UKH

I've been wrestling with this, but my local (Labour) candidate has I think simplified the issue. She is rock solid Remain,  doesn't mention Corbyn, acknowledges the other Remain parties but clearly points out they can't win in our constituency.

So, doesn't it basically boil down to this - all Remainers simply vote for the local Remain candidate who has the best chance of winning? Green, Plaid, SNP, what the hell even DUP or Tory... If they are remain.

Surely we can sort collateral damage like Corbyn being PM once we've revoked Article 50.

Do you really think revoking would lead to anything other than a collapse of faith in democracy? Probably followed by widespread riots. People talk about revoking without any real idea of how  alienated and disenfranchised this will  make entire swaythes of society feel if the political and middle class stitches this up. Democracy is very fragile, particularly when the margins are so thin. 

Wow, I hadn't thought of that...

People who think that a second confirmatory referendum, on the biggest issue our country has faced since 1939,  represents a collapse of democracy, need to get out more.

We are part of Europe, and always will be - get a map and see for yourself. Being part of the EU just helps us make the most of it.

And if the majority of UK citizens NOW want to remain, then the few effing Nazis who want to kick off will just have to deal with the law and take the consequences.

Just revoke article 50 but tell the population that we have left but got the most amazing deal where we keep all the benefits of the EU. No one will be any the wiser and we can get back to life as normal.

Wouldn't that mean telling fibs? Oh hang on a moment...

Project Fear mate.  We've been threatened with 'widespread riots' twice before already, but Mark Francois didn't even explode.  (Give or take the odd shirt-button pinging off after a big dinner.)

Democracy is most fragile when unscrupulous populists are willing to game the system to gain power at any cost.  It's difficult to defend against that, but one thing that definitely doesn't work is trying to appease those populists.

Whopee-do, another Brexit thread.

No one is asking you to participate if you don't want to.

And although it may not seem very profound, I am genuinely interested in people's response to my proposed strategy. If you don't have anything to contribute, f*ck off. 

That's what I will do, I think. 

You're right to say that the pissing and moaning will be unbearable, for a while. But all the options are terrible. 

I think we're probably better off putting up with this downside, which is a kind of woolly psychological one that's confined to a minority viewpoint (the bizarre notion that the only thing that counts as democracy is the 2016 referendum, the rock-solid core of our national psyche that cannot be threatened nor impinged upon without incurring the instant meltdown of our civilisation). The "breakfast means breakfast" route of actually leaving will leave us not only psychologically damaged -remember, it was 50-50, at least half of us now don't want to leave - but we'll also have the practical fall-out of implementing a completely batshit crazy foreign and economic policy. So the choice is of psychological damage only (revoke), or psychological and actual damage (leave). There is no happy option.

Would a second referendum mitigate the psychological damage a bit? I'm not convinced, I think it would be a close win for remain, and the emotional hurt felt by leavers would actually be worse than just revoking. The thought of the campaigning, and the bitching and lying and general degradation of the human spirit that a second ref would invoke chills me to the core.

Revoke is a bad place to be, but I think it is the lesser of the evils on offer.

I didn't realise anyone had any faith in democracy anyway?

I remember the Brexit day riots at the end of October. Chaos it was. Wouldn't want a repeat. 

I tend to agree with Planeandsimple if you'd really like to know. But that isn't what you want to hear is it ??

You just want people to join in with your moan-fest don't you ??

Bye.

Fibs? No no no, our esteemed government wouldn't tell lies. It would just be a misunderstanding! 😜

I judge this post to have contributed nothing.

You know you must now do, right? 

Hear hear!! Same old shite from the same old posters.

There's sod all left to say on the subject really.
It's all down to December 12th.

'You just want people to join in with your moan-fest don't you ??'

Nope, I just want to secure the best possible future for my children, my grandchildren... And, in fact, everyone. Which for any number of reasons I believe is best achieved by staying in the EU.

Is that a problem?

I'm sorry but I don't think so. Call me naive, or simple, if you like, but I suggest that after a period of people being outraged (in front of the TV or on their smartphones) and making extra cups of tea, we and they'd be back to thinking about Netflix, how many MPG on my car and on my next car, getting a takeaway, daydreaming about holidays, having a pint, and thinking of moving to Sheffield. Thanks for listening

I just had a pertinent thought on this issue before it fecked off into the ether.

Sounds like a plan anyway!

A statement that rings more hollow each time there’s another postponement and almost compete disinterest from the leavers in terms of protest.

If not.... As I often think, better to have the army shoot political rioters than food rioters. 

I am I right in thinking you've changed your position then? Or am I thinking of another poster who said they felt we had now to go through with it?

Honestly, we've had riots before and we will have them again.  If it happens it happens.  

Threatening riots is a bit of a blackmail type approach.  I thought we wanted democracy not threats.  

Rees Mogg amongst others said it was an advisory referendum.  He said it would be sensible to have another vote once a deal is on the table to see if that is what the people want.  

Complaining it's not democracy to have a vote on the specifics sounds like nonsense to me.  

Yes, now you mention it, I'd previously thought we could do a really soft and reversible Brexit, to humour the referendum. Then we got Boris...

The definition of democracy was revised in 2016. You missed the memo.

Corbyn is safer than Boris because he's got less chance of getting a majority and neither the SNP or the Lib Dems will go along with his crazier schemes.

Boris could get a majority and he will most likely accidentally on purpose fail to negotiate a deal and crash out of the EU next summer.  Then he will most likely rewrite the devolution settlement and do a trade deal with the US which slowly unravels the NHS and forces everyone who can afford it to take out private health insurance to pay US level charges.  Private healthcare insurance is the several 100 billion dollar opportunity that the money behind Brexit did it for.

The way the Russian influence report, the report on Government breaking debt targets and the investigation into Boris giving money to his girlfriend have all been conveniently delayed is very troubling as is the increasingly glaring partisanship of the BBC.   We're also finding out some of the delights in the small print of the Withdrawal Agreement he tried to get through with no adequate scrutiny.  Things like powers which would allow ministers to change the devolution settlement with Scotland and Wales - they could kill the Scottish Government and Parliament without even getting a bill through Westminster.

