#politicslive

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:08 am

Never said anything like that at all.

When did it become fashionable to enjoy not wanting to learn about stuff?

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:16 am

It's the sometimes 'I am better than you' delivery of the 'stuff' that you have learned.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:34 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, I like it. I've now got an answer to at least one person you define as an "expert."

Is it his Oxford PPE, working for civil service, including EU-US trade negotiations for TTIP, or the fact he went to school with you that makes David Henig an expert?

DH has obviously got experience in relevant areas. On the other hand, personally, I'd hesitate to describe DH as an "expert."

But, fair do's.

Hi Paul

Why would you hesitate to describe someone who worked on major international trade negotiations, and who has “experience in the relevant areas” as a trade expert?

Disclaimer - I’ve never heard of the bloke, or even read his tweets yet; my question is based solely on the content of your post.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:08 am

It's the sometimes 'I am better than you' delivery of the 'stuff' that you have learned.

Fine, but then people need to stop telling me how ace a "No Deal" is and how great it will be the UK.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:07 am

summitclaret wrote:Well you might think she is mad but the answer is to sort the backstop. Norway is not leaving and NO leaver thinks it is. Better to remain and regroup than such shite and have another go with 2 years' notice for a no deal.

Norway won't agree anyway. End of option. Its a joke. No control of borders. Still have to pay in
No voice on anything. No trade deals with the world. Do remainers think leavers are thick?

And yet Farage and other leading figures in the leave campaign were putting the Norway model forward when they were after your vote prior to the 2016 referendum.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:36 am

Paul Waine wrote:.

I’d vote for Paul Waine to be PM - just read the most sensible approach to sorting this in the long post above, if only politicians were as sensible and pragmatic.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:31 am

Greenmile wrote:Hi Paul

Why would you hesitate to describe someone who worked on major international trade negotiations, and who has “experience in the relevant areas” as a trade expert?

Disclaimer - I’ve never heard of the bloke, or even read his tweets yet; my question is based solely on the content of your post.

Hi Greenmile, "expert" for me is someone who is truly "top of the pile," someone who has got the greatest depth of knowledge of the area in which they are acclaimed to be an expert and someone who can view the subject "in abstract" without either any personal self-interest and remote from "political biases." It should also be someone who's work has been "peer reviewed" and is acclaimed as an expert by others who are "top of the pile" including those who hold different view points.

There will be thousands of people who have got a degree in PPE from Oxford (and we shouldn't think of Oxford as above many of the country's other excellent universities and there are also other excellent degree subjects) and who have then worked as a consultant and/or the civil service, including in areas of trade. Many of our politicians have also got degrees in PPE from Oxford - but we don't think that makes them "experts." Similarly, many have had roles before entering politics that gives them experience in relevant areas, but I think we know that they aren't "experts."

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:41 am

Bin Ont Turf wrote:It's probably for the best that you take a break from this thread

Bin Ont Turf wrote:It's the sometimes 'I am better than you' delivery of the 'stuff' that you have learned.

You don't have to read his comments. It's not compulsory, you know.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:46 am

AndrewJB wrote:I think it's entirely laudable to look at ways of improving the system, and I'm sure everyone would have a suggestion or two. For me, changing the voting system, and overhauling the way politics is funded would be major changes. Possibly too the way the media report on politics, which in this country is quite appalling. The beginning of the process should be a Royal Commission to look into it in great detail, accept input from members of the public, and interested experts, and perhaps travel to other countries to look at the way things are done elsewhere (though whatever we come up with should be a British solution).

Hi Andrew, please no "royal commissions" that's normally the route for the status quo to dig themselves in and block any meaningful change.

My view is changing the political model by "bursting the Westminster bubble" and reconnecting parliament with all the country, then ridding ourselves of all the career politicians and breaking up all the political dynasties - "one family group (no more than) one MP." And, I think this last one would mean if a member of your family group is in politics (MP, MEP, Local Gov't council) then you cannot be in paid employment in roles supporting anyone (not just your family member) in any of these "political representation" roles.

