JohnfromUK Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, ordnance said: no Irish government will put in place a hard border See this published today https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6597633/Irelands-deputy-PM-secretly-admits-hard-border-event-no-deal-Brexit.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: There should NOT be a second referendum. The first one had a clear outcome that has not yet been carried out. Just to remind those with short memories, the country chose to leave the EU. IF there was a second referendum, the only question seems to be; Do you want to leave under Mrs May's present transition deal Do you want to leave under World Trade Organisation terms What the question would be would be up for debate, but there is no way the DUP and a lot of conservatives would support Mays deal being on the ballot. A deal that has being overwhelmingly rejected by MPs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, ordnance said: A deal that has being overwhelmingly rejected by MPs. The option of Remaining has also already been rejected by the public in the original referendum - I repeat "Just to remind those with short memories, the country chose to leave the EU. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said: See this published today https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6597633/Irelands-deputy-PM-secretly-admits-hard-border-event-no-deal-Brexit.html Checks and a hard border are two different things. The ROI governments insistence on the back stop could put them in the very position they are desperate to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, ordnance said: Checks and a hard border are two different things. The ROI governments insistence on the back stop could put them in the very position they are desperate to avoid. Agree entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, ordnance said: Checks and a hard border are two different things. The ROI governments insistence on the back stop could put them in the very position they are desperate to avoid. Varadkar does what Brussels tells him, and they dont give a fig about Ireland, any of it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 The answer for the NI / ROI is for the republic to have same trade status as UK. Border can be somewhere in the Channel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, oowee said: The answer for the NI / ROI is for the republic to have same trade status as UK. Border can be somewhere in the Channel. Why would the EU let them do that, when they can use it to disrupt Brexit? You think they are going to do something to help us leave?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 56 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Varadkar does what Brussels tells him, and they dont give a fig about Ireland, any of it . Yes and i am under no illusion that the UK government would stab N/I politicians in the back if they did not need them, May already did by agreeing to the back stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, ordnance said: Yes and i am under no illusion that the UK government would stab N/I politicians in the back if they did not need them, May already did by agreeing to the back stop. True, which leads me back to my previous theory, why would you do that, knowing full well its going to lose you the support of those very essential DUP MPs ? The whole thing is beginning to look contrived, rather than the cluster duck it essentially appears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Rewulf said: True, which leads me back to my previous theory, why would you do that, knowing full well its going to lose you the support of those very essential DUP MPs ? The whole thing is beginning to look contrived, rather than the cluster duck it essentially appears. I have asked myself that question, the DUP made it clear that they would not and could not support anything that treated N/I any different than the rest of the UK. Maybe she thought she could get it trough without them or convince them to back it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clam6364 Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 I personally think the whole brexit deal has been engineered to result in a no deal from the start, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 7 hours ago, JohnfromUK said: Because one of those "one or two exceptions" is (almost) the whole Labour party! Comrade Corbyn is playing a game - in which he is actually really a pawn; Labours 'official' leave position is the "Six Tests of Starmer" - most people would consider anything that meets these as firmly Remain. Corbyn has always been anti EU, but his whole Parliamentary career he has been 'anti' almost everything. He's really just an old age lefty anti establishment career protester. He opposes May's deal because his masters (McDonnell, McLusky etc.) need him (as a puppet) in No 10 to carry out their agenda of Marxist economics to steal from the so called rich and create a vast state dependant society of the poor - to ensure a permanent Labour majority. The reality is that May's so called deal is actually much closer to meeting the "Six Tests of Starmer" than most people want ........ but the official Labour position is that May's deal is too 'hard' because it leaves the Customs Union and Single Market. The Parliamentary balance on Brexit is that (working from the 'Leave' side): For a WTO 'no deal' type leave we have the ERG, JRM, Boris etc. - Roughly 120 votes For somewhere 'harder' than May's deal especially on the backstop - 10 DUP For a May style deal - roughly 200 inc 3 Labour rebels, 3 independents For a Starmer 'official Labour' whipped to oppose - (though quite a few support a Brexit of some meaningful sort, but followed the whips) - about 250 - all Labour For no Leave at all - a few Tory rebels (Soubery, Grieve, Clarke) plus roughly 55 LibDem, SNP, Green, independants The problem is (exactly like this Forum!) some will only vote for a WTO type leave, and some will only vote for a Starmer/BRINO type leave, some will not vote for any leave. Some (mainly Labour) will always follow their party whips ....... because they hope that will get 'their man' into Downing Street. I have made clear what I believe Leave means in an earlier post - and to me Starmer's "Six Tests" are REMAIN not LEAVE. And is of no further consequence. Within the hour he will have lost his swansong vote. In short; he's yesterday's man. A smart move will be to keep an eye on Isca Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 On the local news tonight was a labour MP who is in favour of a 2nd referendum if a GE wasn’t forthcoming. I haven’t heard one reporter yet, ask of anyone of this persuasion.....’and what happens if a 2nd referendum results in a ‘leave’ majority again?’