[Politics] Brexit

[A1X]

This short selling practice you dislike and it’s affect on the lives of ordinary people..........can you recall George Soros and how he made over a billion on Britain’s exit from the ERM?

He must be the living embodiment of the very “worst sort of tossers” to quote you.......or maybe not?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...rexit-campaign-best-for-britain-a3809821.html

Capitalists eh?

Then George Soros is a tosser too. Sorry I don't live my life on the idea of "good guys vs bad guys".

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The turnout would be too low to make it valid!

There is no minimum turnout.

 

[A1X]

We leave on March 29th, that’s set in law,unless the establishment elite decide to break the law..

Most would say change the law. Changing a law is not breaking it.

 

[Baldseagull]

Oops, I meant Leave options

Got ya.
The point is though, that if most leave voters would rather remain than have a Brexit that didn't meet their demands, it would be more democratic to remain than have a Brexit that very few want. There is no Leave position that can deliver all the promises made in the referendum, so which promises do you drop?

 

[Triggaaar]

What is unique today is that both May and Corbyn are clearly suffering inner demons of inflexibility. The power of charm is a long underrated quality in British politics; that and the gift of courtesy towards those with whom one disagrees. Britain has party leaders who seem bereft of both these qualities.

It's nice that NSC mirrors our political leaders so well.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Have I missed some news?

Have we said we are going to have another referendum

Or is this Blair still poking his smug nose in again?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

There is no minimum turnout.

shhhhh

 

[A1X]

61% of all Labour MPs elected in 2017 are MPs who have a seat in constituencies that voted to Leave.

Of all the misleading stats in this whole sorry charade, this one is one I always enjoy seeing pop up as it ignores the single most fundamental flaw with our entire voting system.

Let's say, for example, there is a Labour held constituency where the voter breakdown is like this;

Labour - 35%
Conservative - 30%
UKIP - 20%
Lib Dem - 10%
BNP - 5%

In that scenario, Labour wins the seat as they have the most votes. However, if all the Labour voters and all the Lib Dem voters vote Remain, and all the other voters vote Leave, then the seat result is a 55% win for Leave. But in here, not one of the Leave voters voted Labour, so it being a Labour held Leave seat is basically irrelevant as none of the leavers voted Labour. But it also shows that if that Labour MP backs Remain then there is actually nothing the Leave voters could do about that.

It's a simplistic analysis but it proves my point that the party holding a seat and the way it voted in the referendum are basically two separate things which don't really tally up, so that statistic is basically pointless.

 

[Bodian]

The problem is that, in theory, we could a result like 31% remain and 23% for each of the three remain options so Remain wins, even though more than twice as many people wanted to leave - a complete distortion of people's wishes.


That's why a second referendum is a terrible idea, it's just going to muddy the waters some more

It's simple, you have an alternative vote system, like this

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?368879-1st-2nd-choice-Referendum-Poll&p=8699412&highlight=Triggaaar#post8699412

Yes, I find it puzzling that so many are still saying it would be difficult / would split the vote / etc.

You have a referendum that has two questions:
1 - do you want to leave / stay?
2 - if the outcome of the referendum on Q1 is to leave, then which option would you prefer: Mays deal / no deal / whatever else is on offer at that point?

This way, whichever way you vote, you can then have a say on what sort of leave deal you want if the vote is to leave.

 

[Triggaaar]

It's a hell of a hospital pass to want to receive though, hence I still have my very strong doubts it's what he actually wants.

It is, but obviously some (world) leaders wouldn't care about that, so long as they get power. I wouldn't like to say what Corbyn wants or what he'd do, and I hope we never have to find out.

 

[Baker lite]

Most would say change the law. Changing a law is not breaking it.

Change the law because you didn’t really like my vote?..


On our way.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I agree that May's actions have been daft, and she has had plenty of criticism on here for them. I now think that Corbyn refusing to talk is daft, so I'm criticising him too. It seems you find criticism of him unacceptable.

Actually not at all, I've posted this morning an article by Nick Cohen that goes a little further than just criticism.

I'm subtracting the personality from the position, hence I referred to the 'leader of the opposition'. I think many people are annoyed because they simply don't like the man, but that is irrelevant really.

If May has gone this far, ignored the wishes of the opposite benches for this long, she has to offer an olive branch of some description, otherwise it is just a stunt, "look at me, I'm consulting". As Simon Jenkins said in another piece I posted (I see you found it), she could set up a 1 issue coalition, possibly betray much of her own party, but it would be for the good of a Brexit to benefit the country.

At present we have an invite to talk with another vote in 2 weeks, without any concessions being offered. That is no way to start a negotiation, mediation, or discussion. You have to offer something.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Have I missed some news?

Have we said we are going to have another referendum

Or is this Blair still poking his smug nose in again?

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage advised we should have another referendum.

 

[ManOfSussex]

It is, but obviously some (world) leaders wouldn't care about that, so long as they get power. I wouldn't like to say what Corbyn wants or what he'd do, and I hope we never have to find out.

Okay, that's great and really interesting to hear. Thanks.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The most sensible comment I have read about the whole mess. My favourite Twitter account.

[tweet]1086201568142200832[/tweet]

 

[The Clamp]

We leave on March 29th, that’s set in law,unless the establishment elite decide to break the law..


On our way.

That's just plain incorrect. This referendum was not legally binding. We can abandon Brexit anytime we like.

 

[A1X]

Change the law because you didn’t really like my vote?..

No, change the law out of a duty of care. Even ardent No Deal advocates in Parliament insist it needs to be prepared for and don't think it can be done through just crashing out in March. For a start the civil service and legislation is not in place, and nor is the infrastructure.

It works in your favour if you really value your vote being respected how you cast it because if Britain crashes out as you want then it'll go back to the EU very quickly to urgently reopen talks, and we'd be in a Norway solution by the summer would be my guess. Having had to pay off Norway to be allowed in.

 

[Notters]

Remainer's are just more noisy...

Oh my aching sides.

 

[fanseagull]

He doesn't care.

As suggested a few pages back, there are a good many people, for whom 'winning' is now far more important than a successful outcome for the nation.

Yes, that's my impression. 'Winning' is everything and hang the consequences!

 

[ManOfSussex]

Of all the misleading stats in this whole sorry charade, this one is one I always enjoy seeing pop up as it ignores the single most fundamental flaw with out entire voting system.

Let's say, for example, there is a Labour held constituency where the voter breakdown is like this;

Labour - 35%
Conservative - 30%
UKIP - 20%
Lib Dem - 10%
BNP - 5%

In that scenario, Labour wins the seat as they have the most votes. However, if all the Labour voters and all the Lib Dem voters vote Remain, and all the other voters vote Leave, then the seat result is a 55% win for Leave. But in here, not one of the Leave voters voted Labour, so it being a Labour held Leave seat is basically irrelevant as none of the leavers voted Labour. But it also shows that if that Labour MP backs Remain then there is actually nothing the Leave voters could do about that.

It's a simplistic analysis but it proves my point that the party holding a seat and the way it voted in the referendum are basically two separate things which don't really tally up, so that statistic is basically pointless.

You also have to factor into that people in Labour constituencies who voted leave in 2016 who don't vote in elections for any party.