Dodgy Dealings

[SydneyRover]

Corbyn is just not as stupid as johnson and has painted him into a corner and will agree to an election when it is to labours and therefore the advantage of the many. Whereas johnson has suffered the resignation of his brother and thrown his majority down the toilet, his reputation however hasn't suffered much because most sane people agree he's a tw@t especially those closest to him.

[Bentley Bullet]

So 48% said Red.

When asked later, about 30% said blue and 22% said some other colour.

So it has to be blue then, yes?

Yes. The majority still want out. A mixture of the Government's incompetence and parliament's desire to remain has resulted in the split between the Blues and the other colour, but Red is in the minority and should clearly have been eliminated from the contest.

So you KNOW then that of the 52% who said that Red wasn't their favourite colour, none of them would prefer Red to Blue given a binary choice?

And how do you know that?

I know that 52% wanted to leave in a leave/remain vote. That is a fact. Any other statistic other than that is pure conjecture.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And around we go again.

Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?

[SydneyRover]

And do you agree it was your own team that f#cked you over?

[Bentley Bullet]

And around we go again.

Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?

Not the way the public voted, no.

[Bentley Bullet]

And do you agree it was your own team that f#cked you over?

No. I haven't got a team.

[BillyStubbsTears]

So a deal that would have left us further removed from the EU than Norway, who are not in the EU, and Turkey, who are not in the EU wasn't leaving the EU?

Interesting logic, but we'll let that pass.

Because...how do you know how the rest of the public saw it?

[IDM]

And around we go again.

Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?

Not the way the public voted, no.

What do you mean.?

Your consistent argument is that the public voted to leave, and if MPs had approved May’s deal, we would have left..

How else should we have left to be leaving as the public voted.?

Where does it say on that ballot paper you posted earlier that leave refined what deal woulld mean Brexit, and what wouldn’t.?

[Bentley Bullet]

I don't! I was leaving that for you to tell me!

Do you think it was Brexit? Did Jezza think it was Brexit?

[BillyStubbsTears]

But you just gave your opinion on how the public voted. So presumably you either have an opinion (which I was asking you to discuss) our you're just playing silly f**kers and looking for a row.

[Bentley Bullet]

And around we go again.

Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?

Not the way the public voted, no.

What do you mean.?

Your consistent argument is that the public voted to leave, and if MPs had approved May’s deal, we would have left..

How else should we have left to be leaving as the public voted.?

Where does it say on that ballot paper you posted earlier that leave refined what deal woulld mean Brexit, and what wouldn’t.?

Of course we'd have left if Mays deal had been voted in. The public had no say in the matter of how we would leave by then. The public voted to leave. They didn't vote to leave with a deal.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Ok. We progress. Eventually.

So we agree that May's deal would have been a form of Leave.

Good.


Err...except...Nigel Farage is in record saying he'd rather remain in than accept May's deal.

So there's one voter who wasn't prepared to accept any form of Leave.

Which rather undermines your argument that the 51.8% were, to a man and woman, prepared to accept ANY Leave over Remain.

Which is the one and only point I've been making on this issue for three years now.

[IDM]

And around we go again.

Do you agree that May's deal would have been Brexit? Would we have left the EU under that deal?

Not the way the public voted, no.

What do you mean.?

Your consistent argument is that the public voted to leave, and if MPs had approved May’s deal, we would have left..

How else should we have left to be leaving as the public voted.?

Where does it say on that ballot paper you posted earlier that leave refined what deal woulld mean Brexit, and what wouldn’t.?

Of course we'd have left if Mays deal had been voted in. The public had no say in the matter of how we would leave by then. The public voted to leave. They didn't vote to leave with a deal.

AND THEY DIDN’T VOTE TO LEAVE WITH NO DEAL EITHER.!!

Actually, as I have said already, if they voted leave then they were by default accepting the leave manifesto which said there would be a deal..

Didn’t define the deal - which in retrospect it should have done - but was for a deal nonetheless.

[BigH]

the (criminally run ) referendum was only advisory

A once in a generation decision
The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.
The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.
This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.
This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.
If you’re aged 18 or over by 23rd June and are entitled
to vote, this is your chance
to decide.
Registration ends on 7th June. Find out how to register at Aboutmyvote.co.uk
and register online at
Gov.uk/register-to-vote
If you would like to know
more about any of the information in this leaflet,
go to: EUReferendum.gov.uk

Not what it says on here?

