[Politics] Tonight,s EU vote and the margin of defeat ?

[ManOfSussex]

I said I favoured a mutually beneficial trade deal as a preferred outcome

I said the Tories were best placed to deliver Brexit as they had the most pro Brexit MP's

I expected some give and take on the margins but red lines are red lines

Correct I didn't expect it to be perfect but I don't speak for all leavers and yes the democratic will of the majority must be enacted.

And what did I say about a bad deal?

A bad deal? Worse than no deal I expect. Despite the fact we'd not be ready for no deal until about 2027 at the earliest. (Make that 2030 - we're British - things are always over budget and behind schedule)

'No deal is better than a bad deal' is just another meaningless soundbite that was ultimately impossible. If you fell for that one, like you fell for her fantasy Mansion House speech, then more fool you I'm afraid.

Based on her red lines and the total lack of no deal contingencies, this was the best and only possible outcome.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Even Corbyn understands this .. such a shame there are so many people who have contempt for UK democratic traditions of respecting and enacting democratic results.

As BG said, those that can't handle a decision democratically made, they need best of three, then best of five, until they win.

 

[Da Man Clay]

One thing is for certain - whatever the eventual outcome of this in the end there will never be another referendum on any other subject. Particularly on a subject in which the establishment very clearly only want one outcome.

I can totally understand the call for another referendum on this. It has been made very apparent that what people thought they were voting for does not exist and did not exist at the time. Now we know what we are actually voting on it seems almost understandable to ask again.

It won’t happen though. There would be massive civil unrest on either result and the government won’t roll the dice on that. Who knows what we will end up with when this deal gets voted down though.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

It has been made very apparent that what people thought they were voting for does not exist and did not exist at the time. Now we know what we are actually voting on it seems almost understandable to ask again.

What did voters believe they were voting on that existed? Confused here.

 

[jessiejames]

217

 

[JC Footy Genius]

One thing is for certain - whatever the eventual outcome of this in the end there will never be another referendum on any other subject. Particularly on a subject in which the establishment very clearly only want one outcome.

I can totally understand the call for another referendum on this. It has been made very apparent that what people thought they were voting for does not exist and did not exist at the time. Now we know what we are actually voting on it seems almost understandable to ask again.

It won’t happen though. There would be massive civil unrest on either result and the government won’t roll the dice on that. Who knows what we will end up with when this deal gets voted down though.

Do we?

 

[Rogero]

I see no good reason to have a 2nd vote. It reminds me of my childhood when it was a straight toss of a coin then best of 3 then of 5 etc until you got the answer you wanted initially.

Thats right. Did that happen in Ireland I believe.

 

[Da Man Clay]

What did voters believe they were voting on that existed? Confused here.

£350 million a week to the NHS for starters.

Do we?

Well there is at least a deal of some description on the table now.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

£350 million a week to the NHS for starters.

That was hardly an existence was it? That was a promise, which has since been seen through.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

20-30. I will go for 24. It will be hugely less than predicted

 

[Albion Dan]

I hope Trotsky Corbyn does call a vote of no confidence. When he loses he may just find out no matter how unpopular the Govt, he is disliked even more. I look forward to his humiliation.

You mean like in the last general election?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

A bad deal? Worse than no deal I expect.? Despite the fact we'd not be ready for no deal until about 2027 at the earliest. (Make that 2030 - we're British - things are always over budget and behind schedule)

'No deal is better than a bad deal' is just another meaningless soundbite that was ultimately impossible. If you fell for that one, like you fell for her fantasy Mansion House speech, then more fool you I'm afraid.

Based on her red lines and the total lack of no deal contingencies, this was the best and only possible outcome.

Correct. Yes we should have been preparing for no deal as soon as we triggered article 50 which should have been delayed. Conceding any bad deal is better than no deal is a weak ridiculous position to take in any negotation unfortunately the PM succumbed to that pov after as you point out saying the opposite.

 

[nicko31]

So call it a second referendum and stop the spin!!

