Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:34 pm

SmudgetheClaret wrote:How do you mean WE have changed OUR mind your a remainer so your now for leave yes ? WE haven't changed our minds as confirmed by John Curtis super pollster..

John Curtice now seems far from sure that the British public hasn’t changed its mind.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 9775298562

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:41 pm

Lancaster - 'make the referendum non-advisory, problem solved'

Hmmm..I doubt it.

So..for you...any second referendum result would be binding, and the end of it ?

I will ask you then..no one has responded to the reasonable statistics above [they didn't do last time I asked either].

What if Remain win by 1% or any other small margin, say 3 and a half-per cent or less, in any second vote?

What exactly would follow from that, please be clear?

Well, I'm not going to stop thinking that remaining in the EU is better than a "No Deal", nor am I going to stop thinking that "Mays Deal" is at least a compromise, and I'm guessing that by the tone of posts that the likes of Dsr, crosspool, jakub are not going to think differently either.

The vote just decides this particular phase. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this comes up again in the next parliament.

Its not going to go away is it?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:44 pm

In the absence of Ringo its good to see DSR and Hamstead keeping us all entertained on the subject of Brexit. Its all a bit middle class call the nurse compared to Ringos rantings but fun all the same.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:48 pm

martin_p wrote:But the EU have to agree a deal. They can just not agree a deal and take us into the backstop forever. This was the argument. You’ve even argued that revoking article 50 and trying to re-enact it at a later date is a better option than May’s deal because we’d be trapped in the backstop.

I am impressed with your knowledge of my posts. They can just not agree and they will do that. Which is why u said before abiut revoking difference noe us HOC will take us to CU and backstop is similar vyt with a chance of a free trade deal. So we now have to take that chance

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:50 pm

martin_p wrote:I thought I’d been pretty clear.

Interesting that...you were pretty clear alright, I just did not believe what I was reading.

So..here's where we are.

The 2016 Referendum result was a win for OUT by about 3.8%, but you did not, do not, never will accept that democratic result.

If a second referendum took place, and Remain won by say 1%, you would claim that as a victory, justification for cancelling article 50, and Brexit gets cancelled.

[1] Have I got that right?

[2] What would be the next steps with a result in 50:50 territory...?...an entirely plausible result.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:51 pm

martin_p wrote:John Curtice now seems far from sure that the British public hasn’t changed its mind.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/ ... 9775298562

Interesting set of statistics. He says that 85% of people who voted Remain last time round still want to Remain, and 14% of people who voted Leave still want to Leave. And he gets that to 55% for Remain overall.

But 48% x 85% = 40.8%, and 52% x 14% = 7.3%, which would give 48.1%. I know he admits that the sample is based on 45% of the respondents having voted Leave last time, which obviously skews the data - this could be part of the problem, though I would have thought he should have corrected for this. But where else does the 7% swing come from? It certainly isn't from demographics, and the oft-mentioned older people dying. Far too big a movement for that.

Anyone got any idea? It doesn't seem to make sense.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:59 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:Interesting that...you were pretty clear alright, I just did not believe what I was reading.

So..here's where we are.

The 2016 Referendum result was a win for OUT by about 3.8%, but you did not, do not, never will accept that democratic result.

If a second referendum took place, and Remain won by say 1%, you would claim that as a victory, justification for cancelling article 50, and Brexit gets cancelled.

[1] Have I got that right?

[2] What would be the next steps with a result in 50:50 territory...?...an entirely plausible result.

It’s nothing to do with winning margins or not accepting results. I’ve said on numerous occasions I accept the result of the 2016 referendum, it’s an incontrovertible fact. The problem is the last two and a half years and the lack of consensus on what Leave means. The result could have been 65 v 35 for Leave and I’d still be looking for a second referendum if the last two and a half years had panned out the same. Similarly if Leave had won by 0.5% but consensus had been reached on how we Leave I wouldn’t be calling for a second referendum (although I’d still think remaining was the best option).

If 30 million plus people vote in a second referendum a 50-50 split is so unlikely it’s not worth considering to be honest.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:08 pm

Well worth a read if anyone is unsure what happens in Parliament next

https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/0 ... appens-now" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:14 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:In the absence of Ringo its good to see DSR and Hamstead keeping us all entertained on the subject of Brexit. Its all a bit middle class call the nurse compared to Ringos rantings but fun all the same.

