RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Cool. If you don’t think the leave campaign platform was blindingly obvious then fair enough. If you don’t think most politicians are
Machiavellian at heart then that’s fair enough too. It is possible for one stage to be nuanced and another not within the same process. This is especially true when the actors in those two stages are hugely different, both in number and make up, and when one is a vote to start a process the actors can influence and the other is a single vote after which the actors are passengers.

Let's do it this way, then...

A gym runs a special for new customers. They offer 20% OFF the first 3 months of a 6 month contract. They get 100 sign ups. Of those 100 sign ups, 40 are men and 60 are women. 35% are under 30, 25% are 30-40, 20% 40-50, and 20% are 50+.

Glen, a 52 year old man has suffered with some heart issues caused by poor lifestyle choices. His doctor told him to workout or risk a heart attack, so he joined a gym.
Karen, 38, doesn't like the way her tummy looks in a bikini and now there are no more children on the way, she wants to join a gym and flatten it out.
Mike, 25, has got a job and can suddenly afford to work out at a gym with real weights rather than at home with milk jugs.
Julie, 44, has used 4 gyms in the area, and always signs up to new gyms based on special offers. She likes to shop around for the best deals.

All of these people join the gym for different reasons, the fact they joined the gym is important, but there is a host of information behind that.

To suggest that everyone who voted leave wanted the same kind of Brexit, in the same way, is insane. Because every person has different problems that require different solutions.

The government - and the opposition - have completely failed to address this fact. But it doesn't stop it from being true.

That gym said "Get fit and lose your excess fat for less". Yet 50% of the examples did not join to get fit or lose weight.

Just because a bus said £350m for the NHS, doesn't mean that's why Bob, or Carol voted for it.

So stop treating people as morons.

I’m not treating people as morons. That accusation comes solely from ardent Remainers aimed at Leavers

We could actually run a scenario that is related to the ref. People vote in a GE for a party based on their platform. They almost certainly don’t want every policy on that platform but, on balance, it’s better than the other offer(s) so they vote in the knowledge that if their party wins a majority they might have to suck up some policies they don’t particularly like but they get the party they most agree with implementing its policies.
It’s patently obvious on what platform Leave stood, so if you think people voted without realising this, and there are some as there always will be, then you are the one treating them all like morons.
As for the bus, where did I mention that?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-industry

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ave-brexit

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nh ... 30436.html

https://www.gq.com/story/british-voters ... ting-leave

I could go and find more, but I have other things to do

Truth is, people didn't vote leave for 1 reason. Many of them didn't even vote for the reasons listed by the campaign. And even if they did, they only agreed with some of them and not all of them. Because they all want different things.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
Let's do it this way, then...

A gym runs a special for new customers. They offer 20% OFF the first 3 months of a 6 month contract. They get 100 sign ups. Of those 100 sign ups, 40 are men and 60 are women. 35% are under 30, 25% are 30-40, 20% 40-50, and 20% are 50+.

Glen, a 52 year old man has suffered with some heart issues caused by poor lifestyle choices. His doctor told him to workout or risk a heart attack, so he joined a gym.
Karen, 38, doesn't like the way her tummy looks in a bikini and now there are no more children on the way, she wants to join a gym and flatten it out.
Mike, 25, has got a job and can suddenly afford to work out at a gym with real weights rather than at home with milk jugs.
Julie, 44, has used 4 gyms in the area, and always signs up to new gyms based on special offers. She likes to shop around for the best deals.

All of these people join the gym for different reasons, the fact they joined the gym is important, but there is a host of information behind that.

To suggest that everyone who voted leave wanted the same kind of Brexit, in the same way, is insane. Because every person has different problems that require different solutions.

The government - and the opposition - have completely failed to address this fact. But it doesn't stop it from being true.

That gym said "Get fit and lose your excess fat for less". Yet 50% of the examples did not join to get fit or lose weight.

Just because a bus said £350m for the NHS, doesn't mean that's why Bob, or Carol voted for it.

So stop treating people as morons.

I’m not treating people as morons. That accusation comes solely from ardent Remainers aimed at Leavers

We could actually run a scenario that is related to the ref. People vote in a GE for a party based on their platform. They almost certainly don’t want every policy on that platform but, on balance, it’s better than the other offer(s) so they vote in the knowledge that if their party wins a majority they might have to suck up some policies they don’t particularly like but they get the party they most agree with implementing its policies.
It’s patently obvious on what platform Leave stood, so if you think people voted without realising this, and there are some as there always will be, then you are the one treating them all like morons.
As for the bus, where did I mention that?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-industry

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ave-brexit

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nh ... 30436.html

https://www.gq.com/story/british-voters ... ting-leave

I could go and find more, but I have other things to do

Truth is, people didn't vote leave for 1 reason. Many of them didn't even vote for the reasons listed by the campaign. And even if they did, they only agreed with some of them and not all of them. Because they all want different things.

