Up to 15 British ministers may vote to stop UK from leaving EU on March 29: Bloomberg

[nontabury]

55 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

.... and still beat the other parties.

Because the centre piece of the Conservative manifesto, was to implement 

the decision of the people’s vote of 2016. And those who voted Conservative, believed T.May promise that she would do so. 

 

[melvinmelvin]

9 minutes ago, nontabury said:

A simple vote of ONE would have been surffice, as it was, the margins was 

1,300,000.

 There have been occasions when the party that has won at a General Election,did so on a minority vote. I wonder what will happen when that happens next time. 

 I don’t know where you get this idea that the electorate is now less inclined to vote Brexit. Perhaps you possess a crystal ball.

If the People’s Democratic vote is disrespected, and the U.K remains in the E.u. Do not for one moment, think that the people will accept it. It will remain a festering sore for generations, or until we do depart this hated so called union.

 

you mean winning in terms of MPs on a minority vote?

such is the soul of fptp

next time that happens, fine little will happen is my guess

UK will just continue on the same path

 

as to ending up with remain

voters in general have very very short memory, don't forget that

 

 

[fruitman]

I hope those brits and their hypocrit lying BBC leave us asap....boy am i fed up with it now.

 

why?

 

watch this

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

7 hours ago, bomber said:

is Palastine in Asia?

Yes, Plasticine is in Asia

[CG1 Blue]

5 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

I couldn't care less what's on the ballot. Leave will lose.

 

 

I disagree.  But what if after another bitter and divisive referendum campaign from both sides, Leave loses by a narrow margin. Do you think the country will be healed, and it will all be forgotten about? Do you think the UK would have the same amount of influence with and respect from the EU as we did before the 2016 referendum? 

 

Rory Stewart (a Remainer) gives good reasons why a 2nd ref is a really bad idea. I'm not as keen as he is on May's deal, but he talks a lot of sense:

 

"Anyone holding a second referendum is gambling 'no-Brexit or no-deal'. Either would be significantly worse than the PM’s deal for the losing side. If Remain won, the campaign for a third referendum would begin at once. Britain would limp back into Europe, seeking to return to the family half way through the divorce proceedings, with the Europeans and international investors pityingly aware that there was already a campaign to leave once more, and with many new, more radical parties taking the argument to the streets under the banner of betrayal. Divisions would be deepened not resolved.

"Ambivalence about Europe reflects long-standing aspects of our political culture, which cannot be simply wished away. Britain must now take the space to examine honestly what relationship it wants and can sustain with Europe. It must do this not on the level of theory but in detail – discussing trade not simply as ‘prosperity’ but through analysing real car factories, safe level of nitrogen dioxide emissions, and practical proposals on how to handle checks on rules of origin. It must examine the composition, drivers and impacts of immigration in more than purely economic terms. And it must develop our diplomatic relationship with Europe not through platitudes about values, but through investigating real choices in places such as Turkey or the Western Balkans. All this work on the future relationship must be done in a decade in which the European Union will itself be integrating or unravelling in unpredictable ways. And the best place from which to do this (in part out of respect for Europe itself) is in a relationship that is close to Europe, without being in the European Union.

"A Brexit deal will never please those who want no Brexit or no deal. But this must be the most pragmatic and moderate response to a deeply polarised nation, to an uncertain geopolitical future, and to fundamental features of our national culture. Which is why I remain convinced that logic will prevail. It may do so in the end through parliamentary arithmetic. But the result will neatly, if inadvertently, reflect much deeper British traditions of pragmatism and compromise, and a justified and longstanding suspicion of neat, but divisive, solutions."

 

 

 

 

  

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, elliss said:

            

           J, Corbyn  is just a tosser , busy fertilising  his home grown Toms , 

       i am informed his jam is very good , madam Mays  favourite , @ 50 euro a jar , tax  excluded , of course .

 

       The  nest  labour leader ,  will be  Keir . asap.

 

maybe a tosser

but still the leader of one of the largest parties in the UK

as such, it would be unwise to neglect and disregard him

 

 

[AlexRich]

4 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

I disagree.  But what if after another bitter and divisive referendum campaign from both sides, Leave loses by a narrow margin. Do you think the country will be healed, and it will all be forgotten about? Do you think the UK would have the same amount of influence with and respect from the EU as we did before the 2016 referendum? 

