RugbyRebels

Banquo wrote:How you read it depends on what you personally want to happen next. Its a mess, that will take an awful long time to resolve.

If we had a 'people's vote' what would the question now be?

The only way to do it would be a ranked preference system of the three main options - leave with a deal, leave without a deal, call the whole thing off. Anything else would leave ambiguity for someone to argue about.

Puja

Banquo wrote:How you read it depends on what you personally want to happen next. Its a mess, that will take an awful long time to resolve.

If we had a 'people's vote' what would the question now be?

Yep. It’s being spun every which way possible. If Labour actually grew some balls and took a position it would all be a lot clearer.
That said, however you look at it, the country is split virtually 50/50.

As for the second ref, now May has gone it No Deal v Remain. Which is squeaky bum territory.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:How you read it depends on what you personally want to happen next. Its a mess, that will take an awful long time to resolve.

If we had a 'people's vote' what would the question now be?

The only way to do it would be a ranked preference system of the three main options - leave with a deal, leave without a deal, call the whole thing off. Anything else would leave ambiguity for someone to argue about.

Puja

What deal? There isn’t one. It died with May. Well, it actually died months ago but May kept it on life support longer than the doctors recommended.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:How you read it depends on what you personally want to happen next. Its a mess, that will take an awful long time to resolve.

If we had a 'people's vote' what would the question now be?

The only way to do it would be a ranked preference system of the three main options - leave with a deal, leave without a deal, call the whole thing off. Anything else would leave ambiguity for someone to argue about.

Puja

But there is no deal on the table.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:How you read it depends on what you personally want to happen next. Its a mess, that will take an awful long time to resolve.

If we had a 'people's vote' what would the question now be?

The only way to do it would be a ranked preference system of the three main options - leave with a deal, leave without a deal, call the whole thing off. Anything else would leave ambiguity for someone to argue about.

Puja

What deal? There isn’t one. It died with May. Well, it actually died months ago but May kept it on life support longer than the doctors recommended.

Fair point, although I feel there should be some kind of soft Brexit on the ticket. Otherwise it feels like rigging the vote - while leave/remain might be 50/50, there's not the same balance for No Deal. Having a deal is a legitimately popular option and for it not to be on the paper means that there's a swathe of people going unrepresented and, worse, something that people can argue about after the vote.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
The only way to do it would be a ranked preference system of the three main options - leave with a deal, leave without a deal, call the whole thing off. Anything else would leave ambiguity for someone to argue about.

Puja

What deal? There isn’t one. It died with May. Well, it actually died months ago but May kept it on life support longer than the doctors recommended.

Fair point, although I feel there should be some kind of soft Brexit on the ticket. Otherwise it feels like rigging the vote - while leave/remain might be 50/50, there's not the same balance for No Deal. Having a deal is a legitimately popular option and for it not to be on the paper means that there's a swathe of people going unrepresented and, worse, something that people can argue about after the vote.

Puja

and how the fck do we get that? Parliament has had its say= we haven't a fckin clue and by and large can't be ar5ed to understand the issues.

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Labour aren’t Remain.

That might, possibly be why didn't count labour as a remain party? Although, TBH, I did do exactly what you suggest I should have done, so...
Oh, and my original source had no such thing at the time of my postings.

FTR, I played with putting con and lab in a group of their own for wanting a negotiated deal, but... It's just too complicated to boil either party down to any position on Brexit. The leaderships want a negotiated departure, but neither parliamentary parties do, and I think I'm right in saying that neither set of party members do.
IMO, if you count Con as pro-Brexit, you have to count labour as pro-Remain, and accept that both are wrong and water down the conclusions consequently, I left them out of that calculation.

I’ve not sat here doing any in depth maths, but going by your figs I’m struggling to see how LD + Gr + plus the nationalists is greater than BP + Con. I honestly don’t see how you could say Lab are pro-Remain. I certainly can’t see the logic of ‘if you count Con as pro-Brexit, you have to count labour as pro-Remain’. The Cons are unashamedly pro-Brexit whilst Labour ran on a pro-Brexit manifesto, have a pro-Brexit leader and have a second ref as their last resort.

Did you read what you replied to? Or just too busy spinning?

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
The only way to do it would be a ranked preference system of the three main options - leave with a deal, leave without a deal, call the whole thing off. Anything else would leave ambiguity for someone to argue about.

Puja

What deal? There isn’t one. It died with May. Well, it actually died months ago but May kept it on life support longer than the doctors recommended.

Fair point, although I feel there should be some kind of soft Brexit on the ticket. Otherwise it feels like rigging the vote - while leave/remain might be 50/50, there's not the same balance for No Deal. Having a deal is a legitimately popular option and for it not to be on the paper means that there's a swathe of people going unrepresented and, worse, something that people can argue about after the vote.

