Jump to content

Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Guided Missile

By Guided Missile,
in The Lounge

 Share

Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum  

217 members have voted

  1. 1. Saints Web Definitely Not Official Second Referendum

    • Leave Before - Leave Now
      46
    • Leave Before - Remain Now
      10
    • Leave Before - Not Bothered Now
      2
    • Remain Before - Remain Now
      127
    • Remain Before - Leave Now
      7
    • Remain Before - Not Bothered Now
      1
    • Not Bothered Before - Leave Now
      3
    • Not Bothered Before - Remain Now
      5
    • I've never been bothered - Why am I on this Thread?
      3
    • No second Ref - 2016 was Definitive and Binding
      13

Recommended Posts

aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
What happens if we get to March 29th with no change in the situation ? 'No deal' may not be acceptable to Parliament, but that is the date on which we leave the EU, and therefore 'no deal' is the default outcome if they can't sort out something better.

 

True but it will reach a point where the only option is no deal or second ref and I doubt they will have the nuts for no deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Not stood against his much more electable brother.

 

David M was more of a heavyweight than Ed M but he had other flaws -aloofness and arrogance- that would have turned colleagues and voters off.

 

Arguably any Labour leader would have struggled against Cameron in 2015, especially as the election was fought entirely on New Labour’s record in office and its supposed culpability for the financial crisis. If anything, the 2015 election was the grand reckoning that the 2010 election wasn’t. In this respect, David M was no more immune from criticism than any other senior Labour politician. As a staunch Blairite, I’m also not sure that there was enough clear water between him and Cameron to sway voters -never mind he had little to offer to Labour voters in the North or voters on the left for whom Ed M. was the entrée before the whole Corbyn experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Millbrook Saint

Millbrook Saint

Posted
Posted
Problem he’s got is the party policy is to try a GE, and then people’s vote. Had Corbyn not called one, he’d have come under massive pressure from his grassroots. It’s not about winning a confidence vote (because they know they won’t win one) it’s about ticking that box, so they can move onto people’s vote.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Thing is, there's no such thing as a people's vote, that was in 2016 and we all know the outcome of that. The people's vote is a slogan blair and the other rich remainers, scared of falling off the gravy train have invented in an attempt to overturn a democratic vote, whilst labelling it as the people's will. They just need a few lemmings to fall in line behind them and off they go.

 

Bet blair wishes he'd named the invasion of Iraq, the people's invasion now, he could have washed the blood from his hands and told everyone it was the people's will

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buctootim

buctootim

Posted
Posted
David M was more of a heavyweight than Ed M but he had other flaws -aloofness and arrogance- that would have turned colleagues and voters off.

 

Arguably any Labour leader would have struggled against Cameron in 2015, especially as the election was fought entirely on New Labour’s record in office and its supposed culpability for the financial crisis. If anything, the 2015 election was the grand reckoning that the 2010 election wasn’t. In this respect, David M was no more immune from criticism than any other senior Labour politician. As a staunch Blairite, I’m also not sure that there was enough clear water between him and Cameron to sway voters -never mind he had little to offer to Labour voters in the North or voters on the left for whom Ed M. was the entrée before the whole Corbyn experiment.

 

Its true that at the time DM was standing there was a backlash against Blair and middle class professionals running the 'working mans' party. DM was seen as too similar to Blair, hence ED's lame attempt to 'labourer' himself up with the bacon butty. Now though, after Corbyn and and ED failing to make any progress at all against historically weak Tory leadership DM would seem like manna from heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted (edited)
Thing is, there's no such thing as a people's vote, that was in 2016 and we all know the outcome of that. The people's vote is a slogan blair and the other rich remainers, scared of falling off the gravy train have invented in an attempt to overturn a democratic vote, whilst labelling it as the people's will. They just need a few lemmings to fall in line behind them and off they go.

 

Bet blair wishes he'd named the invasion of Iraq, the people's invasion now, he could have washed the blood from his hands and told everyone it was the people's will

 

you right "peoples Vote" is **** nomenclature it should be labelled "The vote where you actually know what leave looks like, now we have negotiated an actual leave deal, and so can vote in an informed way, vote" not quite as catchy as "Peoples vote" granted....