 

Rory Stewart (a Remainer) gives good reasons why a 2nd ref is a really bad idea. I'm not as keen as he is on May's deal, but he talks a lot of sense:

 

"Anyone holding a second referendum is gambling 'no-Brexit or no-deal'. Either would be significantly worse than the PM’s deal for the losing side. If Remain won, the campaign for a third referendum would begin at once. Britain would limp back into Europe, seeking to return to the family half way through the divorce proceedings, with the Europeans and international investors pityingly aware that there was already a campaign to leave once more, and with many new, more radical parties taking the argument to the streets under the banner of betrayal. Divisions would be deepened not resolved.

"Ambivalence about Europe reflects long-standing aspects of our political culture, which cannot be simply wished away. Britain must now take the space to examine honestly what relationship it wants and can sustain with Europe. It must do this not on the level of theory but in detail – discussing trade not simply as ‘prosperity’ but through analysing real car factories, safe level of nitrogen dioxide emissions, and practical proposals on how to handle checks on rules of origin. It must examine the composition, drivers and impacts of immigration in more than purely economic terms. And it must develop our diplomatic relationship with Europe not through platitudes about values, but through investigating real choices in places such as Turkey or the Western Balkans. All this work on the future relationship must be done in a decade in which the European Union will itself be integrating or unravelling in unpredictable ways. And the best place from which to do this (in part out of respect for Europe itself) is in a relationship that is close to Europe, without being in the European Union.

"A Brexit deal will never please those who want no Brexit or no deal. But this must be the most pragmatic and moderate response to a deeply polarised nation, to an uncertain geopolitical future, and to fundamental features of our national culture. Which is why I remain convinced that logic will prevail. It may do so in the end through parliamentary arithmetic. But the result will neatly, if inadvertently, reflect much deeper British traditions of pragmatism and compromise, and a justified and longstanding suspicion of neat, but divisive, solutions."

 

 

 

 

  

 

The country is already divided, deeply divided. I've already stated before, and I'll do so again, that I'll settle for May's deal because it is less damaging than a "no deal" outcome ... an outcome that no Leave politician campaigned for, and therefore anyone voting leave on 23 June 2016 could not have been voting for that outcome (as it was never on offer). 

 

My attitude has changed because it has become obvious that a core of hard brexiteers want to crash the UK out without a deal, and as stated above there is no mandate for that outcome. So if they are going to do that then I'm quite entitled to seek a second referendum and throw the whole thing out. If they don't care about the damage and havoc that "no deal" would have on many people I don't care what they and the people who support them do the day after. The vote was very narrow, and on another day it might have gone in the opposite direction. If no consideration is given to people like me I simply don't care what they do, nor do I care if it creates political issues. If we end up with a second vote it will be their own fault ... the ERG and people who support them are reaping what they have sowed.

 

 

 

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Because the centre piece of the Conservative manifesto, was to implement 

the decision of the people’s vote of 2016. And those who voted Conservative, believed T.May promise that she would do so. 

That's your interpretation.

[SheungWan]

5 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

The country is already divided, deeply divided. I've already stated before, and I'll do so again, that I'll settle for May's deal because it is less damaging than a "no deal" outcome ... an outcome that no Leave politician campaigned for, and therefore anyone voting leave on 23 June 2016 could not have been voting for that outcome (as it was never on offer). 

 

My attitude has changed because it has become obvious that a core of hard brexiteers want to crash the UK out without a deal, and as stated above there is no mandate for that outcome. So if they are going to do that then I'm quite entitled to seek a second referendum and throw the whole thing out. If they don't care about the damage and havoc that "no deal" would have on many people I don't care what they and the people who support them do the day after. The vote was very narrow, and on another day it might have gone in the opposite direction. If no consideration is given to people like me I simply don't care what they do, nor do I care if it creates political issues. If we end up with a second vote it will be their own fault ... the ERG and people who support them are reaping what they have sowed.

Right this moment Soft Brexit looks a better bet than Hard Brexit. And if Soft Brexit goes down then its maybe Referendum2. For the Hard Brexiteers maybe its their Clint Eastwood moment.

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

A simple vote of ONE would have been surffice, as it was, the margins was 

1,300,000.

 There have been occasions when the party that has won at a General Election,did so on a minority vote. I wonder what will happen when that happens next time. 

 I don’t know where you get this idea that the electorate is now less inclined to vote Brexit. Perhaps you possess a crystal ball.

If the People’s Democratic vote is disrespected, and the U.K remains in the E.u. Do not for one moment, think that the people will accept it. It will remain a festering sore for generations, or until we do depart this hated so called union.

