Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.  
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

Meaning?

The EU don't want us to leave, Navy.....

Permission to extend Article 50 will be no problem.....Makes a second referendum likely and the 6th biggest Economy will no doubt never leave....

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The EU don't want us to leave, Navy.....

Permission to extend Article 50 will be no problem.....Makes a second referendum likely and the 6th biggest Economy will no doubt never leave....

Says you. It only needs 1 from 27 to kybosh that. We have this inflated sense of our own importance and value. It could easily bite us on the ariss. Recently read some German BMW (I think) CEO guy stating that they sell ~60% of their product within the E27 and ~6% to us. Sure, they'd like to keep us in, but not that much. We also don't get how they value the last ~70 years without a European-based World war and the value of the EU project in that. Germany and France in particular won't sacrifice that for anything.

The Japanese PM today said, and I quote "...we truly hope that a no-deal Brexit will be avoided, and in fact that is the whole wish of the whole world, except Duty on 606v2."

"Says you"..Yep its my opinion good or bad..

"Sure they'd like to keep us in but not that much"..

"We have an inflated sense of importance.."

The UK is the 6th largest economy...Its money...and added bargaining clout in the EU adds hugely to the pot in striking deals..

They'd like us to stay very much...

With May's deal the UK are pretty much half in with no real advantages..

Hopefully it gets voted down...A50 gets suspended...May retires and we get a second referendum which 'all' the opposition back..

But Corbyn is so stubborn.

Corbyn is certainly more on the being part of the problem than part of the solution regarding Brexit. I reckon most other prominent Labour leader contenders would have gone all in on Labour for a 2nd ref.

They've been asking the opinion of people around the country on Sky News the last few weeks, Leave voters and Remain voters. They were in Norwich today, and a Leave voter said, 'I voted to leave Europe, I didn't vote for a load of new rules and regulations'.

Yes you did.

Those wanting a second referendum are told it would be anti-democratic. I get that claim but lets be real here.

How many people voted for Brexit knowing fully what it entailed and what would be achieved by it? Not a great deal. The massive selling point was that it would stop illegal immigrants getting in. Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change. Another was on getting back full rights on fishing etc in British waters and from what has emerged that is not going to be happening either in this May deal. So you see that what Brexit was promising was a con as it has turned out. It promised much that isn't going to happen such as severing ties with the EU which isn't happening. Ask people who voted for Brexit if they think this deal is anything like they expected or wanted and the majority will answer no. That being the case it makes a second referendum far more palatible. However, before that second referendum I firmly believe all cards have to be laid on the table. Negotiate a new deal with the EU once May's has been rejected and she resigns. The new PM then negotiates his/her own deal and the UK gets full details of it and the second referendum can then be held on whether to exit on that new deal or remain.

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

Hero wrote:I reckon most other prominent Labour leader contenders would have gone all in on Labour for a 2nd ref.

Doubtful. Electoral suicide.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:I reckon most other prominent Labour leader contenders would have gone all in on Labour for a 2nd ref.

Doubtful. Electoral suicide.

Given how the Labour party members feel about this not going all out is also electoral suicide, and the current policy of fence sitting just exacerbates the feeling that Corbyn is utterly fecking useless.

Anyway - going for a 2nd referendum alone isn't suicide at all, given that the people who want it least seem to be working on the basis that Brexit would be reversed, which will only happen if a majority no longer want it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

No, this immigration policy will remove the cap on skilled workers, the opposite of getting 'rid', so I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

UKIP had nothing to do with the official Leave campaign.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

UKIP had nothing to do with the official Leave campaign.

Aww come on the Leave Campaign was virtually led by Nigel Farage (UKIP Leader). And I stand by my point that Brexit won't stop the influx of illegal immigrants - if anything it will get worse despite the Brexit promises.

Also the promise was to take back control of laws but May's deal fails on that front as well. Trade with the rest of the world? Eh no not with May's deal that still ties the UK to the EU on some fronts.

Free movement isn't necessarily dead in the water at all, the main alternative being floated around is the Norway model which includes free movement.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

UKIP had nothing to do with the official Leave campaign.

Aww come on the Leave Campaign was virtually led by Nigel Farage (UKIP Leader). And I stand by my point that Brexit won't stop the influx of illegal immigrants - if anything it will get worse despite the Brexit promises.