I haven’t said people voted for one reason. I said people knew what they were voting for.

I’ve stopped reading the Guardian as it’s Remoaner writ large but I clicked the first link.....someone was promised greater flexibility on immigration from the sub-Indian after Brexit but moans it hasn’t happened before Brexit. Top class journalism there. I’d also point out that immigration has stayed at the same levels since Brexit but with a decrease from the EU and an increase from the rest of the world. Statistics don’t seem to back up the anecdotal evidence on that one.

If you want anecdotal evidence, I know people who voted Remain but would now vote Leave (except in a no deal scenario). Polls show things are pretty much at the status quo. So, if there are leavers who changed their mind there must be Remainers who changed their mind, too. Given the debacle out politicians have made of it all, I’m surprised Remain aren’t 20pts ahead at least.

Besides, we weren’t discussing whether people had changed their mind but rather whether they knew what Brexit they were voting for. I think it was bloody obvious but maybe I’m wrong and people wandered in to the polling booth thinking the govt would enact their Brexit rather than the one Leave campaigned for.

When you think that the ballot paper stating only ‘Leave’ means you can have whichever Leave suits your aims:

For clarification, I follow Finkelstein not Banks.

Mellsblue wrote:For clarification, I follow Finkelstein not Banks.

IIRC he's a reluctant respecter?

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:For clarification, I follow Finkelstein not Banks.

IIRC he's a reluctant respecter?

He is.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:For clarification, I follow Finkelstein not Banks.

IIRC he's a reluctant respecter?

He is.

as indeed are The Times, at least editorially.

[quote="Mellsblue"][quote="Stom"][quote="Banquo"]
do they have to rework them to pass the Bercow test? I thought they were just going to vote on the top 3 from last Thursday?

The general public may find this a tad confusing. As indeed did Ian Lavery when voting for no-deal last week.[/quote]

As I understand it, no, because they were included in the business motion. If the same business motion were to be re-proposed, Bercow *should* reject it...[/quote]
They’ve also all been amended, save Clarke’s CU motion; which was so close to passing last time that you can see why you’d allow it another go. Really, it depends on whether Bercow decides to rely on precedent or not, which is dependent on how much attention it will garner him/whether it suits his own ends.[/quote]

Wasn't part of the motion the last time they did this parliament setting aside it'd already voted on and discounted some of the ammendments, and thus authorising bringing the same deal back in the same session? May could do similar for her deal so the speaker can be ignored in all this

So indicative votes on C, D, E and G
The following is the BBC'S brief summary of each:

Motion C: Customs union
Proposer: Ken Clarke, Conservative
This option commits the government to negotiating "a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU" as part of any Brexit deal.
This arrangement would give the UK a closer trading relationship with the EU and reduce the need for some (but not all) checks at the Irish border.
Media captionConfused by Brexit jargon? Reality Check unpacks the basics.
But it would prevent the UK striking independent trade deals with other countries, and has previously been ruled out by Mrs May.
A version of this proposal received the most support in the first round, falling just six votes short of a majority.


Motion D: 'Common Market 2.0'
Proposer: Nick Boles, Conservative
This proposal would mean joining the European Free Trade Association and European Economic Area, with countries such as Norway.
It means the UK would remain part of the EU single market and would retain freedom of movement, so British citizens would keep the right to live and work in the EU and vice-versa.
In the last round, 188 MPs voted for this plan and 283 voted against.


Motion E: Confirmatory public vote
Proposers: Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, Labour
This gives the public a vote to approve any Brexit deal passed by Parliament, before it can be implemented.
Tabled last time by Labour former minister Dame Margaret Beckett, this option won the highest number of votes, with 268 MPs for and 295 against.


Motion G: Parliamentary supremacy
Proposer: Joanna Cherry, Scottish National Party
This option offers a series of steps to prevent the UK leaving the EU without a deal. First, it requires the government to seek an extension if a deal has not been agreed two days before the deadline for leaving.
If the EU does not agree to an extension, on the day before the UK was due to leave, MPs would be asked to choose between a no-deal Brexit or revoking Article 50 to stop Brexit altogether.
In the event of revoking Article 50, an inquiry would be held to find out what type of future relationship with the EU could command majority support in the UK and be acceptable to Brussels.
MPs previously voted against a proposal to cancel Brexit by Joanna Cherry, but have not considered this plan before.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: IIRC he's a reluctant respecter?

He is.

as indeed are The Times, at least editorially.

The Times were Remain from the start of the referendum campaign. Their sister title on Sunday are quite vehemently pro-Brexit. I have stopped reading the ST because of idiots like Lawson. I read Shipman or nothing at all. I’m still partial to a box of their wine from time to time, though.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: He is.

as indeed are The Times, at least editorially.

