Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:55 PM

At last! A result which is undeniably convincing! None of your 55/45 or 52/48 but 202/432!
Just watching this space, having not been on this thread before, and can't be ersed to read all 2,700 and something posts!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:51 PM

No Dave, even I can figure out that a fall of one half of one cent (less than 1/2 a percent) is not plumetting although there were those who suggested it was.

I can also tell that a rise of about 9% in an hour is also pretty unusual, to say the least.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:47 PM

DMcG - :-D

Raggy. Surely it only soars when a brexiteer tells us it has soared :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:44 PM

I well remember a salesman showing me some software and explaining the new functionality in the upgrade. He was talking through menu options to show which were new and remarked "History - that's always been there..."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:29 PM

Interesting that the pound has truly soared in the last hour. Up almost 10 Cents.

I'm sure someone will give me the exact percentage but it's about 9%

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:28 PM

I wonder whether there will be a "where were you when Kennedy was assassinated" moment here? (I can tell you precisely in my case, actually...). I can also tell you that when tonight's vote came in (I had my phone on silent buzzing) I was in the Rebel Cinema just outside Bude, watching the new Laurel And Hardy film. And I can tell you that it's one of the loveliest, most warm-hearted films you'll ever see!

Tomorrow is another day. Don't you just love it when some media twat tells you that you're "living through history"?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:26 PM

Watching from this side of the pond - seems like you should do another referendum to stay or split, and make sure everyone takes it seriously this time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:51 PM

The only down side to such a huge defeat is that pig sticker Cameron was not at the receiving end.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:38 PM

EU president suggests remain may be only option left

Maybe, but probably not too helpful a thing to say at the moment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:30 PM

My previous post was based on the assumption that 423 to 203 votes represents a majority by the remainers on here!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:20 PM

Considering the Brexit vote of June 2016 preceded the T***p vote of November 2016, this may be an ill wind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:16 PM

Biggest government defeat for 95 years (Ramsey McDonald 1924).

Probably an even bigger defeat than was expected. So Teresa May has effectively wasted over two and a half years of everyones time and effort.

No doubt those on here who maintain we should respect our MP's will be calling for heads to roll, particularly hers.

For some reason the words ship, leaving, sinking and rats come to my mind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 02:50 PM

So I guessed wrongly - Corbyn has tabled a confidence motion. It was an interesting offer from May to allow other parties to submit no confidence motions: if Corbyn hadn't intended to, he would have little choice as a result.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 02:41 PM

For the sake of accuracy the Office for National statistics has estimates and projections for the years in question of around 725k reaching 18. I am beginning to think all the figures are inaccurate apart from those supplied by the Electoral Commission. Decide for yourself.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/elec

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 01:10 PM

There are nearly three million people on the electoral role who were not there in 2016.
It just doesn't stand up to critical examination.

Peter Kellner, YouGov’s former president states: 395,000 reach voting age each year.( Assuming 3 full years- to be generous) That equals 1,185,000.It also assumes they are registered on the electoral role.

Government Statistics:
The total number of UK Parliamentary electors increased by 380,000 (0.8%) between December 2016 and December 2017, a smaller increase than in the previous year. This follows an increase of around 1 million the previous year.
The total number of UK Parliamentary electors in December 2017 was 46,148,000. The electoral roll does not directly correlate with those of voting age. Not every adult qualifies, those that are have to ensure they are registered.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 01:07 PM

Sticking my neck out for tonight: when Corbyn responds to May after the vote, he will say that it is appropriate to wait until the three days allowed for a response are up and May's retry has been voted on. Only then will it be appropriate to call a confidence vote.