I'd take a bit more notice of your wayward jumbled nonsense if you could spell my name properly, I've only been on here about ten years.
- hampstead is a location in NW London, it's pretty well known. It's a bit like spelling Watford or Bolton.

Have you got any views on what I mentioned earlier, second referendum voting possibilities, [5519] or is this your best shot?

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:14 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:Interesting that...you were pretty clear alright, I just did not believe what I was reading.

So..here's where we are.

The 2016 Referendum result was a win for OUT by about 3.8%, but you did not, do not, never will accept that democratic result.

If a second referendum took place, and Remain won by say 1%, you would claim that as a victory, justification for cancelling article 50, and Brexit gets cancelled.

[1] Have I got that right?

[2] What would be the next steps with a result in 50:50 territory...?...an entirely plausible result.

Could have been as high as 75% 25%, I don’t think percentages even come into it or factor, some people say the result was accepted but all their seem to do is complain & bang on about it, it’s a strange sort of acceptance.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:22 pm

This another thing well worth a read, live tweeting from a meeting of the "Bruges Group" of Brexiteers.

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/statu ... 9792292865" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Funny, informative, worrying and slightly sad, all at once.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:31 pm

martin_p wrote:It’s nothing to do with winning margins or not accepting results. I’ve said on numerous occasions I accept the result of the 2016 referendum, it’s an incontrovertible fact. The problem is the last two and a half years and the lack of consensus on what Leave means. The result could have been 65 v 35 for Leave and I’d still be looking for a second referendum if the last two and a half years had panned out the same. Similarly if Leave had won by 0.5% but consensus had been reached on how we Leave I wouldn’t be calling for a second referendum (although I’d still think remaining was the best option).

If 30 million plus people vote in a second referendum a 50-50 split is so unlikely it’s not worth considering to be honest.

OK I get your first paragraph.
At least you have talked about some reasonable statistics that I put up.

I did not say 50:50 did I?

I said '50:50 territory', pretty clear what that means..in fact the plausible statistics I put up, cover the idea of '50:50 territory'.

I am asking what would happen in the event of a second count, if the winning margin on the LEAVE side was small, say anything less than 3%?

Clear answers to that simple question have I none.
[well I got yours which was pretty baffling, for me at least..?]

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:35 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:OK I get your first paragraph.
At least you have talked about some reasonable statistics that I put up.

I did not say 50:50 did I?

I said '50:50 territory', pretty clear what that means..in fact the plausible statistics I put up, cover the idea of '50:50 territory'.

I am asking what would happen in the event of a second count, if the winning margin on the LEAVE side was small, say anything less than 3%?

Clear answers to that simple question have I none.
[well I got yours which was pretty baffling, for me at least..?]

Ive said it once, but will repeat it. If a defined Leave option wins then that option happens, if remain wins then we revoke article 50. I’m really not sure how I can be clearer

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:43 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Could have been as high as 75% 25%, I don’t think percentages even come into it or factor, some people say the result was accepted but all their seem to do is complain & bang on about it, it’s a strange sort of acceptance.

Quite right Jakub...plenty of people out there, and those on here say that they accept the result [that way they look like reasonable democratic types]
while the rest of the time, depending on who they are with, or where they are, all they are interested in is ignoring that result, and banging on about having another go.

They do that because they are desperate and have nothing else.
That is why only one side is making any noise.

As you say 'it's a strange sort of acceptance'.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 2:48 pm

Really Hampers? Really?

Physician, heal thyself

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:04 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:I'd take a bit more notice of your wayward jumbled nonsense if you could spell my name properly, I've only been on here about ten years.
- hampstead is a location in NW London, it's pretty well known. It's a bit like spelling Watford or Bolton.

Have you got any views on what I mentioned earlier, second referendum voting possibilities, [5519] or is this your best shot?

I do have views on it but Martin P has explained them to you already and you seem to be either struggling or deliberately refusing to understand that the % of the votes is not the issue.

Personally I don't want a second referendum cos its a complete waste of time and money of which should be spent on much more pressing matters than Brexit. Best solution is to just revoke Article 50 and bin it completely and not make the same mistake again of opening such a complex and important decision to the people

Anyhow you carry Hamstead as I am more here for entertainment than debate and you are one of the prize clowns performing today

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:06 pm

martin_p wrote:Ive said it once, but will repeat it. If a defined Leave option wins then that option happens, if remain wins then we revoke article 50. I’m really not sure how I can be clearer

OK.. getting there,.. maybe I'm being a bit thick.

