No brexit, how would it work?

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
The DUP could be the key if it starts to go south on the deal.
Frankly I support the DUP in their attempts to stay in the union in more than just name. I think we should offer to swap the SNP for the DUP (Voters as well) and Scotland would be a simpler place to deal with.

The union's in no danger. It never was. (Except from the DUP,who've done more to initiate a united Ireland than PIRA)

When the only unionist MP in the HoC starts shouting that the unions in danger.. Then we have something to worry about. So far she's fairly sanguine about the whole thing.
But hanging your hat on a bunch of fundamentalist hillbillies.
God help us
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
We got into this mess in the first place, because of a fundamentally unanswered question: What is the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union ?

Logic would suggest that if the first attempt is a failure, any future attempt to exit would be nigh on impossible.... So, IF remain were to occur, we end up back at the unanswered question, except now we are effectively locked in, with a % of the population put on ignore and a political system likely to fracture into many pieces.
No we didn't.
We got into this mess. Because the further away you lived from London the less anyone listened to you. Problems in local schools, hospitals. Immigrants nobody was listening.

Areas previously known for community well being and cohesiveness have turned into junkie hellholes. Nobody gave a shit. So poor they were eligible for European aid, due to now being some of the poorest places in Europe.

There's no houses for homes. Private landlords making a fortune living off the government tit. No decent jobs for young people and there's someone on the news in London saying that the average wage was around a figure, never seen outside London

We had a vote, forty years of incessant dripping, blaming Europe for government failure. Of course those who believed this bullshit believed it.there were others who wanted to register their disaffection with the government. They wanted to send a message to the government, register a protest.
It worked.
 
The DUP could be the key if it starts to go south on the deal.
Frankly I support the DUP in their attempts to stay in the union in more than just name. I think we should offer to swap the SNP for the DUP (Voters as well) and Scotland would be a simpler place to deal with.
I do too, it is after all U.K. territory, I’m just not convinced that’s temporary deal is much to get fussed over. Point is that The EU have just taken over Ireland’s border.
 
The union's in no danger. It never was. (Except from the DUP,who've done more to initiate a united Ireland than PIRA)

When the only unionist MP in the HoC starts shouting that the unions in danger.. Then we have something to worry about. So far she's fairly sanguine about the whole thing.
But hanging your hat on a bunch of fundamentalist hillbillies.
God help us
Ireland’s problem mate, not ours. Moreover when was the last time the DUP burned out a customs post.
 
No we didn't.
We got into this mess. Because the further away you lived from London the less anyone listened to you. Problems in local schools, hospitals. Immigrants nobody was listening.

Areas previously known for community well being and cohesiveness have turned into junkie hellholes. Nobody gave a shit. So poor they were eligible for European aid, due to now being some of the poorest places in Europe.

There's no houses for homes. Private landlords making a fortune living off the government tit. No decent jobs for young people and there's someone on the news in London saying that the average wage was around a figure, never seen outside London

We had a vote, forty years of incessant dripping, blaming Europe for government failure. Of course those who believed this bullshit believed it.there were others who wanted to register their disaffection with the government. They wanted to send a message to the government, register a protest.
It worked.
People vote for any number of reasons, but usually have a core view that they have formed. If people voted on there core view of the EU, the margin would have been massively in favour of out. I live in the north east and didn't vote in the referendum out for any of the things you describe. Neither did my wife. My mother in law voted remain, despite been a strong out because she was terrified by project fear.

If you ignore the underlying problem I outlined then you leave space for those opposed to it to fill. Make the case and be honest with the direction of travel as people instinctively are not stupid and can smell a lie.
 
In effect they do, various parties have different rules but essentially leadership of the parliamentary party with the most MP's usually gets you the invite to the big house!
Indeed, but look at the maths:
2017 GE:
57.6% of those who actually voted didn't vote for the winning party (that is a majority)
42.4% that did (a minority) equated to 318 parliamentary seats (still a minority)

2016 Leadership Election:
Second ballot: TM elected leader and PM by 60.5% of the then parliamentary party of 331 MPs
60.5% equates to 200 conservative MPs
200 equates to 30.8% of the total number of parliamentary seats (still a minority) - what then of Parliamentary Sovereignty?