No it wasn't. Vote Leave had zero to do with Nigel Farage, who instead campaigned with a different, far more minor, organisation (Grassroots Out).

The UK doesn't have an 'influx' of illegal immigrants, either.

Hero wrote:Free movement isn't necessarily dead in the water at all, the main alternative being floated around is the Norway model which includes free movement.

Highly unlikely, though. No real political interest from either side for the UK to rejoin EFTA, and it has been left far too late in the day for any realistic chance of it happening.

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Free movement isn't necessarily dead in the water at all, the main alternative being floated around is the Norway model which includes free movement.

Highly unlikely, though. No real political interest from either side for the UK to rejoin EFTA, and it has been left far too late in the day for any realistic chance of it happening.

It's considered currently the Plan B if/when the current deal is rejected.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

UKIP had nothing to do with the official Leave campaign.

Aww come on the Leave Campaign was virtually led by Nigel Farage (UKIP Leader). And I stand by my point that Brexit won't stop the influx of illegal immigrants - if anything it will get worse despite the Brexit promises.

No it wasn't. Vote Leave had zero to do with Nigel Farage, who instead campaigned with a different, far more minor, organisation (Grassroots Out).

The UK doesn't have an 'influx' of illegal immigrants, either.

Put it this way. Can you tell me who headed the Leave Campaign? The official leader that is. I'd hazard a guess not whereas Nigel Farage was never off the TV during the campaigning.

Hero wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Free movement isn't necessarily dead in the water at all, the main alternative being floated around is the Norway model which includes free movement.

Highly unlikely, though. No real political interest from either side for the UK to rejoin EFTA, and it has been left far too late in the day for any realistic chance of it happening.

It's considered currently the Plan B if/when the current deal is rejected.

The only alternative being planned for, currently, is no-deal. EFTA is yet to get any serious consideration and, besides, Norway don't seem especially keen on it (don't blame 'em).

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

UKIP had nothing to do with the official Leave campaign.

Aww come on the Leave Campaign was virtually led by Nigel Farage (UKIP Leader). And I stand by my point that Brexit won't stop the influx of illegal immigrants - if anything it will get worse despite the Brexit promises.

No it wasn't. Vote Leave had zero to do with Nigel Farage, who instead campaigned with a different, far more minor, organisation (Grassroots Out).

The UK doesn't have an 'influx' of illegal immigrants, either.

Put it this way. Can you tell me who headed the Leave Campaign? The official leader that is. I'd hazard a guess not whereas Nigel Farage was never off the TV during the campaigning.

Boris Johnson. Obviously. He had far more coverage on TV than Farage.

https://www.referendumanalysis.eu/eu-referendum-analysis-2016/section-3-news/scrutinising-statistical-claims-and-constructing-balance-television-news-coverage-of-the-2016-eu-referendum/

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Free movement isn't necessarily dead in the water at all, the main alternative being floated around is the Norway model which includes free movement.

Highly unlikely, though. No real political interest from either side for the UK to rejoin EFTA, and it has been left far too late in the day for any realistic chance of it happening.

It's considered currently the Plan B if/when the current deal is rejected.

The only alternative being planned for, currently, is no-deal. EFTA is yet to get any serious consideration and, besides, Norway don't seem especially keen on it (don't blame 'em).

So you think that there's no consideration at all for alternatives?
That the Government ministers aren't looking at what ifs post the vote and they'll just think 'ah well we gave it our best shot with this deal, they voted it down so let's just leave'.
They're trying their hardest to play off both sides with a 'if you don't for it there will be a no deal brexit' to the remainers, and 'if you don't vote for it there won't be a Brexit' to the hardliners, officially there's no alternative. After the vote alternatives will be officially on the table, they're just under the table until then.

What they could do as well if they went for the Norway model is try to push for Article 112 on freedom of movement similar to Lichtenstein which would then appeal more to Mogg/Davis etc.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

UKIP had nothing to do with the official Leave campaign.

Aww come on the Leave Campaign was virtually led by Nigel Farage (UKIP Leader). And I stand by my point that Brexit won't stop the influx of illegal immigrants - if anything it will get worse despite the Brexit promises.

No it wasn't. Vote Leave had zero to do with Nigel Farage, who instead campaigned with a different, far more minor, organisation (Grassroots Out).

The UK doesn't have an 'influx' of illegal immigrants, either.

