The EU Referendum Hokey Cokey

[Grim Up North 3,725]

5 minutes ago, paddyfool said:

Looking back, though, how did you envision it turning out? What would you have liked to have seen done differently, post-referendum, with the benefit of hindsight?

 

Just a more orderly transition and, naively I guess, a more unified approach from the UK based on the actual vote result.

 

With hindsight I think a mandate for change was needed so it should have required a 60:40 vote (although obviously any vote over 50% would have caused issues with the status quo it may have given momentum for change within the EU without us actually having to leave). 

 

Post referendum a mature political approach was required on all sides so media blackout on discussions only releasing agreed items, no pressure internally in each country from media or political parties for negotiating positions (unrealistic I know), a more unified approach generally to the exit from all sides.

 

Instead it became very vitriolic from Europe and within UK and within Conservative party and this has just led us to where we are today - like I said - too many people trying to score a 'win' for short term gain rather than looking to secure the people a workable solution - the long term win.

 

Brexit created a problem for all of Europe including the UK and it required a unified approach to sort it out with concessions from both sides but everyone working towards a solution - it doesn't feel that has happened - it feels like both sides have looked for their own ideal solution individually and then clashed publicly when they are not the same.

[Bibliogryphon 9,571]

9 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

 

Just a more orderly transition and, naively I guess, a more unified approach from the UK based on the actual vote result.

 

With hindsight I think a mandate for change was needed so it should have required a 60:40 vote (although obviously any vote over 50% would have caused issues with the status quo it may have given momentum for change within the EU without us actually having to leave). 

 

Post referendum a mature political approach was required on all sides so media blackout on discussions only releasing agreed items, no pressure internally in each country from media or political parties for negotiating positions (unrealistic I know), a more unified approach generally to the exit from all sides.

 

Instead it became very vitriolic from Europe and within UK and within Conservative party and this has just led us to where we are today - like I said - too many people trying to score a 'win' for short term gain rather than looking to secure the people a workable solution - the long term win.

 

Brexit created a problem for all of Europe including the UK and it required a unified approach to sort it out with concessions from both sides but everyone working towards a solution - it doesn't feel that has happened - it feels like both sides have looked for their own ideal solution individually and then clashed publicly when they are not the same.

 

If TM had been serious about delivering the best Brexit for Britain after the election rather than putting herself in thrall to the DUP she should have proposed a Government of National Unity to deliver Brexit with another election in the summer of 2019. This would have tied the Labour votes in and weakened the hand of the extreme Brexiteers.

I see the ERG have agreed not to move against TM until after Brexit this is because the don't have an alternative to Chequers and do not want to risk a people's vote. So either she will deliver No Deal (which is what some of them seem to want) but can be portrayed as a failure or she will deliver Chequers which will be sold as not a proper Brexit. Either way she is done for and they will attempt a right wing coup and still have three years until they need to hold a General Election.

[Grim Up North 3,725]

6 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

If TM had been serious about delivering the best Brexit for Britain after the election rather than putting herself in thrall to the DUP she should have proposed a Government of National Unity to deliver Brexit with another election in the summer of 2019. This would have tied the Labour votes in and weakened the hand of the extreme Brexiteers.

 

Yes - with such divisions in Conservative party it couldn't have made it any more divided and might have suspended leadership and political point scoring.

 

8 minutes ago, Bibliogryphon said:

I see the ERG have agreed not to move against TM until after Brexit this is because the don't have an alternative to Chequers and do not want to risk a people's vote. So either she will deliver No Deal (which is what some of them seem to want) but can be portrayed as a failure or she will deliver Chequers which will be sold as not a proper Brexit. Either way she is done for and they will attempt a right wing coup and still have three years until they need to hold a General Election.

 

Yes but I find it hard to care - we are crying out for a great leader who is motivated by principles and not by power. I'm not sure I care what the principles are any more.

(PS This is not Jeremy Corbyn - he fails the first part).

[msc 18,439]

Corbyn and May are like two dead trees holding each other up, as some wit put it.

