Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Christy42 · 07-01-2017 07:00PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so who should have the majority?

No one. A coalition government is required since the country can't decide on a single party.

A Dub in Glasgo · 07-01-2017 07:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so who should have the majority?

Nobody! That is the point I am making

A Dub in Glasgo · 07-01-2017 07:01PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no different to the Senate in reality

Really? I can't remember anyone voting for anyone in the HoL

FrancieBrady · 07-01-2017 07:02PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no different to the Senate in reality

Who is in the Senate because of the family they were born into?

Christy42 · 07-01-2017 07:02PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

no different to the Senate in reality

Oh really who voted for the Lords this term?

I agree the Senate has issues but to compare it to the house of Lords is a false equivalence.

Fratton Fred · 07-01-2017 07:47PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Oh really who voted for the Lords this term?

I agree the Senate has issues but to compare it to the house of Lords is a false equivalence.

The same number of people who voted for senators I guess.

(Hint, find out about the House of Lords before you reply)

Christy42 · 07-01-2017 08:08PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The same number of people who voted for senators I guess.

(Hint, find out about the House of Lords before you reply)

http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

Am I misreading this? It says none of them are elected. They are appointed by party leaders (and an independent body).

First Up · 07-01-2017 08:09PM

Fratton Fred wrote:

The same number of people who voted for senators I guess.

I voted for my senator.

Fratton Fred · 07-01-2017 08:13PM

Christy42 wrote: »

http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/members-and-their-roles/how-members-are-appointed/

Am I misreading this? It says none of them are elected. They are appointed by party leaders (and an independent body).

The same way as the Senate then?

Christy42 · 07-01-2017 08:36PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The same way as the Senate then?

More than I am comfortable with but not all of them. For instance I have a vote for the Senate and am nothing to do with any of the main parties. (In fact I have two though I am hoping that I can only use one- as I said I am not a fan of the senate).

Nor are the positions automatically granted for life. I mean you can repeatedly appointed/elected but it is not automatic.

PopePalpatine · 07-01-2017 08:42PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I am begining to think they didn't dodge it. 4m votes and one MP. The tories get something like 11m votes, but get over 350 seats. A great way to make people feel like they aren't represented or being listened to. This is how we got Brexit, hardly a bullit dodged.

MrP

In fairness, the Tories have been trying to siphon votes away from UKIP for the best part of a decade. I feel that just bringing up UKIP's 1 seat for 4 million votes and comparing that against the Tories getting 350 seats for 11 million votes needs a bit more context.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-01-2017 12:50AM

MrPudding wrote: »

As much as it pains me to say it, I quite agree. I despise UKIP, but I can't help but think things might be different if they had a more representative number of MPs. Under a PR system they would have had something like 56 MPs in the last election.

MrP

No they wouldn't. The big parties can ignore UKIP and the Greens because they won't affect the result. Especially now that the LibDems or SNP or unionists might be bed fellows.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/2015.htm
SNP got 56 seats from 1.4 million votes
LibDem's got 8 seats from 2.4 million votes,
DUP also got 8 seats, but only needed 184 K votes.

Each DUP vote was worth 168 times as much as a UKIP vote.
Which is a scary thought.

Fratton Fred · 08-01-2017 12:52AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No they wouldn't. The big parties can ignore UKIP and the Greens because they won't affect the result. Especially now that the LibDems or SNP or unionists might be bed fellows.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/2015.htm
SNP got 56 seats from 1.4 million votes
LibDem's got 8 seats from 2.4 million votes,
DUP also got 8 seats, but only needed 184 K votes.

Each DUP vote was worth 168 times as much as a UKIP vote.
Which is a scary thought.

The DUP are largely irrelevant in UK terms though.

Kermit.de.frog · 08-01-2017 01:33AM

Why are we and others looking for a better deal for the UK?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_516ml5ImGU

learn_more · 08-01-2017 01:37AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

In fairness, the Tories have been trying to siphon votes away from UKIP for the best part of a decade. I feel that just bringing up UKIP's 1 seat for 4 million votes and comparing that against the Tories getting 350 seats for 11 million votes needs a bit more context.

Any political party that wants votes has no choice but to get those votes off people who are of another political persuasion. They don't really care which demographic they come from as long as they get them. Otherwise, where would their increased votes come from, aside from new voters. It would be bit ridiculous to think the Tories don't attempt to siphon off Labour votes as if those votes weren't worth as much.

I don't get the hate for UKIP. The BBC and Sky have given their top politicians more than fair air time on their political programmes. From Patrick Flynn to Suzanne Evans, I don't see right wing racists but people who are intelligent and fair minded, who have views that are born out of a desire to make their country better.