Put it this way. Can you tell me who headed the Leave Campaign? The official leader that is. I'd hazard a guess not whereas Nigel Farage was never off the TV during the campaigning.

Boris Johnson. Obviously. He had far more coverage on TV than Farage.

https://www.referendumanalysis.eu/eu-referendum-analysis-2016/section-3-news/scrutinising-statistical-claims-and-constructing-balance-television-news-coverage-of-the-2016-eu-referendum/

Yes Coco the Clown as well but he was not the official leader either. I see that website does not put Farage far behind him so he certainly was a prominent figure.

So promises were also to take back control of laws and free up ability to trade across the world. However, May's deal allows neither so you see this version of Brexit has not delivered on what it promised.

Hero wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Free movement isn't necessarily dead in the water at all, the main alternative being floated around is the Norway model which includes free movement.

Highly unlikely, though. No real political interest from either side for the UK to rejoin EFTA, and it has been left far too late in the day for any realistic chance of it happening.

It's considered currently the Plan B if/when the current deal is rejected.

The only alternative being planned for, currently, is no-deal. EFTA is yet to get any serious consideration and, besides, Norway don't seem especially keen on it (don't blame 'em).

So you think that there's no consideration at all for alternatives?
That the Government ministers aren't looking at what ifs post the vote and they'll just think 'ah well we gave it our best shot with this deal, they voted it down so let's just leave'.
They're trying their hardest to play off both sides with a 'if you don't for it there will be a no deal brexit' to the remainers, and 'if you don't vote for it there won't be a Brexit' to the hardliners, officially there's no alternative. After the vote alternatives will be officially on the table, they're just under the table until then.

There's consideration for 'deal' and 'no-deal' and that's it (probably more for the latter at the moment!).

I agree with you that after the deal is rejected, presuming it will be, there'll be a mad rush from various Parliamentarians to get different options on the table - second referendum this, EFTA that - but there simply won't be enough time (10 weeks) to build a satisfactory consensus in Parliament for one of those alternatives.

The only chance the UK has of avoiding no-deal is by extending Article 50, but this relies on the EU and an entirely new UK government (because Theresa would never advocate extension), so it's a very slim chance.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

UKIP had nothing to do with the official Leave campaign.

Aww come on the Leave Campaign was virtually led by Nigel Farage (UKIP Leader). And I stand by my point that Brexit won't stop the influx of illegal immigrants - if anything it will get worse despite the Brexit promises.

No it wasn't. Vote Leave had zero to do with Nigel Farage, who instead campaigned with a different, far more minor, organisation (Grassroots Out).

The UK doesn't have an 'influx' of illegal immigrants, either.

Put it this way. Can you tell me who headed the Leave Campaign? The official leader that is. I'd hazard a guess not whereas Nigel Farage was never off the TV during the campaigning.

Boris Johnson. Obviously. He had far more coverage on TV than Farage.

https://www.referendumanalysis.eu/eu-referendum-analysis-2016/section-3-news/scrutinising-statistical-claims-and-constructing-balance-television-news-coverage-of-the-2016-eu-referendum/

Yes Coco the Clown as well but he was not the official leader either. I see that website does not put Farage far behind him so he certainly was a prominent figure.

So promises were also to take back control of laws and free up ability to trade across the world. However, May's deal allows neither so you see this version of Brexit has not delivered on what it promised.

Yes, prominent figure, but he didn't 'virtually lead' a campaign group he had nothing to do with, so that's another incorrect point of yours.

I'm not sure what your second paragraph is about, I disagree with May's deal, and it has about a 1% chance of going through.

Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

In regards to the point Craig was making, whilst Farage wasn't involved with the official Leave EU campaign I would personally be surprised if the average Joe on the street didn't think of him as the posterboy for leave.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change.  

One thing certainly not in dispute, is that free movement will be ending and, thusly, immigration policy *will* be changing. A white paper has already been produced showing the proposed changes in UK immigration policy.

I am more talking of the 'illegal' immigrants. Those were the ones UKIP were targetting and people were buying into being stopped getting in. The 'immigration policy' will rid this country of valued/skilled doctors/surgeons etc whilst illegal immigrants will still be arriving.

UKIP had nothing to do with the official Leave campaign.

Aww come on the Leave Campaign was virtually led by Nigel Farage (UKIP Leader). And I stand by my point that Brexit won't stop the influx of illegal immigrants - if anything it will get worse despite the Brexit promises.