. Why isn’t anyone asking this question? I’d love to know what the answer would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, Scully said: On the local news tonight was a labour MP who is in favour of a 2nd referendum if a GE wasn’t forthcoming. I haven’t heard one reporter yet, ask of anyone of this persuasion.....’and what happens if a 2nd referendum results in a ‘leave’ majority again?’. Why isn’t anyone asking this question? I’d love to know what the answer would be. The answer should be then we get on with it. A second referendum is now at least a bit more straightforward now May's deal is dead. It's either remain or hard brexit. I'm a Remainer, so given the current circumstances I now favour a second referendum, but only on the terms above. It's No Deal Brexit or Remain. If No Deal wins, then any MP who tries to dodge round that should be forced to resign for not listening. Twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: The answer should be then we get on with it. A second referendum is now at least a bit more straightforward now May's deal is dead. It's either remain or hard brexit. I'm a Remainer, so given the current circumstances I now favour a second referendum, but only on the terms above. It's No Deal Brexit or Remain. If No Deal wins, then any MP who tries to dodge round that should be forced to resign for not listening. Twice. We already voted leave. Never ticked a box sayin hard boiled or soft. Its not a damn egg... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 Corbyn has failed again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: The answer should be then we get on with it. A second referendum is now at least a bit more straightforward now May's deal is dead. It's either remain or hard brexit. I'm a Remainer, so given the current circumstances I now favour a second referendum, but only on the terms above. It's No Deal Brexit or Remain. If No Deal wins, then any MP who tries to dodge round that should be forced to resign for not listening. Twice. Ought to resign for not listening the first time. Its become very well known now that MP's blatently simply don't listen to the plebs when they act politely which is what brought on the yellow vests in Europe. Something needs to be done about lying MP's posing as working for the interests of the electors they made manifestos to. Not voting for them next time seems to be all we can do about the treacherous spivs. Edited January 16, 2019 by Dave-G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redial Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 It matters little what deal we have. The MP's won't vote it through. Its there way of stopping brexit, and no deal will unfortunately never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 32 minutes ago, clam6364 said: I personally think the whole brexit deal has been engineered to result in a no deal from the start, That's the way I'm thinking. Why the smoke and mirrors I'm not sure, but surely we haven't ended up like this by accident and poor management. It was obvious the EU was never going to make it easy, maybe this is the way of combating that. 2 minutes ago, redial said: It matters little what deal we have. The MP's won't vote it through. Its there way of stopping brexit, and no deal will unfortunately never happen. They've got to vote something through, if we end up remaining by default, you will have chaos! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 13 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: The answer should be then we get on with it. A second referendum is now at least a bit more straightforward now May's deal is dead. It's either remain or hard brexit. I'm a Remainer, so given the current circumstances I now favour a second referendum, but only on the terms above. It's No Deal Brexit or Remain. If No Deal wins, then any MP who tries to dodge round that should be forced to resign for not listening. Twice. But why should the result of a 2nd referendum be honoured if the result of the first wasn’t? Where would we go from here....best of three? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) Don't worry if remain loses the second one (if it is forced on us ,which will be undemocratic), they will be calling for a third Edited January 16, 2019 by Newbie to this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjpainter Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, Scully said: But why should the result of a 2nd referendum be honoured if the result of the first wasn’t? Where would we go from here....best of three? Worryingly good point! To my mind, the worst possible result would be a tight Remain win. That will be utterly disastrous. If it's a tight Leave, I can live with that - Brexit means Brexit after all! and f it's a good remain win, that's obviously indicative of a lot of people changing their minds, which shouldn't be ignored. but a close remain will as you say just descend into best of three...five...etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: Worryingly good point! To my mind, the worst possible result would be a tight Remain win. That will be utterly disastrous. If it's a tight Leave, I can live with that - Brexit means Brexit after all! and f it's a good remain win, that's obviously indicative of a lot of people changing their minds, which shouldn't be ignored. but a close remain will as you say just descend into best of three...five...etc... Interesting. Can you tell me why a second vote with a clear majority to remain shouldn’t be ignored, yet ignoring the result of the first should be? I’m not inferring you suggested the first should be ignored, but that is what having a second amounts to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted January 16, 2019 Report Share Posted January 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said: That will be utterly disastrous. ANY (credible) result will be disastrous ........ which is why there should be no "second referendum". The only good outcome would be a large win/loose (for one side or the other) - but that would be very obvious in advance, which would negate the need for a referendum. All this explains why referendums have never been a significant part of British politics. They don't solve divisions, they tend to deepen them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts