• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Brexit: Now What? 9 Below Zero

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the effects of the No Deal Brexit as as bad as most are predicting, then Bojo is going to learn the truth of that old saying "Be careful about what you wish for;you may get it".
 
If Labour do become the government after an election, either alone or in some coalition with SNP / Green / Plaid / Liberals, their policy is to have another referendum with a choice between "Credible Leave" and remain - with nearly all their MPs backing remain.

The problem for leavers is that Labour's idea of "Credible Leave" will mean staying in the Single Market and Customs Union - and almost everyone, leavers included, agree that would be worse than remain.

So, if Labour win, they are set on offering a referendum choice of remain, or 'mostly remain but without any representation.' I can't see that being accepted by the electorate: when we've already voted to leave, if only a binary choice is to be offered it should be to chose how we leave - not how we remain.

If Labour's proposed referendum is pushed through, there will be an awful lot of spoiled papers - spoiled papers might even 'win' the ballot, or at least spoiled + leave might beat remain, which would leave the result dubious at best.

If another referendum is to be forced upon us, I think there need to be three choices at least:

* Remain
* Leave with the negotiated deal (whatever that is)
* Leave with no deal

To avoid splitting the leave vote (or indeed the remain vote if there should be two different remain options), the single transferable vote system should be used. Voters would rank the choices 1, 2, 3 (and so on if there are more than 3 choices). In the first round of counting only voters #1 choices are counted, if no option gets 50% +1 vote then the losing option is eliminated. Any votes that had that eliminated option as their #1 choice are now recounted using their #2 choice. If there are only three choices then the second round of counting would be bound to produce a winner.

I know Labour and other remain parties won't like the idea, but the alternative will leave up to half the electorate feeling that the option they wish to vote for has been denied them - and that would not be good for democracy.
 
What about vote of no confidence if it looks like Boris is going to crash out. Are they not preparing (coalition of the wiling) to take over if that looks like it could happen?
 
But it isn't the default, the Benn Bill rules it out as an option and try as he might I don't think Boris can dodge it.

Article 50 is explicit about it. Time rans out, Exit happens. No amount of legislation in exiting country will change it. And for extension, every remaining country has to agree with it Which is increasingly unlikely...
 
If another referendum is to be forced upon us, I think there need to be three choices at least:

* Remain
* Leave with the negotiated deal (whatever that is)
* Leave with no deal

To avoid splitting the leave vote (or indeed the remain vote if there should be two different remain options), the single transferable vote system should be used. Voters would rank the choices 1, 2, 3 (and so on if there are more than 3 choices). In the first round of counting only voters #1 choices are counted, if no option gets 50% +1 vote then the losing option is eliminated. Any votes that had that eliminated option as their #1 choice are now recounted using their #2 choice. If there are only three choices then the second round of counting would be bound to produce a winner.

Some of us have been telling you this for a while now. I have to ask you though - what are the different remain options you mention?

The only one I can think of is hard Remain, where UK volunteers to abandon the Euro and Schengen opt-outs as well as the rebate. That would be swell, but no one suggested that yet.

Is it that or something else? Can you please explain?

McHrozni
 
Is the word "kraut" still OK to use in Britain?

https://i.imgur.com/lMOgAac.png

For reference, here's Wikipedia says on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]

Is "kraut" any different from other ethnic slurs in this respect?
 
Is the word "kraut" still OK to use in Britain?

https://i.imgur.com/lMOgAac.png

For reference, here's Wikipedia says on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Is "kraut" any different from other ethnic slurs in this respect?

Yeah. It's a slur against a powerful ethnic group that has the ability to totally screw Britain, as opposed to most slurs that are used against minorities with little power.

Whether that's an argument why this slur might be permissable or why it should be pursued to the end of the Earth and destroyed with fire before it lays eggs is up to you.

Leave.eu is invoking two world wars. Russians helped in both. I wonder if there's a hidden message there.

McHrozni
 
Yeah. It's a slur against a powerful ethnic group that has the ability to totally screw Britain, as opposed to most slurs that are used against minorities with little power.

Whether that's an argument why this slur might be permissable or why it should be pursued to the end of the Earth and destroyed with fire before it lays eggs is up to you.

Leave.eu is invoking two world wars. Russians helped in both. I wonder if there's a hidden message there.

McHrozni

I don't think there's a hidden message at all. Drunken British English idiots, either on holiday or at the finals of a football competition chant "Two world wars and a world cup" whilst pointing at people they think may be German as if:

  • They personally had something to do with those things
  • The UK didn't get considerable support in both world wars from may other countries

It's just playing to the rich vein of xenophobia which runs through Brexit supporters. I'm not sure that the architects of Brexit necessarily feel the same way, but they know that this kind of message is a powerful one and there is a large minority of people, possibly a majority, who will gamely put up with all kinds of **** if the Blitz spirit is invoked.
 
What about vote of no confidence if it looks like Boris is going to crash out. Are they not preparing (coalition of the wiling) to take over if that looks like it could happen?

There is talk of a Government of National Unity to prevent a no-deal.

The problem is that the largest opposition party is Labour and Labour's leader Jeremy Corbyn insists that he is the Prime Minister if there is a GNU.

He is unacceptable to many of the other prospective members of a GNU, primarily the LibDem and ex-Conservative members.

As it stands, this means that any GNU is dead in the water.
 
The way I read it, they are saying strong chance article 50 is extended. I can't see your point.

Of course, it's worth noting that betting odds are not an indication of probability, but instead an indication of how people are betting. So this doesn't tell you what the politicians are likely to do, it tells you what a certain segment of the UK population believes the politicians will do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom