Panrich wrote: » Was he asked about his current position on the single market or the EEA?
gooch2k9 wrote: » Caught that myself and thought it was a good interview. He spoke clearly on his concerns regarding Johnson's deal. Some of it would warrant fact checking as we know he can be loose with the truth. Contrast his style to Johnson and it's clear who the most dangerous opponent would be in a debate. Farage also stated he wouldn't run himself.
prawnsambo wrote: » Labour back on the fence again. Can see why the government just want it to be over.
CelticRambler wrote: » Side note: is it just me/my browser or has the rewind option disappeared from the Sky live stream?
theological wrote: » What happens if the British people vote to leave again? Will you support honouring it after the second time? Or will it be best of three?
theological wrote: » What happens if the British people vote to leave again? Will you support honouring it after the second time? Or will it be best of three? The second referendum lot have only thought about the scenario where it is overturned but not the scenario where the British people vote for it again. I expect the same type of screeching about the result we see now. The people who want a second referendum see the problem as being the democratic decision of the people. The people who want an election see the problem as being a parliament who object to implementing the referendum result from 2016. The problem is that there is a parliamentary logjam that needs to be cleared. Even if there was a second referendum that wouldn't be cleared you'd still have the parliamentary stalemate. This election is the people's vote. Hopefully people will see sense and vote conclusively for an outcome. The current polls are looking this way.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » People will probably disbelieve me when I say this, and I understand why but my primary motivation for supporting another referendum is to legitimise Brexit, ie to ask the people, "Given what has transpired and come to light in the past three years, is this huge change what you want?" If people want to take the all but guaranteed economic hit, to turn cracks in the Union into chasms and to jettison the UK's standing in the world all for the whims of a few shadowy financiers then that's their call. This was far from clear in 2016. It is now so there's nothing anyone like me can say or do to question the legitimacy of a People's Vote whatever the result is. The UK deserves a chance to rethink this, to show that it is better than the libertarian Tory right and to vote based on facts and not fantasies. I doubt there is a single member of the "We knew what we were voting for" brigade who desired turning the Prime Minister into a supplicant of the French president three times. I want to end this with a remain vote but I want Brexit voters to have the chance to be 100% sure so that the fallout will be entirely on them regardless of the fantasies they've been sold by the likes of Rothermere, Murdoch and Desmond.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » This makes no sense. Labour have promised a People's Vote which is much better for Ireland.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I don't have an issue with this to be honest. We knew plenty of Labour MP's represent Leave voting areas so this is something of a corollary. The main thing is that the bulk of the party, especially Corbyn campaign vigorously and visibly across the nation for a Remain vote.
Imreoir2 wrote: » It makes some sense, not the hard border bit, but the Torys are the only ones in a position to move the process forward. Labour won't get a majority, and the Lib-Dems have not got a snowballs chance in hell of forming a government. A Tory majority is potentially better than a hung parliament for us. Who knows what will come out of a hung parliament, probably nothing more than we have had so far, the total inability to make a decision. Just back to no to everything again, no referendum, no to no-deal, no to any deal, and no to revoke.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » In 2016, people vote to leave based on lies, propaganda and unicorns and before you introduce the standard retort, no this doesn't mean that I think they are stupid. We are having this discussion on a tightly moderated politics forum which I think is well above most people's level of political engagement. Vote Leave's slogan was "take back control". As far as I can see, the UK is in no position to take back control of anything, exactly the opposite in fact. A trade deal with the US will see us coerced into accepting much more lax regulation (especially on food standards) as well as the dismantlement of the NHS, the closest thing there is here to a national religion. Did people vote for that? I mean, we're told incessantly that Leave voters knew what they were voting for. Did they vote for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to beg for three separate Article 50 extensions from the President of France. I read history so the idea of appearing before President Macron as a supplicant on three occasions is simply the most damning indictment of the whole project from a sovereignty perspective. And other trade deals? What sort of clauses from Modi will we have to subject this country to to get an India-UK deal over the line? A heck of a lot more visas for Indians. Why would voters concerned about immigration vote for more immigrants from a country of over 1.3 billion people, many of whom live in poverty? It's not a given as of yet but I can't see what else the UK can offer in return for greater access to a market consisting nearly a fifth of the world's population. Here's an article from the Guardian about it. I can easily see the likes of Mercosur and Indonesia playing the same game. In 2017, people elected a divided Parliament. Why do that since apparently all of 17.4 million Leave voters knew what they were voting for in the biggest democratic mandate ever issued by the British voting public? Maybe it's because the public were uncertain then and didn't know what Leave meant. Do they also want to see the Union disintegrate? It's already riven with fissures as it is and those need addressing. A party like the SNP should not be doing as well as it is in a Labour stronghold of all places. I'm starting to repeat myself so I'll quote myself from the last thread: The Brexiters know that their disaster capitalist project is dead. They just have to deny any opportunity to take it off the table. It's turned the UK into a gloabl embarassment. I can't even wind up Americans as they get to change their minds on a 4-yearly basis. How nice that must be. When people who support Brexit now try and argue for it, it seems to be largely based on the sunken cost fallacy rather than what's good for the United Kingdom and its constituent members. Bad faith debating, moving the goalposts and the repeated bleating á la "Respect democracy", "Will of the people", "17.4 million", etc aren't convincing anytone and they know it.
Strazdas wrote: » Great Britain has never been an isolationist country in its history : not until the Leave voters / Brexiteers arrived on the scene.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » We are getting to dangerous territory whereby national sovereignty is conflicting with how the EU is developing. Anyone who knows European history knows this won't end well.
Water John wrote: » The SNP and LibDems would enter a confidence and supply agreement with Lb, not a coalition. This would limit the worst of JC's nonsense, renationalisation etc.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Labour might not get a majority but the Lib Dems will likely make gains. I can see them getting to 20-30 seats though probably not the full 57 they had in 2010. The SNP will undo Ruth Davidson's work in Scotland. Both parties might be open to a coalition. Just my own projections, mind. I can't see Johnson getting a majority if Labour campaign well. They have Brexit and the NHS along with potentially the Union if they play their cards right.
prawnsambo wrote: » My problem with this (and possibly the EU's) is that it's back to the negotiating table, a whole lot more time wasted and no guarantee that this sh1tshow comes to an end anytime soon. And although there would be some EU leaders who would be prepared to enter into further discussions and grant another extension, there would be others who would be virulently against it. Can't see Macron kicking the can a further six months to a year down the road.
Igotadose wrote: » Fatuous. Parliament's been struggling for 3 years to implement the referendum result.
Igotadose wrote: » They're not voting on the referendum, however. They're voting for MP's.
theological wrote: » More accurately: Hard remain MPs have been wilfully obstructing the implementation of the referendum.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » In 2016, people vote to leave based on lies, propaganda and unicorns and before you introduce the standard retort, no this doesn't mean that I think they are stupid. We are having this discussion on a tightly moderated politics forum which I think is well above most people's level of political engagement [...]
theological wrote: » In my reply to you I said that those who advocate for a second referendum have only deeply considered the scenario of the British public overturning the result. You've not answered my question. You just ranted on about why you don't like Brexit. If the UK votes to leave again will you accept the result this time? If the answer is no that betrays your motive.
Deleted User wrote: » Focusing on Brexit alone misses the wider point. The reality is that the EU is convulsed by the Eurosceptic surge - and that surge is likely to amplify over the coming decade. One way or another, the European Union will be dead. Brexit is just the warning shot. Other countries will inevitably follow, with time and with enough pressure, and this egregious political entity will finally dissolve. I for one welcome the terminal decline of the EU - not because I want to see a return to the 1930s (and in response to the 1930s point, what contributed to war in the 1940s was not nationalism, but imperialism), but because something far better can take its place. What we need to see is a Council of Europe - with decisions taken by leaders of individual nation-states; not a centralised structure that blends all countries into one, with distant bureaucrats at the top, immune from national electorates.
gooch2k9 wrote: » Assuming the second referendum was on fixed outcomes e.g., Johnson's deal, Revoke etc. then the result would have to be accepted. As long as it is not pie in the sky choices again that mean all things to all people. An informed decision should be respected.
Enzokk wrote: » Yeah, seems like it, I cannot go back on the stream either which is a pain. Well if leave won again, even if you voted once more it would be 2/3 for leave and a majority. I don't think anyone is saying there would be a third vote if leave won again, but the confirmatory referendum would be on the terms of leaving the EU, which wasn't defined in the 2016 referendum. This is really simple to understand. There was no defined leave deal in 2016 so people had different interpretations of what it meant. Now that leaving can be defined into the deal offered it can be argued that there are people who voted leave before who would change their vote on the details of leaving as the benefits isn't what was sold in 2016. Really simple unless you don't want it to be. If leave wins again then you leave on the deal people voted for and even the staunchest remainers would agree to that. Not really, they have always said they would give the option of leave or remain and they would decide their position once they know the deal on the table. This is why the Tories had such a laugh at the policy of Labour, they could negotiate a deal then campaign against it or for it.
theological wrote: » Agreed. The referendum was in 2016. They are voting for MP's because they are the problem. They have been obstructing progress on Brexit. Therefore a new parliament needs to be put in place to progress with the withdrawal.
