Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction


Guided Missile

Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

216 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      46
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      10
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      126
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      7
    • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now
      1
    • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now
      3
    • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now
      5
    • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?
      3
    • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding
      13


Recommended Posts

I reckon no deal will be taken off the table if a 2nd referendum is also taken off.

 

So where would that leave us?! The deal has been voted down, EU ain't offering a new one, we take away wto/no deal and take away another referendum...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She can’t take no deal off the table...it’s law it will happen. Or am I wrong?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Indeed.

 

The only way to rule out no deal is to do a deal or revoke Article 50, which would, I presume, need an act of parliament. Feck knows whether parliament would pass that but it's disingenuous or ignorant to pretend she can just unilaterally "rule out" no deal. Even if parliament indicated a majority against leaving with no deal, without revoking Art 50 we will leave with no deal if we don't do a deal.

 

We can unilaterally extend the time though, for practical purposes. European Court has already confirmed we can unilaterally revoke Art 50 so we could just do that then serve another Art 50 notice. Again, though, would there need to be a parliamentary vote to do that?

Edited by benjii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

 

The only way to rule out no deal is to do a deal or revoke Article 50, which would, I presume, need an act of parliament. Feck knows whether parliament would pass that but it's disingenuous or ignorant to pretend she can just unilaterally "rule out" no deal. Even if parliament indicated a majority against leaving with no deal, without revoking Art 50 we will leave with no deal if we don't do a deal.

 

We can unilaterally extend the time though, for practical purposes. European Court has already confirmed we can unilaterally revoke Art 50 so we could just do that then serve another Art 50 notice. Again, though, would there need to be a parliamentary vote to do that?

 

Wrong. It’s pretty clear that an overwhelming number of MPs (~560 according to Grieve) are against no deal. Everybody knows it - even the swivels deep down know it. But by and large only the executive can propose legislation to revoke article 50 and thus take no deal off the table. In that limited sense she can politically commit to ruling out no deal, knowing that Parliament will vote for whatever legislation her government subsequently proposes.

 

The UK cannot unilaterally extend Article 50 as you claim - any extension requires unanimous agreement from all 27 member states. And no the UK cannot unilaterally revoke Article 50 -only to retrigger it soon after. The AG’s opinion (which does not bind the ECJ) is clear that revocation must be done in good faith which would rule out any strategic revocation of Article 50 simply to improve the UK’s negotiating position. See David Allen Green’s summary.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Righto, get it sorted then May and get Corbyn in. Get no deal of your table and don’t fall over that cliff.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That sounds like a solid plan! Having negotiated like rabbits in the headlights for the past two years with the EU, we should take the one solitary bargaining chip we have left and hand it over to them, that way we'll end up with a deal worse than the one May has on the table at the moment, as I'm sure the EU will take some of its concessions away 'just because it can'.

 

Therefore, the only way to take 'no deal' off the table is to stop the whole process - something she has said will not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like a solid plan! Having negotiated like rabbits in the headlights for the past two years with the EU, we should take the one solitary bargaining chip we have left and hand it over to them, that way we'll end up with a deal worse than the one May has on the table at the moment, as I'm sure the EU will take some of its concessions away 'just because it can'.

 

Therefore, the only way to take 'no deal' off the table is to stop the whole process - something she has said will not happen.

 

I was of course being sarcastic. Taking no deal off the table isn’t logical. Sadly JC knows this, he wants one thing from this, power. It’s blurred his duty and what he should be doing. Personally I hope this kills him and this labour movement of lies.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the cards were always in the EU's hands. You only had to read the terms of the treaty of Rome about leaving. A complete stitch up. They are united knowing they have us. If they dont cave in they know that a 2nd referendum will be most likely and they we will stay in. The gravy train will be opened again. The damage to our nation will not be healed and we are worse off than we were 2 1/2years ago.

If the 2nd ref does come and we vote to stay in, then we must make sure we are still at the top table.

 

Im not sure if it was in the British press but Latvia had told their people that if we go out without a deal a lot of their benefits will be cut as they will not be getting so much money from the EU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I can tell you very solemnly that in the framework of this future relationship, the interests of French fishing will be defended and we will have to negotiate a transition period with them anyway because the British can't afford not to have a plane taking off or landing in their country and 70% of their supermarket supplies comes from continental Europe." Macron.

So our friends in Europe are threatening to starve us and not let planes fly, Nice

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. It’s pretty clear that an overwhelming number of MPs (~560 according to Grieve) are against no deal. Everybody knows it - even the swivels deep down know it. But by and large only the executive can propose legislation to revoke article 50 and thus take no deal off the table. In that limited sense she can politically commit to ruling out no deal, knowing that Parliament will vote for whatever legislation her government subsequently proposes.

 

The UK cannot unilaterally extend Article 50 as you claim - any extension requires unanimous agreement from all 27 member states. And no the UK cannot unilaterally revoke Article 50 -only to retrigger it soon after. The AG’s opinion (which does not bind the ECJ) is clear that revocation must be done in good faith which would rule out any strategic revocation of Article 50 simply to improve the UK’s negotiating position. See David Allen Green’s summary.

 

"good faith" extremely nebulous and parliament can't bind a successor. We could revoke then reissue. I'm not for one minute suggesting we will or should do that, mind. My point is that we have more control over timing than people want to admit.

 

Re ruling out no deal, what would the legislation say? The only way to rule it out is to revoke Art. 50 or do a deal. Legislation that says, "we won't leave without a deal" is inconsistent with the treaty rules around leaving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I can tell you very solemnly that in the framework of this future relationship, the interests of French fishing will be defended and we will have to negotiate a transition period with them anyway because the British can't afford not to have a plane taking off or landing in their country and 70% of their supermarket supplies comes from continental Europe." Macron.

So our friends in Europe are threatening to starve us and not let planes fly, Nice

 

 

Lol Macron is a coward, gave it all billy big swallocks and then some angry people in vests turned up and he back tracked.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Macron is a coward, gave it all billy big swallocks and then some angry people in vests turned up and he back tracked.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can call him whatever names you like. The reality is as he describes it in relation to things like fisheries policy.

 

The supreme irony is that if we do leave on 29 March, we'll have waved goodbye to all of our bargaining power, and EU countries like France, Holland, Germany and Belgium can appropriate British companies and assets at an even greater rate than they already are at present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"good faith" extremely nebulous and parliament can't bind a successor. We could revoke then reissue. I'm not for one minute suggesting we will or should do that, mind. My point is that we have more control over timing than people want to admit.

 

Re ruling out no deal, what would the legislation say? The only way to rule it out is to revoke Art. 50 or do a deal. Legislation that says, "we won't leave without a deal" is inconsistent with the treaty rules around leaving.

 

 

Yes the executive would propose (and parliament pass) new legislation to revoke Article 50. Revocation has to be made in accordance with each member state’s constitutional arrangements. The government wouldn’t need to do it now while it seeks to come up with a Plan B but could provide assurances that if it fails in these efforts and it looks like the UK is going to crash out on March 29, it would seek to revoke Article 50 as a last resort.

 

A commitment to extend Article 50, as Hammond has supposedly promised business leaders, might be another way to take no deal off the table, though it’s only a temporary reprieve and requires the agreement of all EU member states. Who knows how weakly or strongly Corbyn is defining “take no deal off the table”.

 

Ultimately much of this is for show. May is a viciously tribal figure - it’s clear she’s going through the motions, having shown no inclination to listen or reach out in the past. Poor as Corbyn’s handling of Brexit has been, I don’t blame anyone who feels cynical about May’s motives and aims. There is no evidence even now that she’s prepared to water down her red lines or take on the swivels. As a pure party creature, she’ll only shift position if pushed by one of her own -and even then it will only be done warily. Corbyn, Cable, Lucas et al. are useful patsies and good PR but frankly irrelevant in terms of what May does next.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched it. I think I may have found a new Tory crush. Move over Boris.... Govey babes for PM ;)

 

 

I watched it earlier and did contemplate posting it on the Corbyn thread. As it says, a barnstorming speech, nailing Corbyn and why he is not fit to be PM.