The Times were Remain from the start of the referendum campaign. Their sister title on Sunday are quite vehemently pro-Brexit. I have stopped reading the ST because of idiots like Lawson. I read Shipman or nothing at all. I’m still partial to a box of their wine from time to time, though.

It doesn't help that my father reads little if anything...except the bloody Sunday Times.

And he's turned into a rabid Tory, pretty much. Crazy scared about his pension pot and his money, and how Labour want to steal it. All the while ignoring the fact the shares he owns have gone down in value thanks to Brexit uncertainty...

Voting to start at 20.00 (or soon after.)
Motions not chosen:
-a unilateral exit to the backstop.
- to leave on 12 April without a deal.
- to hold a referendum in the case of no-deal.
- to rejoin the European Free Trade Association.
(though this is part of 'D')

continued free movement of people ?
no independent international trade deals ??
...big calls.

DUP, SNP and Lab all confirm they will support Common Market 2.0.......looks like we will have a winner.

Mellsblue wrote:DUP, SNP and Lab all confirm they will support Common Market 2.0.......looks like we will have a winner.

Fuck

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:DUP, SNP and Lab all confirm they will support Common Market 2.0.......looks like we will have a winner.

Fuck

Better than any other form of Brexit.
Not as good as staying in.

Seems like the best compromise to me. No CJEU, compromise on future FTA’s* and retain freedom of movement. Call it a score draw.
Given it’s a sensible solution I expect them to f**k it up at the last minute. Taking my tongue out of my cheek, I expect the second ref motion to pass as well.

*assuming we ever get a tech solution to Irish border and the EU do have less incentive under this than the WA. Hopefully we can retain the portion of the political declaration with this commitment.

Mellsblue wrote:Seems like the best compromise to me. No CJEU, compromise on future FTA’s* and retain freedom of movement. Call it a score draw.
Given it’s a sensible solution I expect them to f**k it up at the last minute. Taking my tongue out of my cheek, I expect the second ref motion to pass as well.

*assuming we ever get a tech solution to Irish border and the EU do have less incentive under this than the WA. Hopefully we can retain the portion of the political declaration with this commitment.

Common Market 2.0 doesn't deliver on the referendum.

The "Customs Union" option would, because that ends freedom of movement, which as we all know is Theresa's reddest of red lines.

Zhivago wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Seems like the best compromise to me. No CJEU, compromise on future FTA’s* and retain freedom of movement. Call it a score draw.
Given it’s a sensible solution I expect them to f**k it up at the last minute. Taking my tongue out of my cheek, I expect the second ref motion to pass as well.

*assuming we ever get a tech solution to Irish border and the EU do have less incentive under this than the WA. Hopefully we can retain the portion of the political declaration with this commitment.

Common Market 2.0 doesn't deliver on the referendum.

The "Customs Union" option would, because that ends freedom of movement, which as we all know is Theresa's reddest of red lines.

What about the ability to strike FTA's? That was central to the campaign. Nothing other than Canada+ really delivers on the ref result.

If we’re going to compromise on something, can’t it be the positive and outward looking compromise of not ending free movement rather than the negative of pretty much ending our ability to strike trade deals.

A Customs Union really is the worst of all worlds.

It’s suddenly dawned on me that in the future we can agree an FTA with the EU to include freedom of movement, therefore having the CU and freedom of movement. Machiavellian genius/t**ttery from Clarke depending on your view.

Zhivago wrote: Common Market 2.0 doesn't deliver on the referendum.

That's simply not true.

It's just a lie that gets repeated by the ERG at every opportunity, whilst still being a lie.

Common Market 2.0 leaves us outside the EU, which is what was on the ballot.
It was also promised by a lot of Brexiteers in the run up to the referendum, with even Farage saying that it was more than acceptable.

Ffs.

Mellsblue wrote:Ffs.

Indeed. Four more noes...

We need to chuck them all out and get new ones in. All change!!

The Blue tide holds off the Parliamentary move:
Motion / For / Against
1/15/253
2/37/236
3/33/238
4/10/260

Boles resigns from the Party.
Nige: 'Nothing has changed..Politicians must stop trying to undo our vote....'.

Ian Dunt in good form - https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/0 ... d-soft-bre

"They were engaged in a mass act of self-harm. There was no excuse for it at all. They were not limited to one vote. They could select as many options as they liked. And still they could not support one another.

"The only flicker of hope now lies with events on Wednesday. Oliver Letwin, the author of this process, has secured the timetable for another day of indicative votes. It is the last chance saloon. He will need to find an alternate voting system - operating on a preference basis - to try and sift out MPs' least-bad selections from their ideal ones.

But it is up to parliamentarians too. They have seen tonight the damage they've done when they behave as puritanically as the ERG. There is one more chance for them to show a more sensible disposition.

If not, then it ends like Reservoir Dogs: with everyone bleeding out on the floor. They need to wise up - fast - and stop behaving in the manner they criticise their enemies for"

Brewery Trip

Ayes - 267
Noes- 289