 

Of course, for both their flaws, where are the alternatives? For either? Parliament is swamped with a whole bunch of non-entities, it is a true mediocracy these days.

 

 

[the_engineer 1,415]

3 hours ago, Bibliogryphon said:

 

If TM had been serious about delivering the best Brexit for Britain after the election rather than putting herself in thrall to the DUP she should have proposed a Government of National Unity to deliver Brexit with another election in the summer of 2019. This would have tied the Labour votes in and weakened the hand of the extreme Brexiteers.

I see the ERG have agreed not to move against TM until after Brexit this is because the don't have an alternative to Chequers and do not want to risk a people's vote. So either she will deliver No Deal (which is what some of them seem to want) but can be portrayed as a failure or she will deliver Chequers which will be sold as not a proper Brexit. Either way she is done for and they will attempt a right wing coup and still have three years until they need to hold a General Election.

 

100% theresa may will be gone after brexit. Boris or Mogg to replace her. They take over after brexit the they can't be blamed for the bad deal. So i think it will be the chequers deal.

[Grim Up North 3,725]

20 minutes ago, the_engineer said:

Boris or Mogg to replace her. 

 

There are no words.

[Paul Bearer 6,101]

17 minutes ago, Grim Up North said:

 

There are no words.

 

Yes there are.

 

" Oh fuck"

[msc 18,439]

Is Boris that popular? I mean,  I know I'm in Glasgow where posh Tories are as popular as outbreaks of ebola, but.. we keep hearing how he's the people's voice and other such bollocks but... this is a man who nearly lost an election to Ken Livingstone. This decade nuttier than squirrel shit Ken Livingstone.

 

Seems like a slightly more media friendly David Miliband in terms of idiotic Holy Grail leaders, but that's just me.

 

 

 

Also I see The Engineers a Corbyn fan now.

[Grim Up North 3,725]

37 minutes ago, msc said:

Is Boris that popular?

 

Not quite orange enough to be really popular.

 

                    Not that popular                                                                Really popular

[the_engineer 1,415]

1 hour ago, msc said:

Is Boris that popular? I mean,  I know I'm in Glasgow where posh Tories are as popular as outbreaks of ebola, but.. we keep hearing how he's the people's voice and other such bollocks but... this is a man who nearly lost an election to Ken Livingstone. This decade nuttier than squirrel shit Ken Livingstone.

 

Seems like a slightly more media friendly David Miliband in terms of idiotic Holy Grail leaders, but that's just me.

 

 

 

Also I see The Engineers a Corbyn fan now.

 

I've won the victory against myself.

[Bibliogryphon 9,571]

2 hours ago, the_engineer said:

 

100% theresa may will be gone after brexit. Boris or Mogg to replace her. They take over after brexit the they can't be blamed for the bad deal. So i think it will be the chequers deal.

Unfotunately the only thing that might save us is the Tory leadership election rulebook. If either name is put before the whole Tory Party membership they would most likely win. Polling a couple of months back suggested only Javid and Davidson would beat them and Javid stock has fallen since then. The big battle will be getting the name on the ballot which is decided by sitting Tory MPs. The ERG has over 50 members.

[msc 18,439]

Well, I'd assume it was one of Boris or JRM - ie Boris, I suspect JRM is smart enough to avoid top office. There's about 50 MPs in the ERG. This leaves..about 250 odd Tories to nominate someone else as the Not Boris candidate.

 

Now, do we know anyone who really wants to be PM, who has a habit of writing newspaper columns where he tries to look reasonable instead of batshit, who has a history of antagonizing Boris Johnson, who has spent the last year buddying up to May in the hope her supporters will support him in any successor's play off, and, most crucially, who is massively popular with the Tory grassroots, for some reason. And isn't Boris Johnson, so likely to win any Anybody But Boris votes in a 2 person playoff ala Major over Heseltine, Thatcher over Heath, etc etc.

 

 

All of which tells me our next Prime Minister will be this guy:

 

[paddyfool 379]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with Jeremy Hunt...

[Grim Up North 3,725]

5 minutes ago, paddyfool said:

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with Jeremy Hunt...

 

If the choice is Boris, Mogg, Gove, Hunt or May continuing then if I was Ruth Davidson and I had leadership aspirations I'd be feeling pretty smug right now - busying herself up in Scotland keeping as far away from anything to do with the EU as possible and just waiting..............................................

[paddyfool 379]

Ruth Davidson has been pretty emphatic that she wants to stay in the Scottish system rather than work in Westminster, however. Given the calibre of colleagues she'd have in the HoC, especially within her own party and their DUP allies, who can blame her?

[philheybrookbay 439]

If you listen to Dead Ringers on Radio 4 then they have ‘Govey’ as the favourite. 

 

The biggest problem is that the two party system (let’s be fair here it really is) is totally funked. I can see the Tories/Labour exploding in the coming years with a new centre Party coming to the fore. And it won’t be the Liberals either. Just as long that idiot Blair isn’t involved I’d be happy. 

 

Either way this has been some Tories greatest wish since the 80s. Now watch the mess continue.

 

Will TM be PM next April? Not a cats chance. 

[msc 18,439]

^ SNP standing in England, right?

[runebomme 377]

I think in a more sensible world any one over 80 should not be allowed to vote

 

it of course would be degrading for them but is this good enough reason when you consider the consequences for the entire country 

[paddyfool 379]

I don't think you could impose any upper age limit fairly. Frailty strikes different people down at different ages.

 

I've had to stop taking my Mum to vote as her Alzheimers progressed beyond any understanding of what's going on.  (Incidentally, looking after her has been one of the few things keeping me in this country, after the Brexit vote), and she's not even 80 yet.  Other people still have their marbles past the age of 100. 

 

The only thing I wanted to be different about the EU ref voting ages was to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote, as they did in the Scottish Indy Ref. It's their future that was being decided, after all.

[charon 4,943]

4 hours ago, msc said:

^ SNP standing in England, right?

 

2nd biggest supported Party in the UK.....

 

 

The BoE shite with Project Fear is fun.

 

30% drop in house prices only is bad to house owners that want to sell.

 

Everybody else is joyous.

 

A Home is yer Home, not an investment.

 

 

* ftr I'm wanting a boat. An arc if you will.

[charon 4,943]

4 hours ago, runebomme said:

I think in a more sensible world any one over 80 should not be allowed to vote

 

it of course would be degrading for them but is this good enough reason when you consider the consequences for the entire country 

 

I've said on here before, pay the State Pension from aged 18 for 20 Years, then no help at all when retired.

 

Get the cash when able to cane it and you'll die earlier with no money in dotage.

 

Win win cuntos.

 

* vote charon

 

** need to work (not under any form of benefits at all) to get a vote.

[philheybrookbay 439]

Sigh. If there’s not a chance of a deal just admit it TM.

 

Get on with it. There comes a point in any divorce that you take step back, stop fighting and just divorce. Unless you want to be fighting over the fish knives your ex Aunt in law gave as a wedding present (daft but you get the idea how fucking annoying this is getting).

 

Call their bluff if you’ve that guts.

[Spade_Cooley 9,515]

Yep, it's gonna be a no deal.

[Sir Creep 7,070]

On 15/09/2018 at 07:24, runebomme said:

I think in a more sensible world any one over 80 should not be allowed to vote

 

it of course would be degrading for them but is this good enough reason when you consider the consequences for the entire country 

Or run for office.
Or drive.
Or decide what the family is watching on the telly
Or what music the family is listening to

Or what restaurant the family is eating at -- unless they're paying.
(etc)

[gcreptile 10,966]

The EU is looking for a deal that involves a clear cut, but with as minimal pain for both sides as possible.

Theresa May wants a deal in which the UK still keeps all the benefits of EU membership.

In the end, she doesn't want that clear cut that the EU has accepted will happen.

 

In a way, the EU understands the Brexiteers better than May, because the Brexiteers wanted to leave, and so they will leave. But maybe the real matter is that many of the Brexit voters were promised that the "all benefits, no costs" deal was possible. They were told that a clear cut was possible without any losses. They were lied to and so the referendum is not a true reflection of the will of the people.