 

The fact that Shurlock doesn't rate it reduce its effectiveness not a single jot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched it. I think I may have found a new Tory crush. Move over Boris.... Govey babes for PM ;)

 

 

To be honest I found both speeches (Gove and the Tom Watson rinsing of May) to be a bit sad and pathetic. Typical of the red v blue nonsense that makes our system so dysfunctional. Two loads of c*nts having a childish slanging match when they should be working together to sort out a mess our their own creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the executive would propose (and parliament pass) new legislation to revoke Article 50. Revocation has to be made in accordance with each member state’s constitutional arrangements. The government wouldn’t need to do it now while it seeks to come up with a Plan B but could provide assurances that if it fails in these efforts and it looks like the UK is going to crash out on March 29, it would seek to revoke Article 50 as a last resort.

 

A commitment to extend Article 50, as Hammond has supposedly promised business leaders, might be another way to take no deal off the table, though it’s only a temporary reprieve and requires the agreement of all EU member states. Who knows how weakly or strongly Corbyn is defining “take no deal off the table”.

 

Ultimately much of this is for show. May is a viciously tribal figure - it’s clear she’s going through the motions, having shown no inclination to listen or reach out in the past. Poor as Corbyn’s handling of Brexit has been, I don’t blame anyone who feels cynical about May’s motives and aims. There is no evidence even now that she’s prepared to water down her red lines or take on the swivels. As a pure party creature, she’ll only shift position if pushed by one of her own -and even then it will only be done warily. Corbyn, Cable, Lucas et al. are useful patsies and good PR but frankly irrelevant in terms of what May does next.

 

Agreed.

 

When she first won the leadership I think it was widely quoted that she was a "bloody difficult woman". Seems pretty accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the executive would propose (and parliament pass) new legislation to revoke Article 50. Revocation has to be made in accordance with each member state’s constitutional arrangements. The government wouldn’t need to do it now while it seeks to come up with a Plan B but could provide assurances that if it fails in these efforts and it looks like the UK is going to crash out on March 29, it would seek to revoke Article 50 as a last resort.

 

A commitment to extend Article 50, as Hammond has supposedly promised business leaders, might be another way to take no deal off the table, though it’s only a temporary reprieve and requires the agreement of all EU member states. Who knows how weakly or strongly Corbyn is defining “take no deal off the table”.

 

Ultimately much of this is for show. May is a viciously tribal figure - it’s clear she’s going through the motions, having shown no inclination to listen or reach out in the past. Poor as Corbyn’s handling of Brexit has been, I don’t blame anyone who feels cynical about May’s motives and aims. There is no evidence even now that she’s prepared to water down her red lines or take on the swivels. As a pure party creature, she’ll only shift position if pushed by one of her own -and even then it will only be done warily. Corbyn, Cable, Lucas et al. are useful patsies and good PR but frankly irrelevant in terms of what May does next.

 

Totally agree with this. Corbyn is abysmal but May's dogma is a large part of the issue. She was obsessed with immigration control at the HO, setting meaningless net targets that did the economy major harm and setting a culture that led to the Windrush scandal. Even the like of Fox, and especially Javid (several times) have spoken ouut against her on this. It's hard for her to speak out against the swivel's because she created some the conditions for them to thrive and obsess. Moreover she also led David Not-so-Nice but Dim right up the garden path on the issue, although appeared unpopular with Osborne/Cable/Willets Group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite tasteful....

 

https://deatherendum.co.uk

 

 

bd7d4f44ba7c0a41051c15f173c5800c.jpg

 

But it's also quite on the money. Brexit has always been a generational issue, and Leavers are, in far greater numbers, coffin-dodgers, as Shylock helpfully puts it. This assumes that everyone votes the same way they did in 2016, plus some calculations about newly enrolled voters would make their decisions. But actually, recent polls have shown a consistent drift towards remain, with the latest YouGov poll putting Remain at 56% and Leave at 44%.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/17/second-referendum-56-remain-44-leave-new-poll-reveals-8355458/

 

So predictions about mass riots if Brexit is cancelled seem either wide of the mark, or we're facing a bizarre mix of revolting oldies, racists, pedophiles (see my previous illuminating post on the small but significant pedophile constituency among Brexiters) and the odd attempted murderer.