- just trying to nail things down, so I know where the discussion is at.

You say - 'If a defined Leave option wins then that option happens,'

Well that is clear enough, LEAVE would have won 2 referendums out of two, nothing else to say.

You say - ' if remain wins then we revoke article 50'

Hmmm - so if REMAIN win a second vote by say

half a per cent
one per cent
one and a half per-cent
1.9 per cent
2.4 per cent
3 per cent..etc

you would claim that as a victory and genuine validity for revoking Article 50..?
Have I got that right?

How does that work, what logic is going on there?

So the earlier referendum then [winning margin = 3.8%] just gets ignored, doesn't count, result goes in the trash can and a second referendum vote, say with a winning margin of 1%, is the only one that matters..?
Article 50 gets cancelled?

Have I got this right.?
Do other Remain people on here agree with this set of events, if the numbers were as above?

If 'yes' have you any idea where this might go?

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:10 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Well no really, as the money doesn’t really get distributed downhill,& adds lots of negatives in other ways. It benefits wealthy big business, the average joe on the street it’s anything but.

So you want businesses to suffer for not helping average Joe? That’s all very well but doesn’t average Joe rely on businesses doing well so he has a job?

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:14 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Really Hampers? Really?

Physician, heal thyself

Comment properly on my earlier statistics and important question Lancs..stop swerving it.

What would happen if any of those potential second referendum results came through?

I believe you can do it..[you know the answer..]
]

* maybe your new errand boy Beamish could have a crack at it?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:14 pm

dsr wrote:Interesting set of statistics. He says that 85% of people who voted Remain last time round still want to Remain, and 14% of people who voted Leave still want to Leave. And he gets that to 55% for Remain overall.

But 48% x 85% = 40.8%, and 52% x 14% = 7.3%, which would give 48.1%. I know he admits that the sample is based on 45% of the respondents having voted Leave last time, which obviously skews the data - this could be part of the problem, though I would have thought he should have corrected for this. But where else does the 7% swing come from? It certainly isn't from demographics, and the oft-mentioned older people dying. Far too big a movement for that.

Anyone got any idea? It doesn't seem to make sense.

I'm not sure about this particular set of figures but I've seen multiple polls (there's probably a few referenced somewhere in this thread) where it is apparent from the breakdown that there is a small shift from leave to remain. However, what makes the remain side poll as likely to win is the number of those who didn't vote last time but would vote remain this time.

Whether these are the young voters who couldn't vote last time, those who were fine with the status quo and didn't bother voting, those who didn't bother voting but now want to because of the mess that's being made of the process or whatever isn't clear. (And obviously the other question is whether they will go out to vote this time after not doing it last time.)

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:15 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:OK.. getting there,.. maybe I'm being a bit thick.

- just trying to nail things down, so I know where the discussion is at.

You say - 'If a defined Leave option wins then that option happens,'

Well that is clear enough, LEAVE would have won 2 referendums out of two, nothing else to say.

You say - ' if remain wins then we revoke article 50'

Hmmm - so if REMAIN win a second vote by say

half a per cent
one per cent
one and a half per-cent
1.9 per cent
2.4 per cent
3 per cent..etc

you would claim that as a victory and genuine validity for revoking Article 50..?
Have I got that right?

How does that work, what logic is going on there?

So the earlier referendum then [winning margin = 3.8%] just gets ignored, doesn't count, result goes in the trash can and a second referendum vote, say with a winning margin of 1%, is the only one that matters..?
Article 50 gets cancelled?

Have I got this right.?
Do other Remain people on here agree with this set of events, if the numbers were as above?

If 'yes' have you any idea where this might go?

Now you’re either not reading my posts or are being deliberately stupid. I’ve explained the irrelevance of winning margins, a win is a win. I’ve explained why I think a second referendum is necessary, again margins are nothing to do with the reason.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:16 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:Comment properly on my earlier statistics and important question Lancs..stop swerving it.

What would happen if any of those potential second referendum results came through?

I believe you can do it..[you know the answer..]
]

* maybe your new errand boy Beamish could have a crack at it?

I suspect people are reading your response to my very clear answer and deciding it’s not worth the bother.

taio · Post by **taio** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:16 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:I do have views on it but Martin P has explained them to you already and you seem to be either struggling or deliberately refusing to understand that the % of the votes is not the issue.

Personally I don't want a second referendum cos its a complete waste of time and money of which should be spent on much more pressing matters than Brexit. Best solution is to just revoke Article 50 and bin it completely and not make the same mistake again of opening such a complex and important decision to the people

Anyhow you carry Hamstead as I am more here for entertainment than debate and you are one of the prize clowns performing today

Despite being a Remain voter revoking Article 50 would be completely outrageous and have devastating consequences. I can't believe anyone with any nous can believe this could in any way be a sensible way forward.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:19 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:A polite enquiry..

I asked a similar question about 6-8 weeks ago, and got an anodyne half-sentence response from one poster.

I will have another go.

It's going to be an interesting week, and at some point in the future we may end up having a second referendum.

These are some of the possible, in fact 'very likely' results if a second count takes place.

All numbers are percentages -

OUT: 52 51 50 49 48.5 48 47.5

IN: 48 49 50 51 51.5 52 52.5

Few would disagree that these are among the most likely outcomes..[in my opinion]

What would/should happen next if any of these results come out, particularly any result around 50:50?

- best of 3..best of 7?

You seem to be struggling with everyone's answers. So I made it clearer

OUT: 52 51

IN: 48 49

Leave the EU

OUT: 49 48.5 48 47.5

IN: 51 51.5 52 52.5

Remain in the EU

(I removed 50:50 as that's not going to happen)

The difference will be that everyone will know specifically what they are voting for rather than the more nebulous vote we previously had.

I don't expect it to be the end of it whatever happens but I don't expect any more referendums. If a party wants to stand on a "Leave the EU" or "Join the EU" manifesto then it will continue to rumble on.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:21 pm

taio wrote:Despite being a Remain voter revoking Article 50 would be completely outrageous and have devastating consequences. I can't believe anyone with any nous can believe this could in any way be a sensible way forward.

I think the only way article 50 could be revoked without a 2nd referendum would be if it’s absolutely the last option available to us to avoid the disaster of no deal. If we get to that stage then the government really have ****ed it up!

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:22 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:I do have views on it but Martin P has explained them to you already and you seem to be either struggling or deliberately refusing to understand that the % of the votes is not the issue.

Personally I don't want a second referendum cos its a complete waste of time and money of which should be spent on much more pressing matters than Brexit. Best solution is to just revoke Article 50 and bin it completely and not make the same mistake again of opening such a complex and important decision to the people

Anyhow you carry Hamstead as I am more here for entertainment than debate and you are one of the prize clowns performing today

'deliberately refusing to understand that the % of the votes is not the issue..'

..that would be the first vote/ballot/referendum anywhere in the history of the world, where 'the percentage of the votes is not the issue'.

I understand perfectly well why those on the losing side don't wish to discuss losing margins, trust me.

taio · Post by **taio** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:27 pm

martin_p wrote:I think the only way article 50 could be revoked without a 2nd referendum would be if it’s absolutely the last option available to us to avoid the disaster of no deal. If we get to that stage then the government really have ****ed it up!

Both the revoking of A50 or No Deal are toxic. If I was leaning to one being worse it would be the former without a democratic mandate via referendum or general election. That would be worse in my book.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:32 pm

taio wrote:Both the revoking of A50 or No Deal are toxic. If I was leaning to one being worse it would be the former without a democratic mandate via referendum or general election. That would be worse in my book.

I agree that they should be done via referendum or GE. However, if worst came to the worst from a logical viewpoint I'd favour revoking Article 50.

Revoking Article 50 is reversible. There's nothing to stop us leaving the EU later on No Deal or something else if we wanted. No Deal isn't reversible. We are then out with no deal and we can't change our mind.

If we're going to rush into something at least let it be something we can easily change.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:33 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:'deliberately refusing to understand that the % of the votes is not the issue..'

..that would be the first vote/ballot/referendum anywhere in the history of the world, where 'the percentage of the votes is not the issue'.

I understand perfectly well why those on the losing side don't wish to discuss losing margins, trust me.

Winning/losing margins don’t mean a thing in a two horse race, a win is a win. Where the margins do count are in a parliamentary democracy and it’s the fact that the government gave away its working majority in an election it didn’t need to call that has left us in the mess we find ourselves and one of the reasons we need another referendum.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:34 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:OK.. getting there,.. maybe I'm being a bit thick.

