The Next General Election.

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

But the party with the majority would have the mandate and the majority to deliver whatever action was voted in. Mixing the GE with a ref is simply madness. 

It's not a referendum, its giving mandate  power to a new government. 

Conservatives ..the deal

Labour .... a new deal 🤣 then referendum , for which they will campaign for remain 🤣

Lib dems ...revoke

Brexit party will likely win seats, and will back the Tories if they need it.

What's hard about it ?

 

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yes, it’s called democracy. It may be alien to some,  but for better or worse that’s how it works.  
Given the reason for the GE, people are bound to be influenced by either the way they voted in the referendum or the result they would now like to see. That’s how it goes. 

And if the lib dems win and pull a50 is that democracy with 30% of the vote. Or a lib lab pact ? 

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

It's not a referendum, its giving mandate  power to a new government. 

Conservatives ..the deal

Labour .... a new deal 🤣 then referendum , for which they will campaign for remain 🤣

Lib dems ...revoke

Brexit party will likely win seats, and will back the Tories if they need it.

What's hard about it ?

 

Get real. 

[Raja Clavata]

35 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Which will lead to a small leave majority - and back to square 1.

How do you know this?

[Scully]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

And if the lib dems win and pull a50 is that democracy with 30% of the vote. Or a lib lab pact ? 

 

If they get the majority of votes ( no matter what the turnout ) then they’ve won the GE. Isn’t that how it works?
You were the one in a previous post who claimed the revocation of Article 50 and ignoring the referendum result was acceptable if given a mandate. Swinson has now, a personal interest in doing so, she will be one happy bunny if she is voted in. 

[oowee]

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

If they get the majority of votes ( no matter what the turnout ) then they’ve won the GE. Isn’t that how it works?
You were the one in a previous post who claimed the revocation of Article 50 and ignoring the referendum result was acceptable if given a mandate. Swinson has now, a personal interest in doing so, she will be one happy bunny if she is voted in. 

Yep that's how it works but about as satisfactory as a chocolate fireguard. The best we can hope for is some sort of hung parliament with a second ref. 

[Scully]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

Yep that's how it works but about as satisfactory as a chocolate fireguard. The best we can hope for is some sort of hung parliament with a second ref. 

There won’t BE a second referendum if Swinson gets in. Some folk are never happy. 😀

The fight will go on....and on......and on...... and on. 🙂

 

 

[DoolinDalton]

How about someone (with obviously some idea and money / clout) getting the law changed so that when a result is obtained through an election/ referendum, it can’t be revoked by anyone (even Gina Minga...sorry, Miller) for a reasonable amount of time.  Plus, all the other add one, like the Benn Act, etc, etc.  But the remoaners won’t have it, will they! 

[JohnfromUK]

6 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

How do you know this?

I don't know (how could I ?) but if you asked a similar question to before, my guess from my circle locally here is that there would be a little more support for 'leaving'.

If you 'rig' the question by splitting the vote 3 ways, you may get a different answer.

[Rewulf]

10 hours ago, oowee said:

Yep that's how it works but about as satisfactory as a chocolate fireguard. The best we can hope for is some sort of hung parliament with a second ref. 

Oh yes, that should work! 

A second referendum result that can't be enacted, because of the hung parliament. 

Get real. 

[ShootingEgg]

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Oh yes, that should work! 

A second referendum result that can't be enacted, because of the hung parliament. 

Get real. 

But if remain win they'd just expect people who voted leave to put up and shut up... 

[oowee]

37 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Oh yes, that should work! 

A second referendum result that can't be enacted, because of the hung parliament. 

Get real. 

 

24 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

But if remain win they'd just expect people who voted leave to put up and shut up... 

With  no overall majority a coalition would form of either hue. If its remain then a 2nd ref with a unifying vote. A leave coalition then its business as usual. 

If labour do as badly as predicted and Corbyn is out it would be a lot easier for a working coalition to form. Equally if they do as bad as predicted then they may not have the numbers to form a coalition. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, oowee said:

With  no overall majority a coalition would form of either hue. If its remain then a 2nd ref with a unifying vote. A leave coalition then its business as usual. 

If labour do as badly as predicted and Corbyn is out it would be a lot easier for a working coalition to form. Equally if they do as bad as predicted then they may not have the numbers to form a coalition. 

What is this "UNIFYING VOTE" you keep on about, no real notice was taken of the first  referendum, what hope is there of getiing unity if there is a second referendum?

[oowee]

6 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

What is this "UNIFYING VOTE" you keep on about, no real notice was taken of the first  referendum, what hope is there of getiing unity if there is a second referendum?

It must be the way forward at some point. If we are just out or just in then this stuff goes on forever. 

[Yellow Bear]

6 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

What is this "UNIFYING VOTE" you keep on about, no real notice was taken of the first  referendum, what hope is there of getiing unity if there is a second referendum?