Edited by doddisalegend
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
If there is a second refurendum it will be a more informed descision, whichever way it goes. Surely that has to be a good thing?

 

informed? no it wont. Who the hell knows what the EU will look like in 3 years, 5 years...or what it will look like in 25 years

 

in the event of another vote the lies, spin and hysterics from ALL sides will be off the charts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
you right "peoples Vote" is **** nomenclature it should be labelled "The vote where you actually know what leaves looks like, now we have negotiated an actual leave deal, and so can vote in and informed way vote" not quite as catchy as "Peoples vote" granted....

 

what does remain look like?

you don't know.....no one does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
Thing is, there's no such thing as a people's vote, that was in 2016 and we all know the outcome of that. The people's vote is a slogan blair and the other rich remainers, scared of falling off the gravy train have invented in an attempt to overturn a democratic vote, whilst labelling it as the people's will. They just need a few lemmings to fall in line behind them and off they go.

 

Bet blair wishes he'd named the invasion of Iraq, the people's invasion now, he could have washed the blood from his hands and told everyone it was the people's will

 

#gibberish

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
informed? no it wont. Who the hell knows what the EU will look like in 3 years, 5 years...or what it will look like in 25 years

 

in the event of another vote the lies, spin and hysterics from ALL sides will be off the charts.

 

Of course it would be more informed. The vast majority of people on both sides had no idea of the complexities and all the different issues involved. One good thing is that the past 2 and a half years have been a learning experience for huge numbers of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Millbrook Saint

Millbrook Saint

Posted
Posted
you right "peoples Vote" is **** nomenclature it should be labelled "The vote where you actually know what leaves looks like, now we have negotiated an actual leave deal, and so can vote in and informed way vote" not quite as catchy as "Peoples vote" granted....

 

Leave only looks like this because the politicians, the very people supposedly in place to implement the will of the people have took it upon themselves to deliberately cock up any negotiations and make the outcome unpalatable to all sides in the hope we remain.

 

We should have told the EU we were leaving in march, no deal no money for them, then immediately started working on deals around the world and we'd deal with them through who rules. In the background we could have worked something out together, no grandstanding. I guarantee we would have worked something out, instead we've had these helmuts in parliament arguing with each other, even conspiring with the EU to overturn brexit.

 

 

I know it suits some people's agenda what they're doing at the moment, but I grant you people aren't really bright enough to see the slippery slope we'll be on with politicians implementing they're own agendas instead of the people's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted
informed? no it wont. Who the hell knows what the EU will look like in 3 years, 5 years...or what it will look like in 25 years

 

in the event of another vote the lies, spin and hysterics from ALL sides will be off the charts.

 

True but at least now we know what the divorce bill is (don’t even remember hearing there would be one prior to the last vote). The Northern Ireland situation is a bit clearer ( not sure many people even considered the implications for NI last time) and it’s obvious now that the EU are going to give us a pretty **** deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
Leave only looks like this because the politicians, the very people supposedly in place to implement the will of the people have took it upon themselves to deliberately cock up any negotiations and make the outcome unpalatable to all sides in the hope we remain.

 

We should have told the EU we were leaving in march, no deal no money for them, then immediately started working on deals around the world and we'd deal with them through who rules. In the background we could have worked something out together, no grandstanding. I guarantee we would have worked something out, instead we've had these helmuts in parliament arguing with each other, even conspiring with the EU to overturn brexit.

 

 

I know it suits some people's agenda what they're doing at the moment, but I grant you people aren't really bright enough to see the slippery slope we'll be on with politicians implementing they're own agendas instead of the people's.

 

How can you guarantee it? (Helmut Kohl)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
badgerx16

badgerx16

Posted
Posted

I've been thinking about where we are, and perhaps Teresa has actually played a blinder. The referendum result, taken at face value, was to leave the EU, and in reality if you leave a club you lose all the perks and responsibilities of being a member - 'no deal' is therefore the ONLY deal. However, going directly for such an outcome was totally unacceptable, due to the myriad vested interests, and interpretations of what Brexit meant.

Based on the idea that 'No deal is better than a bad deal', she had to find a way for No Deal to become a reality, so she cooked up the mess that was her 'Divorce Agreement', knowing it was never going to get passed by MPs. She then delayed the Parliamentary vote to take another month out of the timetable, and now that her 'deal' has been rejected, there isn't any real chance of an alternative being sorted. The EU won't agree to an A50 extension, so the UK leaves without an agreement.; JRM and Boris get exactly what they want, and her role as a Trojan Horse is fulfilled. :spaz:

 

( This is almost certainly total BS )

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint si

saint si

Posted
Posted
Leave only looks like this because the politicians, the very people supposedly in place to implement the will of the people have took it upon themselves to deliberately cock up any negotiations and make the outcome unpalatable to all sides in the hope we remain.

 

Sure. If only the prime minister had appointed a prominent leave-supporter as the minister responsible for negotiating our exit from the EU. In fact it would probably have been the easiest deal in human history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jonnyboy

Jonnyboy

Posted
Posted
Sure. If only the prime minister had appointed a prominent leave-supporter as the minister responsible for negotiating our exit from the EU. In fact it would probably have been the easiest deal in human history.

 

The bloke's full of paranoid conspiracy theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Plastic

Plastic

Posted
Posted (edited)
Thanks buddy. But I don’t need help, most sane normal people budget for these sorts of events.

 

Do they? How do you ‘budget’ for long-term customers taking services off-shore?

How can you ‘budget’ for unprecedented scenarios? Did you ‘budget’ for the 2008 financial crisis? If so, ****ing good job lad.

 

Wtf is emily maitlis wearing?

 

No.5 Power Coat ™

Edited by Plastic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
van Hanegem

van Hanegem

Posted
Posted
What’s next then? Anyone know? #messexit

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Fwiw, according to the Dutch news May will survive the confidence vote and Corbyn will then support a second referendum as his party wishes. This would mean an extension of article 50 (as there isn’t enough time left to implement some law and 10 weeks for campaigning) which all of the 27 other European countries should accept. They will only do so when May can assure there will be another referendum. I didn’t hear anything about countries not willing to help May with this but it wouldn’t surprise me when Italy or Hungary are going to be partypoopers.

 

I wonder: when there won’t be a second referendum and a ‘no deal’ is not accepted by parliament, can the government or parliament decide there won’t be a brexit at all and the UK stays in the EU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
A massive defeat for May, and Corbyn has called a vote of no confidence in the Government. Hopefully the vote of no confidence will fail, but that May will fall on her sword.

 

She'll resign saying her mandate was to deliver a Brexit close to her deal, not a WTO arrangement, a second referendum or a revocation of article 50. Some other sucker will be the one remembered for overseeing one of those 3 alternatives - May won't want to be that person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cabbage_Face

Cabbage_Face

Posted
Posted
Do they? How do you ‘budget’ for long-term customers taking services off-shore?

How can you ‘budget’ for unprecedented scenarios? Did you ‘budget’ for the 2008 financial crisis? If so, ****ing good job lad.

 

 

 

No.5 Power Coat ™

 

Come on, we all knew this was going to happen ages ago, if you can’t be wise with your own money when all the signs are there, then what hope do we all have. 2008 was slightly different, but still there were signs. Move those investments around lads.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted
Come on, we all knew this was going to happen ages ago, if you can’t be wise with your own money when all the signs are there, then what hope do we all have. 2008 was slightly different, but still there were signs. Move those investments around lads.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's the oldies with index linked pensions I feel sorry for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unbelievable Jeff

Unbelievable Jeff

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.ft.com/content/e6f2cb52-1918-11e9-b93e-f4351a53f1c3

 

Philip Hammond sought to reassure business leaders on Tuesday night that a no-deal Brexit could be blocked, while also raising for the first time the possibility of a delay to Article 50.*

 

Speaking on a conference call alongside business secretary Greg Clark and Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay, the chancellor said the government would now seek to build a consensus in parliament. “We have to reach out to MPs in the Commons first,” he said. “There is a large majority in the Commons that is opposed to no-deal.”