Big up the riots!

Fairly straightforward for me. Likely to be a Brexit Party target seat (UKIP got close in a 2014 by-election). Decent Labour MP. 

Ah, that explains everything.

We should be doing something about what's been happening.  Schools (including land and buildings) given away for a song.  The vandalism of the NHS.   

People who think that a second confirmatory referendum, on the biggest issue our country has faced since 1939,  represents a collapse of democracy, need to get out more.

Wasn't the vote in 1975 to remain in the EEC a big issue at the time.

And if the majority of UK citizens NOW want to remain, then the few effing Nazis who want to kick off will just have to deal with the law and take the consequences.

You loose credibility when you refer presumably to leavers as Nazis. You know very well that they are not and just don't share your opinion. It's called democracy.

No, I think it is.  Everyone is completely entrenched in their view points, it's down to 3 options on .... Dec 12th.  I don't need to spell them out for you!

Maybe, but at the very least it a lot will depend on tactical voting and whether people vote according to Brexit, other issues or party loyalty. I think there are more unknowns and therefore is more to talk about than for any other election I can remember.

Lost me there. I'm afraid you do.

I'm disappointed Rob!

Swinton Hell will freeze over before she becomes PM
Tories shit deal, no choice.
Labour 2nd ref

I was there. It was carnage.

Masked gangs roaming the streets. Demanding sweeties.

Admittedly they were rather shorter than I expected...

I suspect the outcome will be determined as much by those who don't turn out to vote as by those who do.

Mainly those that would have voted Con or Lab, both of which are getting a lot of flak, some of it fully deserved and some much less so or not at all. That could lead to disillusionment in some voters' usual parties that isn't bad enough to actively vote for another but is bad enough not to bother voting at all.

With this in mind we should all be asking the young people (18-25) around us if they are registered to vote.  If not then why not?  Make them realise how important it is if they want their views to be represented rather than ignored.

I know that it is the received wisdom,  but I disagree. Most of the Brexiters I know weren't fervent in their desire to leave; it seemed that we would in some intangible ways 'better off'',  'in control' etc.

But there is a hardcore of leavers who genuinely hate Europe, believe violence  to achieve political ends is justified, are happy to knowingly tell lies, and blame 'others' for everything that's wrong in their lives. My guestinate is that there is no more than 100,000 or so hard core, but they're the ones people here are afraid of rioting and uncivil disobedience. Nazis, in fact.

SNP!

I'm so tired of hearing this kind of thing.  In what way is revoking Article 50 as a result of voting for a party that has that, with or without a second referendum, as part of its manifesto undemocratic?  Rees Mogg appears to think that even voting Lib Dem is in itself undemocratic!

Did you not get the memo? Democracy was a one-off event held in 2016. Can't change history.

You can't revoke article 50. We voted to leave and leave we must do. It doesn't matter if you think people have changed thier minds ( I doubt many have) or if it looks like it'll be a disastrous move. Non of that matters anymore. We had a choice, we made it the outcome must be done. 

You can't vote on anything if the outcome of the vote can be changed if it seemed "wrong". Suppose in the upcoming GE Labour get a majority but the queen decided that actually she prefers the Tory's so they are going to stay in power and be given a 100 seat majority instead. It just couldn't happen, it would turn voting into something closer to an opinion poll at local council public consultation. "We've taken you're views onboard but we're closing the swimming pool anyway, thanks".

Ultimately it's about the people having the power to decide what direction we take in this country, not about insuring we take the theoretical "best" path. If you remove that power then you're one step closer to a dictatorship in my view and that's massively worse than some fear our economy might be fractionally smaller in 20 years than it might have been otherwise. 

If you want to maintain democracy, what you do is leave the EU under the proposed deal. Then if over the next decade or two there is constant and ever building demand by the people to try and rejoin the EU. Then a future leader is elected with a manifesto to hold a referendum on whether we should re join the EU  or not they can hold one. And if the result of that is a vote to join the EU we can ask them if we're allowed and go from there.

That's one option. Another option would be a second (third really) referendum.

You'll need to help me out here as to in what way the proposed deal delivers the Brexit that people such as Farage and his mates voted for, given that he's vehemently opposed to it and he was quite probably the most influential voice in favour of leaving.

Alternatively, you could accept that the decision, even if it were to have been made after fair and legal campaigning, was on an intention and not a specific outcome. The intention has, following the referendum outcome, now had 3 years to be negotiated and (the first part at least) to crystallise into an actual plan. Now's the time to confirm it meets the expectations of those voting for it; yes the Farages as well as those many others who have woken up to the futility and damaging nature of it all.

This a very poor analogy. A better analogy would be a vote of no confidence in the commons leading to a GE and a change of government. = entirely democratic, just as a second referendum would be.

'Non of that matters anymore. We had a choice, we made it the outcome must be done. '

That sounds like religious zealotry to me. What could be more democratic than having an advisory vote to leave, then spend 3 years concretising the idea, then a final vote to see if those concrete proposals are what the majority actually want?

No, it isn't. It's simply that the potential benefits or pitfalls of leaving the EU are insignificant compared to the impact of disempowering the people by not doing what they voted for. It does not matter if it's a vote on the EU or any other, it's the principle that matters. 

Undermining democracy by demonstrating that the result of a vote can be ignored/overruled is far far worse for the UK than any mere memberships or alliances. We'd move to a state of total war and die in our millions rather than give up our democratic rights to control our fate for better or worse.  

So are you saying that we should go ahead with Brexit however obviously damaging (hypothetically, say, leading to the death of half the population) rather than reversing it via a second democratioc referendum? And, if not, how much damage woiuld be acceptabl;e?

Is the principle not no somewhat shaky ground if the referendum process was so flawed as to be only several steps away from ballot box stuffing?

How do you think democracy will fare when our economy implodes? What do you think the car workers of Sunderland, port workers of Bristol,  engineers from Broughton will think when their jobs disappear?

Good Lord. Project Fear is alive and kicking. 

