RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:

Digby wrote:You wouldn't have thought respect for Boris could fall lower but his resignation to advance his political career over brexit leaves high and dry Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe when he was supposed to have ruled on her diplomatic status this week. Now the new home secretary will review from scratch, FFS he could have tried to undo some of his own failings before chickening out

Well Trump has endorsed him as a future PM so that might help his levels of respect to fall a little further.

The fat orange one clearly doesn't know the fat blonde one would have voted for Hillary

Nigel going into meltdown on The Wright Stuff. Funny how UKIP is now entirely living up to it's billing.
Two murderers, several financial scandals and untold racist attitudes.

But it's todays misogyny that will sink him.

I mean... why not?

He’s definitely on the spectrum. It’s a case of how far and how many.

Fuck me he is thick.

Can you keep him?

Ah, ****. Not another referendum. If we must, can there be a fourth option of no more referendums ever.

Mellsblue wrote:Ah, ****. Not another referendum. If we must, can there be a fourth option of no more referendums ever.

The public were stupid enough to vote Brexit so you'd have to wonder if they wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for a hard brexit

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Ah, ****. Not another referendum. If we must, can there be a fourth option of no more referendums ever.

The public were stupid enough to vote Brexit so you'd have to wonder if they wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for a hard brexit

Given that UKIP have shot up 5pts despite being almost non-existant and the party now leading the polls by 4pts is lead by a bunch of people who think the EU is a capitalist plot, I suspect you’re correct.

On the other hand, it may just be a brilliant plot to give the Chequers agreement legitimacy. Retainers vote Remain with second choice of Chequers, Leavers vote leave with Chequers as second choice and those that like Chequers vote for Chequers. In the second round Chequers wins.

Alternatively, it’s all bull**** as there isn’t enough time to get legislation passed for a new referendum, plus campaigning prior to when the referendum would need to be held to meet current deadlines.

Alternatively, alternatively, neither Cons or Lab would vote for an AV referendum as this opens the door to AV at the GE.

F**k it. Let’s just sue somebody.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Ah, ****. Not another referendum. If we must, can there be a fourth option of no more referendums ever.

The public were stupid enough to vote Brexit so you'd have to wonder if they wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for a hard brexit

Given that UKIP have shot up 5pts despite being almost non-existant and the party now leading the polls by 4pts is lead by a bunch of people who think the EU is a capitalist plot, I suspect you’re correct.

On the other hand, it may just be a brilliant plot to give the Chequers agreement legitimacy. Retainers vote Remain with second choice of Chequers, Leavers vote leave with Chequers as second choice and those that like Chequers vote for Chequers. In the second round Chequers wins.

Alternatively, it’s all bull**** as there isn’t enough time to get legislation passed for a new referendum, plus campaigning prior to when the referendum would need to be held to meet current deadlines.

Alternatively, alternatively, neither Cons or Lab would vote for an AV referendum as this opens the door to AV at the GE.

F**k it. Let’s just sue somebody.

What happens when enough people leave their 2nd choice blank or vote for the same choice twice?

As no-one has mentioned that yet it seems like the most likely option. Hell, I'd say Remain and then leave the 2nd part blank. Or I'd say Remain Leave. I'd not vote for some mess without knowing what it actually is...

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
The public were stupid enough to vote Brexit so you'd have to wonder if they wouldn't be stupid enough to vote for a hard brexit

Given that UKIP have shot up 5pts despite being almost non-existant and the party now leading the polls by 4pts is lead by a bunch of people who think the EU is a capitalist plot, I suspect you’re correct.

On the other hand, it may just be a brilliant plot to give the Chequers agreement legitimacy. Retainers vote Remain with second choice of Chequers, Leavers vote leave with Chequers as second choice and those that like Chequers vote for Chequers. In the second round Chequers wins.

Alternatively, it’s all bull**** as there isn’t enough time to get legislation passed for a new referendum, plus campaigning prior to when the referendum would need to be held to meet current deadlines.

Alternatively, alternatively, neither Cons or Lab would vote for an AV referendum as this opens the door to AV at the GE.

F**k it. Let’s just sue somebody.

What happens when enough people leave their 2nd choice blank or vote for the same choice twice?

As no-one has mentioned that yet it seems like the most likely option. Hell, I'd say Remain and then leave the 2nd part blank. Or I'd say Remain Leave. I'd not vote for some mess without knowing what it actually is...

I’m no expert in AV - which Conservative would be - but I’m fairly certain you can’t vote for the same option twice. As for no second vote then I believe you are no longer in the count. If a lot of people did that, and I’m sure a sizeable number will, I suppose the number of votes for the eventual winner - though, nobody has won anything of a positive note in the last couple of years - would be considerably less than the number of votes cast. Cue the loser claiming the winner has no mandate.
I’d assume the Chequers option on the ballot paper will be the deal finally agreed with the EU, ie Chequers-light.

