Are Tories welcome at Glastonbury

[Homer]

19 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

She will get a handful of votes from Labour MPs who will use the opportunity to act against Corbyn, but Labour as a whole will whip against her deal. Labour want a full customs union, not a temporary customs union before chequers in a few years. 

Constitutionally speaking I can't see any way other than having a 'People's Vote'. May's deal won't get through Parliament (with irreconcilable differences between the DUP, ERG and remainers). An election could be called to resolve this, hut that could easily leave us with a similar situation with no majority for any deal. So that only leaves the option of a second referendum. 

For what it's worth, I don't think a second referendum should include a remain option. I suggest: Chequers, customs union, and no deal with alrernative voting system used

I reckon an election will happen and we will end up with yet another minority government (probably Labour). With the Lib Dems pretty much an irrelevance, they aren't going to be able to cobble together much of an alliance either.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

3 hours ago, Scott129 said:

 

For what it's worth, I don't think a second referendum should include a remain option. I suggest: Chequers, customs union, and no deal with alrernative voting system used

Would never happen. A second referendum will struggle to get through Parliament as it is, one without a Remain option wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance.

I do agree it should be a three-way thing using the AV vote system, but for me the three options should be: leave with no deal, become Norway or remain. Simply because they're the only realistic options here, and if we have a second referendum in which an unfeasible option (e.g. Chequers) 'wins', it'll only get us in even more of a mess than we're already in.

Personally my first choice would be a four-way referendum with the fourth option being ‘remain with closer ties to the EU’, so that those of us who actually like the EU and are enthusiastic rather than reluctant Remainers could have a chance to express that, but that’s definitely firmly into wishful thinking territory  

Edited October 15, 2018 by Rose-Colored Boy

[Blisterpack]

6 hours ago, slash's hat said:

Ok fair enough, was not aware of that figure, wow. Just not how I remembered it...obviously due to the reasons you gave about equivalent time.

Genuine question here, (not just to blisterpack), but it's in regard to talk of these companies leaving. This is not a new thing to have companies posturing over taking their businesses elsewhere due to government policy, and yes, above I can see some are, or at least making plans to leave and not just threatening. However do you not think some of these companies are using brexit as an excuse for something they have considered for a long time anyway? Companies have mooted cost of having a business here as significantly higher than if they were elsewhere for a long time, I will use call centre work as one example of this that has already seen a large loss of jobs.

Also, if we were to have a 2nd vote, which voted remain and we did so, do you think it would/could seriously weaken our position in the eu for future negotiations?

The fact that we talk about ‘negotiations’ if we stay in the EU is part of the problem (which someone raised earlier) of ‘them and us’. We ARE the EU!  We have always had the ability to shape it, far more than most, yet we have fought against it.

the other point about companies leaving; I can only speak for the companies I know locally (Airbus and Vauxhall’s) and from speaking to managers there. Anything that doesn’t work exactly as the CU does has a major impact on the just in time production process. Given the number of components that come through the EU then they will be required to stockpile: factory space (productive) becomes warehouse space (unproductive). They are planning for this now and it’s having an effect on profits. If that’s the situation come April then they will have to move. It’s economics, not posturing. 

[Apone]

1 hour ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Would never happen. A second referendum will struggle to get through Parliament as it is, one without a Remain option wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance.

I do agree it should be a three-way thing using the AV vote system, but for me the three options should be: leave with no deal, become Norway or remain. Simply because they're the only realistic options here, and if we have a second referendum in which an unfeasible option (e.g. Chequers) 'wins', it'll only get us in even more of a mess than we're already in.

Personally my first choice would be a four-way referendum with the fourth option being ‘remain with closer ties to the EU’, so that those of us who actually like the EU and are enthusiastic rather than reluctant Remainers could have a chance to express that, but that’s definitely firmly into wishful thinking territory  

A second referendum will be a gross abuse of democracy, will lead to civil disobedience and will set a standard for the future whereby any democratic vote can be overturned and re-held because in the opinion of the loser, it was the wrong result

[slash's hat]

1 hour ago, Blisterpack said:

The fact that we talk about ‘negotiations’ if we stay in the EU is part of the problem (which someone raised earlier) of ‘them and us’. We ARE the EU!  We have always had the ability to shape it, far more than most, yet we have fought against it.

the other point about companies leaving; I can only speak for the companies I know locally (Airbus and Vauxhall’s) and from speaking to managers there. Anything that doesn’t work exactly as the CU does has a major impact on the just in time production process. Given the number of components that come through the EU then they will be required to stockpile: factory space (productive) becomes warehouse space (unproductive). They are planning for this now and it’s having an effect on profits. If that’s the situation come April then they will have to move. It’s economics, not posturing. 