Well, this isn’t good news. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50377396

Well, this isn’t good news. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50377396

Oops. Posted early. Brexit party are not standing candidates in Tory constituencies. 

Wow. Talk about 'Project Fear'...

Hysterical nonsense.

It was an advisory referendum - lest you forget. Whether some guy (now disgraced) promised he would stick to it, is neither here nor there - sovereignly speaking. You do respect the sovereignty of the democratically elected parliament, don't you?

Just checking, is the above true too?

But they are standing in Labour seats that the tories are targeting which is where they can do most damage to the tories' chances of getting a majority.

That’s a good point, it could be worse. This might just be a negotiating stance from Farage though. Maybe he’ll agree not to compete at all if Boris hardens his Brexit a bit further. 

Parliament followed the will of the people and made it binding. 

The current lot of MPs voted against a second referendum. Why would a new lot vote for one? 
 

Just because it may or may not be in a manifesto doesn’t mean it automatically happens. Parliament still have to agree by voting. Any deal will have to get parliamentary approval before anyone thinks about a second referendum and if the deal looks good the remainers won’t let a referendum happen. Even if the LibDems win the election the MPs will have to vote. 
 

Eh? Some of them will be different MP's. That is the whole point of having an election.

Parliament didn't make it binding. It decided to trigger A50 and thereby set in motion the process of negotiating a withdrawal, which has largely, albeit with some delays, now happened.

No parliament may constrain a future parliament, so it's very much still up to parliament to determine (assuming EU agreement) whether it's in the UK's best interests to continue the process the parliament of 3 years ago set in motion.

The situation has changed, the outlook has changed, the decisions of parliamentarians can also change. If they do, only a new referendum would be convincing evidence that they were now out of touch with what the people now want.

Yep. A shuffling of the pack. There’s no guarantee that the pack will look radically different or even favour leave over remain. There is still no guarantee that they’ll vote for a referendum. Ask yourself : why didn’t the others? 
 

Parliament would still need to vote on it. 
 

I’m unsure of this within 6 months of being elected from Labour. Most commentators are saying it takes 24 weeks to hold a referendum. 

Yes, exactly.

That's because we have a parliamentary democracy, and not a democracy by tiny majority in a one-off vote circa 2016 following fraudulent campaigning.

Democracy doesn't suddenly stop the moment one player decides he's in the lead.

I think a few of you have purposely misunderstood my total war comment. What I mean is we would fight a full-scale war against say any aggressive dictatorship wanting to take over our country and impose themselves as sole absolute leaders and occupiers in the UK. We'd do that because we wouldn't want to be ruled over like that, we don't want our democratic powers taken away from us. 

Not that we'd go to war if we sacked off leaving the EU, although I suspect some unrest would follow. But by annulling the vote our democratic power would have, in this instance been removed from the people and that is not a good road to start walking down. It sets a precedent that you'll get a vote, but we only go with it if the elites approve. Even if it was just a one-off, I think it would take a good while before people would regain faith that their vote will actually be respected. 



  

Or you could say, how little risk to our economy would you say something has to represent for the powers that be to ignore a national vote? Possible few job losses, a slight drop in the value of the pound? You just personally aren't a fan?

Let's just veto the lot and get ourselves a benign dictator who knows what's best for us. 

As long as everyone understands that just because Conservatives, Labour (when it eventually emerges) and LibDem have ‘promised’ certain things on their manifesto. Doesn’t mean they will, or even can, happen. 
 

The polls are still showing a hung parliament so there’s a good chance all this will resolve nothing. 

oooh sounds absolutely awful. However I'm prepared to take the risk that you're bullshitting.

The idea of a second vote isn't because a group of people doesn't like the outcome of the first, it's that no one understood the meaning of what was voted for in the first, as all flavors of Brexit were promised. It is a way to determine what people actually want it to mean now we are a way down the road and understand better the potential options.

What is your solution to this issue? How are we to know what the majority of people want Brexit to mean now we have to make it happen? 

G

farage just announced Brexshit party only going to stand in non tory seats

Having Corbyn as PM can hardly be regarded as "collateral damage" - the man is an utter liability. Look at how he has failed completely as a leader of the [somewhat laughable] opposition - do you really want that cretin leading the country?

The one MP in your area has very little impact. The PM has rather a lot.

The vote has not been ignored. Ironically it appears that it should have been were it to have been officially binding, but that's not where are now.

Where we are now is that the vote has been used by parliament to support triggering A50 and spending 3 years negotiating a withdrawal agreement. That's a long way from being ignored.

The electorate (arguably) expressed a desire to leave. The government has since used its best efforts to determine the best case practical outcome of that desire. A majority in our parliament are not convinced this is in our best interests at all (which is an assessment it's their job to make.) If there were little prospect of damage to our economy, security, way of life or any such consequence, it's clear that parliament would not have seen fit to oppose it.

The electorate now should be given the choice of either confirming that the best practically achievable deal (with associated likely damage) is close enough to what they had in mind in 2016, or democratically reversing its own advisory message to parliament.

And no guarantee that there will a a majority for Johnson's deal (as it stands) either. So the situation could change either way or not at all. Obviously.

Can you spell out for me how using multiple sources of evidence -  including an advisory vote (taken at one snapshot in time, and with no legal force behind it)- to reach a compromise policy on a complex and divisive issue is ignoring or over ruling that vote?

You can’t.  Because you are wrong and you are playing silly word games.  You are smart enough to know that you are wrong and that you are playing silly word games.  You are apparently not smart enough to recognise that you’re wasting your time on your current audience.  Feel free to replay my previous two sentences directly at me...

So are you not goinmg to answer my question? Just how damaging would  a Brexit need to be to make a second refefendum preferable to going through with it without checking it's still what we want?

By the same powers, they can also overturn it. Or do you not respect the sovereignty of parliament?

No, I think it was pretty clear, maybe it's just difficult to see through the smog of anti-Brexit hysteria on here. People will blindly jump on anything at the slightest sniff of anything that sounds like something you've heard debunked on facebook before and start regurgitating "project fear", "only an advisory vote", "350mil for the NHS bus advert" "2nd referendum" "The old people have died" etc etc. 