No it wasn't. Vote Leave had zero to do with Nigel Farage, who instead campaigned with a different, far more minor, organisation (Grassroots Out).

The UK doesn't have an 'influx' of illegal immigrants, either.

Put it this way. Can you tell me who headed the Leave Campaign? The official leader that is. I'd hazard a guess not whereas Nigel Farage was never off the TV during the campaigning.

Boris Johnson. Obviously. He had far more coverage on TV than Farage.

https://www.referendumanalysis.eu/eu-referendum-analysis-2016/section-3-news/scrutinising-statistical-claims-and-constructing-balance-television-news-coverage-of-the-2016-eu-referendum/

Yes Coco the Clown as well but he was not the official leader either. I see that website does not put Farage far behind him so he certainly was a prominent figure.

So promises were also to take back control of laws and free up ability to trade across the world. However, May's deal allows neither so you see this version of Brexit has not delivered on what it promised.

Yes, prominent figure, but he didn't 'virtually lead' a campaign group he had nothing to do with, so that's another incorrect point of yours.

I'm not sure what your second paragraph is about, I disagree with May's deal, and it has about a 1% chance of going through.

It is all about opinion. BoJo was not leader either of that campaign so your point is incorrect.

As for the second paragraph it is about Brexit not being what it was promised to be. If a second referendum is seen as anti-democratic then just as anti-democratic would be agreeing a Brexit deal is nothing much like how it was being advertised during campaigning.

Hero wrote:Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

And if we have a General Election, the most likely result is the Tories will win the most seats (they're up six points in the latest YouGov poll), meaning that we'll still be in the same situation that we are now, just many, many more weeks down the line.

That's of course all dependent on a no confidence vote in the government passing, which is still unlikely in itself.

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

And if we have a General Election, the most likely result is the Tories will win the most seats (they're up six points in the latest YouGov poll), meaning that we'll still be in the same situation that we are now, just many, many more weeks down the line.

That's of course all dependent on a no confidence vote in the government passing, which is still unlikely in itself.

Weren't the polls much more favourable before the last election? Wasn't that why she was advised to call one?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

And if we have a General Election, the most likely result is the Tories will win the most seats (they're up six points in the latest YouGov poll), meaning that we'll still be in the same situation that we are now, just many, many more weeks down the line.

That's of course all dependent on a no confidence vote in the government passing, which is still unlikely in itself.

Weren't the polls much more favourable before the last election? Wasn't that why she was advised to call one?

Perhaps. But there's very little prospect of Labour getting the most seats in a GE with Corbyn still leading them.

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

And if we have a General Election, the most likely result is the Tories will win the most seats (they're up six points in the latest YouGov poll), meaning that we'll still be in the same situation that we are now, just many, many more weeks down the line.

That's of course all dependent on a no confidence vote in the government passing, which is still unlikely in itself.

I don't disagree with that premise that the Tories would probably win another GE but remember May would be gone. The new PM could then set about renegotiating a far more acceptable (to parliament) Brexit deal. Lets be clear about this - the EU do not want a no deal Brexit any more than the UK so it is hardly going to refuse if a new PM goes to the EU asking to temporarily put a hold on Article 50 being implemented as May's deal is dead and allow a new team to renegotiate. Simples.

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:I reckon most other prominent Labour leader contenders would have gone all in on Labour for a 2nd ref.

Doubtful. Electoral suicide.

Only a small amount of Labour voters voted because of Brexit at GE17..Polls show..

Also you are basing the electoral suicide with the idea the Tories will have a palatable position themselves on Europe.

A lot of Tories think May's deal is a sell out and anything that isn't Brexit is staying in Europe..and

No deal isn't happening...

Until Labour out and out oppose Brexit and back a 2nd Ref they can forget about winning any GE. Scotland will never vote for a pro-Brexit party so they're starting on a -59 seat handicap. Labours best hope is a super coalition with every party that isnt the Tories, but they'll need to oppose Brexit for the likes of the Lib Dems and the SNP to sign on.

Diane Abbott's been in the Commons today reiterating that Labour intend to 'honour' the result of the referendum.

Samo wrote:Until Labour out and out oppose Brexit and back a 2nd Ref they can forget about winning any GE.  Scotland will never vote for a pro-Brexit party so they're starting on a -59 seat handicap.  Labours best hope is a super coalition with every party that isnt the Tories, but they'll need to oppose Brexit for the likes of the Lib Dems and the SNP to sign on.

The problem is Labour are so out of touch with the people now certainly in Scotland and I'd say in England too. The most critical political issues in recent years have been Scottish Independence and Brexit. On Scottish Independence they have ruled out independence hence alienating voters who used to vote for them. On Brexit where do they stand? Well it seems they sit on the fence. They have never really come out backing Brexit and even now they are not totally backing a second referendum and can't decide what deal they'd put forward for Brexit.

Until Labour can regain seats in Scotland they won't get back into power in Westminster. A few years back on an election night when Labour were wiped out in Scotland, Ken Livingstone made remarks on the TV panel that hit the nail on the head. He said Scottish Labour should distance itself from the Westminster branch and concentrate on Scottish issues to get a better taste of what Scots want. I'd add to that they need to accept that around 45% of the voting population want independence so point blank ruling it out is alienating a huge amount of voters from them.

Samo wrote:Scotland will never vote for a pro-Brexit party so they're starting on a -59 seat handicap. .

56% of votes in Scotland (and 20 seats) in the 2017 GE went to parties that pledged to honour the referendum result, with no mention of a 'second referendum' or 'stopping Brexit'.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No deal isn't happening...

No deal is the likeliest outcome.

6/1 on Bet365.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

And if we have a General Election, the most likely result is the Tories will win the most seats (they're up six points in the latest YouGov poll), meaning that we'll still be in the same situation that we are now, just many, many more weeks down the line.

That's of course all dependent on a no confidence vote in the government passing, which is still unlikely in itself.

I don't disagree with that premise that the Tories would probably win another GE but remember May would be gone. The new PM could then set about renegotiating a far more acceptable (to parliament) Brexit deal. Lets be clear about this - the EU do not want a no deal Brexit any more than the UK so it is hardly going to refuse if a new PM goes to the EU asking to temporarily put a hold on Article 50 being implemented as May's deal is dead and allow a new team to renegotiate. Simples.

Why? What magic new things will a fresh negotiation yield? The EU have offered the UK terms they feel are acceptable and agreeable - why would they suddenly delay things by another six months+ plus to offer something else? Why would the EU put up with this inconvenience?

The EU are an incorrigible institution - they offered Cameron bugger all. They offered May bugger all. I can't see why they're suddenly going to offer something else to a new PM when all the evidence suggests the contrary.

And you seem to be forgetting, another month has elapsed since May said she was going to put the original deal to a vote. She pulled the vote, knowing she couldn't win, and she hoped to win fresh concessions from the EU as a result. And what happened? The EU didn't give a toss. If the EU want to avoid a no-deal Brexit, they have a funny way of showing it.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Scotland will never vote for a pro-Brexit party so they're starting on a -59 seat handicap. .

56% of votes in Scotland (and 20 seats) in the 2017 GE went to parties that pledged to honour the referendum result, with no mention of a 'second referendum' or 'stopping Brexit'.

The circumstances behind that were both Tories and Labour making a big issue about independence so rallying unionist voters to vote for their parties in a bid to freeze the SNP out and it still never got them into power. This time around it won't wash as Scottish voters are disenchanted with Brexit. All opinion polls suggest SNP picking up between 10 to 15 seats in the next GE with Labour taking the biggest hit.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

And if we have a General Election, the most likely result is the Tories will win the most seats (they're up six points in the latest YouGov poll), meaning that we'll still be in the same situation that we are now, just many, many more weeks down the line.

That's of course all dependent on a no confidence vote in the government passing, which is still unlikely in itself.

I don't disagree with that premise that the Tories would probably win another GE but remember May would be gone. The new PM could then set about renegotiating a far more acceptable (to parliament) Brexit deal. Lets be clear about this - the EU do not want a no deal Brexit any more than the UK so it is hardly going to refuse if a new PM goes to the EU asking to temporarily put a hold on Article 50 being implemented as May's deal is dead and allow a new team to renegotiate. Simples.

Why? What magic new things will a fresh negotiation yield? The EU have offered the UK terms they feel are acceptable and agreeable - why would they suddenly delay things by another six months+ plus to offer something else? Why would the EU put up with this inconvenience?