What he means is it will be rigged so remain can't lose

[Raja Clavata]

4 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't know (how could I ?) but if you asked a similar question to before, my guess from my circle locally here is that there would be a little more support for 'leaving'.

If you 'rig' the question by splitting the vote 3 ways, you may get a different answer.

The problem with this notion of rigging is that the various leave camps don't agree on the terms of leave; leave is undeniably split even without any remain influence - do you not agree?

[panoma1]

Any ballot which has remain as an option is going to be rigged! Options on how to leave will split the leave vote....and in consequence, remain will be the majority! I reckon it’ll be three questions on the ballot paper...

1) Leave with Johnsons carp deal (the only one the EU will give us)

2) Leave with no deal (A remainer Parliament will not allow this)

3) Remain in the EU.

There is no split in the leave camp, leavers still want to leave...any confusion was engineered by remainer politicians, with them passing a law preventing the UK leaving “without a deal” which then resulted in the question, how do we leave, if we can’t get a good deal?.....it has nothing to do with whether we leave!

[Raja Clavata]

It's not a democratic ballot unless remain is one of the options, otherwise it's more rigged than what you suggest. 

There should be a binary choice in each ballot which could mean more than one ballot is required.

If the leave camp could unite behind the Boris deal then it could be a single ballot.

No credible political party with any kind of mature outlook and aspirations for the UK economy would favour no deal, which is why:

a) the BP are behind it

b) no other party is

Putting the option of no deal vs remain to the UK public would be pointless but maybe it's necessary to pacify the dye in the wool Brexiteers.

[JohnfromUK]

56 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

do you not agree?

Not really; You can want to leave - and ideally that should be with a decent deal.  Failing that there is the present 'deal', and failing that, no deal.  They are all "leave".

This so called 'deal' is a bit of a red herring anyway as it is only a 'transitional arrangement' and only there because the EU has flatly refused to negotiate a long term permanent agreement until we have this 'deal' for transition. The real bit that needs to be got right is what happens after the transition period - currently December 2020 onwards.  Parliament - with all of its utterly stupid delaying antics has left precious little time for this.  They will use that as an excuse to delay even more.

This not knowing what we are transitioning to (WTO, some form of further 'deal', something else) should have been a major red flag because I cannot see how you can negotiate transition arrangements properly until you know what the outcome of the transition is to be.  We should not have attempted to even discuss a transition until it was 100% clear where we were starting from (which we do know) and where we were ending up (about which we don't know anything because the EU has refused to even discuss it).

I suspect all the EU actually wanted was out £39 bn to give them transition time to persuade others to cough up the money.

[panoma1]

22 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

It's not a democratic ballot unless remain is one of the options, otherwise it's more rigged than what you suggest. 

There should be a binary choice in each ballot which could mean more than one ballot is required.

If the leave camp could unite behind the Boris deal then it could be a single ballot.

No credible political party with any kind of mature outlook and aspirations for the UK economy would favour no deal, which is why:

a) the BP are behind it

b) no other party is

Putting the option of no deal vs remain to the UK public would be pointless but maybe it's necessary to pacify the dye in the wool Brexiteers.

We have already had a ballot, the democratic result was .....Leave the EU!....what’s democratic about ignoring this and holding another ballot asking the electorate the same question “do you want to remain in the EU”?

Any further public vote should merely ask whether we leave with Johnson’s “deal” or with “no deal”.

[Raja Clavata]

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Not really; You can want to leave - and ideally that should be with a decent deal.  Failing that there is the present 'deal', and failing that, no deal.  They are all "leave".

This so called 'deal' is a bit of a red herring anyway as it is only a 'transitional arrangement' and only there because the EU has flatly refused to negotiate a long term permanent agreement until we have this 'deal' for transition. The real bit that needs to be got right is what happens after the transition period - currently December 2020 onwards.  Parliament - with all of its utterly stupid delaying antics has left precious little time for this.  They will use that as an excuse to delay even more.

This not knowing what we are transitioning to (WTO, some form of further 'deal', something else) should have been a major red flag because I cannot see how you can negotiate transition arrangements properly until you know what the outcome of the transition is to be.  We should not have attempted to even discuss a transition until it was 100% clear where we were starting from (which we do know) and where we were ending up (about which we don't know anything because the EU has refused to even discuss it).

I suspect all the EU actually wanted was out £39 bn to give them transition time to persuade others to cough up the money.

But there are in fact even more splits in the leave camp, I myself wanted to leave but did not see a way of doing so that would be acceptable to us (or the EU) which is my main reason for voting remain.

That December 2020 date will come and go and there will most likely be several extensions to the transition period, if that phase is ever even entered into.

I agree that it should have been spelt out what / where we were trying to end up in advance but that would have had to be done in isolation by the government as Parliament would have been unlikely to agree even on that. The fact that the EU refused to discuss this reinforces the point that the referendum vote was really not well thought out at all. This is not the fault of the public but the Cameron Conservative government.