Funding changes may flow from these reforms. Maybe if we had a truly open (see above) political system then state (tax payer) funding would be acceptable.

Voting system may also follow from these reforms, or maybe we will find that a fptp is the best system once we have an open political system.

Again, I'd leave the media alone. The minute the state starts to claim that rules should be set on any form of political reporting we are on the slippery slope of losing our political freedoms. Again, the best media will keep pace with an open political system.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:49 am

Rick_Muller wrote:I’d vote for Paul Waine to be PM - just read the most sensible approach to sorting this in the long post above, if only politicians were as sensible and pragmatic.

Hi Rick, appreciate your comments on my "revolutionary" views - worry a little that you'd think I'd be any good as PM.

3 points this afternoon is more important.

UTC

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:05 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Lancs, we can debate (argue) all day about reality etc etc etc.

My solution - as posted also a few weeks back:

1) Withdraw Article 50 - yes, put an end to Brexit. A true leader (sorry, TM) a "strong and stable" leader would declare today that "the country is in a mess...." no blame, whether members of the electorate voted remain or leave and no recriminations.

2) UK returns to full and active membership of the EU....

3) Then we take steps, along with the other 27 countries, to re-write Article 50 (and anything else that needs re-writing) in the EU treaties. We add in the bits that were missed out last time - what are the rights and obligations when a member state chooses to leave the EU - and what is the default relationship between the rEU and the departing member(s). Adding those missing bits to Lisbon treaty takes care of more than 3 years wasted effort; no further need for any country choosing to leave needing to negotiate a withdrawal agreement, it's already done. Similarly, no need to negotiate relationships post-leaving, that's also got a default position, so day 1 after leaving is sorted.

4) If the EU has the courage to revise Article 50 and there is agreement on the future of any member state choosing to leave, then maybe the EU will also start to mature into an organisation that starts to "solve problems in the world" and maybe it will become the organisation I would suggest that most in the UK would want the UK to be a member of. Maybe in 5 years time we could test this with a new referendum, simple "remain or leave" simple, we know what leave will mean and we know what remain means.

5) Along/side all this we reform UK politics - again, as I've posted before:

burst the Westminster bubble - parliament relocates to Manchester (Northern Powerhouse), North East, Bristol/South West, Birmingham etc - back to London (but not Westminster/central London every 20 years or so;

no more career politicians, no more political dynasties, only one member of a family group in politics at any one time. I think my slogan would be "politics for the many...."

get rid of the House of Lords and replace with an Assembly of Knowledgeable Persons - majority of KPs would be people who have never been in politics.

Item 5 would be the reform that the electorate really wants - and would be much better than continuing on this fruitless "should we leave or should we remain" debate.

And, of course, most of the politicians serving in parliament today should be told their political careers are at an end. 29-March-2019 would be a good date to do this.

The music from Les Mis will be a good sound track!

Whilst this maybe considered splitting hairs it is not the country that is in a mess (no more then any other country anyway) but the political system. The one that said 'the people' could have a say on something and then find they can't actually implement the decision.

And whilst your solution sounds good I cannot see that the EU will co-operate with your vision (as they haven't with our government's). They have their own agenda and I've seen no evidence that it includes anything encouraging for countries to leave. Furthermore I would guess that if states want to leave the EU it will be for a variety of reasons - ours seems to be immigration and sovereignty; others might be purely economic, or political.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:09 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi Greenmile, "expert" for me is someone who is truly "top of the pile," someone who has got the greatest depth of knowledge of the area in which they are acclaimed to be an expert and someone who can view the subject "in abstract" without either any personal self-interest and remote from "political biases." It should also be someone who's work has been "peer reviewed" and is acclaimed as an expert by others who are "top of the pile" including those who hold different view points.

There will be thousands of people who have got a degree in PPE from Oxford (and we shouldn't think of Oxford as above many of the country's other excellent universities and there are also other excellent degree subjects) and who have then worked as a consultant and/or the civil service, including in areas of trade. Many of our politicians have also got degrees in PPE from Oxford - but we don't think that makes them "experts." Similarly, many have had roles before entering politics that gives them experience in relevant areas, but I think we know that they aren't "experts."

