Area (EEA), had 188 votes in support and 283 against. The Labour frontbench plan for a softer Brexit was defeated by 237 to 307, while a motion tabled by the Conservative MP George Eustice, which proposed staying in Efta and the EEA without a customs union, only gained 64 votes, with 377 against. The final three votes were also decisive, and concerned other areas of Brexit. A Conservative Brexiter plan to propose leaving the EU without a deal on 12 April lost by 160 votes to 400; a Scottish National party plan to revoke article 50 lost by 184 to 293; and another Brexiter plan seeking preferential trade arrangements with the EU if there is no withdrawal agreement lost by 139 to 422. this happened in march so how on earth are we going to get any concensus to break the deadlock? The Tories have a lot fewer MPs than they had in March and the DUP can no longer be relied upon. Hopefully either a 2nd referendum or at the very least a customs union.
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Oct 24, 2019 18:42:09 GMT 1
While I can clearly see the argument that a general election should not be about one thing over three years of dithering can't go on. In 2017 most votes went to the two main parties who promised to implement the referendum. Since then its become clear that only one main party now wants to do this. Labour's current policy of renegotiating a deal with the EU then putting it to a confirmatory referendum, where they would campaign to stay and not even have no deal on the ballot is ridiculous. Due to our voting system people have the chance to send mps in certain areas a firm message. Parliament is not representative of the people currently and a general election would sort this out and give the best chance of resolving the current situation.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 24, 2019 20:34:52 GMT 1
Labour's current policy of renegotiating a deal with the EU then putting it to a confirmatory referendum, where they would campaign to stay and not even have no deal on the ballot is ridiculous. If Labour win the next election then it will be remain for sure, it really won't matter what will be put up against remain in a referendum. Whether that be Johnson's deal, their deal, no deal; it really won't matter. This is what was agreed at their recent party conference... Labour votes to smash border controls...
So odds on this will now become official party policy. So when looking to the last entry in that list, that would allow anyone residing in the UK (no matter what nationality) the right to vote. That would give them the votes needed to bring about the result they want. It seems to have finally twigged at Labour HQ, if they can't get the English working class to vote for them then they'll bring one in that will.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Oct 24, 2019 20:41:25 GMT 1
With Johnson threatening to go on strike I hope he has good Union representation to support him through the process
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 24, 2019 20:50:00 GMT 1
While I can clearly see the argument that a general election should not be about one thing over three years of dithering can't go on. In 2017 most votes went to the two main parties who promised to implement the referendum. Since then its become clear that only one main party now wants to do this. Labour's current policy of renegotiating a deal with the EU then putting it to a confirmatory referendum, where they would campaign to stay and not even have no deal on the ballot is ridiculous. Due to our voting system people have the chance to send mps in certain areas a firm message. Parliament is not representative of the people currently and a general election would sort this out and give the best chance of resolving the current situation. That strategy has a few ifs and buts in it and is not gauranteed to resolve anything. It would also leave us with a government voted in mainly for their Brexit policy for the next 5 years. There are plenty of other things that should be important in how we vote, but they will be overlooked. Surely the best way of resolving the current situation is another referendum, pure and simple? A "one question shoot out!"
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Oct 24, 2019 21:42:06 GMT 1
While I can clearly see the argument that a general election should not be about one thing over three years of dithering can't go on. In 2017 most votes went to the two main parties who promised to implement the referendum. Since then its become clear that only one main party now wants to do this. Labour's current policy of renegotiating a deal with the EU then putting it to a confirmatory referendum, where they would campaign to stay and not even have no deal on the ballot is ridiculous. Due to our voting system people have the chance to send mps in certain areas a firm message. Parliament is not representative of the people currently and a general election would sort this out and give the best chance of resolving the current situation. That strategy has a few ifs and buts in it and is not gauranteed to resolve anything. It would also leave us with a government voted in mainly for their Brexit policy for the next 5 years. There are plenty of other things that should be important in how we vote, but they will be overlooked. Surely the best way of resolving the current situation is another referendum, pure and simple? A "one question shoot out!" If leave won a referendum again we'd be in exactly the same position! Hence why I believe an election is the way to go 👍
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 24, 2019 22:31:00 GMT 1
That strategy has a few ifs and buts in it and is not gauranteed to resolve anything. It would also leave us with a government voted in mainly for their Brexit policy for the next 5 years. There are plenty of other things that should be important in how we vote, but they will be overlooked. Surely the best way of resolving the current situation is another referendum, pure and simple? A "one question shoot out!" If leave won a referendum again we'd be in exactly the same position! Hence why I believe an election is the way to go 👍 Not quite the same situation. A referendum vote to leave would put pressure on parliament to debate the chosen scenario and find a solution, or admit that parliament really was out of touch with the electorate and vote for an election, the remain orientated parties would vote for an election as the very last chance to attempt to stop Brexit, but Labour would have had there referendum and would would have to abide by the vote and concentrate on preserving workers rights.
