You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Brexit

1154155157159160358

Comments

  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936

    .

    Why would that be ? you are more than happy to apportion a large amount of blame on Labour for the brexit situation we find ourselves in .
    I have maintained that they are one as bad as the other. Although the Tories have been doing the negotiations.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,218
    edited February 2019
    HAYSIE said:

    I have maintained that they are one as bad as the other. Although the Tories have been doing the negotiations.
    No. One Party called for the Referendum, and chose the oversimplistic question..
    One Party is Governing the country.
    The only Candidate to lead the Conservative Party during the UK's biggest need for diplomacy since 1945 was the self-styled "Blo ody difficult Woman"
    One Party chose to seek extra votes from people implacably opposed to compromise from within its own party, rather than seeking the cross-party support that was always the only realistic option.
    You believe that one Party's folly is the same as another Party's failure to effectively oppose them.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936
    edited February 2019
    Essexphil said:

    Whatever the reason for it, it is proving impossible.

    There is no evidence to support the ERGs position.

    Some remainers refuse to accept the result, and some Brexiteers have changed their minds.

    Dominic Raab has said that he would choose to remain if offered a choice between the PMs deal and remaining.

    The buck stops with the leaders. Good leadership would have resolved the issues long ago.

    I am not sure which referendum issues you refer to.

    Whatever the reason it is still proving impossible. There is no point in saying that we could have found a satisfactory outcome if we weren't British, as we clearly are.

    The one immediate problem we face is the Backstop.

    Theresa May on day one ruled out all the obvious solutions to the Irish border problem.

    The Backstop was only invented because she had done this.

    How could we even contemplate leaving the EU without any thought of what would be done about the Irish border.

    The two solutions for avoiding a hard border in Ireland, were obvious on day one.

    No other viable solutions have emerged in the meantime.

    We could have proposed staying in the Customs Union, but would have still required a Backstop, until trade negotiations were completed.

    The other option was a border in the Irish Sea.

    Both options were immediately obvious, yet we have spent the majority of the last 2 years discussing the problem.

    The Backstop only came about through the PMs refusal to accept either option.

    The Backstop seems to be the only reason that we are hurtling towards a no deal outcome.

    The EU were helpful, and lenient on the checks that would have to occur on the ferries between NI and the UK. Some checks already occur.

    Pointing out the reasons for the impossibility, doesn't alter the fact that it is impossible.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936
    Essexphil said:

    No. One Party called for the Referendum, and chose the oversimplistic question..
    One Party is Governing the country.
    The only Candidate to lead the Conservative Party during the UK's biggest need for diplomacy since 1945 was the self-styled "Blo ody difficult Woman"
    One Party chose to seek extra votes from people implacably opposed to compromise from within its own party, rather than seeking the cross-party support that was always the only realistic option.
    You believe that one Party's folly is the same as another Party's failure to effectively oppose them.
    To be clear.
    The Tories are completely responsible for getting us into this mess.
    Although if the Labour Party had provided a more effective opposition, they would have made it much more difficult.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936
    NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.

    If you were referring to the above,

    I thought I had covered this.

    Yvette Coopers amendment allowed a 9 month extension to Article 50.

    I believe it takes 5 to 6 months to set up a referendum.

    I don't buy the riots.

    The right question in a referendum would end negotiations.

    If the question was a particular deal or remain, we would either remain or move into a transition period before implementing the deal.

    If you included no deal on the ballot paper you would still include a transition period to implement the no deal as painlessly as possible.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936
    Essexphil said:

    At some point, whatever's Labour's many failings are you have to ask yourself this question.

    Whose primary job is it to govern this country? The Government? Or the opposition?
    That is easy, and very obvious.

    I am clear on the responsibilities.

    This doesn't improve Labours performance.

    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    The Tories are responsible for the Brexit negotiations.
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .

  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936

    Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .

    That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share.
    If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing.
    If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen.
    To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.

    Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?

  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,218
    edited February 2019
    HAYSIE said:

    NEWSFLASH. If you don't agree on something, you have no deal. Pretending otherwise is fantasy. 5 weeks to go-think you can organise a referendum, count the votes, quell the riots, deal with 27 nations on a new deal in that time? Makes Corbyn solving antisemitism a doddle.

    If you were referring to the above,

    I thought I had covered this.

    Yvette Coopers amendment allowed a 9 month extension to Article 50.

    I believe it takes 5 to 6 months to set up a referendum.

    I don't buy the riots.

    The right question in a referendum would end negotiations.

    If the question was a particular deal or remain, we would either remain or move into a transition period before implementing the deal.

    If you included no deal on the ballot paper you would still include a transition period to implement the no deal as painlessly as possible.

    You had covered it. But some of what you say will not be true. Let's take these one by one.

    "The 9 month extension". Fine in theory. Just one problem-2 people need to agree to it, the UK Parliament, and the EU. Both refuse to do so.

    "5 to 6 months to set up a Referendum." True. But only if you can agree as to what the question should be. There will be no agreement on that for the exact same reasons as nothing gets agreed on Brexit. There is no 1 "right question"-it all depends on your point of view. I know that. And you know that.

    "Riots"? We promised to abide by the will of the people. If we do not, you are facilitating the rise of the Far Right and Far Left. You might not buy it, but every extremist in this country bets you are wrong.

    We have had 2 referendums ever in this country. On the same thing. With different results. Leavers waited 41 years for their chance. You want to cancel their victory, and do not think that will cause problems. And you think the 3rd referendum, unlike the first 2, will not cause problems.
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    edited February 2019
    HAYSIE said:

    That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share.
    If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing.
    If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen.
    To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.

    Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?

    The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded.
    Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936
    Essexphil said:

    You had covered it. But some of what you say will not be true. Let's take these one by one.

    "The 9 month extension". Fine in theory. Just one problem-2 people need to agree to it, the UK Parliament, and the EU. Both refuse to do so.

    "5 to 6 months to set up a Referendum." True. But only if you can agree as to what the question should be. There will be no agreement on that for the exact same reasons as nothing gets agreed on Brexit. There is no 1 "right question"-it all depends on your point of view. I know that. And you know that.

    "Riots"? We promised to abide by the will of the people. If we do not, you are facilitating the rise of the Far Right and Far Left. You might not buy it, but every extremist in this country bets you are wrong.

    We have had 2 referendums ever in this country. On the same thing. With different results. Leavers waited 41 years for their chance. You want to cancel their victory, and do not think that will cause problems. And you think the 3rd referendum, unlike the first 2, will not cause problems.
    Firstly the EU have said a number of times that they would agree to an extension to Article 50, if it was to be used to allow for an election, or referendum, but not if it were to be used for just more thinking time.

    Labours position seems to be evolving on this subject.

    I dont think the question is that difficult.

    We have in reality three possibilities at present. Who could complain if the three were included on the ballot paper.

    Riots is a matter of opinion. So there is no point in arguing over that.

    The extremists cause trouble on a regular basis, though this falls short of riots

    Will we have riots because the majority are unhappy with the result?

    Many leavers will feel robbed of their victory by us doing a Norway deal.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936

    The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded.
    Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
    The majority will be unhappy with the result.

    Is that democracy?
  • dobiesdrawdobiesdraw Member Posts: 2,793
    HAYSIE said:

    The majority will be unhappy with the result.

    Is that democracy?

    No idea what you mean . The majority voted to leave in the referendum , any polling that suggests subsequently that has changed , is merely speculation unless it was proved otherwise in a rerun . Lets assume ( for arguments sake) there was a change in mood over the issue with leave voters , I would maintain that is entirely down to the complete ineffectiveness of this government , rather than the principles of Brexit itself .
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,218
    edited February 2019
    HAYSIE said:

    Firstly the EU have said a number of times that they would agree to an extension to Article 50, if it was to be used to allow for an election, or referendum, but not if it were to be used for just more thinking time.

    Labours position seems to be evolving on this subject.

    I dont think the question is that difficult.

    We have in reality three possibilities at present. Who could complain if the three were included on the ballot paper.

    Riots is a matter of opinion. So there is no point in arguing over that.

    The extremists cause trouble on a regular basis, though this falls short of riots

    Will we have riots because the majority are unhappy with the result?

    Many leavers will feel robbed of their victory by us doing a Norway deal.
    Genius.
    The public are asked "in" or "out. You (and for that matter, me) did not agree with the majority.
    So you now want the question changed to 3 options "in", "soft brexit" and "hard brexit". Thereby effectively doubling the value of Remainers votes.

    Suppose people replicated the likely voting pattern of last time.

    2016. In 48%. Out 52%.
    2020. In 48%. Soft brexit 26%. Hard brexit 26%.

    Ooh, look. We've won. And every single leave voter is going to think that is fair. Really?

    I fear your version of a simple answer is to have a "1 man, 1 vote" system. Where you are the 1 man with the 1 vote :)

    Every single option will leave large numbers feeling dissatisfied. I'd prefer 1 that keeps to promises already made, however much i personally disagree with them.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,218
    HAYSIE said:

    The majority will be unhappy with the result.

    Is that democracy?
    Yes. Democracy relates to votes, not happiness.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936
    Essexphil said:

    Yes. Democracy relates to votes, not happiness.
    Ok lets put it another way.
    The majority will say that the outcome is not what they voted for.
  • EssexphilEssexphil Member Posts: 9,218
    HAYSIE said:

    Ok lets put it another way.
    The majority will say that the outcome is not what they voted for.
    I agree.
    But that is going to be true for every option.
    And you cannot "unask" the question from the last referendum
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936
    Essexphil said:

    Genius.
    The public are asked "in" or "out. You (and for that matter, me) did not agree with the majority.
    So you now want the question changed to 3 options "in", "soft brexit" and "hard brexit". Thereby effectively doubling the value of Remainers votes.

    Suppose people replicated the likely voting pattern of last time.

    2016. In 48%. Out 52%.
    2020. In 48%. Soft brexit 26%. Hard brexit 26%.

    Ooh, look. We've won. And every single leave voter is going to think that is fair. Really?

    I fear your version of a simple answer is to have a "1 man, 1 vote" system. Where you are the 1 man with the 1 vote :)

    Every single option will leave large numbers feeling dissatisfied. I'd prefer 1 that keeps to promises already made, however much i personally disagree with them.

    You have problems with a second referendum being undemocratic, I don't.

    If you argued that your 2020 result was really the 2016 result, though the leave vote was not separated into the preferred options. This would mean that only 26% of the electorate would think they got what they voted for.

    If you look at where we are now. According to the polls no deal is more popular than the PMs deal.

    Consider the other options.

    Labour is now supporting Norway, and therefore has the best chance of going through.

    Many people who think they voted for, or have been convinced by politicians that they voted for a no deal, could not consider that they voted for a Norway deal in a million years.

    Whether or not having 3 questions doubles the value of remainer votes cant be helped. I think that having less choice would be unfair to one group of voters, as there is wide support for all 3 options. This is a reflection of the poor value of the first referendum.

    Any other solution would assume that all leave voters would be equally happy with the outcome, whether it was no deal, or Norway, which is patently not true.

    Some leave voters do not think that a Norway deal would not construe leaving, despite the fact that Norway are not EU members.

    Some people will say that anything but no deal, is not what they voted for.

    Equally many leave voters were expecting the same EU benefits, as per David Davis, and think that anything else is not what they voted for.

    I think it is strange to think that an outcome that the minority think they voted for would represent democracy.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936



    No idea what you mean . The majority voted to leave in the referendum , any polling that suggests subsequently that has changed , is merely speculation unless it was proved otherwise in a rerun . Lets assume ( for arguments sake) there was a change in mood over the issue with leave voters , I would maintain that is entirely down to the complete ineffectiveness of this government , rather than the principles of Brexit itself .
    I pretty much covered my answer to this in my last post.
  • HAYSIEHAYSIE Member Posts: 38,936
    Essexphil said:

    I agree.
    But that is going to be true for every option.
    And you cannot "unask" the question from the last referendum
    That was the point I was making.
Sign In or Register to comment.