I know most people who comment on here don't want the UK to leave the EU. I voted leave, but it was only by a narrow margin. I'm not some EU hating ultra-nationalist, it's just for me personally the economic risk was (and still is) worth the long term repositioning. But, what I am passionate about is that people are free, free to live how they want and decide who the lawmakers are and have as close to direct democratic influence over those people as practical.

That is why I think pretty much regardless of what leaving the EU brings, deal or no deal or whatever, we must leave the EU. Obviously it's easier to argue from this point if you voted for it than if you're ardently against it to start with but I think outside of this surprisingly hardcore pro-remain forum most people think we should leave. That isn't to say most people want to leave, it's to say a lot of remain voters accept the outcome of the vote even if it wasn't their preference. Even that will be challenged here, but then this forum is closer to sample group taken from a pro-EU rally than the population at large.
 

Have Farage and Johnston done a deal _looks like it!

It certainly smells like it. But with our absurd electoral system it's not entirely clear if anyone gains much by it!

Except Johnston and the Tories!

I was just pointing out that it wasn’t a Royal Prerogative move. Parliament voted for it. 
 

In fact I’m trying to make it clear that whatever party wins (if any does actually win) there will still be arguing and votes. The manifesto means very little. In particular the claim that we will have a referendum in 6 months time doesn’t stack up because it will be 6 months after the Labour Party have got their deal through Parliamentary voting system. My guess is we will still not have had a referendum in 18months time. 

Not necessarily; what about the labour held marginals that will be tory targets? Are the brexit party going to stand down there too?

Isn't it better to vote Labour, make sure they win then let the people decide on a second vote, or are you simply going to discount the previous referendum we had and tell everyone they got it wrong?

It's a massive liberty to take with people's aspirations if you simply tell them to f*ck off.

No - just in Tory held seats.

Aye it was a rhetorical question.

None of the pundits seem to have a clear view on what effect the stand down will have. One thing is clear right now though; the fortunes of the brexit party are on the wane.

I don't think you can justify voting for a remain tory/DUP candidate unless you're very sure they'll rebel, actually the job of tory rebel has been more or less made extinct! 

Yes I know, I was being hypothetical...

Surely the most effective strategy is to do whatever is most likely to prevent the Tories having a majority or being able to form a majority government? I find it inconceivable that the Libdems, Greens, SNP or Plaid would stand in the way of a confirmatory ballot, so surely ensuring that either Labour or one of these is elected in as many constituencies as possible should be the highest priority.

Once Brexit is put to bed we can start haggling over the relatively less important issues of actual policies for the next 5 years, safe in the knowledge that we won't be suffering from the shot we've delivered through our foot for decades or more.

I hope your grandchildren won't accept the establishment stitch up of revoke, because if we allow the big business, civil servants and second rate career politicians to diminish the will of the people this time they will do so the next, and it will become more pervasive and insidious each time.

Hopefully your grandchildren will be ashamed of your views in a similar way to the way that we all our of our racist and colonial predecessors when they realise that this is a concerted effort to silence the inconvenient views of a percentage of the electorate. Progress may not judge you as highly as you think it should. 

UKC forums are an educational study of echo chamber politics, howling down your opponent as a 'Nazi' when you have no f*cking clue about who they are, how they vote or what they believe in. Just shut them up as quickly as possible, the good thing is that these threads will outlast you and your grandchildren and mine will see the intolerance.

As we can see with the Extinction Rebellion protests, nothing happens until it's almost too late and the level of betrayal reaches a tipping point. As you can see with the climate strikes the start of the backlash might come from the generation you least expect it to, the one who's freedom to choose will be limited by default in future.

You were doing really well until you started parroting the "will of the people" line.

A single vote for something that wasn't clearly understood, that was sold to appear to any conflicting number of view points, voted for by just over half those who voted.

In fact the "will of the people" is so fragile that the people repeating the "will of the people" line are desperate not to let "the people" have any say in what happens next.

Are you sure you understand what's going on? You obviously didn't during the last vote, otherwise why would you assume others didn't understand?  If you didn't when you voted during the referendum then how can we trust that you understand now?

Truth is no person knows whether we will be better or worse off in the EU or out. Forecasts are great at predicting what will happen when nothing changes but as we all learned in 2008 everything can change in hours, entire rule books rewritten. We could say that we can predict awful things about human rights but the reality is that if the EU is truly democratic it is subject to the same whims of population as the UK and could turn as easily turn to tyranny as any other elected government, laws and constitutions can be altered to suit.

This is why it's not about what we 'know' now, it's about who governs who and how do you get rid of them? At the end of the day if people were shown the economic and political power their vote should carry then they might think twice about settling for the buck passing liars we call politicians. 

This sounds like a party political broadcast for mob rule.

I think that, on the contrary, our descendants will will look at posts like this with disgust, we shall see.

Thank you for this beautiful argument for remaining in the EU.

Its pertty clear that we will be economically worse off. There are no genuine costed, realistic forecasts showing any different.

The "banking crisis" was also widely predicted by those in involved in the industry. And especially by those who didnt get involved in the type of activity causing it.

If Brexit is going to be compared with 2008, which we still haven’t recovered from then the Brexiteers are going to have a hard sell!

We should assume that if the referendum had gone the other way then you'd be happy with considerable numbers of politicians working to undermine your decision? Or are you only happy with this because they are on your side and you like to think that your vote counts for more than that of another?

When the tables turn and it's your vote under the bus I hope you take it as graciously as you think the Brexiteers should, after all the precedent has been set and it would be hypocrisy to do otherwise. 

Not at all. Smaller groups can act quicker there are less vested interests to appease and negotiate with. The EU has been frustratingly slow, surely if they had done sufficiently well then XR wouldn't be on the streets. However they are across Europe because they haven't done enough to reduce the carbon emissions at home or abroad. They clearly feel betrayed by the slow and apathetic politicians who make the laws, targets and policy.

Nigel Forage made it perfectly clear that if the referendum result was 'Remain' then he would keep ramping up the pressure and campaigning to leave the EU.