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Oct 25, 2019 9:31:34 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Oct 25, 2019 9:45:41 GMT 1
Do believe something has to change, be it with an election or other means. Only downside to an election is I can see a hung parliament with Tory gains in the north but not enough to make up for their losses to the Lib Dem's and the SNP and it'll be likely the DUP won't enter into a confidence and supply agreement with the Tories after the Boris deal in which case we'll be exactly back to where we are now anyway!
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 25, 2019 13:37:41 GMT 1
The electorate knew that they were voting for a fixed-term parliament until 2022 in the 2017 general election.
Surely the Tory party of all parties would not want to defy the Will of The People by forcing them to vote again prior to 2022?
Or is it ok to want to do the opposite of what you were voted in for if you are Conservative?
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Oct 25, 2019 14:02:44 GMT 1
Apologies in advance if this doesn't fully address, sleep deprived. I'm saying they didn't offer the referendum because parliament was split as you claimed "Well sure, we knew that from the off. We know parliament is split, we know parliament is unable to make a decision. That is the very reason why parliament made the decision to ask and allow the public to make that decision (in the form of a referendum) " They offered it because it was eating the Tory party. most parties prior to 2010 were suggesting a referendum on Europe, at least on further changes to our relationship with them if not an in/out decision. Labour pulled theirs from their manifesto shortly after, not sure about the others. The coalition government established the referendum lock that forced a referendum in the event of a renegotiation of terms of membership, which is of course what happened when Cameron famously went to Brussels. then they got skinned by UKIP at the EU elections and the rest is history Call it mental gymnastics if you want, but the reason for the referendum is almost irrelevant. it was established in law as an advisory referendum. It did NOT put the power to enact the result of the vote into the act, unlike the AV referendum. And, as ruled by the high court, a minister or government can promise whatever they like but they cannot deliver that promise without consent of parliament. The only reason this is really even relevant is because the brexit arguments seems to be predicated on "brexit MUST be delivered", and any MP or remainer who says otherwise is defying the will of the people. There is nothing legally or constitutionally that says brexit MUST happen. So the "traitor" talk aimed at judges and MPs is sheer petulance aimed at those attempting to find out what can be done with the expression of wish which is all the referendum amounts to. The tories have reinforced this again and again, "crush the saboteurs", to the point where everything going wrong is being spun as "remainer plots to frustrate brexit", as you've amply demonstrated. What should have happened is an (advisory) referendum as an opinion poll to see what the main concerns were, a period of consultation with the EU to see what assurances the UK gov could take back to those on the leave side, and an investigation of what the options are for leaving without the politically and emotionally charged atmosphere of the last three years. Then a binding referendum with options that are actually possible, and their consequences, would have resulted in something no one could argue with or feel "thwarted" by, as would be the case with any potential 2nd ref now. Disappointment, maybe, but that'll always be the case for someone. I think both sides would have been far more receptive to discussion and presentation of the opposition case, and the revelations made in researching the options for leaving, had the nature of the referendum arrangements not meant that immediately the day after we were reduced to "you lost, get over it". I don't know what you expected other than kickback and anger from immediately disenfranchising nearly half the voters i assume by quoting the unconditional nature of the referendum leave option you have always and will always be in favour of no deal and all the consequences of such, so you'll be as glad as i am to see johnson's deal flounder. but i'm afraid that's not what a lot of your fellows had in mind when lured with such promises as no need to leave the single market and i think you know that, especially with the clamouring from leave camps to get this deal through - whether or not you were a force unified in your brexit wishlists previously, it's quite clear now most are pursuing literally anything with a brexit label, and i'm glad some MPs are still trying to honour the result by investigation options but not supporting brexit at any cost. Well you certainly made up for lost time. Lot to get through there, hope I cover everything too... Of the three main parties, it was the Lib Dems who were the first to campaign for a referendum on EU membership. You'll even find footage of the current Lib Dem leader calling for a referendum in the HoC. The Lib Dems being the first to campaign for one because the question hadn't been asked for a while and they wanted to cement our membership to the EU (as they thought, as we all did in 2016, that remain would win). Labour under Blair committed to hold a referendum on the Constitution for Europe and whether to give it the OK. But after referendums elsewhere knocked it back he didn't need to as the CfE was dropped (although its content was then included in the Lisbon Treaty). As Juncker said at the time; “If it's a yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a no we will say 'we continue'". So Blair could then say that no referendum was required (even though the CfE had effectively been included in the Lisbon Treaty). We all know about the infighting in the Tory party, so they offered a referendum and having been elected made good on that. Anyhow, when parliament voted to holding a referendum on EU membership, the one and only party who voted against doing so was the SNP. The Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems voted in favour of holding the referendum. I've already discussed the 'advisory ' aspect of the 2016 referendum and I think that is very much apart of those mental gymnastics that I refer to. As I have said; both sides fought on the basis that the result would be binding and it was on that basis that people voted. For sure we can talk all day about what should have happened and we'd no doubt most certainly agree on that. The referendum in 2016 was a complete mess and ill thought out. But again, as I have said before, I believe that was because people thought remain would win in a landslide and it would be a quick and easy solution to put the question of EU membership behind us. But we have to focus on what actually did happen. And that was the question put to the people of the UK and it was unconditional. And the remain side can not now simply turn around to those 17.4 million people and say "We ****ed it up. We got it wrong. You most certainty got it wrong. Can we have another go". People went out in good faith and in record numbers to vote in a referendum that was fought on the basis that the result would be binding. They were asked a question and they gave an answer. As for my own position, I didn't vote because I couldn't vote. I simply have to go with what is decided by others. I would have no option at all to simply accept the result of the referendum, whether leave or remain. And I am OK with that. But that is something I have done. At the end of the day leave won and therefore I think the UK should now leave the EU (because that was the result of the referendum). I would have accepted the result if remain would have won, no issue at all. I'm not remain or leave because I have an opinion on EU membership, I can take it or leave it, its out of my hands. However, I believe we should leave because when asked by parliament, that was the answer given by those who went out to register their answer. It really does not sit right with me at all to now turn around to those 17.4 million people that we have go through it all again because others made a mess of it and many on the remain side are now unwilling to accept the result. That just isn't right in my eyes. I'm certainly not in favour of leaving with no withdrawal agreement, I want to see a withdrawal agreement agreed and an orderly transition period. I do not wish to see Johnson's agreement voted down at all. I hope it does eventually make it through. So no, certainly not as glad as you are to see Johnson's deal flounder.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 25, 2019 14:19:23 GMT 1
The Lib Dems, now that is a party that should not be anywhere near government. As we found out when they propped up the Tories in coalition.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Oct 25, 2019 16:48:05 GMT 1
Anyone want a load of brexit day commemoration 50p’s? Just asking for a friend who needs to get rid of a load of them
|
|
|
Post by Valerioch on Oct 25, 2019 19:49:33 GMT 1
I don't see the point of a general election while brexit remains unresolved. It's a distraction, people will vote on other issues and the result will either be that we're in a similar position with a renewed House of Commons or Johnson has a majority to do whatever it is he's trying to do. Neither of those is a desirable outcome. I wish politicians would stop telling us everyone's fed up with brexit as though that justified caving in to whatever fresh nonsense the government has come up with. No deal brexiteers never tire of telling us how we (or rather, previous generations) endured wartime hardship etc so brexit will be a pushover. I expect previous generations were fed up of the war too but they didn't bleat about it. Just get on with doing your jobs diligently, MPs, and stop telling us that we're fed up or, even worse, that you are. You “don’t see the point of a general election” because “neither of those is a desirable outcome”. Your own words above, which prove Remoaners are running scared of a GE
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Oct 25, 2019 20:07:35 GMT 1
I don't see the point of a general election while brexit remains unresolved. It's a distraction, people will vote on other issues and the result will either be that we're in a similar position with a renewed House of Commons or Johnson has a majority to do whatever it is he's trying to do. Neither of those is a desirable outcome. I wish politicians would stop telling us everyone's fed up with brexit as though that justified caving in to whatever fresh nonsense the government has come up with. No deal brexiteers never tire of telling us how we (or rather, previous generations) endured wartime hardship etc so brexit will be a pushover. I expect previous generations were fed up of the war too but they didn't bleat about it. Just get on with doing your jobs diligently, MPs, and stop telling us that we're fed up or, even worse, that you are. You “don’t see the point of a general election” because “neither of those is a desirable outcome”. Your own words above, which prove Remoaners are running scared of a GE See, joining up parts of two separate sentences and slipping a "because" between them is a slippery, some might say dishonest, way to make a point in an argument. How about we take the first sentence on its own? I'll make it easy for you, here it is again: "I don't see the point of a general election while brexit remains unresolved."You can replace "while" with "because" if you must but don't just bolt two separate statements together and think you're being smart. Did you get a little tingle when Johnson told Corbyn to "man up"? I bet you did, seeing as how saying "remoaners" still lights your candle. Oh, my sides ...