4 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

We have already had a ballot, the democratic result was .....Leave the EU!....what’s democratic about ignoring this and holding another ballot asking the electorate the same question “do you want to remain in the EU”?

Any further public vote should merely ask whether we leave with Johnson’s “deal” or with “no deal”.

It's not asking the same question. What you are suggesting is as equally undemocratic as anything the Lib Dems are suggesting. I am starting to think you are hiding behind this as you fear what the outcome of a binary choice between leaving and remaining would return now that the public are much better informed on what we are dealing with now.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

I myself wanted to leave but did not see a way of doing so that would be acceptable to us (or the EU) which is my main reason for voting remain.

I was pretty much the same, BUT I know want to leave - in order to see democracy carried out.

 

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

The fact that the EU refused to discuss this reinforces the point that the referendum vote was really not well thought out at all.

I disagree.  The fact that the EU has refused to discuss it simply demonstrates why we ended up with a 'leave' result.  Cameron went to the EU, said he was having a referendum, but that he wanted to sort a few issues (much of it around people movement) with the EU, which he could put as 'concessions from the EU' as part of his remain campaign.  The EU gave him virtually nothing.

Had then shown even an ounce of common sense, they would have made some concessions mainly on immigration - which would have been quite easy (and I happen to think hae benefited them as well)  for them - and Cameron would have swung the vote and it would have been remain (by a small margin).  As it was - he was basically sent home with a 'we won't change, it's your problem'.  The British electorate 'saw red' at this display of arrogance and complete lack of interest in the UK's concerns and combined with 'a very childish' and completely wrong "Project Fear", and getting Obama to put his cents worth in influenced the vote against what Cameron wanted.

 

[panoma1]

If one question on a new referendum was “do you wish to remain in the EU”....that question has already been asked, and answered!

I’m starting to think you don’t understand the meaning of democracy!........

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

the public are much better informed on what we are dealing with now

You're not wrong, the public are now much better equipped to deal with the question. 

The EU and our remainer MP's, have shown us just how we should be voting, IF the referendum was re run. 

As will be demonstrated next month. 

Or do you think Labour and libtards will clean up, and show us just how remain the public has become? 🤣

[Mice!]

13 hours ago, Scully said:

Yes, it’s called democracy. It may be alien to some,  but for better or worse that’s how it works.  
Given the reason for the GE, people are bound to be influenced by either the way they voted in the referendum or the result they would now like to see. That’s how it goes. 

That seems bang on for me, we're only having an election because of the current mess in parliament,  people will vote depending on how they want Brexit to go, there are almost no other issues that come into it.

The only thing that worries me is people not voting because they are sick of listening to the Brexit nonsense. 

[Raja Clavata]

37 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

If one question on a new referendum was “do you wish to remain in the EU”....that question has already been asked, and answered!

I’m starting to think you don’t understand the meaning of democracy!........

I see the echo chamber is in full swing this morning, but anyway.

So suppose the we've already asked the remain question and the answer is leave.

The next question could be do you accept the Boris deal?

If the answer is no, then the next question could be do you accept no deal?

What if the answer to that is no too - where would we go from there?

What you are promoting is a selective, almost closed, democracy not an open one which is the only really valid kind.

44 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I was pretty much the same, BUT I know want to leave - in order to see democracy carried out.

 

I disagree.  The fact that the EU has refused to discuss it simply demonstrates why we ended up with a 'leave' result.  Cameron went to the EU, said he was having a referendum, but that he wanted to sort a few issues (much of it around people movement) with the EU, which he could put as 'concessions from the EU' as part of his remain campaign.  The EU gave him virtually nothing.

Had then shown even an ounce of common sense, they would have made some concessions mainly on immigration - which would have been quite easy (and I happen to think hae benefited them as well)  for them - and Cameron would have swung the vote and it would have been remain (by a small margin).  As it was - he was basically sent home with a 'we won't change, it's your problem'.  The British electorate 'saw red' at this display of arrogance and complete lack of interest in the UK's concerns and combined with 'a very childish' and completely wrong "Project Fear", and getting Obama to put his cents worth in influenced the vote against what Cameron wanted.

 

Perhaps in which case he could have gone straight back to them once the result was no.

Since you disagree with my points, do you go as far as suggesting that the structure and preparation for the referendum was without fault?

41 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You're not wrong, the public are now much better equipped to deal with the question. 

The EU and our remainer MP's, have shown us just how we should be voting, IF the referendum was re run. 

As will be demonstrated next month. 

Or do you think Labour and libtards will clean up, and show us just how remain the public has become? 🤣

I don't know what's going to happen and I think you are trying to project what you want to happen as what will happen.

The best I can honestly hope for from the GE is a clear statement on where the public now stand on Brexit, I doubt that will be the outcome but we will see.