The EU are an incorrigible institution - they offered Cameron bugger all. They offered May bugger all. I can't see why they're suddenly going to offer something else to a new PM when all the evidence suggests the contrary.

And you seem to be forgetting, another month has elapsed since May said she was going to put the original deal to a vote. She pulled the vote, knowing she couldn't win, and she hoped to win fresh concessions from the EU as a result. And what happened? The EU didn't give a toss. If the EU want to avoid a no-deal Brexit, they have a funny way of showing it.

The EU are doing what the EU was set up to do, protect its members interests. The EU were under no obligation to give us ANYTHING. You seem to have a hard time understanding that its US that chose to walk away, so its not the EU's fault that they arent bending over backwards to get us to stay. If only somebody had said that there is no way we could get a deal that was better than what we had before the referendum...

You're confusing them being incorrigible for them being in a strong negotiating position.  

They've gone as far as they will publicly admit that they are prepared to go and they undoubtedly believe that the UK would be silly in accepting this deal and also in leaving without any deal whatsoever.  They probably imagine that the UK will come to its senses and will ultimately revoke Article 50.

I think they would prefer that the UK stays but are preserving their position in case we decide to shoot ourselves in the foot.  It's what happens when one party hasn't established or prepared for its 'Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement' - particularly when that party has a lot less bargaining power.

Duty281 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

And if we have a General Election, the most likely result is the Tories will win the most seats (they're up six points in the latest YouGov poll), meaning that we'll still be in the same situation that we are now, just many, many more weeks down the line.

That's of course all dependent on a no confidence vote in the government passing, which is still unlikely in itself.

I don't disagree with that premise that the Tories would probably win another GE but remember May would be gone. The new PM could then set about renegotiating a far more acceptable (to parliament) Brexit deal. Lets be clear about this - the EU do not want a no deal Brexit any more than the UK so it is hardly going to refuse if a new PM goes to the EU asking to temporarily put a hold on Article 50 being implemented as May's deal is dead and allow a new team to renegotiate. Simples.

Why? What magic new things will a fresh negotiation yield? The EU have offered the UK terms they feel are acceptable and agreeable - why would they suddenly delay things by another six months+ plus to offer something else? Why would the EU put up with this inconvenience?

The EU are an incorrigible institution - they offered Cameron bugger all. They offered May bugger all. I can't see why they're suddenly going to offer something else to a new PM when all the evidence suggests the contrary.

And you seem to be forgetting, another month has elapsed since May said she was going to put the original deal to a vote. She pulled the vote, knowing she couldn't win, and she hoped to win fresh concessions from the EU as a result. And what happened? The EU didn't give a toss. If the EU want to avoid a no-deal Brexit, they have a funny way of showing it.

You need to listen to the varying voices in the know. May put down so many red lines in the Brexit talks that there was no room for leeways or give and take. Farage hit the nail on the head about two months or so ago when the deal details began to surface. May's deal was one made by a person who originally backed Remain. It is a deal trying to appease herself yet still appear like a Brexit.

The EU wouldn't back down with May as she is that type of negotiator - aside from useless she is not flexible and creates too many red lines. Any new PM is within their right to put a hold on Article 50 as confirmed by the ECJ. That gives the new PM a chance to revisit the EU and say May's deal is a non-starter. It will never get passed by parliament so either negotiations start afresh or the disaster of a no deal beckons. I cannot see the EU not budging.

Duty281 wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:No deal isn't happening...

No deal is the likeliest outcome.

6/1 on Bet365.

Boris Johnson is 6/1 to become next PM and that isn't happening either..

Only the favourite because money is split between May's deal and Remain..

CaledonianCraig wrote:Those wanting a second referendum are told it would be anti-democratic. I get that claim but lets be real here.

How many people voted for Brexit knowing fully what it entailed and what would be achieved by it? Not a great deal. The massive selling point was that it would stop illegal immigrants getting in. Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change. Another was on getting back full rights on fishing etc in British waters and from what has emerged that is not going to be happening either in this May deal. So you see that what Brexit was promising was a con as it has turned out. It promised much that isn't going to happen such as severing ties with the EU which isn't happening. Ask people who voted for Brexit if they think this deal is anything like they expected or wanted and the majority will answer no. That being the case it makes a second referendum far more palatible. However, before that second referendum I firmly believe all cards have to be laid on the table. Negotiate a new deal with the EU once May's has been rejected and she resigns. The new PM then negotiates his/her own deal and the UK gets full details of it and the second referendum can then be held on whether to exit on that new deal or remain.