 

 

It will remain a festering sore for a couple of decades, and then the old one's who voted for it will be dead. My point was a simple one ... if you want to heal wounds then you need to take steps to minimise the damage of Brexit, which means avoiding "no deal". 17.4m did not vote for WTO terms and no transition ... no Leave campaigner said that would be the outcome, so no one can say with a straight face that "no deal" was what people voted for. Those that are trying to drive the UK over a cliff deserve to be faced with a second vote ... and the main reason none of them want it is because, whatever you say, they know that they would lose.

 

 

 

[SheungWan]

6 hours ago, AlexRich said:

I couldn't care less what's on the ballot. Leave will lose.

A. Drive slowly over cliff.

B. Accelerate.

C. Delay.

[bomber]

1 hour ago, fruitman said:

I hope those brits and their hypocrit lying BBC leave us asap....boy am i fed up with it now.

 

why?

 

watch this

 

 

watched it until tommy appeared,then turned it off,the lad has a few good points over the years and has been treated badly,but his record of fraud,wife beating,football fighting and the fact he has so many different names makes him a clown.He also hasnt a clue when it comes to brexit as i doubt he could could spell the word economy or trade.

[CG1 Blue]

2 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

It will remain a festering sore for a couple of decades, and then the old one's who voted for it will be dead. My point was a simple one ... if you want to heal wounds then you need to take steps to minimise the damage of Brexit, which means avoiding "no deal". 17.4m did not vote for WTO terms and no transition ... no Leave campaigner said that would be the outcome, so no one can say with a straight face that "no deal" was what people voted for. Those that are trying to drive the UK over a cliff deserve to be faced with a second vote ... and the main reason none of them want it is because, whatever you say, they know that they would lose.

 

 

 

The 17.4m voted to leave the EU. Yes there wasn't a campaign specifically for WTO terms, but still the majority voted to leave. Perhaps half of the leave voters would prefer to avoid no deal, but I suspect most of those would still opt for no deal over remaining in the EU. Fundamentally the majority in the UK do not want to be part of the EU's long term project. This is why I think my suggestion for the 2nd ref ballot options would be fair and decisive, i.e. 

 

1. Remain

2. May's deal

3. No deal

 

With votes from options 2&3 combined in round 1 to confirm that the appetite to leave is still there.  Round 2 options would be May's deal versus no deal (assuming Remain lost round 1).

 

 

[AlexRich]

6 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

The 17.4m voted to leave the EU. Yes there wasn't a campaign specifically for WTO terms, but still the majority voted to leave. Perhaps half of the leave voters would prefer to avoid no deal, but I suspect most of those would still opt for no deal over remaining in the EU. Fundamentally the majority in the UK do not want to be part of the EU's long term project. This is why I think my suggestion for the 2nd ref ballot options would be fair and decisive, i.e. 

 

1. Remain

2. May's deal

3. No deal

 

With votes from options 2&3 combined in round 1 to confirm that the appetite to leave is still there.  Round 2 options would be May's deal versus no deal (assuming Remain lost round 1).

 

 

 

The majority will vote for Remain, followed by May's deal. The Brexiteers will vote for a combination of May's deal and no deal. You might then end up with May's deal.

 

If the question is Remain and May's deal ... Remain will walk it.

 

[sanemax]

10 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

The majority will vote for Remain, followed by May's deal. The Brexiteers will vote for a combination of May's deal and no deal. You might then end up with May's deal.

 

If the question is Remain and May's deal ... Remain will walk it.

 

What percentage will Remain get ?

Will it be a close run thing ?

Its 1-1 then , lets have the best out of three .

Lets have one more referendum and whoever wins 2-1 and that will be final

[Chelseafan]

On 2/21/2019 at 9:22 AM, Donut21 said:

Who would like to live in a dictatorship, The UK does and we voted to leave it.  Hitler was a dictator and we lost many good men fighting for our freedom, which we won.  We lost it to the EU now we want it back.

The whole second referundum is BS. There were only two options on the initial vote so they need to keep two options on the second vote otherwise the votes are being split three ways and will be diluted. If the remainers vote the same they will get 48% share with the remaining 52% being split between leaving without a deal or Mays deal. I doubt all 52% will vote for either of the options.

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

33 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

The majority will vote for Remain, followed by May's deal. The Brexiteers will vote for a combination of May's deal and no deal. You might then end up with May's deal.

 

If the question is Remain and May's deal ... Remain will walk it.

 

somewhat weird comments in my view

 

in such a referendum with those options on the ballot,

how can you possibly end up with May deal if the majority votes for remain?

 

is it becoming a tradition in UK to neglect the majority?