He may well not say it that explicitly, but I suspect that will be the essence of it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 10:38 AM

He actually has allowed several that aspire to do so. But there is no way in which a vote in the commons can change the backstop so that there's an end date. It's a bit like having a vote to determine that the earth is flat, or the capital of Italy is Venice.
......................
One interesting point that has been entirely ignored by commentators. If Theresa May's Deal we’re somehow to win the vote today, the DUP has said it would abandon its agreement to support the governmen. That would mean that it wouldn't have any majority in Parliament, and would be liable to find it impossible to get anything passed - including the legislation needed for the deal to take effect.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 09:42 AM

Speaker fails to call amendment that would limit 'backstop'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:47 AM

"Unfortunately the fact that it is essentially a nonsensical label doesn’t stop it from being a very powerful one . It's rather like a term like "stab in the back" after a military defeat, or the lie that the 2008 crash was caused by Labour overspending. It's treated by many as true beyond question. It's an emperor parading openly with no clothes."

And proof, if any were needed, of 'The Illusion of Truth Effect' well known to psychologists, and beloved of politicians.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:24 AM

The significant change in any new vote, particularly a new referendum, would be that there are nearly three million people on the electoral role who were not there in 2016. Most of them would be young people, who, if electoral research is correct, would be 80% likely to vote remain. That is far higher than the 1.4 million margin for leave last time.

The relevant thing isn’t whether a referendum is preferable to a general election, or the other way round. It is a matter of which option is capable of being established.

The catchword "affront to democracy" which has become attached to the notion of a fresh referendum, but evidently not to a new general election is very strange. It just doesn't stand up to critical examination.

Unfortunately the fact that it is essentially a nonsensical label doesn’t stop it from being a very powerful one . It's rather like a term like "stab in the back" after a military defeat, or the lie that the 2008 crash was caused by Labour overspending. It's treated by many as true beyond question. It's an emperor parading openly with no clothes.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:13 PM

As I oppose referendums vehemently, and as I fervently opposed the last one, I'm finding it difficult to make any case whatsoever in my mind for another one. There's an argument that we have reached such a severe state of crisis and paralysis that another vote is the only way out. But I think that it would be incredibly divisive. The polls may be showing a majority for remain, but, if it comes to the crunch, I think an awful lot of remainers would either refrain from voting in disgust at the "affront to democracy" or vote leave. Most leave voters would still vote leave. There is not going to be a result any more decisive than the last one, so is it really a way out? I take the point that if we allow one referendum it can hardly be argued that another, taking into account developments since June 2016, would be in any way undemocratic. No-one's hands would be tied into voting a certain way. Whether it's the right way forward is an entirely separate issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:03 PM

It could well happen that we have a fresh General Election in a few weeks time. It could also happen that we have a fresh referendum. Why is one of those possibilities seen as undemocratic, but the other is not?

I've yet to read any comprehensible reason why deciding to have a fresh referendum on something about which there has already been a referendum is in any way more undemocratic than deciding to have a fresh general election which wasn't timetabled, as happened in 2017, regardless of the fact that when people voted in 2015 it was for a five year parliament.

Before the fixed term Parliament act, of course, a Prime Minister could decide to have a General Election any time they wanted. Now it's harder, but it can still happen any time, if the appropriate procedures are carried out.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 01:46 PM

Nice quotation from Speaker John Bercow a few minutes ago:

I have no intention of taking lectures in doing right by Parliament from people who have been conspicuous in denial of and, sometimes, contempt for it. I will stand up for the rights of the House of Commons and I will not be pushed around by agents of the executive branch.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 12:38 PM

"The new quarterly GDP figures this morning reveal that EU economies are experiencing a significant slowdown in growth. The UK on the other hand is one of the few EU countries where GDP growth is higher this year than last year’s admittedly anaemic performance. It is still a staggering outcome compared to previously gloomy official forecasts.

The Bank of England is warning that the UK economy is nearing full capacity and it may have to raise interest rates. So much for the post-referendum immediate economic aftershock we were warned about.

France’s growth rate has halved on last year’s Q3 numbers, and German growth is also expected to halve from 0.8% last year to just 0.4%. On average Eurozone growth was a dismal 0.2%, a new four year low."