I prefer a ratification vote

Q1 - May's deal Yes or No

Q2 - If there is no majority for May's deal....No Deal or Remain

Whatever happens now we're damaged goods now for a long time to come. Brexit will be with us for a years and Britain's nationalistic tantrum will continue, while a bemused Europe looks on.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

£350 million a week to the NHS for starters.



Well there is at least a deal of some description on the table now.

Which is about to be voted down by a large majority in parliament

 

[maltaseagull]

A legally binding referendum, with the three clear available options on the table:

No Deal
Theresa's Deal
Remain

And for those saying remain shouldn't be there, I'd argue that it's a lot closer to Theresa's deal than no deal, and that's where AV comes in.

What happens if the result is 33% each?

 

[ManOfSussex]

Correct. Yes we should have been preparing for no deal as soon as we triggered article 50 which should have been delayed. Conceding any bad deal is better than no deal is a weak ridiculous position to take in any negotation unfortunately the PM succumbed to that pov after as you point out saying the opposite.

That would have taken years to put in place as I've pointed out, but despite that Brexiteers such as Farage, Rees-Mogg, Leadsom, Johnson and plenty of others in her party who the fantasy Mansion House speech was written for, were screaming 'Article 50 now'! and cheered it going on and were fully aware, or should have been, of the complete lack of contingencies in place and what was required for no deal, which would have also cost a great deal causing problems (see austerity, deficits etc) as well as taking a lot of time and causing additional problems. (See NIMBYS and planning laws) Hindsight is wonderful, and no deal can't happen now, so never mind.

 

[Rogero]

I voted out because of the sheer bureaucratic nonsense that the EU is. If I asked you where is the HQ of the EU most of you would answer Brussels. Wrong . It is Brussels and Strasbourg . Each month hundreds of lorries carry equipment and people across Europe. Why. ? Can someone tell me why? Read this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...86/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html

This is still going on . The expenses being paid are huge. One new Euro MP put in a claim for expenses for a flight. He went on Easyjet and put in for a claim of less than one hundred pounds . He put in a claim but was paid one thousand pounds. He queried it but was told it is the minimum amount. The whole thing is leaking money to greedy people. That is why I want out.

 

[Frutos]

I think she'll lose by somewhere about 100.

Out of curiosity, does anyone on here think she has a realistic chance of actually winning?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I voted out because of the sheer bureaucratic nonsense that the EU is. If I asked you where is the HQ of the EU most of you would answer Brussels. Wrong . It is Brussels and Strasbourg . Each month hundreds of lorries carry equipment and people across Europe. Why. ? Can someone tell me why? Read this
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...86/The-farce-of-the-EU-travelling-circus.html

This is still going on . The expenses being paid are huge. One new Euro MP put in a claim for expenses for a flight. He went on Easyjet and put in for a claim of less than one hundred pounds . He put in a claim but was paid one thousand pounds. He queried it but was told it is the minimum amount. The whole thing is leaking money to greedy people. That is why I want out.

Why did David Cameron turn down EU money to help people who were flooded out in the UK in 2015? They weren't being greedy.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That would have taken years to put in place as I've pointed out, but despite that Brexiteers such as Farage, Rees-Mogg, Leadsom, Johnson and plenty of others in her party who the fantasy Mansion House speech was written for, were screaming 'Article 50 now'! and cheered it going on and were fully aware, or should have been, of the complete lack of contingencies in place and what was required for no deal, which would have also cost a great deal causing problems (see austerity, deficits etc) as well as taking a lot of time and causing additional problems. (See NIMBYS and planning laws) Hindsight is wonderful, and no deal can't happen now, so never mind.

Don't forget Corbyn also said article 50 should be triggered immediately. The Mansion house speech was mainly achievable with a few obvious exceptions. You better tell all the governments, businesses spending wonga on preparing for no deal they are wasting their money and the Remain MP's desperately trying to get no deal rejected in the house of commons ... that they shouldn't worry.