 

[Chelseafan]

39 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

The 17.4m voted to leave the EU. Yes there wasn't a campaign specifically for WTO terms, but still the majority voted to leave. Perhaps half of the leave voters would prefer to avoid no deal, but I suspect most of those would still opt for no deal over remaining in the EU. Fundamentally the majority in the UK do not want to be part of the EU's long term project. This is why I think my suggestion for the 2nd ref ballot options would be fair and decisive, i.e. 

 

1. Remain

2. May's deal

3. No deal

 

With votes from options 2&3 combined in round 1 to confirm that the appetite to leave is still there.  Round 2 options would be May's deal versus no deal (assuming Remain lost round 1).

 

 

Didn't see your post but yet in principal I agree as long as options 2 and 3 are counted together.

Personally I think remain should be off the table. We've already voted that part of it.

This is typical of bureaucrats whereby they get us to vote again and again until they get the answer they want.

 

[AlexRich]

15 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

The whole second referundum is BS. There were only two options on the initial vote so they need to keep two options on the second vote otherwise the votes are being split three ways and will be diluted. If the remainers vote the same they will get 48% share with the remaining 52% being split between leaving without a deal or Mays deal. I doubt all 52% will vote for either of the options.

 

 

 

According to some the population has changed since 2016 with many leavers now dead ... so you won't get the same result even if everyone votes the same as before.

 

 

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

According to some the population has changed since 2016 with many leavers now dead ... so you won't get the same result even if everyone votes the same as before.

 

 

How many leavers have actually died ?

Would it put the remainers into the majority ?

Its been quite a cold winter in the UK , thats gotta be worth a few thousand votes

[Chelseafan]

7 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

According to some the population has changed since 2016 with many leavers now dead ... so you won't get the same result even if everyone votes the same as before.

 

 

And the same can be said for remainers...

 

[tebee]

[AlexRich]

52 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

And the same can be said for remainers...

 

 

Yes, but bear in mind the low percentage of remainers amongst the older population ... if a million have passed away, the bulk will be leave voters. And of the new generation coming through and eligible to vote, the majority are remainers.

 

[AlexRich]

1 hour ago, Chelseafan said:

Didn't see your post but yet in principal I agree as long as options 2 and 3 are counted together.

Personally I think remain should be off the table. We've already voted that part of it.

This is typical of bureaucrats whereby they get us to vote again and again until they get the answer they want.

 

But they will not be, the lowest vote will be eliminated. But bear in mind if Labour's proposal wins then no deal will not be on the ballot paper.

 

 

[Chelseafan]

19 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Yes, but bear in mind the low percentage of remainers amongst the older population ... if a million have passed away, the bulk will be leave voters. And of the new generation coming through and eligible to vote, the majority are remainers.

 

Dont believe the hype. As I understand it the younger generation cant be bothered to vote but then again I suppose that's always been the case.

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-did-different-demographic-groups-vote-eu-referendum

 

Update: 26/6: Social media is passing round a stat that only 36 per cent of 18-24 year olds voted. Given that this age group was the most likely to vote Remain, this would imply that if turnout had matched that of higher age groups, Remain coudld have triumphed

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Chelseafan said:

And the same can be said for remainers...

 

some might argue that remainers don't perish

 

[Chelseafan]

14 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

But they will not be, the lowest vote will be eliminated. But bear in mind if Labour's proposal wins then no deal will not be on the ballot paper.

 

 

 When I am a negotiating with a supplier for a better price I've always got to have the option of delisting the product as a last resort.

 

[nontabury]

2 hours ago, bomber said:

watched it until tommy appeared,then turned it off,the lad has a few good points over the years and has been treated badly,but his record of fraud,wife beating,football fighting and the fact he has so many different names makes him a clown.He also hasnt a clue when it comes to brexit as i doubt he could could spell the word economy or trade.

 

 I would politely suggest that you actually watch this video of Tommy Robinson. Then you will be able to hopefully, make an unbiased assessment of it’s contents. In the meantime,if I ever have to appear in court,I hope you will not be one of the jurors.

 P.s watch it now,because it certainly will not be shown on Panorama.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, Chelseafan said:

Didn't see your post but yet in principal I agree as long as options 2 and 3 are counted together.

Personally I think remain should be off the table. We've already voted that part of it.

This is typical of bureaucrats whereby they get us to vote again and again until they get the answer they want.

 

 

 Well the Bureaucrats in Brussels have experience in overturning the people’s vote, ask the IrIsh,French,Danes and the Dutch.

 

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, AlexRich said:

According to some the population has changed since 2016 with many leavers now dead ... so you won't get the same result even if everyone votes the same as before.

 

 

I personally know of two people who have recently become eligible to vote,due to their age. They are both committed Brexiteers. Hope they stay alive.????