• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nearly half of UK voters back no-deal Brexit and no PM Corbyn, poll finds

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,888
Reaction score
26,610
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Nearly half of UK voters back no-deal Brexit and no PM Corbyn, poll finds – POLITICO

Almost half of British voters would prefer the country to leave the European Union without a Brexit deal and Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn not to become prime minister, according to a YouGov poll.
When asked to choose between that scenario and one in which Corbyn becomes the country’s next leader and holds a second referendum on Brexit, just over a third backed the option that could see Britain remain in the EU.

Nearly one in five people said they remain undecided.
The poll represents a setback for Corbyn's plan to create a cross-party coalition to fight the government's plan to leave the EU with or without a deal on October 31.
Click to expand...

If we were to believe the Euronuts in this forum, they claim Boris lacked any support, but it looks like this poll proved them wrong. Corbyn as an alternative would be even worse. Full speed ahead.
 
Surprising... and the UK economy is what hangs in the balance.
 
bearpoker said:
Not to mention the integrity of the UK itself. They may lose Scotland as a result.
Click to expand...

No they won’t, to secede would be the biggest mistake Scotland would ever make
 
Much to their credit, I have encountered several Brits who voted against Brexit who accepted that they lost, oppose a second referendum, and have believed all along that Brexit must happen not because they like the idea but because the referendum results mandated it.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Surprising... and the UK economy is what hangs in the balance.
Click to expand...

I think it's a similar dynamic to what we've seen here from the farmers and others who are willing to take the initial after effects of the trade war for the promise of a better outcome. There are quite a few serious concerns around a no deal Brexit though that are beyond just economic. Ireland comes to mind right away, as does the impetus this gives the Scots in their move for independence.
 
PoS said:
If we were to believe the Euronuts in this forum
Click to expand...

As usual, Brexiteers only care about two things: Hatred of the EU and hatred of immigrants.

They never think through the consequences of a no-deal Brexit, which would be catastrophic for the UK.

Thankfully the EU refuses to blink.
 
ElChupacabra said:
I think it's a similar dynamic to what we've seen here from the farmers and others who are willing to take the initial after effects of the trade war for the promise of a better outcome.
Click to expand...



There are quite a few serious concerns around a no deal Brexit though that are beyond just economic. Ireland comes to mind right away, as does the impetus this gives the Scots in their move for independence.
Click to expand...

Were no-deal to somehow actually go through, Scotland would probably secede. Northern Ireland might even rejoin with Ireland.
 
Phys251 said:




Were no-deal to somehow actually go through, Scotland would probably secede. Northern Ireland might even rejoin with Ireland.
Click to expand...


That's debatable, but I do think it impacts the movement for secession; especially if the UK economy is adversely affected. The Scots overwhelmingly voted to remain.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No they won’t, to secede would be the biggest mistake Scotland would ever make
Click to expand...

How so?
Scotland narrowly voted against independence on the assurance Britain would stay in Europe.
From Wikipedia...

"The referendum question was "Should Scotland be an independent country?", which voters answered with "Yes" or "No". The "No" side won, with 2,001,926 (55.3%) voting against independence and 1,617,989 (44.7%) voting in favour. The turnout of 84.6% was the highest recorded for an election or referendum in the United Kingdom since the introduction of universal suffrage."

In the Brexit referendum every district in Scotland voted to stay in the EU. Scotland on it's own would be disadvantaged for sure but Scotland in the EU? It's what the Scots want.
 
Phys251 said:




Were no-deal to somehow actually go through, Scotland would probably secede. Northern Ireland might even rejoin with Ireland.
Click to expand...


If that were to happen, would there be a UK anymore? Does Whales count as a separate country or is it part of England?
 
bearpoker said:
If that were to happen, would there be a UK anymore? Does Whales count as a separate country or is it part of England?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the term United Kingdom refers to England and Scotland. When James VI of Scotland became James I of England the kingdoms were united. I don't know if there's ever been a Kingdom of Wales.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No they won’t, to secede would be the biggest mistake Scotland would ever make
Click to expand...

They can be free of English tyranny and oppression. They can keep the oil and gas revenues in Scotland instead of seeing the English steal it all.
 
ElChupacabra said:
That's debatable, but I do think it impacts the movement for secession; especially if the UK economy is adversely affected. The Scots overwhelmingly voted to remain.
Click to expand...