These figures would put the UK above all other EU countries in the G7 in terms of GDP growth quarter-on-quarter.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 11:20 AM

If a Tory 19% poll lead results in them losing their majority in parliament. 6% poll lead.... BRING IT ON!!!!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 11:11 AM

That same survey reports 46% would vote to remain and 39% to leave if there was a referendum tomorrow. Just in case you and Guido forgot to mention that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:47 AM

"Despite Theresa May heading towards what could be the biggest Government defeat in modern political history tomorrow, the Tories are still a comfortable six points ahead of Labour according to the latest YouGov poll. The Tories are on 41%, ahead of Labour on 35% with the Lib Dems and UKIP trailing behind on 11% and 4%. Voters are still favouring chaos with the Conservatives over chaos with Corbyn…"

From youGov and quoted on your favourite "sauce" Guido!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:29 AM

Anyone remember Steve Bell depicting John Redwood as the alien with no nipples? We stayed at a B&B a few years ago where he'd recently been a guest. The other guests told us that he'd been obnoxiously aloof and sullen and wouldn't speak to anyone.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:16 AM

Has Midsomer Murders done that yet?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:14 AM

As an only child, I will need to avoid singers nights, then.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:13 AM

(Self nitpick: The ritual beheading is more common in longsword than rapper.

You are right: it *IS* catching.)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:06 AM

Somehow I can see John Redwood playing the role of the Mari Llwd. His welsh connections are impeccable.

I am not sure we should trust the cabinet with rapper swords though. The ritual beheading in some dances might go wrong if one is accidentally sharpened.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 10:00 AM

Have you learned nothing from past discussion SPB? It is not Cameron that has done untold damage. It is Jeremy Corbyn with his antisemitic, unpatriotic opposition to Theresa May's destruction of the country that has caused all this. It is likely to go on to cause a plague of Morris dancers, rivers of Watneys Red Barrel and the death of the first born song on any given singers night.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:46 AM

Well it seems that there's no room for significant changes. The backstop can't be changed in any shape or form. It's ironic, really, that a measure that no-one wants and which probably won't be needed, given sensible and sane trade talks after brexit*, has got the brexiteers in such a flat spin...


*Mind you...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:42 AM

So looking at the news today, the UK political system is in turmoil - Cameron has done untold damage to the political, economic and social structure of this country,and if/when the people of Witney are punished for electing him, I will have no sympathy whatsover.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:27 AM

According to convention a rejected vote can only be brought back if it is significantly changed. And who judges that? Why, our old friend, the Speaker.

Expect more criticisms of bias on his part.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:23 AM

She didn't undemocratically postpone tomorrow's vote. She postponed it TO tomorrow. There, I've been and gone and nitpicked my own post. It's very catching I find.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 09:20 AM

It's laughable that Theresa May, who has serially tried to undermine parliamentary democracy and who has even been successfully taken to court over it, is now threatening that MPs would be fatally undermining democracy if they don't vote for her deal tomorrow. The whole point of tomorrow's vote (which she undemocratically postponed) was to give MPs a meaningful democratic voice over her deal. Now she's invoking a mini-Project Fear instead of making the argument for the deal, and she's lying about the "legality" of the gentle encouraging whimpers she's getting from the EU. Doubtless she'll bring her discredited deal back again and again in the coming weeks with tiny tweaks intended to get the result she wants. And these people have the gall to criticise those who call for a people's vote on the grounds that we just want to keep trying until we get the result we want...

Whatever happens tomorrow, and I hope the deal gets so comprehensively trounced that it'll have no way back, anything would be better than this woman carrying on being our PM. Almost, anyhow.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:39 AM

are you leaving as well? Bon Voyage!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:37 AM

I'm cutting you dead. Bye.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 07:00 AM

Pointing out what MPs should be working for (the best interests of the country), in contrast to what most of them actually do (give in to realpolitik) is wholly consistent.

Consistant with what?
Reality?
or your opinion?
To a rational person the two stances are most inconsistent.
(We know you offer your opinions as facts because you have admitted it)

what brexiteers are shit scared of, is that there is no actual majority among MPs for any kind of brexit at all.

Simply not true. Valiant Brexiteers are more that miffed that MPs elected on an honouring Brexit ticket are betraying their manifestos en masse. This will nor be forgotten, neither will the dwarf's devious machinations.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:33 AM

Pointing out what MPs should be working for (the best interests of the country), in contrast to what most of them actually do (give in to realpolitik) is wholly consistent. And I've told you several times now, Nigel, why both parties "supported brexit" after the referendum. Any party opposing the outcome of the vote would be toast. The fact remains, and what brexiteers are shit scared of, is that there is no actual majority among MPs for any kind of brexit at all. In fact, there wouldn't be a majority even if you lumped all the brexit-in-any-form MPs together. The majority of MPs know that remaining is the only option that is in the interests of the country.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:30 AM

Only convenient nits are picked, though. It is all very well quoting "Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first" but what happens when sunsequent analyses convince you in the sincere belief is that those two clauses are in conflict? Do you follow Brexit in the sincere belief it does harm to the national interest? Or do you put the national interest first in accordance with the manifesto even if that means no Brexit.

Each Labour MP will have to decide, but it is simply wrong to say their manifesto commitment obliges them to take one clause rather than the other.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:20 AM

Yes Steve, but I think you will find future events prove you wrong. Revenge for the electorate is a dish best served cold, after a nano second of reflection.

There is a certain inconsistency in your arguments:
You say they(mps) work for the best interests of the country ...chunder, chunder, chunder....
But!
you also say:"Well the one and only reason that the Tory referendum, then Article 50, were ratified is that the steamroller was already in full flow and that any party which voted against either would have been toast. We call it realpolitik."

seems to me you want to have your toast and eat and furthermore accept when it comes to survival Labour MPs would sell their aunts!

For a man that argues the sins of nitpicking you obviously hope your dual standards will not be commented on.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:17 AM

It was perfectly clear to anyone but the nitpickiest nitpicker in Nitpickering, Steve.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:15 AM

I don't think tax payers who would be content with just surviving would be happy to receive a tax bill to compensate the rest of us, would they?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 06:14 AM

that he doesn't understand democracy. Not one MP in this country was elected on the understanding that they would cowtow to the whims of their constituents.
No, but both major parties had manifestos which would be MPs needed to agree to.
The Labour manifesto said: Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
The Conservative manifesto said: “We will get on with the job and take Britain out of the European Union.”

So MPs of both major parties have committed to going ahead with Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 05:40 AM

"I presume you mean all the labour Mps that are hellbent on defying their electorate concerning brexit."

This confirms what I've said several times about this poster, that he doesn't understand democracy. Not one MP in this country was elected on the understanding that they would cowtow to the whims of their constituents. That is simply not how it works. We expect them to have a little more expert knowledge than the rest of us and that they will devote their time to working in the best interests of the country. "Defying" is an inappropriate characterisation. My neighbour voted leave but I voted remain. If my MP (an unreconstructed, ignorant Tory git, but hey) goes for leave, he's "defying" me. If he goes for remain he's "defying" my neighbour. You can't defy or not defy everybody all of the time. And the "electorate" isn't one big lump with a single brain. Even David Willets is only one person even though he has two brains.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 05:28 AM

Nigel, my first line was a response to a point in your post. I then left a gap. I then quoted a line from Stanron, to which I gave a lengthier response. Pretty clear I should think. I've read it again and it makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jan 19 - 05:23 AM

Apparently Liam Fox has recently said "I think no-deal would damage our economy - I’ve been frank about that - but I think it’s survivable."


Well, that's good isn't it? Moving from sunny uplands to we think it's survivable is so encouraging ....