Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk wrote: »

On the polls, this tweet seems to explain why you are seeing such difference between predictions from basically the same data for the polling companies.

https://twitter.com/harrydcarr/status/1173145606484873217?s=20

So on the assumption that the youth vote is more energised the result is neck and neck between Labour and the Tories. If they stay away then its a swing to the Tories. So the objective for Labour is getting the activists out and to engage the youth voters out there. This shouldn't be too hard either, with Brexit being an issue that should get them out to vote. Add in a liberal and aggressive green policy and you could have a winner for Labour with the youth.

They completely missed the youth, first-time voting phenomenon that mobilised behind Labour last time which is what skewed the 2017 polls so badly. So maybe the temptation this time around will be to over-compensate for that trend and, at the same time, completely miss some other new, first-time trend that significantly effects the vote.

That said, there was a story in the Guardian and maybe other papers last week about a surge in new voters registering so that's more likely to be a labour initiative than anything else you'd think. A good chunk of the brexit vote was by people who never bother to vote in elections, so unless they can be convinced that an election is basically another proxy brexit vote, it may be that a lot of them will simply stay at home.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They completely missed the youth, first-time voting phenomenon that mobilised behind Labour last time which is what skewed the 2017 polls so badly. So maybe the temptation this time around will be to over-compensate for that trend and, at the same time, completely miss some other new, first-time trend that significantly effects the vote.

That said, there was a story in the Guardian and maybe other papers last week about a surge in new voters registering so that's more likely to be a labour initiative than anything else you'd think. A good chunk of the brexit vote was by people who never bother to vote in elections, so unless they can be convinced that an election is basically another proxy brexit vote, it may be that a lot of them will simply stay at home.

This far out, election hasn't even been called yet, we have no idea what the potential turnout will be. It is guesswork based on past trends for the polling companies. That is why we are seeing such swings in the polls so it is essentially a little useless right now. The wildcard that happens in a campaign is unknown as well so we won't know how that would affect the result (Dementia TAX!) either.

Basically, we can see how bad as a trend parties are doing, but it doesn't mean much at this stage as Johnson could break the law before the election.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think it's too late for the cancel brexit / remain option. It's too far gone down the path to the point that they're is a clamour for a no deal exit, regardless of how stood an idea that is.

But maybe, a campaign to revoke A50, but then properly debate what the way forward is.
E.g. if immigration is an issue then address that

Either way the UK loses. If they leave Scotland and ni will break off and join eu. If they don't leave brexiteers will tear English society apart.

PropJoe10 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see what kind of traction the Lib Dems gain with this "Cancel Brexit" policy in the next election, whenever it comes around. They're really putting themselves up as a target but at least they seem to have a concrete message which is more than can be said for Labour.

People are having to point out to the numerous far right types on Twitter that if the Lib Dems were elected on this manifesto. that would be a democratic decision. They genuinely seem to think "democracy" is whatever they and the Daily Telegraph decide it is.

Strazdas wrote: »

People are having to point out to the numerous far right types on Twitter that if the Lib Dems were elected on this manifesto. that would be a democratic decision. They genuinely seem to think "democracy" is whatever they and the Daily Telegraph decide it is.

As an experiment, I tried to see at what percentage the Lib Dems could win a majority, so entered the following (highly unlikely) figures:

Lib Dems 35%
Con 25%
Lab 23%
Brexit 9%

Even then, the Lib Dems only win 213 seats!

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

UK govt is saying great progress is being made in talks.

EU saying there are no actual talks and any ideas on the border are going backward from a deal.

Who to believe?

Hope Juncker sets the record straight on this tomorrow.

Piece on the front page of the Financial Times yesterday was a bit more upbeat than that. Lot of "According to No 10 officials....EU diplomats said.....officials in Dublin and Brussels etc etc", but thrust of it was Johnson had given signs he was ready to compromise on backstop and talks between EU and UK negotiating teams last week had been a bit more productive. Whether there's any meat on those few bones, Juncker is definitely the right man to let us know tomorrow for sure!

trellheim wrote: »

thoughts :


We know the UKSC will report back on Tuesday. In other news, Cummings is reportedly saying we'll prorogue again “We will prorogue Parliament again if we lose in court” - what @thesundaytimes reports Dominic Cummings told Tory special advisors will happen

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1173140164081868800


if I was in UKSC I would take a dim view of prorogue to avoid a legal obligation .... hmm or is it all politics !

The guy just sounds more and more deranged by the day. I assume there must be some kind of coherent long- or mid-term strategy there, but hard to figure out what it might be. Am still thinking along the lines of Johnson agreeing a deal and then hoping it doesn't pass the house, but no idea what such a scenario would entail in practice.

It also seems that he isn't giving much credence to his own boss's chances of agreeing that new deal with the EU, given proroguing parliament a second time would make it impossible for the PM to try to get it through parliament.

Even if Johnson comes to a deal with the EU over an alternative to the backstop he still needs to get it through Parliament. Would Labour back it? The SNP and Lib Dems would vot against, and the Tory might vote against, as well as those who lost the whip. No guarentees.

Johnson fighting an election having successfully delivered Brexit would probably lead to a big Tory majority. It wouldn't be in Labour's interests to back a deal.

Robert McGrath wrote: »

I think Cummings was hired to win an election based on his track record in the referendum. Cummings has shown he knows how to influence a national electorate through technology and targeted marketing. But that’s irrelevant if he cannot influence a majority of parliament. I believe the miscalculation by Johnson and Cummings was their assumption that an election could be triggered quite easily, but parliament has unified in opposition to them and they have no idea how to deal with it. Because neither of them are old fashioned politicians in a real sense - the type that can hammer out deals with individual backbenchers and frontbenchers based on promises and threats.

Edited to add: Cummings could be valuable once they have an election. But I think he’s a liability up until that point because he is a lightning rod for the opposition and his actions have helped galvanise the opposition - and handed them 20 odd Tories!

They clearly underestimated the opposition in my view. They gambled on them not being able to get it together to orchestrate a vonc (remains to be seen) and gambled on them not being able to form a unified front to pass legislation to stop a no deal brexit (and failed). I thought myself Cummings was there simply to ramrod brexit through and he'd take a backseat for the election or even disappear. Either way, identifying him as a potential election campaign mastermind on the basis of winning one referendum vote seems a bit naive to my mind, but it's something they seem clearly capable of it has to be said.

That said, i'm certainly not underestimating him or refusing to rule out the possibility he still has a card or two left up his sleeve. Whatever about the pm, i'd be very sceptical that a WAB with whatever form of backstop would be any way acceptable to Cummings so i'm wondering what other dastardly scheme they might be hatching. I think they're capable of anything at this stage so i'm assuming something well steeped in the dark arts, like we've already seen.

To note the SC will not make a ruling on Tuesday, the case begins then, but will likely last several days.

Headshot wrote: »

If you think about it it's a win win for the SNP.

If the supreme count rejects the Scottish court, another reason for independence.

If they are in favour Bj is gone.

This such a great move by the SNP

I'm not sure why that would be another reason for independence?

GM228 wrote: »

I'm not sure why that would be another reason for independence?

Sovereignty, my dear man. Same reason the UK wants out of the EU - so as not to be subject to the decisions of the ECJ.