Thanks.

I think you’re setting the bar a little too high, to be honest, although I’d agree that a PPE degree is not particularly important or relevant in this instance, which is why I never referred to that part of your post.

If I was being very uncharitable, I might express the belief that you would be less hesitant to acclaim Lancs” old schoolmate as an expert had he been saying stuff that you already agreed with - which would be more an observation on human nature generally than a comment on yourself in particular.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:13 pm

He's not an old school mate, he went to my school

And he's used as an expert by newspapers and the BBC. And his job and where he works suggest he knows what he is talking about.

I think Greenmile has nailed it to be honest, its very Brexity to ignore stuff that doesn't fit in with what you want to believe.

And again, reality is reality.

The quicker we get that, the quicker we can sort this.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:15 pm

Hipper wrote:Whilst this maybe considered splitting hairs it is not the country that is in a mess (no more then any other country anyway) but the political system. The one that said 'the people' could have a say on something and then find they can't actually implement the decision.

And whilst your solution sounds good I cannot see that the EU will co-operate with your vision (as they haven't with our government's). They have their own agenda and I've seen no evidence that it includes anything encouraging for countries to leave. Furthermore I would guess that if states want to leave the EU it will be for a variety of reasons - ours seems to be immigration and sovereignty; others might be purely economic, or political.

Hi Hipper, yes, I agree, it may well be an enormous challenge to persuade the rEU to re-open Lisbon and fill in all the stuff that is missing from Art 50.

On the other hand, it's not about "we will make it easy for you to leave" rather "we want member states to stay because we value you as nations and not just as member states. If, for whatever reason, a nation chooses to leave, then "we will continue to value you as nations and continue to hold out our hand and offer a strong, friendly and co-operative relationship with you even if you have chosen to step away from the EU...."

If the EU could do that, then it wouldn't be the EU showing weakness, it will be the EU showing strength and belief in what the EU offers. And, an EU that could do that would be an EU that the majority in the UK would always want to be a member of.

The other side of the coin.... it is possible that the vote to leave the EU was not about the EU, but about our own political system. But, the UK doesn't (generally) do "revolutions" and it's probably difficult for most to put a finger on what it is we don't like. But, we've now seen what are poor parliament we have, how inept our (mostly, career) politicians are. And, if we were to "scratch the surface" we might discover how many MPs are parts of political dynasties - so let's ban that as one of the first reforms.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:34 pm

Greenmile wrote:Thanks.

I think you’re setting the bar a little too high, to be honest, although I’d agree that a PPE degree is not particularly important or relevant in this instance, which is why I never referred to that part of your post.

If I was being very uncharitable, I might express the belief that you would be less hesitant to acclaim Lancs” old schoolmate as an expert had he been saying stuff that you already agreed with - which would be more an observation on human nature generally than a comment on yourself in particular.

Lancasterclaret wrote:He's not an old school mate, he went to my school

And he's used as an expert by newspapers and the BBC. And his job and where he works suggest he knows what he is talking about.

I think Greenmile has nailed it to be honest, its very Brexity to ignore stuff that doesn't fit in with what you want to believe.

And again, reality is reality.

The quicker we get that, the quicker we can sort this.

Good point, Greenmile, about a natural bias towards acclaiming as experts people who express views that we want to believe in. I try not to do that. That's why my test for "expert" includes peer reviews by others who are "top of their field" and not "peer review by others that I share views with."

Lancs, yes, I get attending the same school doesn't imply you were mates. I've no idea but you may have both attended at different times.

"Used as an expert by newspapers and the BBC" doesn't get anyone across my "expert" test. Yes, it is a high bar, I set.

There was an interesting article in The Times earlier in the week. It wasn't about Brexit but a totally different subject. I'll dig it out and post later this evening - after the game. It's relevant to how we know and make our minds up about things.