ETA I don't disagree with your description of the process. I just think the process is flawed both semantically and technically.
 
There you go. With any luck once we nail the lid on the brexit coffin we can get rid of the ERG and the eurosceptics as well.
It looks like the coup is over. Had anyone thought there was any more traction in Mogg and his ilk.
No one's interested.........last week you couldn't move on the green without falling over these things. View attachment 362779
As I stated at post 13, at the end of my second para, all after "Aye, right!" covers every argument the remainers put forward. The funny thing is,(my warped humour again,) when the SNP failed with their referendum they've been threatening to ask for another, and another to the extent it's being called a Neverendum by opposition parties, until the SNP get the "right" result! The remainers, from every part of the UK, have shown themselves to be no more mature than the SNP separatists who threw their dummy out the pram when it didn't go the way they hoped in 2014!
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
As I stated at post 13, at the end of my second para, all after "Aye, right!" covers every argument the remainers put forward. The funny thing is,(my warped humour again,) when the SNP failed with their referendum they've been threatening to ask for another, and another to the extent it's being called a Neverendum by opposition parties, until the SNP get the "right" result! The remainers, from every part of the UK, have shown themselves to be no more mature than the SNP separatists who threw their dummy out the pram when it didn't go the way they hoped in 2014!
It’s words, but could you sort the order out.
Thanks.
 
This is not aimed at anyone! Just my take on thing.

Massive constitutional change is OK when the result was that close? I don't think that's a terribly bright idea.
In fact it's a recipe for continued bad feeling if not outright unrest.
The Scottish referendum in the 70's had a minimum threshold built in. If it had been met, a clear majority would have been in favour - issue resolved. Whether or not you agreed it gave an unequivocal result and we all knew going in.

The result in the current case was close enough that a rerun would probably change the result, now that reality is setting in. I did notice that Farage wanted a rerun when he though he might lose by the amount exit ended up winning by. It was all good after the event.

This current cluster just changes the sides of the debate while hurting the country and simultaneously making us look like we couldn't collectively organise the proverbial in a brewery.

Or do the brexiteers to expect the remainers in parliament to remain quiet? (Will of the people and all that). After all, what did they do for forty years?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Indeed, but look at the maths:
2017 GE:
57.6% of those who actually voted didn't vote for the winning party (that is a majority)
42.4% that did (a minority) equated to 318 parliamentary seats (still a minority)

2016 Leadership Election:
Second ballot: TM elected leader and PM by 60.5% of the then parliamentary party of 331 MPs
60.5% equates to 200 conservative MPs
200 equates to 30.8% of the total number of parliamentary seats (still a minority) - what then of Parliamentary Sovereignty?

ETA I don't disagree with your description of the process. I just think the process is flawed both semantically and technically.
Whether you feel its right or wrong and the numbers back you up is immaterial, first past the post on a seat winning basis is how we do it. This is why the electoral boundaries mob get involved attempting to make our representation a little more equal. PR is a mess and appointing representatives that cant win anything because some crazy formula sys so wont be acceptable in the main UK elections ever hopefully!
Edited to add that %'s of votes in the country as a whole is pointless, we have what we have because it works, anything else would be too Eu like for my taste.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Or do the brexiteers to expect the remainers in parliament to remain quiet? (Will of the people and all that). After all, what did they do for forty years?
That is immaterial as we had no option other than to hope our PM's fought our corner. We know they didn't and as such took the chance when given to make a difference!
 
Whether you feel its right or wrong and the numbers back you up is immaterial, first past the post on a seat winning basis is how we do it. This is why the electoral boundaries mob get involved attempting to make our representation a little more equal. PR is a mess and appointing representatives that cant win anything because some crazy formula sys so wont be acceptable in the main UK elections ever hopefully!
Edited to add that %'s of votes in the country as a whole is pointless, we have what we have because it works, anything else would be too Eu like for my taste.
Probably a bit too Eu like for mine too, but that's because I am a 'cold warrior' - given time I suspect even out of the EU we (decendant snowflakes) will become a little like them.
 
This is not aimed at anyone! Just my take on thing.