 

Happy days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's also quite on the money. Brexit has always been a generational issue, and Leavers are, in far greater numbers, coffin-dodgers, as Shylock helpfully puts it. This assumes that everyone votes the same way they did in 2016, plus some calculations about newly enrolled voters would make their decisions. But actually, recent polls have shown a consistent drift towards remain, with the latest YouGov poll putting Remain at 56% and Leave at 44%.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/17/second-referendum-56-remain-44-leave-new-poll-reveals-8355458/

 

So predictions about mass riots if Brexit is cancelled seem either wide of the mark, or we're facing a bizarre mix of revolting oldies, racists, pedophiles (see my previous illuminating post on the small but significant pedophile constituency among Brexiters) and the odd attempted murderer.

 

Happy days!

 

Stay classy

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.

 

The only way to rule out no deal is to do a deal or revoke Article 50, which would, I presume, need an act of parliament. Feck knows whether parliament would pass that but it's disingenuous or ignorant to pretend she can just unilaterally "rule out" no deal. Even if parliament indicated a majority against leaving with no deal, without revoking Art 50 we will leave with no deal if we don't do a deal.

 

We can unilaterally extend the time though, for practical purposes. European Court has already confirmed we can unilaterally revoke Art 50 so we could just do that then serve another Art 50 notice. Again, though, would there need to be a parliamentary vote to do that?

 

7b99994d70469d22c3c14559bb3fb19f.jpg

 

7a7e552eb8760d83f31bcdfe351bfaf6.jpg

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

#onthemoney

 

#footballitk

 

#politicsitk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#onthemoney

 

#footballitk

 

#politicsitk

 

Don’t confuse can’t with won’t.

 

All today’s news suggests that May has learnt absolutely nothing from her historic defeat - that her consultations have been nothing but a manoeuvre to convince MPs to support her deal (because there is supposedly no alternative) all while carrying on running down the clock and hoping to browbeat MPs into submission with the threat of a March 29 cliff-edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t confuse can’t with won’t.

 

All today’s news suggests that May has learnt absolutely nothing from her historic defeat - that her consultations have been nothing but a manoeuvre to convince MPs to support her deal (because there is supposedly no alternative) all while carrying on running down the clock and hoping to browbeat MPs into submission with the threat of a March 29 cliff-edge.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta keep no deal on the table to have any sort of leverage with the EU.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That’s what people who sniff glue and have watched too many episodes of the Apprentice think anyway.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta keep no deal on the table to have any sort of leverage with the EU.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's not leverage. Firstly, the EU doesn't care. Any damage done to other economies will be offset in part by the continuing drift of UK companies, investment and assets to EU states. That will be measured in trillions. £800,000 billion of assets has already been shifted from the City to the EU.

 

Secondly, the EU doesn't believe it. We're in a weird Mexican stand-off where one side - us - is holding the gun to their own heads. The EU believes least of all the 'no-dealers'. What Brexit extremists - the Jihadists - want with their no-deal is Mauritania +++. But even Mauritania doesn't trade solely on the (highly restrictive, anti-free-trade) WTO tariff regime.

 

And thirdly, the EU has been treated throughout by Brexiteers, including Davis and Raab, as some sort of competing state. It's not. It's a legal order, with rules, costs and benefits which apply to members and not to third-party states (that's us). Unless someone in the government other than the civil servants actually grasps that, we're headed for the only course of action open unilaterally to May - to revoke article 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No deal preparation appears to be going well. All that leverage... :lol:

 

Whitehall warns on lack of post-Brexit trade deals

 

Memo reveals slow progress on new agreements ahead of March 29 deadline

 

Britain has failed to finalise most trade deals needed to replace the EU’s 40 existing agreements with leading global economies and will not be close to doing so when Brexit occurs on March 29, according to an internal Whitehall memorandum.

 

The memo, compiled by civil servants as part of contingency planning for the UK crashing out of the EU without a formal Brussels divorce agreement, warned that most of the deals would lapse without a transition period that keeps Britain under the EU umbrella once Brexit occurs.

 

“Almost none of them are ready to go now and none will be ready to go by March,” said one government official who has seen the internal analysis of the Department of International Trade’s progress.

 

Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, had vowed to “replicate” the EU’s existing trade deals — which are among the world’s biggest, including bilateral agreements with G7 members Canada and Japan — before Britain left the bloc, and other pro-Brexit campaigners argued they could be easily copied.