Surely every member country looks after their own countries interests when any negotiations (or "talks" if you prefer) take place. Most people would identify themselves being from whichever country they live in before saying European, so I would argue each country has a them and us view. Switzerland for example are also at odds with the eu, so I don't buy into the one happy family bit. (If I have misunderstood your point about them and us I apologise)

The car industry has historically been volatile, even with EU membership to be fair. Maybe not the two you have information on, but other big businesses certainly do use threats and posturing to get results that suit them - drug companies are a prime example. So that explains why I questioned if companies could possibly be using brexit as an excuse. Time will sadly tell. (I've no doubt brexit is going to be harmful to business in case you think that, just mulling over thoughts)

 

[Woffy]

20 minutes ago, Apone said:

A second referendum will be a gross abuse of democracy, will lead to civil disobedience and will set a standard for the future whereby any democratic vote can be overturned and re-held because in the opinion of the loser, it was the wrong result

Is being found guilty of electoral laws re: funding a gross abuse of democracy?

[Mr.Tease]

2 hours ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Would never happen. A second referendum will struggle to get through Parliament as it is, one without a Remain option wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance.

I do agree it should be a three-way thing using the AV vote system, but for me the three options should be: leave with no deal, become Norway or remain. Simply because they're the only realistic options here, and if we have a second referendum in which an unfeasible option (e.g. Chequers) 'wins', it'll only get us in even more of a mess than we're already in.

Personally my first choice would be a four-way referendum with the fourth option being ‘remain with closer ties to the EU’, so that those of us who actually like the EU and are enthusiastic rather than reluctant Remainers could have a chance to express that, but that’s definitely firmly into wishful thinking territory  

I think if there was a second referendum, then realistically you can't have a remain option without it looking like a con. As time will be short, and no one wants Mays negotiated deal (or if it doesn't pass in the commons), then you have to take the EU at their word and accept there can be no specially crafted deal- it has to be off the shelf. So that means the options would be no deal, norway or canada+.

I think that's a fair compromise. Remainers can accept the Norway model I think- it's a fair compromise for them (I say that as someone who voted for remain). Need to get down to persuading 10% of leavers though rather than waste time on trying  to remain as is.

[Mr.Tease]

41 minutes ago, Apone said:

A second referendum will be a gross abuse of democracy, will lead to civil disobedience and will set a standard for the future whereby any democratic vote can be overturned and re-held because in the opinion of the loser, it was the wrong result

I agree if it has remain as an option. One that exclusively only offers 3 different types of brexit is a fair way of dealing with a stalemate though.

We're essentially in a stalemate though. each party has 40%, then the deciding balance remains with the LibDems and Ukip- each main party can't add either of those two without alienating current supporters- don't see how you break that without a second referendum on the form of brexit.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Mr.Tease

[clarkete]

57 minutes ago, Apone said:

A second referendum will be a gross abuse of democracy, will lead to civil disobedience and will set a standard for the future whereby any democratic vote can be overturned and re-held because in the opinion of the loser, it was the wrong result

Stop, my sides are hurting ?

[Scott129]

5 hours ago, Homer said:

I reckon an election will happen and we will end up with yet another minority government (probably Labour). With the Lib Dems pretty much an irrelevance, they aren't going to be able to cobble together much of an alliance either.

That's the issue isn't it, if we end up with another minority government the issue of getting brexit deal through Parliament remains

2 hours ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Would never happen. A second referendum will struggle to get through Parliament as it is, one without a Remain option wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance. 

The issue is if May's agreed brexit deal (if she gets one agreed) can't get through Parliament, then the only sure fire way to resolve the impasse would be to hand it back to the public. I think if there was no remain option then it could get through Parliament because brexiteer mps would be more inclined to vote for it. Either way constiutionally speaking it is a real pickle

[Apone]

52 minutes ago, Woffy said:

Is being found guilty of electoral laws re: funding a gross abuse of democracy?

Oh you mean the 77,000 quid overspend by the Aaron Banks funded unofficial Leave campaign found guilty by that Blairite swamp which is the Electoral Commission, that gross abuse of democracy. Anything to say about the 10 million quid in government leaflets sent out to every household in the UK, fantastic value for money that one, or Gina Miller who through her personal fortune was able to privately fund legal proceedings against the result. It is funny how Remainers, the majority I assume are Lefties, suddenly love the money of a billionaire when it suits them

Edited October 15, 2018 by Apone

[Homer]

58 minutes ago, slash's hat said:

Surely every member country looks after their own countries interests when any negotiations (or "talks" if you prefer) take place. Most people would identify themselves being from whichever country they live in before saying European, so I would argue each country has a them and us view. Switzerland for example are also at odds with the eu, so I don't buy into the one happy family bit. (If I have misunderstood your point about them and us I apologise)

The car industry has historically been volatile, even with EU membership to be fair. Maybe not the two you have information on, but other big businesses certainly do use threats and posturing to get results that suit them - drug companies are a prime example. So that explains why I questioned if companies could possibly be using brexit as an excuse. Time will sadly tell. (I've no doubt brexit is going to be harmful to business in case you think that, just mulling over thoughts)

 

 

On C4 now. Ford have said that Canada +++ does not work and if we get something of that kind they will take “whatever actions are necessary” to protect their business with regard to UK plants. They all say it has to be “frictionless trade”.

[Scott129]

33 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think if there was a second referendum, then realistically you can't have a remain option without it looking like a con. As time will be short, and no one wants Mays negotiated deal (or if it doesn't pass in the commons), then you have to take the EU at their word and accept there can be no specially crafted deal- it has to be off the shelf. So that means the options would be no deal, norway or canada+.

I think that's a fair compromise. Remainers can accept the Norway model I think- it's a fair compromise for them (I say that as someone who voted for remain). Need to get down to persuading 10% of leavers though rather than waste time on trying  to remain as is.

Completely agree with this. Except i would say it should be Labours proposed customs union rather than Norway. I think given the importance of immigration as a deciding factor in the EU referendum that we have to accep free movement has to end (I voted remain). 

As you say though, a second referendum is the only way to solve any impasse. A general election could very easily lead to the same

[Ommadawn]

2 hours ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

Would never happen. A second referendum will struggle to get through Parliament as it is, one without a Remain option wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance.

I do agree it should be a three-way thing using the AV vote system, but for me the three options should be: leave with no deal, become Norway or remain. Simply because they're the only realistic options here, and if we have a second referendum in which an unfeasible option (e.g. Chequers) 'wins', it'll only get us in even more of a mess than we're already in.

Personally my first choice would be a four-way referendum with the fourth option being ‘remain with closer ties to the EU’, so that those of us who actually like the EU and are enthusiastic rather than reluctant Remainers could have a chance to express that, but that’s definitely firmly into wishful thinking territory  

Neatly splitting the Leave vote. Clever, but people aren't that stupid

[Scott129]

4 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

Neatly splitting the Leave vote. Clever, but people aren't that stupid

That's why it has to be alternative vote, to avoid splitting the pro-brexit or pro-remain vote. Only once one option gets over 50% can it be accepted 

[glastolover19]

Can I suggest the possibilities of using a Mad Max style Thunderdome to sort this.

I'll iron out the finer points but I think it's doable

[Woffy]

20 minutes ago, Apone said:

Oh you mean the 77,000 quid overspend by the Aaron Banks funded unofficial Leave campaign found guilty by that Blairite swamp which is the Electoral Commission, that gross abuse of democracy. Anything to say about the 10 million quid in government leaflets sent out to every household in the UK, fantastic value for money that one, or Gina Miller who through her personal fortune was able to privately fund legal proceedings against the result. It is funny how Remainers, the majority I assume are Lefties, suddenly love the money of a billionaire when it suits them

I didn’t express any sort of opinion in my post whatsoever. 

I just asked a question (you haven’t answered. Which is up to you).

None of the examples of whatever your point is above are illegal though are they? Is your definition of an abuse of democracy different to the law’s?

[Ommadawn]

32 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

That's why it has to be alternative vote, to avoid splitting the pro-brexit or pro-remain vote. Only once one option gets over 50% can it be accepted 

So leavers get two bites of the cherry - one with their 1st choice and another with their 2nd?

[Rose-Colored Boy]

 

2 hours ago, Apone said:

A second referendum will be a gross abuse of democracy, will lead to civil disobedience and will set a standard for the future whereby any democratic vote can be overturned and re-held because in the opinion of the loser, it was the wrong result

If you really think that then we're gonna get 'civil disobedience' whatever happens. And frankly I'd prefer 'civil disobedience' because the country saw the light, than 'civil disobedience' because the country opted to ruin itself and politicians inevitably 'othered' rather than took responsibility for it. Yaxley-Lennon and his mob would pipe down eventually, the people who'd be left to rot in the event of a bad or no deal would not.

Any democratic vote can be overturned, that's the entire point. Unless you're suggesting we never have any elections ever again.

The idea that giving the public a direct say in something is 'an abuse of democracy' is completely ridiculous and saying it ought to carry a sentence of institutionalization.

11 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

So leavers get two bites of the cherry - one with their 1st choice and another with their 2nd?

No?

Edited October 15, 2018 by Rose-Colored Boy

[Rose-Colored Boy]

2 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think if there was a second referendum, then realistically you can't have a remain option without it looking like a con. As time will be short, and no one wants Mays negotiated deal (or if it doesn't pass in the commons), then you have to take the EU at their word and accept there can be no specially crafted deal- it has to be off the shelf. So that means the options would be no deal, norway or canada+.