EDIT: Just searched for the article I mentioned. I can't find it now. Paper version of The Times has already gone in the re-cycle.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:39 pm

I think a good idea is to have a second vote but to make clear to everyone that it really is the final vote by writing it on the side of a big red bus.
Then, if leave wins, just abandon the promise a week later.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:16 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:I think a good idea is to have a second vote but to make clear to everyone that it really is the final vote by writing it on the side of a big red bus.
Then, if leave wins, just abandon the promise a week later.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:18 pm

Billy Balfour wrote:You don't have to read his comments. It's not compulsory, you know.

It is for me.

My UptheClarets contract says so.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:27 am

Oh Lord won't you buy us a Hard Brexit No Deal,
Those EU are scumbags
Let's do what we feel.
We can offshore our assets
We're offshore anyway,
Vs up to Volkswagen
And dump that frump
May.

Mala591 · Post by **Mala591** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:35 pm

Discussions on remaining in the EU customs union are interesting and may offer a solution to the impasse.

For:
There should be minimum barriers to trade across UK and EU borders
The NI/ROI border problem would be partially solved (but not totally eliminated)
We can still have an independent immigration policy (end of free movement)

Against:
We won't be able set up independent trade deals with the rest of the world
We will be customs union rule takers without any input into future changes

Have I made the right assessment of the situation and do you think this is one red line that TM should sacrifice?

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:18 pm

brexit is a big deal. the uk should have taken it as seriously as if we were going to war. it should have been tactically managed by appropriate groupings/committees of 'knowledgable' people [not just politicians]. ideally people who would start by defining 'brexit' and deal with all the aspects of it across each relevant and affected aspect. unfortunately, party politics and individual MPs personal agendas and opinions prevented this from happening. TM has screwed Brexit by thinking she could manage it her way and treating it like some old chums dividing a bag of chips.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:52 pm

Mala591 wrote:Discussions on remaining in the EU customs union are interesting and may offer a solution to the impasse.

For:
There should be minimum barriers to trade across UK and EU borders
The NI/ROI border problem would be partially solved (but not totally eliminated)
We can still have an independent immigration policy (end of free movement)

Against:
We won't be able set up independent trade deals with the rest of the world
We will be customs union rule takers without any input into future changes

Have I made the right assessment of the situation and do you think this is one red line that TM should sacrifice?

Good post, just three extras I would suggest:

Against:
We won’t be able to adjust our tariffs and quotas (e.g. for New Zealand Lamb imports, this is beyond the limits of no trade deal)
If we have a partial customs union (e.g. like Turkey for industrial goods) this won’t solve the Irish hard border conundrum
We won’t be able to negotiate “spin off” benefits of independant trade deals (e.g. looser migration access to emigrate to Canada or Australia in return for good access to their products over here). It isn’t just about goods and money.

For that reason, the Customs Union is a total red line for me. We have to have independence. Once we have it, a very close relationship to the EU is very desirable, but while having those red lines.

P.s. worth saying this is all about the political declaration, which is non binding on future trade talks and even if enshrined in U.K. law can still be reversed under a new parliament following a future election.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:10 pm

She planned for a soft brexit from day 1 and there is only the DUP stopping her. Norway is not brexit in any meaningful way. Its a meaningless fudge. We might as well remain as go for that. Not that they want us.

There is some two-faced rubbish being spouted by remainers and labour about red lines atm. They tell may she has to give up hers but won't do the same. For example, will people give up on a second referendum if May rules out no deal? Course they won't. The second we denounce no deal, it's game set and match to the EU.

People banging on about May's deal not being soft enough when apart from a dozen or so tory remainers, it was voted down by the right/DUP. Even Morgan voted for it. So the blindingly obvious way forward is to get those 109 votes behind the deal and get an end date on the backstop from the EU. There are probably enough labour/independent votes to then get a deal agreed.

I believe that if she gets to within 30 votes next time, the EU will play ball. A third vote should then do it. She needs to engineer within her party that way forward.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:49 pm

summitclaret wrote:She planned for a soft brexit from day 1 and there is only the DUP stopping her. Norway is not brexit in any meaningful way. Its a meaningless fudge. We might as well remain as go for that. Not that they want us.
.