 

“We’re going to replicate the 40 EU free trade agreements that exist before we leave the European Union so we’ve got no disruption of trade,” said Mr Fox shortly after the Article 50 exit process was triggered in 2017. “Believe me, we’ll have up to 40 ready for one second after midnight in March 2019.”

 

As recently as November, George Hollingbery, the trade minister, told MPs that the UK would “roll over” the majority of the EU’s trade agreements in time for a no-deal Brexit.

But with 70 days to go before Britain is due to leave the EU, the Whitehall memo warns the DIT’s slow progress is adding to the economic risks the UK will face if it leaves the EU without a deal with Brussels.

 

A DIT spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on leaks.” Another DIT official insisted many agreements “are at an advanced stage” and that the department was planning on publishing more details about their progress, including “seeking parliamentary approval”.

 

David Henig, a former DIT official, said progress had been made on some deals, most notably a bilateral pact that was signed last month with Switzerland. But Mr Henig warned that details of the Swiss pact were vague.

 

“The department is starting to discover what trade experts have known for a long time, which is that it’s difficult to complete trade deals whether they are new ones or replacements,” said Mr Henig. “Businesses who have been in meetings with DIT certainly feel that many of the deals won’t be in place on time.”

Countries covered by EU trade agreements account for around 11 per cent of current UK trade, of which 70 per cent is with just four countries: Norway, Switzerland, South Korea and Turkey.

 

“Our priority is to ensure there is no disruption to our global trading relationships, with more DIT staff allocated to no deal planning in recent weeks, and we encourage businesses to continue to plan for a range of scenarios,” the DIT official said. Sam Lowe, a trade expert at the Centre of European Reform, said that while Britain is unable to formally sign new trade deals until Brexit occurs, the government should have been prepared to reach agreements almost immediately after leaving the EU.

 

“This revelation flies in the face of assurances given by ministers that these deals would be ready by now,” said Mr Lowe. “It demonstrates that a no-deal Brexit would not just affect Britain’s relations with the EU but its relations with the rest of the world.”

 

Adam Marshall, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, expressed concern that the DIT was not being open enough about the status of these trade negotiations.

“While we understand that trade negotiations are sensitive and complex, businesses need reassurance that progress is being made to maintain the terms of trade that they currently enjoy in many countries around the world,” said Mr Marshall.

 

Mr Henig said: “It would be good to have more openness and know what the statistics are so we could know where we stand. Business ought to know by this stage which deals are in good shape. This is a more secret process than we would expect.”

 

https://www.ft.com/content/c44581c2-1a75-11e9-9e64-d150b3105d21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad to see my daughters' home town represented by no-deal cheering idiots on QT last night. Slugs cheering for salt.

 

Anand Menon was rather excellent on the panel, though.

 

It seems that the BBC slipped up with its audience selection. They're supposed to represent the Remain side like the panel, not Leave. Nice to see an audience cheering proper Leave for a change, instead of the idiotic whooping from the Momentum yoof wing that are usually present supporting their Remain speakers' every word.

 

Could it be that the audience were so vociferous because they are very angry and heartily fed-up with the failure of government to deliver on their referendum vote and that they now perceive that Brexit may be thwarted? Or that on the panel was sat the most incompetent Shadow Home Secretary ever in Labour Party history?

 

As is usually the case with Remoaners like you, you arrogantly label Brexiteers as idiots, thus denigrating over half of the electorate, but those idiots were bright enough to realise that Abbott's and Labour's stance that they would not negotiate on a deal without taking no deal off the table is the most stupid negotiating position that they could possibly employ. They also despise talk of "peoples votes", as if it wasn't people who told them what they wanted in June 2016 and they are angered that the establishment didn't listen to them the first time around. As events during the past couple of weeks unfold and plots to overthrow Brexit begin to surface, so the electorate's anger will grow ever stronger until it reaches the point where it turns into direct action on the streets. Places like Derby and other leave voting cities in Labour's traditional industrial heartlands in the Midlands and North, are where the civil unrest will be strongest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you have to. It's basic business negotiating sense, despite Shurlock and Verbal not being able or willing to comprehend it.