I think you’re right John. Jezza’s cadre don’t want a second ref, however the lure of power via a minority coalition with LibDems might prove too attractive to JC. I think that’s probably the only chance that Labour has this election. 
People’s vote, revoke art 50, and try to rebuild confidence in Parliament. Importantly, then address the concerns of Brexit supporters by working on EU reform, which I think will happen if the EU wants to survive. I’m not sure JC and his MaoMentum chums are capable of delivering any of this though. If I was to put a tenner on the outcome, I’m guessing at the moment there’s a 60/40 prob of a majority Cons govt. based on the conclusion that even leaving the EU isn’t as bad as JC. A centre left Labour Party could have aced this entire process.

It's 'frustratingly slow' because has to reconcile the interests of 500 million citizens and get democratic consent from the European parliament..

Still beat the rest of the world to GDPR though.

Now the Brexit party has been done up like a kipper with Farage's retreat at Hartlepool.  The probable election result is two years of Johnson's nonsense now that two year parliaments have become the norm.

Although as I've said before I think we have no choice but to leave if we want to preserve democracy in this country the closest thing I can think of to democratically revoking A50 is if you all vote Libdem. 

They have consistently campaigned to stay in the EU, so if as some seem to think we now have a large majority of people who want to stay then I'll be expecting the LibDems to be swept to power with a landslide majority in parliament where they can revoke whatever they like. If you really think you have the numbers then put your crosses where your mouths are and actively vote for what you believe in rather than what you're against. It s so negative all this tactical nonsense. 

I think you have just made the case for a second referendum brilliantly.

Agree, all this tactical voting nonsense is insane.  If people vote for what they believe in rather than trying to second guess what someone else is doing so that they can get rid of whichever party they hate the most then the country would be a much better place.

Even without MP's in parliament, number of votes and % of support have a big impact on political donations, media coverage etc, etc.  All of this leads to a groundswell of support - the building of a party and it's MP's.  This won't happen over night, it's a long term approach to politics. 

Tactical voting is a short term approach only.  Vote tactically and expect to get the same old two party sh*t time and time again.  Vote for what you believe in and support for your cause will have a chance to build real momentum, and in the process the main parties will have to listen and quite possible adapt, or else die. 

Exactly this has happened with the Tories.  Running scared of a party with no MP's UKIP/Brexit Party) yet one which has built a reasonable level of support at the ballot box, they have been forced to lean even further towards a hard Brexit.  Support for the Greens or Lib Dems will have the same impact - even if they don't get as many MP's as the big two, the main parties will be forced to sit up and listen.  Tactica voting undermines this and simply tells the Cons/Lab that you'll put up with one or the other however cr*p they behave.

The Tories have always gained votes by appealing to people to vote against other parties, rather than for them. Just look at the current campaign, all about what a disaster Corbyn's very unlikely majority government will be, rather than highlighting their "succeses" for the last 9 year. What's good for the goose.....

Thank you for articulating so well what I have managed less effectively in my posts on the same subject. I'm voting LibDem for precisely those reasons, even if they have no chance in my constituency. Labour could have had my vote but I'm not voting for a party led by a Brexiter.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/09/tory-election-poster-ed-mi...

Northern star, do you really think the Tories will join you on the moral high ground, abandoning their most tried and tested method? 

I thought Sweden did. Most countries have some kind of law. It’s not an EU invention. 

All the polls are still overwhelming showing another hung parliament. 
 

All the polls are still overwhelming showing no difference in ten result of a second referendum. 
 

Brexiters don’t want a second referendum because they know that the result will be the same and the Leavers will still call foul play. Leavers seem to have some blind belief that the polls are completely wrong. 

I imagine once a federal Europe is fully established it’ll only be a matter of time before New World order is established and wealth evenly distributed amongst all citizens of the world instead of just the First world nations. 
 

Well, I assume that the eventual aim. 
 

After all, we can easily got for a local representative to make sure our voices are heard.  

The problem is in doing so, you will help return an ardent Brexiter. He is a Lancastrian as well, you choose which is worse!

That’s a very UKC point of view. The Tory party is home to my self-interest so I see it completely differently. I’m reducing Whitaker’s chances.

And yes he is odious but frankly politics has always been about parliamentary numbers before individual personalities.

That's pretty impressive, 2 completely contradictory posts in just over an hour 😂

Perfectly. So long as it can be and is done legally and in the open then that's how a healthy democracy works.

jk

Perhaps you can spell out for me where the contradiction lies?

then

If you are interested in parliamentary numbers then the salient fact is that the vast majority Labour MPs are remainers. 

who are browbeaten by a Brexiter leader, buttressed by a huge phalanx of anti-capitalist entryists, rendering him irremovable*. The MPs' numbers matter in that they could put a disaster of a leader into power. Their individual qualities are secondary, worthy though many of them are.

* unless sensible moderate Labour voters wise up that a vote for Labour in this election is a vote for five more years of Corbyn. Another plucky near miss only perpetuates the disaster.

That sound like tactical voting to me! 

This 'immovable' stuff is rubbish too. Unless Corbyn wins a majority, Labour will get a new leader soon. If he does get a majority,then you are also wrong, but in a different way (unlikely though)

I suppose it could be interpreted that way. But to a different end than in the normal sense of the term. If polls narrow significantly before the 12th I'd understand moderate Labour voters holding their noses in the hope of a Labour win. If the polls stay where they are today (unlikely), it would present the opportunity to reclaim the party from the hard left. Only an election catastrophe brings the centre to the fore.

We can but dare to hope.

Eh, what?

jk

Corbyn has zero chance of majority rule and left wing Labour minority wouldn't last beyond token renegotiation and delivering a confirmatory referendum, 2 years max. However the parties choose to fight it this is a, probably the, brexit election. They'd either have to shift toward their partners in policy and leadership or we're back to the polls by 2021.

jk

They see it as a waste of yet another 6 months plus. We have 5 weeks to the election. Then nothing will realistically happen until Jan 8th, then we have to ask for and be given an extension to October 2020.  That’s another week. Then raise and debate a bill in parliament and get it passed. Another two weeks plus? Now we are in February. Then a couple of weeks to negotiate a new deal with the EU. Another two weeks to present that to parliament and debate and agree another referendum. Nearly March now. Then 24 weeks to agree the wording and hold the referendum. That’s September.