When it was assumed the UK would be in the EU, with that having changed a new vote much change the end result
 
Drawdown said:
Much to their credit, I have encountered several Brits who voted against Brexit who accepted that they lost, oppose a second referendum, and have believed all along that Brexit must happen not because they like the idea but because the referendum results mandated it.
Click to expand...

The Brexit referendum was neither a mandate nor binding.
 
Grand Mal said:
My understanding is that the term United Kingdom refers to England and Scotland. When James VI of Scotland became James I of England the kingdoms were united. I don't know if there's ever been a Kingdom of Wales.
Click to expand...

There have been plenty of Kings in Wales though nowadays it's just a principality. Henry VII (Henry Tudor) made much of his Welsh ancestry when he seized power and became King and I guess it was after that that 'England and Wales' acquired a unified legal system.

Henry VII of England - Wikipedia
 
bearpoker said:
If that were to happen, would there be a UK anymore? Does Whales count as a separate country or is it part of England?
Click to expand...
Wales counts as a separate country but obviously not as a sovereign one.

Where never an overall kingdom inasmuch as covering all the geographical area of Wales (Wales comprised various separate kingdoms after the end of Roman rule), it held large independence as a principality.

Ended in the 13th century by England conquering it and ending said independence, to later (16th century) merging it into England altogether.

Of course any desires for independence would be as much dependent on London allowing for them or not (just as with Scotland or N. Ireland), but that's never stopped anyone sufficiently determined.

All of Ireland was part of the UK until the 1920s and the UK viciously fought any independence there. But what is today the Republic fought its way out in a bloody war that only the "English" describe as having been a civil war.

Nonetheless the chances of warfare, be they Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland, with the UK are very much remote in this day and age. Add to that how Wales shows no appetite for secession from England at all.
 
Chagos said:
Wales counts as a separate country but obviously not as a sovereign one.

Where never an overall kingdom inasmuch as covering all the geographical area of Wales (Wales comprised various separate kingdoms after the end of Roman rule), it held large independence as a principality.

Ended in the 13th century by England conquering it and ending said independence, to later (16th century) merging it into England altogether.

Of course any desires for independence would be as much dependent on London allowing for them or not (just as with Scotland or N. Ireland), but that's never stopped anyone sufficiently determined.

All of Ireland was part of the UK until the 1920s and the UK viciously fought any independence there. But what is today the Republic fought its way out in a bloody war that only the "English" describe as having been a civil war.

Nonetheless the chances of warfare, be they Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland, with the UK are very much remote in this day and age. Add to that how Wales shows no appetite for secession from England at all.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the history. I simply wondered if the term "United Kingdom" could be justified as referring to England and Whales only. It looks as though it's a matter preference.
 
bearpoker said:
Thanks for the history.
Click to expand...
My pleasure:)
I simply wondered if the term "United Kingdom" could be justified as referring to England and Whales only. It looks as though it's a matter preference.
Click to expand...
Over the centuries England has obfuscated all legalese on what is the UK of today to such a point, that unraveling that Gordian knot would take the sword of Alexander.

To be fair, all of it having happened with the assistance of a variety of "Quislings", some bribed, some bullied and many more than willing.

In the case of Scotland and N. Ireland leaving, I reckon the term "United" kingdom would still be maintained, the "United" then referring to the colossal national stupidity.:lol:
 
Rogue Valley said:
The Brexit referendum was neither a mandate nor binding.
Click to expand...

Of course it’s not. Socialists never accept democracy when it opposes their ends. Serious.
 
PoS said:
~ If we were to believe the Euronuts in this forum, they claim Boris lacked any support, but it looks like this poll proved them wrong. Corbyn as an alternative would be even worse. Full speed ahead.
Click to expand...

Nice to start a thread off with an ad hominem against anyone who you disagree with.

PoS said:
~ it looks like this poll proved them wrong. Corbyn as an alternative would be even worse. Full speed ahead.
Click to expand...

If you had read the poll properly - the poll question was "Jeremy Corbyn as PM or No-Deal" and Corbyn is not trusted on Brexit as he spent 30+ years voting against anything to do with the EU. In the referendum he was pretty lacklustre as he really does not believe in the UK staying in.
Reading your link further - if the threat of Jeremy Corbyn is removed as the only other option - half the respondents don't want a no-deal and only 38% are willing to go ahead and leap off that cliff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom