Arise Sir Geoffrey

[Bentley Bullet]

And once again, you don't answer the question.

It's very simple.

In what way would our unity on this topic enabled us to negotiate a better deal?

What SPECIFIC things about May's deal do you not like, and how could we have negotiated better terms?

You can't just say "it would have been better." That's crap. You have to explain HOW it would have been better.

You MUST have an answer because you've been babbling on about disunity being the problem for months.

So. Give us the answer.

The general view of May's deal was that we would have still been tied by EU rules but with no say on them. I agree with that. I don't blame May solely for it, she had a difficult task made impossible by having to firstly please 27 other countries along with politicians at home some of whom were determined to make Brexit fail under any circumstances.

Of course, striking a deal would have been easier if it was the UK versus the EU instead of some of the UK versus the EU!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Still no answer BB. Nothing at all about how unity was supposed to make the EU give us a different deal. You haven't given any indication of what it is that the EU could have been forced into offering us that they didn't do so.

Tell you what. I'll lay out the argument from my side and you tell me which bit you don't agree with.

My take is that there WAS a moment where a decision could have been made in the interests of national unity. But it's cause and effect. It wasn't ever a case of unity getting us a better deal. It was a case of a better deal getting a more unified country.

That time was in 2016/17. We COULD have gone into negotiations with the EU wanting a deal that kept us in, or close to the CU and in, or close to the SM. Something like Norway and Switzerland.

Polls have shown that would have been an acceptable compromise to a large majority of the country, myself definitely included.

That was a possibility in 2016.

May rejected that unilaterally in Jan 2017. She didn't discuss it with anyone. She didn't gauge the opinions of other political leaders and try to find a unifying way forward. Get this. She didn't even consult her own Chancellor.

May decided that Brexit meant leaving the SM and CU. That was a position supported by about 25% of the population, and by the hard right of the Tory party.

Don't lecture me on unity. That decision blew the concept of unity out of the window.

Now, having made that decision, May was faced with negotiating with the EU. But the EU had said from Day1 that they would not negotiate a preferential trade deal with us if Brexit seriously damaged Ireland. And May's decision to leave the CU would seriously damage Ireland.

So now we get to the nub of it. I'll spell it out really simply. There is nothing that anyone at home could do to change that. The EU were simply not going to back down on that because it is existential to the concept of the EU. That's the bit that folk in the UK don't seem to get. It is preferable to the EU for them to see a hit to the German car industry,than to weaken the solidarity of the EU nations.

Realise that, and it's clear that the unity or disunity of the UK is irrelevant. May put us in a position where there was nothing to negotiate.

What the EU DID do (which they didn't have to) was to offer May a way out. The Backstop. It was a mess, but it was the only way that Ireland's position could be protected while still giving May a fig leaf. It would mean we WOULDN'T be leaving the CU, but May could spin it that we would...eventually. But that was rejected by the ERG and DUP.

Now, we did have one other option. That was to leave with No Deal. But that would be insane. To unify on that theme would be the equivalent of 25% of the population deciding to shoot their kneecaps off, and everyone else agreeing to do so in solidarity.

Now. Which bit of that don't you agree with? Where do you think May was hobbled by folk scheming to Remain, when, if we'd had unity, she'd have got us a better Brexit.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It was always only 'some of the UK' because the Tories kept it all to themselves, set out unnecessary 'red lines' and didn't bother trying to find a consensus until they'd completely ran out of other ideas - by which time it was far too late. The Tories had full control of everything that happened, no-one else had a say let alone any responsibility for it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Glyn. A far more concise version of what I just said.

BB's take seems to be that we should have just let the worst PM in history interpret what Brexit meant, then follow her unquestioningly like lobotomized sheep.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Glyn. A far more concise version of what I just said.

BB's take seems to be that we should have just let the worst PM in history interpret what Brexit meant, then follow her unquestioningly like lobotomized sheep.

I know. And when it comes to the votes in Parliament, they don't seem to be able to comprehend that when an MP votes on Brexit, it is their duty to vote according to what they think is best (or, more likely, what is least harmful) for the country - and that is why they vote the way they do. But no, they're expected to deliberately vote for something that the MP thinks is bad for the country 'just because' it's a 'betrayal' if they don't.

[Bentley Bullet]

Now you're just being a silly Billy, aren't you!

[bobjimwilly]

How is my life going to improve post brexit, and how long will it take? How will my daughters lives be better outside of the EU?

I've got my bingo card ready....

[Glyn_Wigley]

Now you're just being a silly Billy, aren't you!

Expecting a sensible response from you? Of course he's being silly.

[tommy toes]

Much as I'd have liked a second referendum, I think it's far too late now.
The brexiteers would probably win again.
It seems the mantra now is 'Let's just get on with it and leave.'
 Everyone's sick of it which is why Boris will be PM next week as he's promised we'll be out by October 31, despite having to get whatever deal or no deal he comes up with through a reluctant parliament.
If and when he fails to do this then there'll almost certainly be a GE when the shit will really hit the fan for all parties except Farage's lot. What a nightmare.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Tommy.

Boris is going to be PM next week because he's told 160,000, mainly old, white, wealthy men what they want to hear.

There is no indication whatsoever that a majority in the country just want him to get on with whatever kind of Brexit he deems fit.

[Bentley Bullet]

I thought all those old, White, wealthy men were now dead?

[tommy toes]

Oh I'm not so sure BST.
I've seen a few vox pops recently where people who are obviously not part of the 160,000 (and to be kind to them not really politically aware) are all for him as he's promised to get us out.
That interview with Boycott sums up the vast majority of my generation. The Dunkirk spirit will see us through.
What a load of b*llocks.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The problem with vox pops is that you only get to see the ones the editor wants you to see.

[tommy toes]

I'm 67 next week and I've not spoken to ANYONE around my age who voted remain except me and Mrs Toes.
Even my brother who's a businessman and imports stuff from Germany voted leave ffs.

[tommy toes]

The problem with vox pops is that you only get to see the ones the editor wants you to see.

Well that's s whole other argument but hopefully the BBC are even handed

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'm 67 next week and I've not spoken to ANYONE around my age who voted remain except me and Mrs Toes.
Even my brother who's a businessman and imports stuff from Germany voted leave ffs.

And your brother is going to be happy to pay at least an extra £100+ on every consignment he imports? And that's just on Customs clearance without any Duty and VAT payments.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The problem with vox pops is that you only get to see the ones the editor wants you to see.

Well that's s whole other argument but hopefully the BBC are even handed

I'm not convinced. To me, vox pops have absolutely no place in a news broadcast. We need to be told what's happened and what will happen by people who know what they're talking about and can give properly informed viewpoints, not a selected bunch of random nobodies guessing about it. I'd include polls though - they are usually properly seeded, much bigger samples and they don't ignore something that don't make for 'good telly'.

[scawsby steve]

Much as I'd have liked a second referendum, I think it's far too late now.
The brexiteers would probably win again.
It seems the mantra now is 'Let's just get on with it and leave.'
 Everyone's sick of it which is why Boris will be PM next week as he's promised we'll be out by October 31, despite having to get whatever deal or no deal he comes up with through a reluctant parliament.
If and when he fails to do this then there'll almost certainly be a GE when the shit will really hit the fan for all parties except Farage's lot. What a nightmare.

Very accurate assessment of the situation Tommy, and one which was very much the consensus on "This Week" last night.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The BBC's problem is that they are obsessed with "balance". So they will give equal prominence to both sides even if one has a majority of views in its favour.

When they talk about climate change, they'll have 1 representative from the 99% of scientists who are of the opinion that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and 1 from the 1% who say it isn't.

It was the same with the Brexit vote. They'd have 1 economist saying Brexit was going to be a big problem and 1 saying it wasn't. They wouldn't explain that 85-90% thought it was going to be a big problem and only 10-15% thought it wouldn't be.

I wouldn't try to get a feel of the country through those programmes. Look at the consistent opinion polls.

[Bentley Bullet]

Hahahahahahaha! And on question time they would have One Brexiter, Four Remainers and a Remainer Chairperson!

[scawsby steve]

The BBC's problem is that they are obsessed with "balance". So they will give equal prominence to both sides even if one has a majority of views in its favour.

When they talk about climate change, they'll have 1 representative from the 99% of scientists who are of the opinion that anthropogenic climate change is happening, and 1 from the 1% who say it isn't.

It was the same with the Brexit vote. They'd have 1 economist saying Brexit was going to be a big problem and 1 saying it wasn't. They wouldn't explain that 85-90% thought it was going to be a big problem and only 10-15% thought it wouldn't be.

I wouldn't try to get a feel of the country through those programmes. Look at the consistent opinion polls.

Oh yeah, the opinion polls were brilliant before the 2015 General Election, the 2016 US Election, and the Referendum weren't they?

Now we know why you're such a sh*t tipster Billy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

SS
1) They got the US General Election pretty much spot on. Clinton won comfortably on the national vote. Just like the polls said she would. The reason Trump won overall was a razor thin victory in several swing states. The polls had all those down as too close to call.
2) They got the EU ref pretty much spot on within margin of error. They basically said it was too close to call.
3) Why do you get so aggressive when folk point out facts? Why not engage with the facts instead of throwing out abuse?

[Bentley Bullet]

SS, you shouldn't take the piss out of BST at this moment in time. His mind may not be fully functional through starvation, unless, of course, someones told him there is still food available in the shops even though May was two months ago.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Oh be still my heaving sides. It's like Hale and Pace with all the funny bits taken out.

[scawsby steve]

SS
1) They got the US General Election pretty much spot on. Clinton won comfortably on the national vote. Just like the polls said she would. The reason Trump won overall was a razor thin victory in several swing states. The polls had all those down as too close to call.
2) They got the EU ref pretty much spot on within margin of error. They basically said it was too close to call.
3) Why do you get so aggressive when folk point out facts? Why not engage with the facts instead of throwing out abuse?

Because you never accept anyone else's facts. Those polls you've quoted are different to the ones I saw on the nights of those events.

F*ck me, Clinton supporters and Remain supporters were in a state of shock the mornings after the events; are you telling me none of them were influenced by the polls?

[Bentley Bullet]

Are you sure you found Hale and Pace funny? Get summet to ate owd lad.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes SS. Agreed. They were in shock. Because they had not properly interpreted the polls. The polls constantly said that the results were on a knife edge.

The figures are here for the EU ref. Check them out.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

There were 24 polls in the last 2weeks before the vote. If you average them all out, they had Remain and Leave exactly level.

Typical polls have a margin of error of +/-3%. The polls actually got the result right to within 1.9%.

As for the US Election, here are the polls.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

They typically had Clinton 2-4% ahead in the national vote. She won the national vote by 2.1%.

I really don't understand why you get so cross about this.  The facts are facts and very easy to check.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No BB. I thought they were formulaic shite.

Imagine how bad they are with the funny bits removed.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST. Sorry to hit below the belt but I'm gonna be a bit Wiggerly'ish here. How the f**k can you remove something that wasn't there in the first place?

[BillyStubbsTears]

It's a rhetorical device BB.