Puja

Absolutely.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What deal? There isn’t one. It died with May. Well, it actually died months ago but May kept it on life support longer than the doctors recommended.

Fair point, although I feel there should be some kind of soft Brexit on the ticket. Otherwise it feels like rigging the vote - while leave/remain might be 50/50, there's not the same balance for No Deal. Having a deal is a legitimately popular option and for it not to be on the paper means that there's a swathe of people going unrepresented and, worse, something that people can argue about after the vote.

Puja

and how the fck do we get that? Parliament has had its say= we haven't a fckin clue and by and large can't be ar5ed to understand the issues.

Absolutely.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: That might, possibly be why didn't count labour as a remain party? Although, TBH, I did do exactly what you suggest I should have done, so...
Oh, and my original source had no such thing at the time of my postings.

FTR, I played with putting con and lab in a group of their own for wanting a negotiated deal, but... It's just too complicated to boil either party down to any position on Brexit. The leaderships want a negotiated departure, but neither parliamentary parties do, and I think I'm right in saying that neither set of party members do.
IMO, if you count Con as pro-Brexit, you have to count labour as pro-Remain, and accept that both are wrong and water down the conclusions consequently, I left them out of that calculation.

I’ve not sat here doing any in depth maths, but going by your figs I’m struggling to see how LD + Gr + plus the nationalists is greater than BP + Con. I honestly don’t see how you could say Lab are pro-Remain. I certainly can’t see the logic of ‘if you count Con as pro-Brexit, you have to count labour as pro-Remain’. The Cons are unashamedly pro-Brexit whilst Labour ran on a pro-Brexit manifesto, have a pro-Brexit leader and have a second ref as their last resort.

Did you read what you replied to? Or just too busy spinning?

I did. I just don’t agree with your analysis. What is your logic behind your assertion that Lab must pro-Remain if Con are pro-Leave?

Banquo wrote:How you read it depends on what you personally want to happen next. Its a mess, that will take an awful long time to resolve.

If we had a 'people's vote' what would the question now be?

The only compromise solution has been sunk. Hard Brexit on WTO rules or remain.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: That might, possibly be why didn't count labour as a remain party? Although, TBH, I did do exactly what you suggest I should have done, so...
Oh, and my original source had no such thing at the time of my postings.

FTR, I played with putting con and lab in a group of their own for wanting a negotiated deal, but... It's just too complicated to boil either party down to any position on Brexit. The leaderships want a negotiated departure, but neither parliamentary parties do, and I think I'm right in saying that neither set of party members do.
IMO, if you count Con as pro-Brexit, you have to count labour as pro-Remain, and accept that both are wrong and water down the conclusions consequently, I left them out of that calculation.

I’ve not sat here doing any in depth maths, but going by your figs I’m struggling to see how LD + Gr + plus the nationalists is greater than BP + Con. I honestly don’t see how you could say Lab are pro-Remain. I certainly can’t see the logic of ‘if you count Con as pro-Brexit, you have to count labour as pro-Remain’. The Cons are unashamedly pro-Brexit whilst Labour ran on a pro-Brexit manifesto, have a pro-Brexit leader and have a second ref as their last resort.

Did you read what you replied to? Or just too busy spinning?

Also, why would I spin against myself. I voted to Remain, I’d vote Remain again. I’d leave the Cons if JRM or similar became leader (as stated on here previously), ie we became the BP in all but nam. I think we should accept the result of the ref but don’t think we should no deal. I’d rather anybody win rather than the Brexit Party, other than a Corbyn led Lab which I see as equally as bad as a BP win.
For clarity, I don’t want the BP party to win or the Cons to become BP-light. I’d rather second ref than no deal. I simply don’t agree with your analysis.

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:How you read it depends on what you personally want to happen next. Its a mess, that will take an awful long time to resolve.

If we had a 'people's vote' what would the question now be?

The only compromise solution has been sunk. Hard Brexit on WTO rules or remain.

What happened to the demand for compromise ? I think Puja has it spot on.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Banquo wrote:How you read it depends on what you personally want to happen next. Its a mess, that will take an awful long time to resolve.

If we had a 'people's vote' what would the question now be?

The only compromise solution has been sunk. Hard Brexit on WTO rules or remain.

What happened to the demand for compromise ? I think Puja has it spot on.

Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: The only compromise solution has been sunk. Hard Brexit on WTO rules or remain.

What happened to the demand for compromise ? I think Puja has it spot on.

Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

Agreed. As said, the deal died with May. Goodness knows where we do get a ‘deal’ from but, as you say, not to have one on the ballot paper isn’t good. However, given the extreme nature of the Brexit debate, it’s pretty apposite place for us to end up. I’d also guess it makes Remain the even more likely winner but it’s a big risk to take.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What happened to the demand for compromise ? I think Puja has it spot on.

Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

Agreed. As said, the deal died with May. Goodness knows where we do get a ‘deal’ from but, as you say, not to have one on the ballot paper isn’t good. However, given the extreme nature of the Brexit debate, it’s pretty apposite place for us to end up. I’d also guess it makes Remain the even more likely winner but it’s a big risk to take.

Let's go further. Make the two options "Join the United States of Europe and eradicate Britain!" and "Ban any interaction with foreigners!" If we're going to do polarisation, let's do it properly and do real justice to the standards of the Brexit debate.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: The only compromise solution has been sunk. Hard Brexit on WTO rules or remain.

What happened to the demand for compromise ? I think Puja has it spot on.

Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What happened to the demand for compromise ? I think Puja has it spot on.

Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.

I've only just noticed that I've signed that post like it's a letter. Clearly my brain is not willing to believe I'm off work today. You're all very polite for not pointing and laughing at me by the way.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

Agreed. As said, the deal died with May. Goodness knows where we do get a ‘deal’ from but, as you say, not to have one on the ballot paper isn’t good. However, given the extreme nature of the Brexit debate, it’s pretty apposite place for us to end up. I’d also guess it makes Remain the even more likely winner but it’s a big risk to take.

Let's go further. Make the two options "Join the United States of Europe and eradicate Britain!" and "Ban any interaction with foreigners!" If we're going to do polarisation, let's do it properly and do real justice to the standards of the Brexit debate.

Puja

Finally, a sensible suggestion.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What happened to the demand for compromise ? I think Puja has it spot on.

Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.

Ballsy!! It panders to the arch-Brexiteers and means they become the legit leave option, which is not a good place to be.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.

I've only just noticed that I've signed that post like it's a letter. Clearly my brain is not willing to believe I'm off work today. You're all very polite for not pointing and laughing at me by the way.

Puja

Dearest Puja,

I thought it brought some civility and manners to the debate, which is severely needed.

Kind Regards,
Mellsblue Esq.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Unfortunately, they've all got something of a point in that the only concrete compromise proposal around is one that's deader than the proverbial dodo. If there were to be a second ref, I know I'd want a third option on the ballot paper, but I haven't got the first clue what it would be anymore.

Yours sincerely,

Peter

I agree in principle, but I, now very firmly of the opinion that referendums need to be specific. If a new PM can negotiate a new deal with the EU and that can be an option then great. If not, it’s a straight fight between WTO and remain as we are.

I've only just noticed that I've signed that post like it's a letter. Clearly my brain is not willing to believe I'm off work today. You're all very polite for not pointing and laughing at me by the way.

Puja

ha, I thought it was a reference to the Peter Principle, Peter Perfect, Blue Peter or some other Peter I hadn't thought of. Peter Bone, maybe

Random stuff:

1) BP are the biggest single party in the EU parl.
2) Lib Dems are the biggest EU party in London.
3) Pan-EU Green surge - took nine of Germany’s ten largest cities. In France, Les Verts came from nowhere to finish third, greens came second in Finland and broke into double digits in Austria and The Netherlands. In Ireland, Greens trebled their share of the vote and won their first European Parliament seat for 20 years. And in Britain, the Greens enjoyed their best performance in 30 years.
4) After losing a GE, losing seats in the latest local election despite being in oppo, losing double digit % compared to last EU vote, coming fifth in Scot, and finishing behind Plaid Cymru for the first time can Corbyn hold onto the leadership/fence sitting?
5) Does the success of BP push Con MPs towards the more Brexiteery leadership candidates?

The first symptoms of the death of centrism?

Mellsblue wrote:Random stuff:

1) BP are the biggest single party in the EU parl.
2) Lib Dems are the biggest EU party in London.
3) Pan-EU Green surge - took nine of Germany’s ten largest cities. In France, Les Verts came from nowhere to finish third, greens came second in Finland and broke into double digits in Austria and The Netherlands. In Ireland, Greens trebled their share of the vote and won their first European Parliament seat for 20 years. And in Britain, the Greens enjoyed their best performance in 30 years.
4) After losing a GE, losing seats in the latest local election despite being in oppo, losing double digit % compared to last EU vote, coming fifth in Scot, and finishing behind Plaid Cymru for the first time can Corbyn hold onto the leadership/fence sitting?
5) Does the success of BP push Con MPs towards the more Brexiteery leadership candidates?

Labour need to come off the fence and soon, or they will be punished as well as the Tories.