And that’s just the referendum. Which would be advisory as they all are. 
 

Then they start the arguing again...

Such a shame that we're further confusing the Brexit issue with party politics and other issues as played out through an election.  Brexit should be sorted out as it's own issue with a second referendum, whether we leave or remain and if we still choose to leave then what sort of leave do we want.   A type of leave as dreamed up by the Tories, as we currently have, or leave on the terms that the people actually prefer.  Only another referendum will tell us which way to go.

Regarding a second referendum however, isn't it strange how the leavers think that a referendum now based on some much better information would be anti democratic.  As if more democracy is somehow less democratic?  As if it's somehow best to make important decisions based on less information rather than more information?  Very strange opinions and very strange times!

You think the arguing stops if we crash out or leave with Johnson's version of May's withdrawal agreement? This is absolutely all consuming for at least a decade, probably two whether we move in a leave or a remain direction in the coming year. The UK is totally irredeemably fu*ked by Cameron's foolishness.

jk

Of course not. It’ll just be a slightly different arguing. Maybe it’ll be arguing towards better trade deals instead of just digging in heels in complete opposition to anything proposed.

Some leavers may think that. Should it be best of three? Another one in 3 years just incase the EU slide into a massive recession or launch clearer federalist plans and we have yet more information? Surely best of 3 would be the most democratic? 

Of course it should but but it isn't being so we work with the tools we have available.

Nobody really believes that do they but 'anti-democratic' is the best shield they have to hide their flimsy result and subsequent power grab behind. That and making 'brexit' not about what it achieves because it was never one deliverable vision but about identity. Credit where due it worked but the price we'll all now pay is terrible.

jk

A referendum needn’t be advisory, yes Parliament is Sovereign, but Parliament can make a referendum legally binding, by specifying that in the Act. As they did for the 2011 AV referendum. In that case, it was in the Act presumably at the insistence of Liberal Democrats.

Indeed - but in that case, Brexit didn't happen due to still not having finalised the WA, something that has now happened a few times, so isn't anything new. It's just a delay, at the moment.

That's rather different to actually revoking A50 and openly going against the referendum result.

I'm not convinced there will be actual riots, but who knows.

Better in what way exactly and at what cost?

jk

'Maybe it’ll be arguing towards better trade deals instead of just digging in heels in complete opposition to anything proposed.'

The slight fly in the ointment here is that the Tories led by the breathtakingly ignorant and incompetent Messrs Davies and Fox have spent 3 years trying to negotiate 'trade deals' (not that I'm convinced they even know what they look like) and have achieved virtually zip.

The reason isn't difficult - it takes two to tango. And if you have finite resources - as all governments do - who are you going to spend your time negotiating with - a poxy little island of 60 million struggling politically, socially and economically, or a bloc of 500 million who have successfully weathered any number of storms and seem to continue to retain some sort of control.

I’ve no idea. Ask Jeremy Corbyn that. He thinks he can do better. 

Absolutely. And as a remainer I couldn't agree with you more.

So 1975 and 2016 makes it one all.

Just one more decider to go then...

The Corbyn option is likely to be remaining in the CU, which has lots of benefits for trade (see the PM when in NI), although not as many as remaining.

Obviously, CU or SM options would be unacceptable to most Brexiters, including the many senior Brexiters who advocated those options during the referendum campaign.

Yes, that's the main difference. Remaining in a single market secures jobs and solves the NI border issue. 

You're right about a confirmatory referendum being binding as well. 

I see far more problems if we leave without one. A lot of people feeling cheated and doing everything in their power to frustrate the subsequent trade talks in the years to come.

But it's not best of three is it?  Another public vote is merely a check vote on the first referendum to see if the public really wants what they thought they wanted back in 2016 now that the facts are much clearer and all of the unicorns have run off and hidden somewhere.  It's an essential part of the same process, not a different process. 

For leavers another vote would also be essential to smooth things over and (considering all the half-truths on which the first referendum result was based) to gain acceptance for Leave from the remain contingent.  You'd then be able to have your Brexit in relative peace.

That said, the option to leave the EU should always be on the table should we remain for now but then things change for the worse in the future.

He thinks he can do different. Labour's positions have all been about damage limitation, remaining in a/the customs union, freezing citizens' rights and holding a coalition of disparate voters together by offering the hope either group can still win out. Barely coherent and boring.

I'm far more interested in what it is you support, how you understand it will work and what you believe it will deliver.

jk

The one in 1975 was about joining or staying out. It was acted on. We joined. I don’t think you can count that.

Nope. Wrong again. We joined in 1973. The 1975 one was whether to stay in so I think it still counts.

Your turn...

one of my first "adult" votes if you can say that of an undergraduate.

As part of the 66% Remain I take a pretty dim view of a gap narrower than 52- 48 coming from a dirty lying campaign by Leave rogue politicians cancelling a really valid result

We worked up to it by engaging in projects like Concorde with the French, and the Panavia Tornado (MRCA) with the Europeans, rather forward looking, albeit an ecologically and economically challenged project in the case of the former.

The UK has the 4th or 5th largest GDP out of 195-odd countries in the world.

If you lined up 195 people in order of height, would you call the 4th tallest "poxy" and "little"?

Compared to the US, China, Japan, Germany and EU we are small (EU should be considered if we are talking trade deal negotiating oomph). We are about 60% the size of Germany's economy (4th).... I'm tall but I would describe someone 60% my height as 'short'.

We are very close to France, often swapping places. The difference being they'll have the weight of the rEU behind them.

If you lined up 195 people you wouldn't find the first one being 4x larger than the 3rd,

After the EU, US and China at the top there's a huge step down.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-gdp/

The EU is not a country.

Like I said earlier:

Would you call the 4th tallest "poxy" and "little"?  How would you fools describe India?

Mr T impression, classy.

India is a developing country.