08-01-2017 02:54PM

Its "out out out" going by May's interview on Sky News this morning.

kefir32 · 08-01-2017 03:02PM

sterling gonna have a bloodied nose again from tomorrow

First Up · 08-01-2017 09:59PM

kefir32 wrote:

sterling gonna have a bloodied nose again from tomorrow

Depressing stuff from May. Defiance, slogans and platitudes are no substitute for a clear strategy. It's obvious they haven't a clue what to do.

steddyeddy · 08-01-2017 10:02PM

First Up wrote: »

Depressing stuff from May. Defiance, slogans and platitudes are no substitute for a clear strategy. It's obvious they haven't a clue what to do.

Her position was most accurately described as being in campaign mode rather than face reality. It's like she's still trying to sell Brexit.

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-01-2017 10:04PM

In her defence, I read a good line somewhere today, that given the complexity of any brexit implementation, Cameron is very much at fault, whatever about having the referendum, but for having the referendum without having a brexit plan in place. May and co have been put in an impossible position for which the British govt and civil service was completely unprepared. The referendum was poorly judged. Having to plan for the 'wrong' answer, was truly reckless.

Shenshen · 08-01-2017 10:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Its "out out out" going by May's interview on Sky News this morning.

I've seen bits of that interview, and it sounded like there's no interest in keeping any sort of traderelation going with the EU, and no other links whatsoever.

If that's the case, surely no negotiations would be necessary and they could invoke article 50 immediately?

The Rape of Lucretia · 08-01-2017 10:06PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Her position was most accurately described as being in campaign mode rather than face reality. It's like she's still trying to sell Brexit.

Which is kinda what she has to do, to keep reassuring people, inspite of the evidence to the contrary while they try to get their act together to trigger and implement Brexit, that Brexit is still truly happening.

Jesus, I sound like a May apologist.

PopePalpatine · 08-01-2017 10:07PM

kefir32 wrote: »

sterling gonna have a bloodied nose again from tomorrow

It's already happening, it's dropped from €1.16665/£1 at 5pm GMT to a low of €1.162ish/£1 at 7:30pm GMT. It was as high as €1.1826/£1 on Tuesday.

catbear · 08-01-2017 10:09PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's like she's still trying to sell Brexit.

....to herself.

I'm actually starting to get worried now.

First Up · 08-01-2017 11:12PM

catbear wrote:

I'm actually starting to get worried now.

Plenty more of that ahead.

Capt'n Midnight · 08-01-2017 11:33PM

Is this just more drip-drip softening up the punters so they don't get all the bad news reality in one go ?

At least she's right about the zero-sum. There will be losses. But if she thinks the EU would shoulder them on behalf of the UK ?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38546820

Mrs May said the UK would have control of its borders and the best possible trade deal with the EU. She didn't commit to maintaining "single market access", and she suggested that people who thought the country could keep "bits of EU membership" were missing the point that it "would be leaving".
...
But Mrs May told Sky News's Sophy Ridge on Sunday: "Anybody who looks at this question of free movement and trade as a sort of zero-sum game is approaching it in the wrong way.

"I'm ambitious for what we can get for the UK in terms of our relationship with the European Union because I also think that's going to be good for the European Union. Our thinking on this isn't muddled at all."

Capt'n Midnight · 08-01-2017 11:59PM

An update on the farming prospects.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38510423

At worst Brexit could devastate the farming sector; on average 60% of farm incomes come in the form of EU subsidies.

The report by Informa Agribusiness Intelligence estimates that without subsidies 90% of farms would collapse and land prices would crash.
...
Calum Kerr, MSP and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesman for the SNP, said 90% of beef and lamb exports, and 70% of pork exports go to the EU.

"WTO rules would look at a minimum tariff into the EU of 20%. On red meat which ... is critically important [economic] modelling suggests anywhere between 50% and.... a 76% increase in costs into the EU market.

FrancieBrady · 09-01-2017 12:44AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

An update on the farming prospects.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38510423

Who would be a farmer in Fermanagh or Tyrone waiting for crumbs after they finish bailing out that?

2ygb4cmqetsjhx · 09-01-2017 01:54AM

Honestly Britain is ****ed.

Junkyard Tom · 09-01-2017 02:02AM

catbear wrote: »

....to herself.

I'm actually starting to get worried now.

It's very worrying. We're going to get hurt by this too. It has the possibility of destabilising the northeast too.

That rat-boy Jamie Bryson was gloating about a hard border and the end of the Belfast agreement on twitter recently. If him, and any other oddball BritNat like him, thinks this will strengthen the 'union' then they're in for a rude awakening.

Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Comments