- just trying to nail things down, so I know where the discussion is at.

You say - 'If a defined Leave option wins then that option happens,'

Well that is clear enough, LEAVE would have won 2 referendums out of two, nothing else to say.

You say - ' if remain wins then we revoke article 50'

Hmmm - so if REMAIN win a second vote by say

half a per cent
one per cent
one and a half per-cent
1.9 per cent
2.4 per cent
3 per cent..etc

you would claim that as a victory and genuine validity for revoking Article 50..?
Have I got that right?

How does that work, what logic is going on there?

So the earlier referendum then [winning margin = 3.8%] just gets ignored, doesn't count, result goes in the trash can and a second referendum vote, say with a winning margin of 1%, is the only one that matters..?
Article 50 gets cancelled?

Have I got this right.?
Do other Remain people on here agree with this set of events, if the numbers were as above?

If 'yes' have you any idea where this might go?

The proposition is perfectly obvious. "A defined leave option" means leave where the future relationship and the terms on which we leave are clear. In such a case I would (unhappily) accept any majority for leave. The 2016 vote was for "leave" ....nothing more and nothing less.....and the problem we now face is that the deal apparently on the table is clearly unacceptable to everyone who voted "Remain" and probably unacceptable to at least a small minority of those who voted leave. If TM had made an effort to find out what her country (ALL her country) was prepared to accept we would be nearly out by now ....ie we would have delivered on the referendum.

Now I realise that this is a moderately complex post with some words of 5 syllables and at least one non-binary concept .....so I realise that some readers won't understand it .....or more worryingly won't even try.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:35 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:'deliberately refusing to understand that the % of the votes is not the issue..'

..that would be the first vote/ballot/referendum anywhere in the history of the world, where 'the percentage of the votes is not the issue'.

I understand perfectly well why those on the losing side don't wish to discuss losing margins, trust me.

I doubt if you understand anything frankly.

taio · Post by **taio** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:38 pm

aggi wrote:I agree that they should be done via referendum or GE. However, if worst came to the worst from a logical viewpoint I'd favour revoking Article 50.

Revoking Article 50 is reversible. There's nothing to stop us leaving the EU later on No Deal or something else if we wanted. No Deal isn't reversible. We are then out with no deal and we can't change our mind.

If we're going to rush into something at least let it be something we can easily change.

Agree to disagree. There is less logic and mandate for revoking A50 in such circumstances. They are the very two ends of the spectrum and shouldn't happen. Problem is it seems very likely HoC will not be able to reach a view that could get anywhere close to being described as a consensus from the other five options in between.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:39 pm

martin_p wrote:Now you’re either not reading my posts or are being deliberately stupid. I’ve explained the irrelevance of winning margins, a win is a win. I’ve explained why I think a second referendum is necessary, again margins are nothing to do with the reason.

I got all that, just don't agree with you at all.

I started this morning by saying ' A polite enquiry'.
That was well-intentioned.

Therefore there is no need to refer to me as 'stupid' is there ?
I am not stupid.

i think I'm asking difficult questions that you and others don't want to answer full on.

Truth is..a second referendum with a relatively inconclusive result [likely] would produce more trouble, disunity, economic difficulty for a considerable period.
We wouldn't have a clue about what to do next.

What would be the response of 28 European countries as we deliberate referendum 3?

That is why another vote is a very bad idea.

Which is pretty much what John Curtice has just said in his BBC interview.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:45 pm

martin_p wrote:I suspect people are reading your response to my very clear answer and deciding it’s not worth the bother.

I think there are other reasons myself, and anyone even semi-interested can see what they are.

Your answer was in no way persuasive of course.

Elizabeth · Post by **Elizabeth** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 3:54 pm

The PM expected to announce her resignation tomorrow.
Political experts say the lack of DUP support is not needed to get her deal through if the Parliamentary Conservative party unite.
Is the momentum going to swing away from Parliament and Brexit at last going to happen as the majority of the public wished it to in 2016?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:02 pm

taio wrote:Despite being a Remain voter revoking Article 50 would be completely outrageous and have devastating consequences. I can't believe anyone with any nous can believe this could in any way be a sensible way forward.