Regardless, there is no way a second referendum will ‘bring the country together’. Too much bad blood has been spilt, more will be spilt during campaigning and even with the pure majority offered by AV we’d still be in the same position as after the original reversion that produced a pure majority, ie Diggers would call all the leave voters inbred, racist retards and all the leave voters would call Diggers a libtard snowflake, and if Chequers-light won everybody would call it the pointless mess it is.

And to think the referendum was only ever in the Conservative manifesto as Osborne wanted it to bargain away with the Lib Dems in coalition talks.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Given that UKIP have shot up 5pts despite being almost non-existant and the party now leading the polls by 4pts is lead by a bunch of people who think the EU is a capitalist plot, I suspect you’re correct.

On the other hand, it may just be a brilliant plot to give the Chequers agreement legitimacy. Retainers vote Remain with second choice of Chequers, Leavers vote leave with Chequers as second choice and those that like Chequers vote for Chequers. In the second round Chequers wins.

Alternatively, it’s all bull**** as there isn’t enough time to get legislation passed for a new referendum, plus campaigning prior to when the referendum would need to be held to meet current deadlines.

Alternatively, alternatively, neither Cons or Lab would vote for an AV referendum as this opens the door to AV at the GE.

F**k it. Let’s just sue somebody.

What happens when enough people leave their 2nd choice blank or vote for the same choice twice?

As no-one has mentioned that yet it seems like the most likely option. Hell, I'd say Remain and then leave the 2nd part blank. Or I'd say Remain Leave. I'd not vote for some mess without knowing what it actually is...

I’m no expert in AV - which Conservative would be - but I’m fairly certain you can’t vote for the same option twice. As for no second vote then I believe you are no longer in the count. If a lot of people did that, and I’m sure a sizeable number will, I suppose the number of votes for the eventual winner - though, nobody has won anything of a positive note in the last couple of years - would be considerably less than the number of votes cast. Cue the loser claiming the winner has no mandate.
I’d assume the Chequers option on the ballot paper will be the deal finally agreed with the EU, ie Chequers-light.

Regardless, there is no way a second referendum will ‘bring the country together’. Too much bad blood has been spilt, more will be spilt during campaigning and even with the pure majority offered by AV we’d still be in the same position as after the original reversion that produced a pure majority, ie Diggers would call all the leave voters inbred, racist retards and all the leave voters would call Diggers a libtard snowflake, and if Chequers-light won everybody would call it the pointless mess it is.

And to think the referendum was only ever in the Conservative manifesto as Osborne wanted it to bargain away with the Lib Dems in coalition talks.

The referendum was getting foisted on Cameron in some fashion at some point, if only they'd put some thought into what they'd actually do and not just we'd vote to leave and everything would be perfect. at this point the invasion of Iraq is looking well thought out by comparison

I know that you don't tend to give up a winning result, but I keep hearing that brexit will apply the will of the people. If the leave side are still sure of this then why the opposition to a 2nd referendum? Frankly, if they don't think they still have the numbers and yet are still wanting to go ahead then democracy would appear to be fucked.

If they'd asked about capital punishment in the referendum...... would have been the same result.

canta_brian wrote:I know that you don't tend to give up a winning result, but I keep hearing that brexit will apply the will of the people. If the leave side are still sure of this then why the opposition to a 2nd referendum? Frankly, if they don't think they still have the numbers and yet are still wanting to go ahead then democracy would appear to be fucked.

It's the will of the rural community, who have been conned, ...... it's easy to con the rural community.
These corporate psychopaths will pull any trick to validate their bent psychology and to normalise their deficiency.

The parochial types aren't really clued up.

kk67 wrote:

canta_brian wrote:I know that you don't tend to give up a winning result, but I keep hearing that brexit will apply the will of the people. If the leave side are still sure of this then why the opposition to a 2nd referendum? Frankly, if they don't think they still have the numbers and yet are still wanting to go ahead then democracy would appear to be fucked.

It's the will of the rural community, who have been conned, ...... it's easy to con the rural community.
These corporate psychopaths will pull any trick to validate their bent psychology and to normalise their deficiency.

The parochial types aren't really clued up.

I think your soundbite machine needs a tweak. Big business and the establishment was lately on the side of remain.

canta_brian wrote:I know that you don't tend to give up a winning result, but I keep hearing that brexit will apply the will of the people. If the leave side are still sure of this then why the opposition to a 2nd referendum? Frankly, if they don't think they still have the numbers and yet are still wanting to go ahead then democracy would appear to be fucked.

My view here is that whilst the previous referendum should be respected, and it has triggered article 50, the result was far to close to allow it to determine our future for the next generation or more. A second referendum once the facts of a deal are known is reasonable. If it’s still for leave and hard Brexit then at least the argument over what the people actually want can stop.

Colour me surprised the EU have rejected our white paper on brexit, it would be good if at some point the government would deign to tell us what's going to happen, on the off chance there's anyone still pondering an investment into this pathetic excuse for a country

We should have been at this point two days after the referendum

Digby wrote:Colour me surprised the EU have rejected our white paper on brexit, it would be good if at some point the government would deign to tell us what's going to happen, on the off chance there's anyone still pondering an investment into this pathetic excuse for a country

We should have been at this point two days after the referendum

It’s becoming painfully obvious that there are only three options for us:

Remain in the EU,
Break completely and rely on WTO,
Remain in one of the looser European frameworks, EFTA for example.

Trying to negotiate something bespoke is very difficult and lengthy when you know what it is you want and aren’t under time pressure. When your own government is so badly split and you have a limited amount of time, it’s impossible.

I think May and her team are hoping that there will be an 11th hour deal, which isn’t unheard of for the EU. But these are people livelihoods they are screwing about with.

I think Corbyn and his team need to take some blame here as well. I get that the opposition wants to see the government fall so it can take over. But the opposition should have a plan, it clearly doesn’t. Labour avoids the scrutiny that the Conservatives get, which is fair as the latter are supposed to be the party of government, but imagine how much different this would be if labour appealed to national interest. If Labour privately approached May and said that they would support a Norway style deal, or something close they can agree on, it would be easier for May to get that through the commons. That’s would be the national interest taking priority.

Instead, it’s clear that Corbyn wants to leave trnEU but knows many of his MPs don’t so he makes sure the labour position is nice and vague so everyone can buy onto it a bit as long as they don’t question too hard.

If the May government falls then it could be PM Corbyn. Can he expect to get his idea for a deal through Parliament?

I wonder at what point MPs will come to the conclusion that they can’t agree and that thwe public should get a second chance to clarify what sort of Brexit they want.

Digby wrote:Colour me surprised the EU have rejected our white paper on brexit, it would be good if at some point the government would deign to tell us what's going to happen, on the off chance there's anyone still pondering an investment into this pathetic excuse for a country

We should have been at this point two days after the referendum

Though I'm neither for or against UKexit it would also be good if the EU could actually seem to compromise a little
as it seems every time we make an offer, dial back our negotiating position etc they still want more concessions.
They do understand that negotiations are meant to involve compromise on both sides not just one otherwise what's
the point of them. They seem to think that if a deal isn't made by 29 March 2019 the UK will just say 'OK no deal,
we might as well stay in'

If we had a political consensus on what we want to achieve then they might. But with such a close vote and so much anarchy on government, they know they don’t really need to compromise.

Close vote or not, anarchy in the Government or not, you do not go into negotiations unwilling to
compromise on anything unless you don't take the other sides willingness in leaving the EU as
serious & just believe it is a stunt to try & get something out of the EU while still staying in.
I'm getting to the point where I wish the Government would just say to Barnier 'Feck you, you don't
want to listen. we're out of here' even if it does mean problems down the line

belgarion wrote:

Digby wrote:Colour me surprised the EU have rejected our white paper on brexit, it would be good if at some point the government would deign to tell us what's going to happen, on the off chance there's anyone still pondering an investment into this pathetic excuse for a country

We should have been at this point two days after the referendum

Though I'm neither for or against UKexit it would also be good if the EU could actually seem to compromise a little
as it seems every time we make an offer, dial back our negotiating position etc they still want more concessions.
They do understand that negotiations are meant to involve compromise on both sides not just one otherwise what's
the point of them. They seem to think that if a deal isn't made by 29 March 2019 the UK will just say 'OK no deal,
we might as well stay in'

They don't need to compromise: they hold all the aces. If the UK wants access the European market, they need to pay one way or another, so the EU knows the UK will need to back down sooner or later. No deal would not be a disaster for the EU, but it would be for the UK.

Im in agreement broadly with Stom, although I think a no deal would hurt the EU, it would definitely hurt us more.

The EU might compromise in a few places if the UK were arguing with a collective voice and they recognised the importance of our contribution to the EU, which I think they mostly do. But when we are such an inconsistent mess, it’s not a surprise they are playing hard ball. The only risk from their viewpoint is Rees Mogg, or even Corbyn, premiership which puts two fingers up to future budget contributions and just walks away whistling Jerusalem.

If we wanted the EU to compromise that'd be much easier to achieve as an EU member, we'd have more influence and more time

The EU Commission will never compromise on its core pillars, unless it’s absolutely necessary to stop one of the pillars collapsing completely. That is of course their perogative but then they don’t have to worry about trivial things such as elections. It’s also one of the reasons people dislike the EU. Sadly, it’s just more cannon fodder to the hard Brexit supporters. You’d think that a long time member and net financial contributor would warrant some flexibility - and we know the EU can flex their own rules when they need to - but I’ve no idea why anybody is suprised at this response. Sadly, our chief negotiator and PM seem to be.