• 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

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.

They must be morons then. The referendum was riddled with fraud, lies and Russian meddling to the tune of $10m. Had it not been merely advisory, the electoral oversight commission would have nullified it.
The only other ""remainers" who feel as they do are Russian bots. Droog.
 
I suppose I could repeat the first and the last sentence of post #42 here, but if it wasn't read (let alone understood) the first time round, not much point in wasting my time with that.

That personal consideration may be seen as an aside by others, to me it ain't.

Well, I guess there's nothing left to do but wish you the best of luck in your self-imposed irrelevancy.... and then get back to talking to people who actually want to debate.
 
They must be morons then. The referendum was riddled with fraud, lies and Russian meddling to the tune of $10m. Had it not been merely advisory, the electoral oversight commission would have nullified it.
The only other ""remainers" who feel as they do are Russian bots. Droog.

LOL. Try again. American Robert Mercer did it for his buddy Nigel. Russia just makes a more convenient scapegoat.
 
Really, there was no meaningful 'realistic offer' he could have made, simply because so much of the deal became tangled up in internal Tory politicking. At one point the not exactly natural bedfellows of the Trade Unions and the Confederation of British Industry issued a joint statement calling on May to get her **** sorted (I paraphrase). And I doubt either of them have been reassured by BoJo's performance so far.

Again, what's the priority here? Is it to score political points and elect Corbyn as the next PM? Or is it to do what is best for the country and negotiate the best deal possible for both the EU and the UK? Because I look at the possibilities for a deal, and can see something like Ken Clarke's Customs Union proposal coming close to passage - it only failed by 3 votes in the second round of indicative votes. Are you telling me Corbyn couldn't have worked a deal to win passage of a modified version of Clarke's plan in exchange for supporting May on a meaningful vote?
 
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.

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet Scotland is going to pack their **** and git.
 
They must be morons then. The referendum was riddled with fraud, lies and Russian meddling to the tune of $10m. Had it not been merely advisory, the electoral oversight commission would have nullified it.
The only other ""remainers" who feel as they do are Russian bots. Droog.

I'm one of those who believe the referendum result should have been acted on - though I have also always added that the 2017 General Election was another "say" on Brexit as people were asked by Theresa May to give her a bigger mandate for Brexit and they didn't.
Lies happened on both sides and that is the shame - we showed ourselves unfit to run a serious referendum and have doomed ourselves by not holding liars on all sides to account. As a nation, we say we take "democracy" seriously but we didn't. Democracy means not just majority voting but also that sometimes you don't get the result you want and sometimes you do.
 
Really, there was no meaningful 'realistic offer' he could have made, simply because so much of the deal became tangled up in internal Tory politicking. At one point the not exactly natural bedfellows of the Trade Unions and the Confederation of British Industry issued a joint statement calling on May to get her **** sorted (I paraphrase). And I doubt either of them have been reassured by BoJo's performance so far.
The line of questioning one gets to see here appears to want to establish the good guy in this whole shambles, by making the other the bad one.

It's the sort of mindless partisanship one gets to see from many of our "cousins", in trying to establish that all fault lies with the "other side", that which one rejects.

This extremely childish approach precludes any relevant analysis of the situation and thus, seeing how it encourages conclusions not based on pertinent perusal, is precisely as irrelevant as this poster accuses others of being.

Both Corbyn and Johnson, let alone those constituting their parties, were and are slaves to their particular set of circumstances and the primary item of those was, is and will be their personal ambitions.

The country itself, "this couldn't be done because they wouldn't do this", "they wouldn't do this because dem others did whatever", has long since become of secondary or even tertiary importance where argument on what developed is concerned.

The far more relevant issue is the total disintegration of what once was a political class that functioned (however badly) and that disintegration spreads to the whole bunch. And all desires to make this guy or that guy (depending on one's myopic preferences) the less accountable, detract from the issue that really needs future address.

That the whole shebang is a reflection of the whole nation's division is no excuse for those proclaiming to be leading, on the contrary, the spectacle of "constructive ambiguity" that we see with both Corby and Johnson is set to enhance that particular shambles. When a country has no alternatives to unprincipled dishonesty leading it, matters can only deteriorate further before they improve.

With, on the principle of every country eventually getting the government it deserves, general pain for its people being the only catalyst that will work.

And hopefully towards a path that won't tear a leaf from the Weimar book.
 
Again, what's the priority here? Is it to score political points and elect Corbyn as the next PM? Or is it to do what is best for the country and negotiate the best deal possible for both the EU and the UK? Because I look at the possibilities for a deal, and can see something like Ken Clarke's Customs Union proposal coming close to passage - it only failed by 3 votes in the second round of indicative votes. Are you telling me Corbyn couldn't have worked a deal to win passage of a modified version of Clarke's plan in exchange for supporting May on a meaningful vote?