I don't see any real sensible way forward as think we have just got ourselves in to a real hole and whatever way we end up going it will be messy.

I was being a little flippant with my response as in truth I'm not that bothered about getting dragged into discussion but do like to view the threads mainly as light entertainment whilst finding some posters interesting and insightful

Seriously I know its not as simple as just revoking Article 50 but my preference is to find a way to do this with as little damage as possible as I think all other options on the table or likely to be possible are worse for our country and its people

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:03 pm

Source?

(big hint - there isn't one)

Hampers, I largely agree with you about the damage a 2nd ref will do.

But the "No Deal" damage will be worse.

Thats the only answer I can give you. I'm sorry if you can't accept it or agree with it.

And as I said earlier, I'm not going to change my views, and neither are the likes of Dsr or yourself.

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:15 pm

aggi..5574

'You seem to be struggling with EVERYONE'S answers. So I made it clearer.'

Wasn't struggling in the slightest, just didn't agree with them...some people deliberately misunderstand what I asked, thus giving themselves an opportunity not to provide a decent answer.

Thanks for explaining my own stats. to me.

The usual 'ganging' up on this forum - it's usually Ringo, who gives as good as he gets, despite usually fighting lone battles.

You say - 'don't expect it to be the end of it whatever happens '.

That is the point of my initial post made here today.

If any of those putative results occurred..[below]

All numbers are percentages -

OUT: 52 51 50 49 48.5 48 47.5

IN: 48 49 50 51 51.5 52 52.5

What would we do the day after?..the week after?

They are all possible results, and what are some people on about who say that number of votes..winning margins, don't matter..?

One example - if in a second, well publicised vote the winning margin for LEAVE was 1% or 2% and Leave claim that as a decisive victory then...well you work it out.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:43 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:So you want businesses to suffer for not helping average Joe? That’s all very well but doesn’t average Joe rely on businesses doing well so he has a job?

Well how can average joe succeed in gaining employment when he constantly is overlooked in favour of other workers who are prepared to work harder than joe & for a considerable less rate of pay, joe despite being English & born & raised here all is life means very little & compared to some other workers, he’s not really an attractive proposition to potential employment recruiters, consequently joe feels very isolated & marginalised & struggles to support himself & is young family who are dependent on joe working.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:46 pm

Well thank goodness that the indicative votes of mps are going to be made public. Each and every one that votes to revoke should be put in stocks and covered in rotten tomatoes. You know who I mean- the ones that have been saying for ages that the people should get a second vote and now don't think they need one. Shame on you all

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:03 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:I got all that, just don't agree with you at all.

I started this morning by saying ' A polite enquiry'.
That was well-intentioned.

Therefore there is no need to refer to me as 'stupid' is there ?
I am not stupid.

i think I'm asking difficult questions that you and others don't want to answer full on.

Truth is..a second referendum with a relatively inconclusive result [likely] would produce more trouble, disunity, economic difficulty for a considerable period.
We wouldn't have a clue about what to do next.

What would be the response of 28 European countries as we deliberate referendum 3?

That is why another vote is a very bad idea.

Which is pretty much what John Curtice has just said in his BBC interview.

So if you don’t agree say you don’t agree and explain why. Don’t just ask the same question time and time again, claim bafflement at individuals perfectly clear answers, say ‘maybe I’m being a bit thick’.

In summary, if you don’t want people to think you’re stupid don’t act like you’re stupid!

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:04 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:Well how can average joe succeed in gaining employment when he constantly is overlooked in favour of other workers who are prepared to work harder than joe & for a considerable less rate of pay, joe despite being English & born & raised here all is life means very little & compared to some other workers, he’s not really an attractive proposition to potential employment recruiters, consequently joe feels very isolated & marginalised & struggles to support himself & is young family who are dependent on joe working.

A funny thing keeps happening on this thread: Brexiteers make some claims about the benefits of Brexit, or give reasons why they voted for it. but when questioned further, their answer is basically “to keep/ kick foreigners out”.

But let’s just pretend, for the sake of your argument, that every job in the UK is taken by an immigrant. Regardless of who the employee is, they will pay income tax and therefore contribute to the treasury. This to the benefit of the country.

Also, surely businesses employing immigrant labour is better than no businesses at all.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:09 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:A funny thing keeps happening on this thread: Brexiteers make some claims about the benefits of Brexit, or give reasons why they voted for it. but when questioned further, their answer is basically “to keep/ kick foreigners out”.