I think that's a fair compromise. Remainers can accept the Norway model I think- it's a fair compromise for them (I say that as someone who voted for remain). Need to get down to persuading 10% of leavers though rather than waste time on trying  to remain as is.

It's far from guaranteed that every original Remain voter would turn out to vote in a second ref if the choices were 'leave', 'leave some more', or 'leave cataclysmically'. I'd estimate there's a solid block of at least 10% of 'original Remainers' who would be extremely reluctant to vote at all if that was the choice on offer. On top of that, given how uninformed and dumbed down political discourse in this country tends to be recently, there'd also be a real risk that a decisive portion of any 'original Remainers' who did turn out would go the other way and think 'well if we don't have a choice to remain then we may as well sever our ties completely', and this group would be egged on by the likes of Boris Johnson to the point where nobody could convince them to vote any other way.

The whole problem with the initial Remain campaign was that not enough people passionately believed in it, so now putting the onus on Remainers to campaign for a 'least worst' Brexit is just asking for trouble. And as I say, a second referendum without a remain option has no chance of winning over the current 'People's Vote' coalition of MPs in the House of Commons anyway, and the kamikaze ERG brigade certainly wouldn't be voting for a second ref no matter what was on the ballot paper, so it's a dead duck.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Rose-Colored Boy

[stuartbert two hats]

1 hour ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think if there was a second referendum, then realistically you can't have a remain option without it looking like a con. As time will be short, and no one wants Mays negotiated deal (or if it doesn't pass in the commons), then you have to take the EU at their word and accept there can be no specially crafted deal- it has to be off the shelf. So that means the options would be no deal, norway or canada+.

I think that's a fair compromise. Remainers can accept the Norway model I think- it's a fair compromise for them (I say that as someone who voted for remain). Need to get down to persuading 10% of leavers though rather than waste time on trying  to remain as is.

I'd vote for the Norway option if remain wasn't on the referendum. If it was just the other options mooted I'd have to spoil my ballot. I'm not going to vote for a shit sandwich, even if the alternative is a shit sandwich covered in piss.

[paddyclark]

1 hour ago, Apone said:

Oh you mean the 77,000 quid overspend by the Aaron Banks funded unofficial Leave campaign found guilty by that Blairite swamp which is the Electoral Commission, that gross abuse of democracy. Anything to say about the 10 million quid in government leaflets sent out to every household in the UK, fantastic value for money that one, or Gina Miller who through her personal fortune was able to privately fund legal proceedings against the result. It is funny how Remainers, the majority I assume are Lefties, suddenly love the money of a billionaire when it suits them

Ah. Houston we have an idiot.  

[glastolover19]

Gonna get my helmet ready just in case it does all go to shit,I'm hitching a ride with this guy.

[HalfAnIdiot]

7 hours ago, Scott129 said:

She will get a handful of votes from Labour MPs who will use the opportunity to act against Corbyn, but Labour as a whole will whip against her deal. Labour want a full customs union, not a temporary customs union before chequers in a few years. 

Constitutionally speaking I can't see any way other than having a 'People's Vote'. May's deal won't get through Parliament (with irreconcilable differences between the DUP, ERG and remainers). An election could be called to resolve this, hut that could easily leave us with a similar situation with no majority for any deal. So that only leaves the option of a second referendum. 

For what it's worth, I don't think a second referendum should include a remain option. I suggest: Chequers, customs union, and no deal with alrernative voting system used

In my opinion Labour will vote for the temporary CU albeit with a lot of complaing to undermine the competence of the govt and then push headlong for a vote of no confidence and GE which they might just get and might just win. After which they will attempt to make the CU permanent.

Boris and co will be left as the ineffective cartoon chatacters that they deserve to be.

May will retire to a life of after  dinner speaches and some hope of being well regarded in the history books (more than she currently has and that is what matters).

It's gamble, nothing is certain, but that's politics (or is it egos).

Only time will tell. But at least we don't have to wait long :-).

 

[Scott129]

8 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

In my opinion Labour will vote for the temporary CU albeit with a lot of complaing to undermine the competence of the govt and then push headlong for a vote of no confidence and GE which they might just get and might just win. After which they will attempt to make the CU permanent.

Boris and co will be left as the ineffective cartoon chatacters that they deserve to be.

May will retire to a life of after  dinner speaches and some hope of being well regarded in the history books (more than she currently has and that is what matters).

It's gamble, nothing is certain, but that's politics (or is it egos).

Only time will tell. But at least we don't have to wait long :-).

 

Yeah we'll see. Politics is so volatile at the moment that you can't tell what's going to happen one day from the next. It is definitely anyone's guess