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 25, 2019 21:15:16 GMT 1
The party who got us into this mess with a referendum are desperate not to resolve things with a simple confirmatory referendum. A general election enables them to muddy the waters and play the "We mustn't let Corbyn in" card. I hope their strategy comes unstuck.
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Oct 25, 2019 22:25:47 GMT 1
A general election would probably enable them to gain a majority, with mps who are willing to take the UK out of the EU. If Corbyn thought he could win he would of voted for an election weeks ago. The Conservatives don't have to muddy any water the vast majority of the electorate know that Corbyns a joke. I'll take a confirmatory referendum. We've voted to leave already so we just need to find out how people want to leave now.
|
|
|
Post by shrewinjapan on Oct 25, 2019 22:27:03 GMT 1
While I can clearly see the argument that a general election should not be about one thing over three years of dithering can't go on. In 2017 most votes went to the two main parties who promised to implement the referendum. Since then its become clear that only one main party now wants to do this. Labour's current policy of renegotiating a deal with the EU then putting it to a confirmatory referendum, where they would campaign to stay and not even have no deal on the ballot is ridiculous. Due to our voting system people have the chance to send mps in certain areas a firm message. Parliament is not representative of the people currently and a general election would sort this out and give the best chance of resolving the current situation. But the Libs usually get something like 15 to 20 percent of the vote while gaining hardly any seats in a GE under FPTP. As their voters are almost 100% remain, this means a GE will systematically ignore the view of a large proportion of the electorate on the very issue it is supposed to resolve.
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Oct 26, 2019 10:00:49 GMT 1
While I can clearly see the argument that a general election should not be about one thing over three years of dithering can't go on. In 2017 most votes went to the two main parties who promised to implement the referendum. Since then its become clear that only one main party now wants to do this. Labour's current policy of renegotiating a deal with the EU then putting it to a confirmatory referendum, where they would campaign to stay and not even have no deal on the ballot is ridiculous. Due to our voting system people have the chance to send mps in certain areas a firm message. Parliament is not representative of the people currently and a general election would sort this out and give the best chance of resolving the current situation. But the Libs usually get something like 15 to 20 percent of the vote while gaining hardly any seats in a GE under FPTP. As their voters are almost 100% remain, this means a GE will systematically ignore the view of a large proportion of the electorate on the very issue it is supposed to resolve. Additionally what happens to local issues? If it's a choice between voting for someone who is very pro-brexit but who says they'll be closing your local hospital, v someone anti-brexit but who will keep your local hospital, who would you vote for?!
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 26, 2019 10:16:03 GMT 1
While I can clearly see the argument that a general election should not be about one thing over three years of dithering can't go on. In 2017 most votes went to the two main parties who promised to implement the referendum. Since then its become clear that only one main party now wants to do this. Labour's current policy of renegotiating a deal with the EU then putting it to a confirmatory referendum, where they would campaign to stay and not even have no deal on the ballot is ridiculous. Due to our voting system people have the chance to send mps in certain areas a firm message. Parliament is not representative of the people currently and a general election would sort this out and give the best chance of resolving the current situation. But the Libs usually get something like 15 to 20 percent of the vote while gaining hardly any seats in a GE under FPTP. As their voters are almost 100% remain, this means a GE will systematically ignore the view of a large proportion of the electorate on the very issue it is supposed to resolve. No change there then, 49% of the electorate who voted remain are already being ignored.
|
|
|
Post by salop27 on Oct 27, 2019 20:32:24 GMT 1
I wouldn't say 49% of the population has been ignored, more like 52% as we've still not left the EU! Lib dems and SNP seem keen for a general election so something might happen this week.
|
|
|
Post by staffordshrew on Oct 28, 2019 9:58:12 GMT 1
I wouldn't say 49% of the population has been ignored, more like 52% as we've still not left the EU! Lib dems and SNP seem keen for a general election so something might happen this week. The 52% have consumed all the time and effort of the last three Prime Ministers. We have not left the EU because the nature of the last referendum did not indicate what sort of Brexit the 52% really wanted. You yourself advocate another referendum to decide exactly what they wanted, you just want to deny the opportunity for any of the 52% to indicate that after finding out what leaving would mean, have now decided that the best deal we could have with the EU is the one we already have: staying in.
|
|
|
Post by LetchworthShrew on Oct 28, 2019 10:35:34 GMT 1
|
|