And yet many people were probably persuaded to vote leave because prior to the vote those leading the Leave campaign were keen on the Norway option. There are loads of examples of interviews in which they said this, rather like Boris repeatedly mentioning Turkey before the referendum, (which he of course now denies)
Here are just a few examples that may have led waivering / undecided voters to take a gamble on "leave"

Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market

Daniel Hannan MEP

Only a madman would actually leave the Market

Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
And when you remember that Norway are in the Single Market but not the EU, it makes these quotes quite awkward reading.

Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing

Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people

Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK

Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:30 pm

If we took the Norway option can we change it at a later date if we don't like it?
Theresa May's deal could never get through as we were at the mercy of the EU.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:38 pm

Quickenthetempo wrote:If we took the Norway option can we change it at a later date if we don't like it?
Theresa May's deal could never get through as we were at the mercy of the EU.

What if the "Norway option" means we have to follow EU regulations? *gasp*

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:47 pm

Test User wrote:What if the "Norway option" means we have to follow EU regulations? *gasp*

If it's everything we do now, we simply wouldn't do it.

Have you been banned again Charlie? You never learn.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:09 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:And yet many people were probably persuaded to vote leave because prior to the vote those leading the Leave campaign were keen on the Norway option. There are loads of examples of interviews in which they said this, rather like Boris repeatedly mentioning Turkey before the referendum, (which he of course now denies)
Here are just a few examples that may have led waivering / undecided voters to take a gamble on "leave"

Daniel Hannan MEP

Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
And when you remember that Norway are in the Single Market but not the EU, it makes these quotes quite awkward reading.

Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

Some interesting differences in that bunch.

Firstly, I have never met a wavering Leaver. I am sure there are some. But the people I know who were waverers ended up voting Remain, due to the economic risk.

Of the people above, you get people like Dan Hannan who would be keen on a Norway style permenantly (not the latest Norway talk, that’s not EEA, that’s Norway with a CU which Hannan says would be a disaster).

Then you get people including more than one of the above post (I can’t remember which specifically) who said in 2016 let’s use Norway as a temporary bridge to full independence. In other works, keep the economics stable but get full control of many things, pay some money, keep freedom of movement, then move away over a 5 year period.

The very high profile Richard North, of EUReferendum.com, father of Peter North of Leave HQ, is a firm believer in that kind of “ladder” to full independence.

So yes, there are some negotiable aspects there. None of these though, and I am yet to meet a Leave voter who disagrees, supports remaining in the Customs Union.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:23 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote: None of these though, and I am yet to meet a Leave voter who disagrees, supports remaining in the Customs Union.

Maybe they don't. Maybe they never did??
But the point is that they unashamedly told people prior to the vote that we could have a Norway or Swiss type model, and once they won they (in some cases) denied it. It's just like Boris and Turkey, the £350 million promise that Dominic Cummings had splurged on the bus, and Farage's disgusting "breaking point" poster showing queues of refugees.
Each of these appealed to different sections of society, and cumulatively helped deliver the Brexit vote.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:23 pm

The ladder actually makes perfect sense, but that is why it won't ever be used.

Latest is that May seems to think that removing the backstop solves all her problems with the Conservative Party, so that is what she is going to do.

Reality etc etc etc - the longer we wait to deal with the reality, the worse it will be

hampsteadclaret · Post by **hampsteadclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:33 pm

nil.. 679

Please don’t do that..?
I like your posts a lot, you are one of the best contributors
on this forum, especially on this topic ( though I don’t agree with you)

Both sides lied.
They made stuff up.. they were disingenuous... they exaggerated, they were not honest.

Everyone knows this, it has been discussed widely.

Why post what you have ?
You and your lot must be getting desperate.
Pathetic stuff.

* this is without mentioning the stuff in today’s papers involving Grieve and others plotting.

** earlier in this thread I suggested possible ( very plausible) voting outcomes in a 2nd referendum.. proper replies I had none.

I can well understand why.
When I get back to my computer maybe I can say a bit more.. on my phone now

My post is 50/60 back from here - don’t wanna go searching I may lose this one..

Lancs.. Mcgreal..nil.. any others - would you like to have a go at the questions I asked re ‘estimated’ 2nd referendum results ?

Cheers.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:37 pm

May’s approach to Brexit reminds me of a popular definition of insanity, ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.’

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:39 pm

Honestly mate I don't know.

What I do know that if (and remember this is my prefered last resort) there is a 2nd ref then doing things like boycotting it would guarantee a remain victory.

And it has to be said suggest that leavers weren't convinced they would win and wanting to try to delegitimize it.

We need to get a deal, and for that to happen we need MPs to step up to the plate, as it looks like Mrs May ins't up to it, and JC won't ever get the chance.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:24 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote:nil.. 679

Please don’t do that..?
I like your posts a lot, you are one of the best contributors
on this forum, especially on this topic ( though I don’t agree with you)

Both sides lied.
They made stuff up.. they were disingenuous... they exaggerated, they were not honest.

Everyone knows this, it has been discussed widely.

Why post what you have ?
You and your lot must be getting desperate.
Pathetic stuff.
.

Thanks, (I think).
I only posted this evening because of the specific issue of Norway, (which I suppose could be described as "soft" brexit). There were many leading leavers who advocated some form of "soft" brexit, and did it honestly and genuinely. (There are, I believe, many on both sides of the house who would vote for a "soft" option.
However, it is also undoubtedly true, that some of the leading figures I quoted were telling us that we could have a "Norway" or "soft" option but then changed their minds, (or were lying), and once the referendum was won were / are arguing for a "hard" or "no deal" brexit and saying that "Norway" is not brexit.
It is clear to me (IMO) that there was no majority at the referendum for a "no deal" brexit, there is no majority for it in Parliament, and (again in my view) no current majority for it in the country.
That is why I will continue to remind people that significant figures in UKip and extreme Tory brexiteers like Paterson, were saying that the Norway option was a good one leading up to the vote.
As to both sides "lying": Correct, but there are wilful lies, that can be proven by facts and statistics to be demonstrably wrong, such as Johnson told and still tells, (e.g. £350 million and Turkey), and there are exaggerated and false predictions of the future. Personally I think there is a big difference.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:24 pm

As I said above, the tories will unite and are playing a massive poker game with the EU.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:28 pm

Unite on what?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:32 pm

This is quite a nice theory

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/10 ... 5810978818" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On the other side, the Telegraph are reporting that she wants to amend the Good Friday Agreement to get her deal through, which is an, er, "interesting" way to go about getting this sorted.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:38 pm

Remains must be gutted with tonight's Sky data poll. 2nd referendum my a***.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:39 pm

What?

We are taking notice of polls now?

Cool

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:59 pm

summitclaret wrote:Remains must be gutted with tonight's Sky data poll. 2nd referendum my a***.

Because one poll that is an outlier to other polls totally ends a debate.

Well done, you just demonstrated ignorance about how polling works. Achievement unlocked.

BTW, the same poll says we also think voting to leave the EU was the wrong decision. So i guess if we're just going off the results of this poll then clearly May should just cancel Brexit, right? Because using your logic we neither want a second vote nor do we think leaving is good. Soo... what say you?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:04 pm

https://twitter.com/RebetikoWalrus/stat ... 6045436928" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is quite scary.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:07 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:https://twitter.com/RebetikoWalrus/stat ... 6045436928

This is quite scary.

It's a Twitter poll. More weight should be held in the fact that Sky thought putting that option to that question was necessary.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:13 pm

hampsteadclaret wrote: ** earlier in this thread I suggested possible ( very plausible) voting outcomes in a 2nd referendum.. proper replies I had none.

I can well understand why.
When I get back to my computer maybe I can say a bit more.. on my phone now

My post is 50/60 back from here - don’t wanna go searching I may lose this one..

Lancs.. Mcgreal..nil.. any others - would you like to have a go at the questions I asked re ‘estimated’ 2nd referendum results ?

Cheers.