Massive constitutional change is OK when the result was that close? I don't think that's a terribly bright idea.
In fact it's a recipe for continued bad feeling if not outright unrest.
We often have equally significant constitutional change when a change of government occurs after a general election. Thatcher and Blair both changed Britain much more than Brexit will and Maggie got in because the Tories won the 1979 confidence motion in Parliament by a single vote.

I can't see there being unrest. People don't generally perceive the EU as having that much impact on their lives. How many could even name their MEP? In any case, if there's any bovver, Nigel Farage is hard enough to take the lot of them.

The result in the current case was close enough that a rerun would probably change the result, now that reality is setting in.
I think you are right. All of the polls I have seen show a small majority in favour of staying in the EU. If the referendum had been a general election, we would now be half way through the first term of the new government. They'd be losing by elections and getting a kicking in the papers, but nobody would be calling for a rerun of the election so we could put the other guy in No 10.

Having said that, a referendum is a one off vote. Either we accept the result or we move to the sort of "benevolent dictatorship" that prevails in Europe where we keep voting until those in power find the result acceptable. What is sometimes called the democratic deficit, ignoring referendums, rubber stamp parliament, rule by decree etc was one of the main reasons that I voted leave.

This current cluster just changes the sides of the debate while hurting the country and simultaneously making us look like we couldn't collectively organise the proverbial in a brewery.
You are right again. We have been badly let down by our government but I think this might turn out to be irrelevant. Each country in the EU has a veto and many of them view this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to screw the UK. The French want us to be bound by EU environmental law. The Spanish want Gibraltar back. The Poles stated some time ago that they would veto any agreement that stops Polish citizens having full access to UK welfare benefits.

With each country having a veto, we are effectively negotiating now with 27 heads of state rather than a single entity. There isn't enough time to start such negotiations never mind conclude them by next year.

I think any agreement is doomed to failure because it will be bound to be vetoed, if not defeated in our own Parliament. Labour and the SNP would vote against eternal youth if it was proposed by a Tory government.

Whatever we do, I think we will be leaving next year without a significant deal. Never mind. £35 billion pays for a lot of customs and immigration officers.
 
ETA I don't disagree with your description of the process. I just think the process is flawed both semantically and technically.
of course it is, the problem remains that no one can think of a better one PR being that last one we voted on an down. In theory the winning party will have a majority of the vote that is cast.
Point; it is not mandatory to vote. Abstentions cannot be used in defence of a lost cause.
Point; existing Government on both sides have rigged the boundaries
Point ;there's been no solution to the Postal vote system that can and is abused
Point Devolution skews the political system as WM does not attract the same vote as devolved Parliaments as we have seen with the SNP.
 
I didn't vote! i thought staying in under the existing system a bad idea, change from within would have been ideal. if I had voted it would have been out. the EU is now doing openly what they have been pretending not to do for a long time. no deal is better than compleat surrender. so FX them and the remoners. let the chaos begin. you cant make an omelet without breaking heads. we as a nation have been through worse. its a divorce from a shit marriage that should have ended years ago. Nigel for pm
 
 
of course it is, the problem remains that no one can think of a better one PR being that last one we voted on an down. In theory the winning party will have a majority of the vote that is cast.
Point; it is not mandatory to vote. Abstentions cannot be used in defence of a lost cause.
Point; existing Government on both sides have rigged the boundaries
Point ;there's been no solution to the Postal vote system that can and is abused
Point Devolution skews the political system as WM does not attract the same vote as devolved Parliaments as we have seen with the SNP.

PR.....

The Voting method of choice for ‘it’s not fair’ students.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
You're not being very moderate.
Agree totally btw.
Its what I voted for in my mind. Why should I vote to leave an organisation and then pay to stay in but have no say?
 
You are quite correct in stating no one forced this on us. It was a democratically held vote, where the majority, WHO VOTED (didn't vote, tough) decided we should leave! That, like it or lump it, is Democracy! Anything else, however which way it's described, is not!
Although I've noticed those who say, "The vote wasn't about how we leave, we voted to leave!" seem to be very excitable about this particular manner of leaving.

It's almost as if the manner in which we leave is of crucial importance after all.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top