 

Mr Hammond said the government would not put up any “obstacles” in the way of Nick Boles, a former minister, who has proposed that the Commons liaison committee — made up of the chairs of the other select committees — could oversee attempts to find a way through the political morass.

 

The Boles amendment is controversial with Eurosceptics because it would involve a delay to Article 50 and would effectively block a no-deal Brexit. Mrs May wants to keep a no-deal exit on the table to press MPs into falling into line behind her deal.

 

Mr Hammond and Mr Clark told business leaders there was a majority in parliament against a no-deal Brexit and that the Boles amendment would provide a mechanism for MPs to block such a departure.*

 

But Steve Varley, chair of EY UK, sounded unconvinced by the reassurances about no-deal: “Based on advice from the chancellor on a briefing call tonight we will continue to advise our clients to plan for a no-deal Brexit,” he told the Financial Times.

 

There are no more words to describe the frustration, impatience, and growing anger among business after two and a half years on a high-stakes political rollercoaster ride that shows no sign of stopping

 

Adam Marshall, British Chambers of Commerce

Meanwhile, the chancellor set out the sequencing by which Article 50 could be extended, delaying Brexit. He said the EU would not consider it unless and until the government had a clear plan — drawn up by MPs of various parties — that would have to be agreed before an extension could be requested.*

 

The government was in no mood to consider “unicorn” requests, he added.

 

One person on the call said it felt like a substantial shift in the government’s position on delaying Brexit: “It sounded like ministers changing from no extension to extension,” he said.*

 

Mr Hammond’s words were echoed by Mr Clark, although Mr Barclay struck an entirely different tone, suggesting, according to some on the call, that he believed a harder Brexit could be one way to win round backbench Tory support. “Barclay still wants no-deal on the table for negotiation purposes,” said one attendee.

 

Earlier in the evening, business leaders expressed dismay after Theresa May’s Brexit pact was mauled by parliament, opening up the prospect of further political chaos.

 

Adam Marshall, head of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: “There are no more words to describe the frustration, impatience and growing anger among business after two and a half years on a high-stakes political rollercoaster ride that shows no sign of stopping.”

 

Stephen Phipson, chief executive of the EEF manufacturers organisation, said business was suffering from “impossible uncertainty” because of “parliament’s pantomime”.

 

Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of the CBI, said companies believed that no-deal was “hurtling closer” with every passing day. “A new plan is needed immediately. This is now a time for our politicians to make history as leaders,” she said.*

 

Many business groups had backed the deal, albeit without any great enthusiasm, in order to end a prolonged period of uncertainty for UK plc.*

 

Can May soldier on in spite of Brexit rejection

Iain Anderson, managing director of Cicero, a public affairs company, said it was vital that the government prevented a no-deal situation. “No business wants to see this happen and government now needs to work with parliament to ensure we rule this out and give business certainty,” he said.*

 

Miles Celic, chief executive of TheCityUK, which represents the financial services industry, said the vote would “depress business confidence”. “The lack of clarity on the path to an orderly Brexit risks disruption and financial instability on both sides of the Channel,” he said.

 

The conference call between business leaders and executives lasted for about 50 minutes. Mr Hammond said the government was still planning to use the withdrawal agreement as its central policy, while changing the “political declaration” which guides future arrangements with the EU.

 

Asked about a second referendum, the chancellor warned that the last one took 13 months from start to finish, there would be challenges in setting the question, and it would be difficult given*the European elections in May.

 

Instead, the priority was for parliament to “crystallise” its views: “We need to understand where the weight of opinion of parliament is,” he said. “We now know what parliament is against . . . we now need to understand what parliament is for.”

Edited by Unbelievable Jeff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Lighthouse changed the title to Brexit - Post Match Reaction

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...