So would you say, sitting in the incredibly privileged and lucky position of being in the UK (I am assuming), that India is smaller and more poxy than the UK?

I certainly wouldn't call India smaller...

That country is small....that country is far away...

You may think you are voting Lib Dem’s. In fact you will be voting Tory. That’s the joy of FPTP for you. Any vote that isn’t for the runner up is a vote for the winner. 

Tactical voting is a short term approach and is partly to blame for the current two party sh*tshow.  Voting for a party you believe in will slowly allow them to build momentum, to gain increased funding and media attention, to make the larger parties take note and listen.  It's a long term approach that's at odds with peoples current desire for instant gratification and their often blind hate for the other side.  Vote tactically and you will never get the government you want.  Voting for what you believe in then someday you just might make a difference. 

We'll have another chance to vote for the government we want in between 1 and 5 years time. Right now we need to be focused on voting for the EU membership we want. Unless we do so, it may no longer be an option come the next election.

Hardly. As I pointed out earlier this week, for me personally, the Tory party is by such a huge margin the position of maximum self-interest, that any time I don't vote for them, it is a vote for the opposition.

Where one party stands poised to undo half a century's good work making the the other mainstream parties objectives nothing but impossible dreams for a generation or more I'd argue it makes sense to vote tactically to prevent that. To forego the opportunity to create small change by signalling intent today so you might still retain the ability to act effectively tomorrow. If this government gets a majority I will not live to see the harm they do this country over the next 5 years reversed.

Yes, in general widespread tactical voting is a clear symptom and perpetuator of what is wrong with our electoral system and the political landscape it has fostered. Sadly on this occasion, needs must.

jk

The only problem with this line of reasoning is that every single election is presented as the same crisis situation of voting either red or blue because otherwise the other one will get in. 

This isn’t the first election where tactical voting websites have been a thing, is it?

Very true, but this (with the possible exception of the last one!) is the first election in which one of the very few possible outcomes will lead to seismic changes that cannot be substantially reversed once a new government is in power a few years down the line.

Makes you wonder where we might be now if the general population hadn’t decided that putting multiple options in order of preference was too complicated for them in our previous referendum, doesn’t it. 

Presented and presented credibly aren't quite the same thing, we're used to two party politics with balance established and managed through gerrymandering. A win or a loss is a relatively short lived 5-20 year reversible outcome, change happens slowly and everyone knows it. Brexit isn't like that. It fundamentally and irreversibly remakes the UK over the course of a few years: probably without Scotland, with god alone knows what for NI and all that entails. In parallel subjects us to an intense period of social  division and economic turmoil in which revolutionary changes to the way we live are all but inevitable. Like it or not the country and institutions we know now will be swept away to be remade in the vision of those who fund the winners of this election, that isn't true in normal times.

Far from it. I do wonder if it's the first where there is such a proliferation with sufficient profile they actually begin to interact, cancel each other out or produce weird feedback loops.

jk

Sort of makes you think that the main opposition party should be working with the other parties to present such a significant turmoil, doesn’t it? Perhaps in some sort of alliance. Or, maybe at least outright saying they’re against Brexit.

The notion of tactically voting for Corbyn wouldn’t be so distasteful if he seemed like he was being honest about Brexit and had any interest in actually stopping it.

I don't think we are left with a way forward.  Perhaps we need the least backward way for Great Brokain?

We should all be making a lot more of Russian involvement in the bringing down of our country and thus weakening western europe relative to Vlad's people.

Too late unfortunately as of today brexit is all but assured. Once there's a choice of 3 credible options on the lists the leave/remain/referendum vote will inevitably split delivering a Johnson government.

jk

That might have been true until the Tories went totally mental.   The risk from Boris is far higher than the risk from Corbyn because Boris could get a majority and actually do the crazy sh*t he is proposing.  Corbyn is miles off a majority and would be neutered by needing votes from other parties.   

Not only is Boris going to wreck the economy with Brexit he's also gone full on populist in his spending pledges, lost all interest in managing the deficit and quite likely to restart the troubles in Ireland or kick-off Catalonia style protests in Scotland.

same letters, same meaning

Normally I'd agree with you, but we don't live in normal times. I'm most likely going to vote Labour this time with no qualms, because I do not want to see a Tory majority or Tory/BP coalition in parliament. Normally I'd add my voice to the momentum you speak of and vote Green, but not this time...

I'm sorry to disappoint you because I would want to vote lib dem in this election as well, however you are categorically wrong.
It's a simple mathematical truth that, in FPTP, voting for anything else than the runner up is the same thing as giving your vote to the winner.

By voting Lib Dem you are in fact voting Tory, which is your position of maximum interest, and doing so whilst laundering your guilt. I will probably end up doing the same so not judging.

I enjoyed your slightly hysterical assessment of Boris' as yet undeclared manifesto, but how was my statement untrue? You may or may not have some insight into my self-interest but I see it crystal clear. And let me assure you that even if Boris did all your "crazy shit" it would still align better with my personal circumstances than any of the alternatives. But, since I'm not voting for Boris, there's no need to debate my choice. On the other hand, I think your anti-Tory hysteria is really aimed at furthering a weak Labour minority that gives the SNP more leverage. After all, that's how you see your self-interest, isn't it?*

* And I have no problem with that. And less and less with the idea of Scottish Independence, which also might coincide with my self-interest.

In my tight marginal either side could win. If Labour prevails, then, by your logic, I will have ended up voting for them, not the Tories. It's like Shrodinger's cat. We'll only know who my LibDem vote counted for after the results are out.

So why not choose the lesser evil? I can't believe you don't care which you get.

jk

I do care. But I care more about registering my absolute horror at the extreme positions taken by our two main parties lately. And my vote is the only thing those two parties care about today. 

Tight marginal not so sure, Electoral calculus puts chance of a Tory win at 78% for Calder valley. I’d be surprised if it’s not a Tory hold.

You wouldn't get that impression if you lived in Hebden Bridge, or shared my FB feed. But it's a very mixed constituency. The other side of Halifax is true blue.

However, it's too early for predictions. Labour could surge on newsflow, particularly around the NHS, as its their main electoral weapon. Whitaker's majority went from 4500 (9%) to a few hundred in 2017.

Labour has no chance to surge on the news flow. For the most part thee news cycle is dictacted by a right wing press that loves Boris anyway.

Seriously I don't see it, the only thing that's really going to matter in this election is identity and Brexit. And the more labour tries to talk about anything else the more they will lose. Sad reality

I agree it’s awful. Basically if you pick labour it’s going to be an economic disaster, if you pick tories it’s going to be a human disaster and a clear shift  towards authoritarianism.

At this point I’m thinking that an economic disaster is a marginally lesser evil. Plus labour is more likely to grant a Scottish indyref2 which would offer a way out of this nonsense for me. I do not want Scottish independence really but don’t see any other option at the moment.

Another point to consider is that if Corbyn does badly at the GE, i.e. fails to defeat Boris, or to get a workable majority, surely he is not likely to survive (v long) as leader. We could perhaps then get e.g. Starmer, in which case there is unlikely to be an economic disaster.

Pick Labour. History shows us that it's Conservative laissez faire economics that keeps causing economic disasters. Their lack of investment in the economy, at a time of low borrowing rates and low prices is criminal, and the results are clear to see all around you. It's an economic disaster now and Labour have a plan to invest to get Britain working for everybody again.

Hardly economic disaster, Labour stand zero chance of majority government therefore zero chance of doing anything economically radical, certainly nothing close to as batshit as Johnson! With a bit of luck a Labour minority gets a third crack at a less damaging withdrawal agreement (whatever that looks like, the Irish border remains problematic without a binding commitment to a workable CU) then a referendum to legitimise the passage of brexit legislation through parliament. At best it's another two year delay before this nonsense starts again with Farage agitating to derail trade talks and scupper the existing exit treaty.

What Labour says now is largely irrelevant, the only thing they stand a hope of achieving is where the venn diagram of Labour, nationalist, Green and LD policy intersects and even that'll require some serious skill to deliver.

Looks to me like the Scots are going to vote either way now, the question really is whether it becomes a Catalan style civil emergency or not.

jk

Well I disagree I think the conservatives should have done to Britain what the troika did to Greece. But of course no democratic government wants to inflict that on their people even if it’s necessary. 
 

As for laisser faire economics as far as I can tell they’ve done exactly the opposite, they just increased the control of the state on the economy.

Their “austerity” wasn’t really austerity for everyone, debt is still way to high, all they did is to cut funding for the weakest in society simply because it pleases their electorate.

I don't follow your viewpoint? They did do what the troika did to Greece and the real point of austerity is to shrink the role of the state. Look at the mess were in as a result.

I don't think it's that bad because Labour don't look like they've any chance of getting a majority.  They may get the keys to No 10 but they'll be moderated by their coalition/confidence and supply partners or if they don't make a deal with the Lib Dems and/or SNP by inability to pass any controversial legislation.

Disagree completely. They’ve not fixed the problem of the GFC which was too much debt. All they’ve done is to punish the weakest in society for electoral reasons, and then directed the blame of that to “foreigners” and “the EU”.

I disagree that they shrunk the role of the state in fact I would argue they massively increased it - just not in delivering public services. And if you look at the direction of travel it is in fact towards even more control.

I'm struggling to get where you're coming from? We agree that

- A Labour government is a lot better for Britain than a Tory government.

- If you vote for Lib Dem in a seat that Labour can realistically win then your vote is effectively a vote for the Tories.

- The news cycle is dictated by the right wing press.

- Conservative austerity was really an attack on the weakest in society.

Is it that you think austerity should have been for the rich as well as the poor? Well at least that would have been fairer but it didn't need to be inflicted on anyone. You've got cause and effect the wrong way around. The GFC wasn't caused by debt, debt was the result of the GFC. The reason the debt has increased is because austerity has slowed down the economy.

Austerity is economic propaganda spread by the right wing press to give an excuse to shrink the state because it is the state that can protect the weakest in society from the predatory practices of the asset strippers and profiteers. Where do you see the size of the state increasing? 

Marginally better.
In any case they have zero chance of winning and I don't think they even care about winning.

Absolutely true.

True

True

Yes, but not only the rich, also the middle.

It did and still does. We will pay for it at some point and it will be far more painful than if we had gone through the necessary blood and tears earlier as Greece did.

No, I,ve got it perfectly right, the GFC was caused by too much debt, specifically bad private debt.
We have NOT fixed the problem at all we have simply transfered this debt to the state and they increased it more.

The state hasn't shrunk. 40% of the economy is government spending and that proportion hasn't changed much. Meanwhile, the influence of the state and its politics on the economy is increasing, Brexit is an example, but so is the increasing collusion of the state with a few private companies that now control big chunks of the economy.

It's going to be very difficult for Labour to make headway when Diane Abbott is distinctly flaky on the difference between. 'privatisation' and 'nationalisation'...

You're right that the GFC was caused by bad private sector debt, I was sloppy in not stating that I was talking about government debt there.

Well, that's down from 47% in 2010 and public sector employment has shrank from 6.5m to 5.5m so the state has shrunk but not by nearly as much as I had thought judging by the broken Britain I see around me.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/government-spending-to-gdp

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/publicsectorp...

Since the Tories are still spending at these levels but have still managed to cause such hardship to so many then surely you do agree that they are economically incompetent and I find it hard to understand why you wouldn't describe a continuation of Tory mismanagement of our economy as an economic disaster and therefore back Labour more wholeheartedly?

Do you know why it hit 47% in 2010 and do you think that level is sustainable over the long term? 

I only discovered that stat yesterday and I was surprised by it so any answer I give would be speculative. Do you have a view?

When you look at the long record you see that government spending never drops below 35%. A high of 47% in 2010 makes sense because the private sector had stopped spending so even if the government sits on its hands and watches the economy crash like George Osbourne did, that figure will rises just because the private side of the balance has reduced. If the government provides stimulus as it should do in a time of lack of economic demand then that figure will also rise. As long as this generates growth then it is sustainable.