 

Threatening no deal is an empty vacuous gesture bought by almost no one. You seriously think the EU believe Brits are stupid enough to leave without a deal?. Well obviously one or two are but they’re just the comedy routine on a football forum

 

The EU know there is no majority in Parliament. All they have to do is watch tv or read the papers. Pretending otherwise weakens your position not strengthens it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Threatening no deal is an empty vacuous gesture bought by almost no one. You seriously think the EU believe Brits are stupid enough to leave without a deal?. Well obviously one or two are but they’re just the comedy routine on a football forum

 

The EU know there is no majority in Parliament. All they have to do is watch tv or read the papers. Pretending otherwise weakens your position not strengthens it

 

Don't we leave the EU with no deal on the agreed date by law? No matter the majority? If the EU are not worried, why are they scrambling around planning for such an event? Why are we? Leaving with No Deal is a serious thing that could just happen, probably why it might be a good idea for the parties to put their power trips to one side and have a little chin wag about the whole situation, something the Tories should've done from day one and Labour shouldn't be concerned about a GE at this point, get Brexit sorted then have as many GE as you want. Maybe i'm making this all abit simple, but im simple. I'll leave all the clever stuff to Shurlock. #mess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you have to. It's basic business negotiating sense, despite Shurlock and Verbal not being able or willing to comprehend it.
I suspect Shurlock has never had to negotiate anything meaningful if he believes that not having the no deal is a bargaining chip. No deal is also a disaster for the EU and they really dont want the thought that the 39 billion they would be getting with a deal is potentially off the table. Ireland is totally stuffed if we have no deal, and the fishing industries for Spain and France are in peril. Macron veiled threat re our food supplies (he didnt mention medicines) did not take into account the massive damage that will do to France Spain Belgium, Poland and Holland.

Whether the disaster is worse for the UK is greater is obviously an issue, but the deal at all costs could be greater.

Remember the deal we sign up to is forever, not short term, we all have to live with it for the rest of our lives and so taking anything off the table for free is not in our interests.

As for the flights, I think much of Europes flights rely on our air control so that also could be brought in a tit for tat scenario.

If we do 'crash out' we can say that we will not put borders up to stop the flow and it would be up to the EU to enforce it their side, would their businesses be pushing them to let that happen.

Yes there will be a lot of uncertainty but watching Wedgewood Benn and his take on the Euwas enlightening, I have never rated his opinions much but his words did ring true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad to see my daughters' home town represented by no-deal cheering idiots on QT last night. Slugs cheering for salt.

 

Anand Menon was rather excellent on the panel, though.

 

Did you watch Portillio & Alan Johnson take apart some Tory birds second referendum pitch. Although she was fit, she got schooled by those two. Portillio although a Brexiteer, was against a vote stating beforehand that in a parliamentary democracy a party advocating leaving in their manifesto was the way to leave, and Johnson ran Labour Remain campaign, so these aren’t ERG types.

 

 

Anyway the point they stumped her on was the question, Remain or ?. What was the “Leave “ option. It couldn’t be May’s deal because that couldn’t get through the house and was so heavily defeated that a few tweaks still wouldn’t get it through. Remain politicians claiming no deal is Armageddon with people dying, food shortages, medicines running out, hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost, etc etc, ruled that out. How can you seriously say all that, and then say “but you can vote for that if you want”. They’ve all been piously stating their working in the national interest to vote down May’s deal or stop no deal. They haven’t said no deal is the worst option but I’m sure we’ll be fine, but worse off. They’re saying things that if they believe are true, can not be contemplated as an option. So this only leaves another deal or a major change to May’s deal. In either case it’ll need EU approval, but also be able to pass in Parliament. If it can pass in Parliament the impasse has been cleared, negating the need for a “people’s vote”. Remember, those supporters are claiming they’re not trying to re run the original referendum just throwing it back to the people because parliament can’t get a deal through. By putting the Leave option on a second ballot, they’re showing that a version of Leave can get through. So why need a new vote.

 

Of course they’ll then have to pivot to telling the truth, that they actually want to reverse the decision. Johnson then claimed Leave would win and win by more in that case.

 

It was the best anti “people’s vote” analysis I’ve heard. Didn’t go down the anti democratic line, just pointed out the flaws in her “throw it back to the people because parliament is log jammed” line.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lighthouse changed the title to Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})