Hi,
I didn't reply to that post, but didn't think that you were really expecting a direct answer. If there ends up being a 2nd ref, and we get any of those replies then nothing will be solved, and I suppose - if the MPs still can't solve it then there would have to be a Gen Election.
As things stand I'm v dubious about whether a 2nd ref would solve anything, but in the continued absence of any progress in Parliament, the intransigence of Mrs May, and the near certainty that we won't just walk away on March 29th with "no deal", then it might be the only course open.

summitclaret · Post by **summitclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:13 pm

Test User wrote:Because one poll that is an outlier to other polls totally ends a debate.

Well done, you just demonstrated ignorance about how polling works. Achievement unlocked.

BTW, the same poll says we also think voting to leave the EU was the wrong decision. So i guess if we're just going off the results of this poll then clearly May should just cancel Brexit, right? Because using your logic we neither want a second vote nor do we think leaving is good. Soo... what say you?

56 to 44% against a 2nd ref.
51 to 49% say we made the wrong decision.

Hardly justifies Hoc taking control and mps overriding the result of he referendum.

Yes just 1 poll and quite a small sample size. However it was today. The day before a coup is attempted.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:15 pm

summitclaret wrote:56 to 44% against a 2nd ref.
51 to 49% say we made the wrong decision.

Hardly justifies Hoc taking control and mps overriding the result of he referendum.

Yes just 1 poll and quite a small sample size. However it was today. The day before a coup is attempted.

No, you're right. It absolutely doesn't justify it. But you seemed to think that one poll was important enough to end the debate on a People's vote so i just used that same "thinking" and applied it to the whole poll.

This was your logic i was using. But I bet you stand by your logic, don't you?

Also "coup"

a ******* "coup"

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 10:35 pm

The only poll that actually matters, is the one that the Establishment, the Ceaseless Remoaners and the dwellers of the metropolitan London Borough of ivory towers lost....

Dominic Grieve needs to understand that the government is NOT a servant of a few hundred MPs that have never accepted the biggest single expression of democracy the nation has ever witnessed. The government is the servant of the people.

We voted to leave the European Union.

Get on with it.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:07 pm

And Mays deal, which meant that we are actually leaving the European Union, was rejected by Brexiteers because it wasn't what they wanted.

Not what the British People wanted though, they want a deal.

Keep saying it, but the harder Brexiteers push for the hardest Brexit, the greater the danger that Brexit does not happen at all.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:36 pm

A "coup" though.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:55 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:And Mays deal, which meant that we are actually leaving the European Union, was rejected by Brexiteers because it wasn't what they wanted.

Not what the British People wanted though, they want a deal.

Keep saying it, but the harder Brexiteers push for the hardest Brexit, the greater the danger that Brexit does not happen at all.

It was rejected by Remainers too. Both Brexiteers and Remainers recognised it as a very bad deal.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:56 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:And Mays deal, which meant that we are actually leaving the European Union, was rejected by Brexiteers because it wasn't what they wanted.

Not what the British People wanted though, they want a deal.

Keep saying it, but the harder Brexiteers push for the hardest Brexit, the greater the danger that Brexit does not happen at all.

May's deal was hogwash both remainers and leavers knew this which is why it was decisively rejected by the HOC,people do want a deal but they want a viable deal which doesn't tie the UK to the EU through the backstop,the issue of the backstop is that if trade talks are not going well in say the next 12-18 months then the EU could bring the threat of the backstop into play and shackle the UK to a permanent CU arrangement,hence why most MP'S want legally binding guarantees that the backstop is time limited.

I'm willing to take a punt on brexit being revoked,as we either leave properly or remain,there is no halfway house,Labour's position unless it's changed today is for a permanent CU,and a close Single Market relationship,that's a fair stance to take and economically the most sensible course of action,if like yourself LC,the economy is the number one priority,but if Labour commits to such a policy they have to concede that accepting FOM and other obligations would be required by the UK,and yet they still persist with this fallacy that we can have all the benefits but not have any commitments regarding budgets payments,ECJ jurisdiction amongst other things.

If people really want a 2nd referendum then fair enough but until either side can achieve a sizeable majority this argument will rage on for years,another General Election won't solve any of the negotiations,and is just party politics from Labour.