What an extreme rebuttal, most brexiteers I think welcome controlled immigration unfortunately we haven’t ended up with this.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:10 pm

Then you better have a word with Jakubclaret who posted post #5589 I reckon

TheFamilyCat · Post by **TheFamilyCat** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:15 pm

Jakubclaret wrote:What an extreme rebuttal, most brexiteers I think welcome controlled immigration unfortunately we haven’t ended up with this.

Jakub doth protest too much.

PS. Everyone had the right to vote for Brexit for that reason, I just wish they’d be honest about it.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:21 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:A funny thing keeps happening on this thread: Brexiteers make some claims about the benefits of Brexit, or give reasons why they voted for it. but when questioned further, their answer is basically “to keep/ kick foreigners out”.

But let’s just pretend, for the sake of your argument, that every job in the UK is taken by an immigrant. Regardless of who the employee is, they will pay income tax and therefore contribute to the treasury. This to the benefit of the country.

Also, surely businesses employing immigrant labour is better than no businesses at all.

It does have undeniable positives to this as you’ve mentioned above, mass immigration is the elephant in the room here, what is so wrong with controlled immigration trying to attract doctors & civil architects & scientists here, but no the answer clearly is to flood the country with unskilled labour & forget the specialised areas we desperately need to recruit.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:33 pm

taio wrote:Agree to disagree. There is less logic and mandate for revoking A50 in such circumstances. They are the very two ends of the spectrum and shouldn't happen. Problem is it seems very likely HoC will not be able to reach a view that could get anywhere close to being described as a consensus from the other five options in between.

Taio, you're a very reasoned poster, but I firmly believe you're wrong on this.
At this point in time if it came to a straight choice between No deal and revoke, the pragmatic choice would have to be revoke.
In doing so we lose nothing and after a further period of proper research, consultation and negotations with the EU, the government could then decide whether to either re-invoke Article 50 again (in say 12 months), once we have preparations for "No deal" in place, or maybe to ask the people if they want to go out on a new deal or a straight no deal. It keeps all options open and makes an orderly exit in the relatively near future more likely.
If however we choose no deal over revoke then that's it.
(I have no idea how damaging "No deal" could / would be in many areas, but one thing for sure, we would be out of the EU and on our own, and if we changed our minds in the next few years, we would have lost our veto and our rebate; and meanwhile - of course - our international status and reputation will have been trashed).

taio · Post by **taio** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:39 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Taio, you're a very reasoned poster, but I firmly believe you're wrong on this.
At this point in time if it came to a straight choice between No deal and revoke, the pragmatic choice would have to be revoke.
In doing so we lose nothing and after a further period of proper research, consultation and negotations with the EU, the government could then decide whether to either re-invoke Article 50 again (in say 12 months), once we have preparations for "No deal" in place, or maybe to ask the people if they want to go out on a new deal or a straight no deal. It keeps all options open and makes an orderly exit in the relatively near future more likely.
If however we choose no deal over revoke then that's it.
(I have no idea how damaging "No deal" could / would be in many areas, but one thing for sure, we would be out of the EU and on our own, and if we changed our minds in the next few years, we would have lost our veto and our rebate; and meanwhile - of course - our international status and reputation will have been trashed).

I see where you're coming from. But I think we'd seek a further longer term extension to A50 in those circumstances. If we were to revoke A50 in its entirety it should only be as a result of a general election or referendum.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:48 pm

I just can't understand it when people accuse the EU of overreach and delving into things that should be left for nations to decide...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47704345" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:51 pm

taio wrote:I see where you're coming from. But I think we'd seek a further longer term extension to A50 in those circumstances. If we were to revoke A50 in its entirety it should only be as a result of a general election or referendum.

You're slightly missing my point. To clarify: My point being that if an "extension" is off the table, and you were only left with the other two options,we would be keeping all options open by revoking but not by "No dealing".
In the circumstances I am describing there wouldn't be time for a referendum or GE, but one or the other or both could be held later if you revoked.
You can only revoke Article 50 "in its entirety", but there's absolutely nothing to stop any EU country invoking Article 50 at any time if they want to leave. Might not be a popular move with the EU to do it more than once, but if after further consideration we agree to re-invoke it, then it wouldn't really matter whether the EU were happy or not.