People should have thought about what they were voting for, and what the risks might entail. Was a simple question. How many people in a typical GE know, exactly, what their MP would plan to champion over the next 5 years? Non-starter that one.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Theresa's hand will be played after the vote, she'll have to be looking at alternatives herself though I suspect she won't get that chance with a vote of no confidence placed on the government. As a result an extension will then be requested whilst a GE takes place.

And if we have a General Election, the most likely result is the Tories will win the most seats (they're up six points in the latest YouGov poll), meaning that we'll still be in the same situation that we are now, just many, many more weeks down the line.

That's of course all dependent on a no confidence vote in the government passing, which is still unlikely in itself.

I don't disagree with that premise that the Tories would probably win another GE but remember May would be gone. The new PM could then set about renegotiating a far more acceptable (to parliament) Brexit deal. Lets be clear about this - the EU do not want a no deal Brexit any more than the UK so it is hardly going to refuse if a new PM goes to the EU asking to temporarily put a hold on Article 50 being implemented as May's deal is dead and allow a new team to renegotiate. Simples.

Conjecture. It hurts us way more than them. Yes, they'd rather we stayed I'm sure, but if we're leaving don't pin your hopes on them doing absolutely anything to prevent a no-deal option.

The EU can ride out no deal better than us. That's why they don't have to back down. We, on the other hand, will be royally f*cked by it, and those in denial seem to be beyond enlightenment at this point.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Those wanting a second referendum are told it would be anti-democratic. I get that claim but lets be real here.

How many people voted for Brexit knowing fully what it entailed and what would be achieved by it? Not a great deal. The massive selling point was that it would stop illegal immigrants getting in. Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change. Another was on getting back full rights on fishing etc in British waters and from what has emerged that is not going to be happening either in this May deal. So you see that what Brexit was promising was a con as it has turned out. It promised much that isn't going to happen such as severing ties with the EU which isn't happening. Ask people who voted for Brexit if they think this deal is anything like they expected or wanted and the majority will answer no. That being the case it makes a second referendum far more palatible. However, before that second referendum I firmly believe all cards have to be laid on the table. Negotiate a new deal with the EU once May's has been rejected and she resigns. The new PM then negotiates his/her own deal and the UK gets full details of it and the second referendum can then be held on whether to exit on that new deal or remain.

People should have thought about what they were voting for, and what the risks might entail. Was a simple question. How many people in a typical GE know, exactly, what their MP would plan to champion over the next 5 years? Non-starter that one.

Apples and oranges.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Those wanting a second referendum are told it would be anti-democratic. I get that claim but lets be real here.

How many people voted for Brexit knowing fully what it entailed and what would be achieved by it? Not a great deal. The massive selling point was that it would stop illegal immigrants getting in. Now already we have been told that immigration policies won't change. Another was on getting back full rights on fishing etc in British waters and from what has emerged that is not going to be happening either in this May deal. So you see that what Brexit was promising was a con as it has turned out. It promised much that isn't going to happen such as severing ties with the EU which isn't happening. Ask people who voted for Brexit if they think this deal is anything like they expected or wanted and the majority will answer no. That being the case it makes a second referendum far more palatible. However, before that second referendum I firmly believe all cards have to be laid on the table. Negotiate a new deal with the EU once May's has been rejected and she resigns. The new PM then negotiates his/her own deal and the UK gets full details of it and the second referendum can then be held on whether to exit on that new deal or remain.

People should have thought about what they were voting for, and what the risks might entail. Was a simple question. How many people in a typical GE know, exactly, what their MP would plan to champion over the next 5 years? Non-starter that one.

Many did think about it but the promises made are not being met in this final deal. If such a thing happened with a government following a GE that did such u-turns on key policies do you think they'd be voted in at the next election? I sincerely doubt it.

Here are the promises made:-

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

And May's deal does not mean the returning of control of laws to the UK as its already been revealed that won't totally be the case. As for being able to trade with the rest of the world - not so with May's deal which still ties them to deals with the EU. As for the claim about controlling borders that is a fallacy and how can they be in charge of their own borders with the set-up in Ireland where there will be no hard border - ostencibly an open back door.