Perhaps he should've, but since as you note these were merely 'indicative votes' rather than anything actually binding on the government, I doubt that the success of Ken Clarke's proposal would actually have made any material difference to developments between then and now, apart from intensifying even further the Brexiter rhetoric of 'collaborators' and 'enemies of the people'.
 
Last edited:
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet Scotland is going to pack their **** and git.

Maybe they can find a surviving heir to the Bonnie Prince and be done with the Germans in Windsor Castle too.
 
title should read English and Welsh back no deal brexit meanwhile mass majority of Scots wish to remain in the EU and same goes for N Ireland the break up will soon begin :)

Maybe they can find a surviving heir to the Bonnie Prince and be done with the Germans in Windsor Castle too.

no more Royals thank you in Scotland soon after leaving we will become a republic
 
Perhaps he should've, but since as you note these were merely 'indicative votes' rather than anything actually binding on the government, I doubt that the success of Ken Clarke's proposal would actually have made any material difference to developments between then and now, apart from intensifying even further the Brexiter rhetoric of 'collaborators' and 'enemies of the people'.

I agree that the results of the indicative votes weren't binding on the final deal... however the whole point of the exercise was to explore the level of support for various options and then from that information, attempt to cobble together a compromise on a meaningful vote that would pass. If a couple of old hands like Ken Clarke and Hilary Benn could have sat down in a room somewhere, they could have hammered out a meaningful deal that could have won passage. Sure, neither the far right nor the far left would have been happy with the half loaf they would have gotten, but I have to believe the end result would have been far superior to the prospect that faces the UK now.

Legislating is an art... but if we're not willing to put the time and effort it takes to do the job right anymore then what's the point of going through the whole exercise? If all of governance is henceforth to become a zero-sum game of chicken, then why bother to maintain the pretense that parliament or congress means anything? Why not just declare a dictatorship and be done with it?
 
I agree that the results of the indicative votes weren't binding on the final deal... however the whole point of the exercise was to explore the level of support for various options and then from that information, attempt to cobble together a compromise on a meaningful vote that would pass. If a couple of old hands like Ken Clarke and Hilary Benn could have sat down in a room somewhere, they could have hammered out a meaningful deal that could have won passage. Sure, neither the far right nor the far left would have been happy with the half loaf they would have gotten, but I have to believe the end result would have been far superior to the prospect that faces the UK now.

Legislating is an art... but if we're not willing to put the time and effort it takes to do the job right anymore then what's the point of going through the whole exercise? If all of governance is henceforth to become a zero-sum game of chicken, then why bother to maintain the pretense that parliament or congress means anything? Why not just declare a dictatorship and be done with it?

All questions best directed to Cameron and May than Corbyn. This whole imbroglio has always been about Tory leaders throwing increasingly large scraps of meat to the rottweiler empty barrels in their party. Also, I am unaware of any work of strategy that recommends you wandering onto the battlefield while your enemy is busy shooting wildly in all directions.
 
All questions best directed to Cameron and May than Corbyn. This whole imbroglio has always been about Tory leaders throwing increasingly large scraps of meat to the rottweiler empty barrels in their party. Also, I am unaware of any work of strategy that recommends you wandering onto the battlefield while your enemy is busy shooting wildly in all directions.

Cameron was utterly bloody useless, I'll give you that. And May strikes me as someone who makes a great cabinet minister, but a poor PM. Give her a clearly defined mission, and she'll sink her teeth into it and get the job done. Have her call the shots, though, and she's out of her depth. I don't think she ever had the subtle art of human persuasion nailed down - she made up her mind what needed to be done and figured the logic of her stand would bring everyone into line... well, it doesn't quite work that way in real life. Parliament isn't a mathematical model you can plug the right numbers into to give you the outcome you want. I will give her credit, though, in her ham-handed way she did take a bold stand and risked alienating the right-wing of her party to try and get a deal.... and it might have worked if the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was more focused on "loyal" and less on "opposition" - was someone willing to put country above party.

I get what you're saying, though, and I agree it's smart politics to not stop him when an opponent seems intent on destroying himself. However, that being said, I'm not cynical enough yet (and no matter how cynical I get, I can't seem to keep up).... I'm not cynical enough to believe that what makes for smart politics inevitably works out on the campaign trail. If Corbyn had displayed the leadership to reach out and strike a deal with some of the "red tories" that had a realistic chance of passing, I think he would have had a willing partner in Theresa May, and as the saviour of a Brexit deal, he would have made himself a much more viable and deserving figure to become PM. As it stands now, though, I have nothing but contempt for the man.
 
