Brexit - merged threads

[JohnfromUK]

Thinking forward from the ideas of a 'new party'.

Parliamentary arithmetic says you need roughly 320 or more seats for a workable majority.  For a 'hard leave' you might get;

• 100 or so 'leave' Tories inc JRM and his ERG lot.
• Maybe the same, but probably fewer Labour leavers

So you need 120 for some 'new party' to give working majority of hard 'no deal' leavers.  I don't see how that can happen.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

And bring a in a shower of **** that will bankrupt the country?

Its Ok they will bring in more asylum seekers and economic migrants too ..
And all that extra income tax money will pay for everything we need and more .
Said no one ever.

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

my take on it is, I voted to remain but the country voted out & out we go (NO second ballot)

That is also my position

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I have never voted Labour but will next election.

I will not vote Labour.  Their internal economic policy will ruin this country far more and faster than any leave/remain outcome - plus they will keep us in (or VERY closely tied to) the EU anyway.  So we will be in the EU and bankrupt.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Thinking forward from the ideas of a 'new party'.

Parliamentary arithmetic says you need roughly 320 or more seats for a workable majority.  For a 'hard leave' you might get;

• 100 or so 'leave' Tories inc JRM and his ERG lot.
• Maybe the same, but probably fewer Labour leavers

So you need 120 for some 'new party' to give working majority of hard 'no deal' leavers.  I don't see how that can happen.

Might not happen this time around, but it could be enough to oust the tories and put  a big dent in labour.
A 3 party system might re create some democracy.
It will put a rocket up the back end of politicians, and that will do for now.

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

I will not vote Labour.  Their internal economic policy will ruin this country far more and faster than any leave/remain outcome - plus they will keep us in (or VERY closely tied to) the EU anyway.  So we will be in the EU and bankrupt.

+1

And thats why the power vacuum left by the distrust of both mainstream parties is ripe for a fresh face.

[Dave-G]

12 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

.... Sorry , but the more I think about this , the more it seems like we havnt arrived at this position by accident.
My conspiracy gland is twitching as we speak.

Me too. The Tories have stripped down to their true colours now. I've been a lifelong tory bar my last vote for UKIP, but next election I'm going for payback - and I reckon a lot more pensioners like me will too because where we come from out means out. I think we'll do whats good for us rather than whats good for the tories.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Dave-G

[TriBsa]

18 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The SDP tried it ........ failed

UKIP tried it ........... failing as of now.

It isn't easy to do and breaking the 'two party' system has never been achieved.

Not recently, granted. But it has been done. The rise of the Labour movement to challenge the previous big two of the Conservatives and Liberals and gain power in 1923.

[Aled]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399

 

Yes I know many of you don't like the BBC but...

Cheers

Aled

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

I think we'll do whats good for us rather than whats good for the tories.

What Labour and John MacDonnell want to do won't be good for a pensioner (the Tories have been quite generous on pensions within limits of there being not much money), working person, or property owner.

It may be good in the short term for those on benefits, tennants and those on very low incomes.

In the long term, debt, unemployment, interest rates and inflation will all take off - and everyone will end up poorer.  It is what happens when you try and spend your way out of debt.

In addition, we will either have the very softest of brexits (Brexit In Name Only, BRINO) staying in the single market and customs union - or no brexit at all.

11 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

Not recently, granted. But it has been done.

So far anyway, all recent attempts have failed.  Arguably the changes brought about by WW1 and its aftermath were the reason a change was possible then.

[TriBsa]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

So far anyway, all recent attempts have failed.  Arguably the changes brought about by WW1 and its aftermath were the reason a change was possible then.

Yes, seismic events tend to produce large swings in the voting behaviour of the electorate. The post WW2 election being another case in point. A betrayal of the Brexit vote could be just such a seismic event. When people feel they are no longer represented they seek change.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, TriBsa said:

A betrayal of the Brexit vote could be just such a seismic event. When people feel they are no longer represented they seek change.

Possibly, but the big changes after each WW were mainly the vast rise in unemployment as armaments workers were laid off and the armed forces returned home ......... and shortages brought on by war factors like bombed factories, material shortages etc.  Whichever way brexit goes, I don't see changes that severe.  Some would argue that the biggest changes possible short term shortages and price rises would come from a hard brexit.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

A betrayal of the Brexit vote could be just such a seismic event. When people feel they are no longer represented they seek change.

Almost certainly true.
And if they cant trust the options on the table , they will look at other means of making their voice heard.
Where did UKIP come from , the BNP ? They didnt come about by accident or because .as some would tell you , some people have lower intelligence, or are outright nazis.
Discontent breeds extremes, history is absolute proof of this.

[TriBsa]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Possibly, but the big changes after each WW were mainly the vast rise in unemployment as armaments workers were laid off and the armed forces returned home ......... and shortages brought on by war factors like bombed factories, material shortages etc.  Whichever way brexit goes, I don't see changes that severe.  Some would argue that the biggest changes possible short term shortages and price rises would come from a hard brexit.

No, I mean't the no small matter of disenfranchising 17.4 million voters. Proving that our current democratic system is badly broken.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

An interesting viewpoint;

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2018/12/stewart-jackson-the-government-has-the-means-to-deliver-brexit-if-it-has-the-will-whatever-remainers-say-in-parliament.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Thursday 6th December 2018&utm_content=Thursday 6th December 2018+CID_caf842924218f397772a57c810ed0c7b&utm_source=Daily Email&utm_term=The Government has the means to deliver Brexit if it has the will whatever Remainers say in Parliament

[oowee]

So many Brexiteers on here were saying from the outset that the EU would give us a deal, 'it's in their interest' blah de blah that it became a mantra. Every voice of reason that tried to point out the reality of the situation was derided as a Remoaner pushing the voice of fear. Well guess where we are.

All this talk of a new party, all of this no deal good deal bad deal stuff, is all part of the back drop of negotiation the bit where the sweat starts to build and the pressure mounts. I am still confident that we are leaving it's just a matter of how. The 17.4m will be appeased except hopefully the minority of those on the extremes that will no doubt be disappointed with anything that does not include the winding up of the EU itself. 

It won't be long fingers crossed, we will be out and ready to start that journey to the promised land. 

Edited December 6, 2018 by oowee

[old man]

On 05/12/2018 at 13:12, matone said:

All an organised scam to keep us in ! It really does stink to high heaven now.

Agreed, a traitorus trick by May who being a remainer probably thought we were all stupid and could slip the deal through?

Some deal? Us remaining with no say in any dealings with the but still paying out endlessly.

Sadly she has managed to repeat what our politicians do, leave the plebs worse off than before?

On 05/12/2018 at 13:35, oowee said:

Lots of things were said and much of it was untrue. I take no notice of it and like to stick to the facts. The ballot paper did not lie and people voted on the question posed. Voters must make their own decisions on what is in front of them. If they vote for something because they believe that something else may happen as a result then that is a matter for their conscience. 

 We had better leave now I have spent a lot of money on planning for it. 

I now don't see us leaving?

[hambone]

44 minutes ago, oowee said:

So many Brexiteers on here were saying from the outset that the EU would give us a deal, 'it's in their interest' blah de blah that it became a mantra. Every voice of reason that tried to point out the reality of the situation was derided as a Remoaner pushing the voice of fear. Well guess where we are.

All this talk of a new party, all of this no deal good deal bad deal stuff, is all part of the back drop of negotiation the bit where the sweat starts to build and the pressure mounts. I am still confident that we are leaving it's just a matter of how. The 17.4m will be appeased except hopefully the minority of those on the extremes that will no doubt be disappointed with anything that does not include the winding up of the EU itself. 

It won't be long fingers crossed, we will be out and ready to start that journey to the promised land. 

If we had a PM who wanted to leave that would be correct! No deal is better than a bad deal should have been rammed down the EU throats from day one and planning for no deal should have started the same day (visibly to show it was no bluff).

Edited December 6, 2018 by hambone

[Rewulf]

34 minutes ago, oowee said:

So many Brexiteers on here were saying from the outset that the EU would give us a deal, 'it's in their interest' blah de blah that it became a mantra. Every voice of reason that tried to point out the reality of the situation was derided as a Remoaner pushing the voice of fear. Well guess where we are.

Yeah ,i was one of those people, because I mistakenly believed that May and the tories would really deliver Brexit, that they WANTED to do the job they were instructed to do.
Oh but its complicated you say ? Is it ? Its complicated when they try to force you to stay by making it complicated.
Oh but what about Ireland you say ? A tweak or 2 to a Canada ++ style deal, which the EU had already agreed to in principle, would have solved 99% of  Irish border issues.
Oh but we can do better than that May said in Florence, then pushes a far far worse deal, whilst refusing to even consider Canada !
That should tell you something on its own.
Say what you like , but the fact remains, it is in the EUs interest to make this work, thats if the 'EU ' is the people, business and economic well being of is the EU , and not just the 50,000 snouts in Brussels.

[old man]

3 hours ago, JRDS said:

Totally agree, the country is in desperate need of a new party that looks after this countries own interests first.

Pray where do you think that will spring from, all of the previously deposed vermin anxious to bury snouts in the 5 star trough again? 

[TriBsa]

24 minutes ago, hambone said:

If we had a PM who wanted to leave that would be correct! No deal is better than a bad deal should have been rammed down the EU throats from day one and planning for no deal should have started the same day (visibly to show it was no bluff).

Yes, like an order for some Fishery Protection Vessels from British shipyards!

[Retsdon]

12 hours ago, oowee said:

A glimmer of light. 🙂 

Not sure where you can see it  

[Retsdon]

The problem is that a 'hard' Brexit pretty much guarantees economic Armageddon, and for that reason MPs, who quite probably believe that they  have a duty not to vote their constituents into the Poor House, are going to be reluctant to endorse it. 

[Scully]

37 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

The problem is that a 'hard' Brexit pretty much guarantees economic Armageddon, and for that reason MPs, who quite probably believe that they  have a duty not to vote their constituents into the Poor House, are going to be reluctant to endorse it. 

But you simply don’t know what a hard Brexit will amount to anymore than anyone else. Don’t forget we were in the EU when the last recession hit...in or out is no guarantee of anything. 

Scaremongering, nothing more nor less.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Scully

[matone]

26 minutes ago, Scully said:

 

 

39 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

The problem is that a 'hard' Brexit pretty much guarantees economic Armageddon, and for that reason MPs, who quite probably believe that they  have a duty not to vote their constituents into the Poor House, are going to be reluctant to endorse it. 

Do you really think we`re not in for `economic Armageddon` once the EU & May have got us properly stitched up? They`ll crush us under their boots once they get the whip hand again .

I think you are deluded.

Edited December 6, 2018 by matone

[Retsdon]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

But you simply don’t know what a hard Brexit will amount to anymore than anyone else. Don’t forget we were in the EU when the last recession hit. 

Scaremongering, nothing more nor less.

But we do know. We might not know how everything will pan out in 20 years, but the immediate effects of a proper 'no deal' hard Brexit would be  traumatic in the extreme. All the people whose job it is to know about these things say the same thing. Yes, you'll find a few like Minford who thinks everything will be rosy once we've 'run down' British car  plants and other assorted manufacturing industries (not to mention financial services) but pretty much every other economist and trade expert (around the globe) who isn't sticking straws in their hair is in agreement that for Britain to crash out of the EU would be very bad news indeed.

And I really fail to understand why these people's professional opinions are just poo-pood away, or casually dismissed as 'Project Fear'. If 95 percent of gamekeepers you knew along with the chap from the Game Conservation Trust were to tell you that your land wasn't suitable for grey partridges to breed on and that such a program would be a waste of time and money, of course, you could try and prove them wrong. And one time out of a hundred you might be right. But the overwhelming majority of the time you' wouldn't be right, because working keepers and professional scientists know their jobs - that's why they get paid to to them. Professional economists and trade experts are no different.

[ordnance]

Quote

And I really fail to understand why these people's professional opinions are just poo-pood away, or casually dismissed as 'Project Fear'

Probably because the same professional people predicted economic melt down if people voted the leave,  they were wrong.  

Edited December 6, 2018 by ordnance