The Government making those promises is long gone. Take your complaints to them.

I don't see reference to any promises here.

I see a line that 'The Government will implement what you decide' which is about as vague as 'leave' in the context of the whole statement generally. Particularly, when you consider that neither 'leave' or 'remain' were ever spelt out in any great detail in the run up to the referendum (as a 599 page Withdrawal Agreement testifies). In fact, the more I read that passage the more ridiculous and vacuous it sounds. 'A once in a generation decision...'. I mean, who writes this stuff?

It's a bit like saying you'll leave your family. What does that mean? You walk out the door never to come back? Or you'll never speak to any family member ever again? Whatever you do, you'll always be a parent, son/daughter, sibling or cousin - a member of the family whether you like it or not. In other words, one of those things that sounds straightforward enough but as soon as you examine it it doesn't make sense.

'Leave the EU' is just as much an oxymoron as 'military intelligence' or 'jumbo shrimp'. 

[Axholme Lion]

AL

That text shows just how slipshod Cameron was.

It's a tenet of our system that no Govt can bind the hands of a future Govt. Once Cameron resigned, that promise was legally worthless.

Point taken. But that is what we were told at the time. The government should have negotiated a potential deal before leaving and then put it in the second stage of a referendum as I suggested earlier.

[IDM]

Or even before the referendum itself, so people would have known the finer details of leaving..

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL.

What you are proposing is EXACTLY what Corbyn is saying he would do if elected.

[IDM]

AL.

What you are proposing is EXACTLY what Corbyn is saying he would do if elected.

Does that include a remain option too.?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Of course it does. for the reason I've been trying to make for the past three years. That Remain is a specific, definable thing, which lost out by a fag paper to Leave, which was a basket of mutually incompatible things.

If you want a truly fair democratic decision, we really should have a STV vote with a multiple selection of defined Leave options and a Remain option.

But since that seems to be too complex for people (despite working in most of the developed world) then the next best is a run-off between the most popular current single defined thing (Remain) and the best defined version of Leave that emerges.

[IDM]

Thanks BST, was just clarifying - my gut feeling is that leave with a defined deal would win..

[Axholme Lion]

AL.

What you are proposing is EXACTLY what Corbyn is saying he would do if elected.

The problem is though its already gone. You must see the harm that would be caused by rerunning the referendum from scratch now. Looking back we can see what they SHOULD have done but now that has gone. As a leaver I would have been happy to have leave or remain on the ballot paper, and then the choice of a specific pre negotiated deal or a no deal on the second part of the ballot. The only way forward now I can see that would satisfy as many people on both sides maybe would be for a referendum on a pre negotiated deal or no deal. Many on here will obviously disagree with me but I see it as a way of trying to bring both sides together and at least give everyone something of what they want. I'm trying hard here to be flexible. 

[BillyStubbsTears]

AL.

"Looking back we can see what they SHOULD have done but now that has gone. As a leaver I would have been happy to have leave or remain on the ballot paper, and then the choice of a specific pre negotiated deal or a no deal on the second part of the ballot."

But no.

That's utterly undemocratic for the reasons that I've been explaining to BB.

I'll say it again.

That approach is IDENTICAL to having a first vote that asks the question:
Is your favourite colour Red or Something Else.

Something Else wins 52:48.

Then you say. Ok, to find out what the real favourite is, let's have a second vote on Blue or Green.

That way, if Red has 48% Blue has 30% and Green has 22%, the vote will choose Blue and people will be told Blue is the country's favourite colour.

You see how bad that is?

The truly fair way to do it is to have a multiple stage vote.

Round 1: Red, Blue and Green on the ballot. Everyone votes, Green comes last and is eliminated.

Round 2. You vote again on a straight run off between Red and Blue.

That's the ONLY fair way to find out what is the overall favourite outcome in a multi-option situation..

The utter stupidity of 2016 was to have a single stage vote on a question that didn't have a straight Red/Blue question. It is precisely THAT mistake that has put us in this shocking situation. Because no-one actually knows what outcome would be acceptable to a majority of the population. All we know is that a large minority wants Remain, a smaller minority wants No Deal and a smaller still minority wants Leave with a deal.

[Axholme Lion]

AL.

"Looking back we can see what they SHOULD have done but now that has gone. As a leaver I would have been happy to have leave or remain on the ballot paper, and then the choice of a specific pre negotiated deal or a no deal on the second part of the ballot."

But no.

That's utterly undemocratic for the reasons that I've been explaining to BB.

I'll say it again.

That approach is IDENTICAL to having a first vote that asks the question:
Is your favourite colour Red or Something Else.

Something Else wins 52:48.

Then you say. Ok, to find out what the real favourite is, let's have a second vote on Blue or Green.

That way, if Red has 48% Blue has 30% and Green has 22%, the vote will choose Blue and people will be told Blue is the country's favourite colour.

You see how bad that is?

The truly fair way to do it is to have a multiple stage vote.

Round 1: Red, Blue and Green on the ballot. Everyone votes, Green comes last and is eliminated.

Round 2. You vote again on a straight run off between Red and Blue.

That's the ONLY fair way to find out what is the overall favourite outcome in a multi-option situation..

The utter stupidity of 2016 was to have a single stage vote on a question that didn't have a straight Red/Blue question. It is precisely THAT mistake that has put us in this shocking situation. Because no-one actually knows what outcome would be acceptable to a majority of the population. All we know is that a large minority wants Remain, a smaller minority wants No Deal and a smaller still minority wants Leave with a deal.

Maybe I haven't put it very well, but what you are saying is what I meant. It would clearly have to be two stages. Totally agree. Shock horror!!!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well that's a good end to a febrile week!

Let's all try to have more respectful exchange of views, eh?

[IDM]

If only the HoC would do the same eh.?

Will be the last thing on my mind come 3pm tomorrow at St. Andrews..

[BillyStubbsTears]

Going back to my analogy, what's actually happened over the past three years is this:

1) We had a vote on Red or Something Else. Everyone on the Something Else side said that any suggestion that Something Else meant Blue was just engaging in Project Fear.

2) Something Else won 52:48.

3) There was then a civil war among the people who ran the campaign for Something Else, to determine what Something Else meant.

4) Nigel Farage who had said it would be great if we got Green, during the campaign, then flipped and said Green was effectively Red, and only Blue was actually far enough away from Red to be what The People voted for in 2016.

5) Theresa May said she wanted Green but Blue would be better than a Bad Green.

6) She refused to speak with anyone who had voted Red and negotiated a shade of Green.

7) The Non-Red people who had said in 2016 that Blue was a non-starter then turned on her for choosing Green. They insisted The Will of the People in 2016 was Blue.

8) Boris Johnson voted against the Shade of Green Deal twice. Then voted for it. Then got May booted out and replaced her and said any Shade of Green but the very bluest would be a Betrayal of the Will of The People.

9) And, obviously, the whole mess is the fault of the people who voted for Red.

[Bentley Bullet]

My version in Black and White.

1) We had a vote on whether to stay or leave the EU.

2) We voted to leave the EU.

3) Three years later, we still haven't left the EU.

4) Boris Johnson tries to force the issue of our democratic vote by what are described as unprecedeted means.

5) Parliament tries to prevent Boris from doing this in any way possible in the name of democracy!

[IDM]

Boris Johnson tries to subvert parliamentary procedures, acts unlawfully, and gives the appearance of blustering towards no deal.

Parliament tried to stop him forcing a no deal - bearing in mind the democratic vote to leave followed the leave manifesto saying they would get a deal..

No deal wasn’t what was voted for. Parliament is therefore acting on the democratic wishes of the electorate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

In judging any situation, I always think it's as well to look at the reliability of the people involved.

On the Govt side, there have been several very high profile and unarguably flat lies.

The biggest one of course was the reason for prorogation. Then there's also the Operation Yellowhammer documentation.

There's also been a series of less clear-cut claims which are dubious to say the least. The most obvious one being the repeated assertion by the Govt that the negotiations over a new deal are progressing well, but without explaining what they have put on the table, whilst the EU negotiators repeatedly pointed out that nothing substantive had been put on the table.

In light of that, I'm instinctively against giving Johnson's Govt the benefit of the doubt when it comes to interpreting motives and claims. There's a lot of evidence of them being untruthful, deceptive and unreliable. So I'd like to see clear evidence of WHY I should believe them in future. I accept that other people may have other intepretations

[IDM]

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

You find a slide saying this..

"We love Europe – the problem is the EU
• There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from
Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it
after we Vote Leave
• We don’t need to accept the control of the EU Court to
trade with Europe
• Countries around the world trade with the EU without
accepting the ultimate control of the EU court
• Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden
step – we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before
we start any legal process to leave"

I've highlighted the important bit, just in case it wasn't obvious..