Short term pain will make long term gain.

No deal, no problem.
 
Short term pain will make long term gain.

No deal, no problem.

Vacuous is a kind description of the above contribution. Even arch-Brexiters are talking about 50 years before benefits are seen.
 

Losing access to a market with similar economic conditions, to gaining a FTA with a country that is pushing for "America First". I for some reason can not see the UK coming out equal in a trade deal with the US under the current US admin. The screws will be applied to make sure "America comes first". The UK will not be in a strong negotiating position.
 
Losing access to a market with similar economic conditions, to gaining a FTA with a country that is pushing for "America First". I for some reason can not see the UK coming out equal in a trade deal with the US under the current US admin. The screws will be applied to make sure "America comes first". The UK will not be in a strong negotiating position.

That's because you're not looking at it from a position of spite.

Spite is very powerful.

Making a most generous deal would be in both party's interests. One that would benefit the UK tremendously while giving the finger to Merkel & Co.

Trump's just the man to do it.
 
Vacuous is a kind description of the above contribution. Even arch-Brexiters are talking about 50 years before benefits are seen.

My thanks to Lord Halifax. No doubt the Italians should now be approached for acceptable peace terms.

I'll be perfectly honest with you... I don't understand all of this hand-wringing on the part of a lot of the "remain" crowd. The UK is a strong and vibrant country fully capable of thriving on it's own merits. It did before and it'll do so again.... just like it always had to whenever the chips are down and the times require action, enterprise and vigour.

Admittedly, EU membership was a safe and comfortable harbor... and there promises to be some rough weather once you sail out beyond the bar. Like the saying goes "A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for...". If you want to embrace opportunity, first you must embrace challenge. Leave the comfy houseboats for the Europeans.
 
That's because you're not looking at it from a position of spite.

Spite is very powerful.

Making a most generous deal would be in both party's interests. One that would benefit the UK tremendously while giving the finger to Merkel & Co.

Trump's just the man to do it.
Only one benefiting for this scenario is Putin...but I am guessing that is what you want. The weaker the nations of Europe are the easier to bully or conquer...

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
Nearly half of UK voters back no-deal Brexit and no PM Corbyn, poll finds – POLITICO



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.

Well nobody ever said that the British were smart now where they. They are going to screw up their own economy on a dare, well, hope they get everything they want, I am just sorry for the intelligent Brits, Scots, Northern Ireland citizens.

And let us be honest, I would not vote for that idiot Corbynn.
 
That's because you're not looking at it from a position of spite.

Spite is very powerful.

Making a most generous deal would be in both party's interests. One that would benefit the UK tremendously while giving the finger to Merkel & Co.

Trump's just the man to do it.

The US would form a trade deal with the UK that hurts the US to spite the EU? That does not seem like Trump

The following seems more like Trump

US wants access to NHS in post-Brexit deal, says Trump ally


The US will want business access to the NHS in any post-Brexit trade deal, the US ambassador has said, prompting anger from politicians and campaigners before Donald Trump’s state visit to the UK this week.
Woody Johnson, who is a close friend of the US president, said every area of the UK economy would be up for discussion when the two sides brokered a trade deal.
Asked if the NHS was likely to form part of trade negotiations, Johnson told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “I think the entire economy, in a trade deal, all things that are traded would be on the table.” Asked if that specifically meant healthcare, he said: “I would think so.”

The NHS is a universal health care system, opening it up to US business's would likely mean the end of the universal care aspect of it
 
My thanks to Lord Halifax. No doubt the Italians should now be approached for acceptable peace terms.

I'll be perfectly honest with you... I don't understand all of this hand-wringing on the part of a lot of the "remain" crowd. The UK is a strong and vibrant country fully capable of thriving on it's own merits. It did before and it'll do so again.... just like it always had to whenever the chips are down and the times require action, enterprise and vigour.

Admittedly, EU membership was a safe and comfortable harbor... and there promises to be some rough weather once you sail out beyond the bar. Like the saying goes "A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for...". If you want to embrace opportunity, first you must embrace challenge. Leave the comfy houseboats for the Europeans.

Ah, ok, you see the situation in terms of that Ben Garrison cartoon of the Brexit UK sailing away into an unspecified sunset situation whilst the EU boat topples over a waterfall.

Nope. The EEC/EU may not be the ideal city on a hill, though where is, but for the UK joining it has been our slowburn 1776 moment. This ship you speak of, it's the same one aggravated you into independence! You should be happy we finally started moving away from the system you rebelled against rather than encouraging us to go back to sea in a sieve that should have long since been scuttled.
 
Back
Top Bottom