Should remainers vote for the Libs?

[WCZ]

p1stonhead said:

Surely every Christian believes this? Doesnt mean they dont overlook it in general life, but its clearly a sin under Christianity.

no and there's loads of things in the bible which Christians disagree with (like women not being able to speak in church etc)

[Justayellowbadge]

WCZ said:

p1stonhead said:

Surely every Christian believes this? Doesnt mean they dont overlook it in general life, but its clearly a sin under Christianity.

no and there's loads of things in the bible which Christians disagree with (like women not being able to speak in church etc)

I believe even 30 years ago, the Rev Rowan Atkinson was saying it was fantastic if that was the bag you were into, and that you shouldn't be ashamed to come out of the toilet.

[Fartomatic5000]

cb31 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Is it? If the Lib Dems stand at this election on a manifesto pledge of either another referendum, or ignoring the last referendum, and they won (unlikely I know), they would have a mandate to negotiate the abandonment of the plan to leave the EU and to "untrigger" article 50. (subject to the rest of the EU agreeing to us staying in.)

Going off very recent events, if we go back begging the EU to stay then we will have to bend over. I think at least we can kiss the rebate goodbye, what else would they punish us with knowing they had the upper hand in negotiations?

That's why I also think it would have been ten times worst for us if we had voted to stay in. Cameron had to go cap-in-hand into negotiations and normally came back with his tail between his legs. You could imagine how much sniggering would be going on behind his back every time Juncker reminds him that the UK voted for it. They would have had us over a barrel.

[p1stonhead]

Justayellowbadge said:

WCZ said:

p1stonhead said:

Surely every Christian believes this? Doesnt mean they dont overlook it in general life, but its clearly a sin under Christianity.

no and there's loads of things in the bible which Christians disagree with (like women not being able to speak in church etc)

I believe even 30 years ago, the Rev Rowan Atkinson was saying it was fantastic if that was the bag you were into, and that you shouldn't be ashamed to come out of the toilet.

Thats fine but its still a Christian sin.

You can pick and choose which you agree with of course but you cant change what 'god' apparently said originally.

If Farron thinks its wrong then he is obviously a knobber though. His silence is fairly deafneing isnt it!

But, not a debate for here probably

[Mario149]

Likes Fast Cars said:

Mario149 said:

So how would you suggest voting if you are anti Brexit or at least anti Hard Brexit?

Wait until we see the policies.

All this talk about a protest vote to prove some irrelevant point is futile.

Happy to wait for policies, and of course if I think there's anything materially different that the Tories come out with I may change my mind. My current voting intention is based on the form of the relevant parties for the last few months

[blindswelledrat]

I know I am late to this thread but I think there is a possibility of a lot of protest votes leaving the Tories this time around.
Despite the fact that half this forum thinks I am a 'leftie' I have always voted Conservative.
Not now though. This past couple of years the Conservatives have become some odd love-child of UKIP and Labour.
Just about every policy that springs to mind is a typical Labour policy. Tax Landlords. Tax second homes. Tax dividends more. Tax self employed more.
So confident are they in their retention of traditional Conservative voters that they have spent the whole term pandering to their non-voters to try and shore up their majority. As a result we might just as well have voted labour.
FOr that reason this election will be my first ever protest vote and I hope a lot follow and she gets a bloody nose.

[Granfondo]

I will be voting LD for one reason only,to try and get the SNP out!

[WCZ]

p1stonhead said:

Thats fine but its still a Christian sin.

You can pick and choose which you agree with of course but you cant change what 'god' apparently said originally.

no doubt but there has to be some element of Chinese whispers, I'm sure everyone has altered things their dad said to them either through forgetfulness or just to impose your own slant.

[Mario149]

Atomic12C said:

Mario149 said:

Brexit may well be here to stay, but the type of Brexit should def be on the table.

How is that possible?
The type of brexit is in the hands of more than one party, namely the UK government AND the EU.

You can't specify the end result if there is such a thing as a negotiation process to be had..... otherwise that would be called a one-sided demand which you are expecting the other side to roll over and accept.

It is in the UK national interest to get the best result from the negotiations. I firmly believe that the conservative government lead by TM is in the best position to get that by starting out on a 'hard' approach.


Look at the whole thing from a "sliding-scale" point of view. Generally a negotiation involves agreements on compromise, if one party starts of in a 'soft' position then they can only compromise towards a 'softer' position which would see them closer to the 'other side'.
If both parties start off in a 'hard' position then compromise is near the middle for both parties.

And this is exactly what both sides have done so far. The EU have set out a hard position against the UK. And obviously the UK is setting out a hard position against the EU.
I wouldn't have expected it to be anything otherwise.

I think you're over complicating this. If TM, during one of her Brexit announcements, had said: "Our goal is to Leave the EU, but remain part of the EEA with all its advantages and responsibilities (i.e. 4 freedoms etc) such that the UK enjoys a similar relationship to the EU as Norway/Iceland etc, with a broadly similar, but still to be exactly negotiated, per capita payment. " ....the EU would have jumped all over that. There would be no soft or hard positions, just a replication (as far as possible) of an existing arrangement already in place.

The only reason the concept of a hard or soft Brexit exists is because the UK wants to have its cake and eat it when the rules of the EU/EEA "club" are abundantly clear and have been so for years. The EU hasn't set out a hard position, it's just reiterated the one it's always had. We're perfectly entitled to our cake approach, but it creates a hard/soft Brexit problem all of our own making, no-one else's.

[jonby]

Likes Fast Cars said:

Atomic12C said:

How is that possible?
The type of brexit is in the hands of more than one party, namely the UK government AND the EU.

You can't specify the end result if there is such a thing as a negotiation process to be had..... otherwise that would be called a one-sided demand which you are expecting the other side to roll over and accept.

It is in the UK national interest to get the best result from the negotiations. I firmly believe that the conservative government lead by TM is in the best position to get that by starting out on a 'hard' approach.


Look at the whole thing from a "sliding-scale" point of view. Generally a negotiation involves agreements on compromise, if one party starts of in a 'soft' position then they can only compromise towards a 'softer' position which would see them closer to the 'other side'.
If both parties start off in a 'hard' position then compromise is near the middle for both parties.

And this is exactly what both sides have done so far. The EU have set out a hard position against the UK. And obviously the UK is setting out a hard position against the EU.
I wouldn't have expected it to be anything otherwise.

At last somebody who understands how negotiations are supposed to work!

Unlike those on the radio this morning demanding in relation to Brexit strategy that each party sets out now what they would ask for, what the aims are and what their limits (lines in the sand) would be, so we the electorate can decide which strategy appeals most..............the mind boggles

[jonby]

Mario149 said:

Atomic12C said:

Mario149 said:

Brexit may well be here to stay, but the type of Brexit should def be on the table.

How is that possible?
The type of brexit is in the hands of more than one party, namely the UK government AND the EU.

You can't specify the end result if there is such a thing as a negotiation process to be had..... otherwise that would be called a one-sided demand which you are expecting the other side to roll over and accept.

It is in the UK national interest to get the best result from the negotiations. I firmly believe that the conservative government lead by TM is in the best position to get that by starting out on a 'hard' approach.


Look at the whole thing from a "sliding-scale" point of view. Generally a negotiation involves agreements on compromise, if one party starts of in a 'soft' position then they can only compromise towards a 'softer' position which would see them closer to the 'other side'.
If both parties start off in a 'hard' position then compromise is near the middle for both parties.

And this is exactly what both sides have done so far. The EU have set out a hard position against the UK. And obviously the UK is setting out a hard position against the EU.
I wouldn't have expected it to be anything otherwise.

I think you're over complicating this. If TM, during one of her Brexit announcements, had said: "Our goal is to Leave the EU, but remain part of the EEA with all its advantages and responsibilities (i.e. 4 freedoms etc) such that the UK enjoys a similar relationship to the EU as Norway/Iceland etc, with a broadly similar, but still to be exactly negotiated, per capita payment. " ....the EU would have jumped all over that. There would be no soft or hard positions, just a replication (as far as possible) of an existing arrangement already in place.

The only reason the concept of a hard or soft Brexit exists is because the UK wants to have its cake and eat it when the rules of the EU/EEA "club" are abundantly clear and have been so for years. The EU hasn't set out a hard position, it's just reiterated the one it's always had. We're perfectly entitled to our cake approach, but it creates a hard/soft Brexit problem all of our own making, no-one else's.

I find the idea that we can be seen to have in any way met the wishes of an electorate who voted to leave the EU, by having a new system that still means directly or indirectly, the 4 freedoms remain, more absurd than any other proposed solution. All that time, all that money, all that complication..............to be back where we were at the beginning.

So called 'soft Brexit' is a way of remainers getting their wish not to leave the EU, not a way of leavers (who won the referendum) having their wishes granted. Keeping the 4 freedoms, whether directly or indirectly, cannot reasonably be argued to mean we have left the EU in a meaningful way

[footnote]

Mario149 said:

The only reason the concept of a hard or soft Brexit exists is because the UK wants to have its cake and eat it when the rules of the EU/EEA "club" are abundantly clear and have been so for years. The EU hasn't set out a hard position, it's just reiterated the one it's always had. We're perfectly entitled to our cake approach, but it creates a hard/soft Brexit problem all of our own making, no-one else's.

Sums it up perfectly.

[footnote]

Hayek said:

Pooh said:

The best way to avoid a hard Brexit is to vote Conservative, if May has a big majority she has to pander less to the more anti European MPs and has more authority to negotiate a better deal with the EU.
Committing ourselves to having a referendum on the final deal is a crazy idea, all it will do is encourage the EU to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we reject it in a referendum.
We should try to get the best deal possible, leave and then make the most of the opportunities that we will have outside the EU.

I possibly agree with this. Seems there's some chance that for Mrs May, this is a chance to not have to rely on the hard-liners. However this was put to John Redwood on his blog and his reply was that this was not the case as there's plenty of soft-liners in parliament already that she could fall back on if she wanted that.

I think this is a test from the Tory Central Office PR machine - let's see how dumb the remainers really are - give me a huge majority, the power to do anything and I'll be nice to you, but by God, mess me about and I'll break your soft liberal arses - OK Theresa, yeah we'll give you a big majority, because you're a politician of your word, aren't you?

[footnote]

avinalarf said:

footnote said:

avinalarf said:

Hayek said:

'Hard' Brexit is national independence and self-determination. Parliament no longer significantly bound (definitely not in domestic or foreign policy) by agreements between it and the EU or any of it's constituent parts.

'Soft' Brexit is our position changing from half in the EU to half out. Leaving the 'EU' but remaining a participant in and bound by it's rules and institutions, no material changes.

In that case I believe "hard Brexit " is what most people thought they were voting for in 1973 when we joined the then European Community.
A compact community of European countries with similar economies that would work together to make trading together easier.
This then morphed into the EU whose aims went far beyond the original concept.

Then perhaps the '1973ers' are the only ones who should have had a vote in the recent referendum?

Or we could have had a 'go back and live in the past' option on the ballot paper.... oh yeah, we did... that's what people voted for;-)

A reasonable proportion of the electorate of many countries in the EU ,not only the
UK,were/are uncomfortable with certain aspects of EU policy.
Instead of discussing and addressing those concerns the EU chose to be intransigent.
This has lead us to where we are now with the spectre of extreme political parties gaining strength as people become disallusioned with the status quo.

For sure, but the solution isn't to walk away. But then, I read somewhere that DeGaulle twice turned Britain down for membership because he knew we would fk it up - because we're not 'community' minded!

[Pooh]

footnote said:

Hayek said:

Pooh said:

The best way to avoid a hard Brexit is to vote Conservative, if May has a big majority she has to pander less to the more anti European MPs and has more authority to negotiate a better deal with the EU.
Committing ourselves to having a referendum on the final deal is a crazy idea, all it will do is encourage the EU to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we reject it in a referendum.
We should try to get the best deal possible, leave and then make the most of the opportunities that we will have outside the EU.

I possibly agree with this. Seems there's some chance that for Mrs May, this is a chance to not have to rely on the hard-liners. However this was put to John Redwood on his blog and his reply was that this was not the case as there's plenty of soft-liners in parliament already that she could fall back on if she wanted that.

I think this is a test from the Tory Central Office PR machine - let's see how dumb the remainers really are - give me a huge majority, the power to do anything and I'll be nice to you, but by God, mess me about and I'll break your soft liberal arses - OK Theresa, yeah we'll give you a big majority, because you're a politician of your word, aren't you?

So what is the alternative, a vote for the Lib Dems will achieve nothing, a Liberal Democrat MP has zero influence on government policy.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

p1stonhead said:

Justayellowbadge said:

WCZ said:

p1stonhead said:

Surely every Christian believes this? Doesnt mean they dont overlook it in general life, but its clearly a sin under Christianity.

no and there's loads of things in the bible which Christians disagree with (like women not being able to speak in church etc)

I believe even 30 years ago, the Rev Rowan Atkinson was saying it was fantastic if that was the bag you were into, and that you shouldn't be ashamed to come out of the toilet.

Thats fine but its still a Christian sin.

You can pick and choose which you agree with of course but you cant change what 'god' apparently said originally.

If Farron thinks its wrong then he is obviously a knobber though. His silence is fairly deafneing isnt it!

But, not a debate for here probably

There are 4 references to the abomination of homosexuality in the bible. But there are 24 references to the abomination of eating shellfish. Never quite understood why people get so worked up over one when the other, which is clearly far more serious given the number of references to it, seems to get a free pass.

[p1stonhead]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

p1stonhead said:

Justayellowbadge said:

WCZ said:

p1stonhead said:

Surely every Christian believes this? Doesnt mean they dont overlook it in general life, but its clearly a sin under Christianity.

no and there's loads of things in the bible which Christians disagree with (like women not being able to speak in church etc)

I believe even 30 years ago, the Rev Rowan Atkinson was saying it was fantastic if that was the bag you were into, and that you shouldn't be ashamed to come out of the toilet.

Thats fine but its still a Christian sin.

You can pick and choose which you agree with of course but you cant change what 'god' apparently said originally.

If Farron thinks its wrong then he is obviously a knobber though. His silence is fairly deafneing isnt it!

But, not a debate for here probably

There are 4 references to the abomination of homosexuality in the bible. But there are 24 references to the abomination of eating shellfish. Never quite understood why people get so worked up over one when the other, which is clearly far more serious given the number of references to it, seems to get a free pass.

Crazzzzzy idea - perhaps people shouldnt follow any of it?

[footnote]

Pooh said:

footnote said:

Hayek said:

Pooh said:

The best way to avoid a hard Brexit is to vote Conservative, if May has a big majority she has to pander less to the more anti European MPs and has more authority to negotiate a better deal with the EU.
Committing ourselves to having a referendum on the final deal is a crazy idea, all it will do is encourage the EU to give us the worst possible deal in the hope that we reject it in a referendum.
We should try to get the best deal possible, leave and then make the most of the opportunities that we will have outside the EU.

I possibly agree with this. Seems there's some chance that for Mrs May, this is a chance to not have to rely on the hard-liners. However this was put to John Redwood on his blog and his reply was that this was not the case as there's plenty of soft-liners in parliament already that she could fall back on if she wanted that.

I think this is a test from the Tory Central Office PR machine - let's see how dumb the remainers really are - give me a huge majority, the power to do anything and I'll be nice to you, but by God, mess me about and I'll break your soft liberal arses - OK Theresa, yeah we'll give you a big majority, because you're a politician of your word, aren't you?

So what is the alternative, a vote for the Lib Dems will achieve nothing, a Liberal Democrat MP has zero influence on government policy.

Every MP has an influence on government policy if together they add up to forming a viable opposition, Lib Dem, Labour, Green SNP - it doesn't matter what party they are as long as together they constitute a brake on the excess available to any Govt with an insurmountable majority.

[Funk]

TLandCruiser said:

Mario149 said:

You should vote to unseat the Tory candidate. Ideally to replace with a Lib Dem as they are opposed to Brexit (esp hard Brexit), but if a Labour candidate is more likely to win you should vote for them as even though they will support Brexit, they're anti hard Brexit and the less MPs the Tories have the more difficult it is for them to force through a hard Brexit.

Ridiculous

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that...!

Here's how I see it. Brexit is happening, end of. How it happens is still up for question. Voting LD could result in us ending up with a fractured coalition government again (and we saw how well that worked). There is no 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit - there is only 'Brexit'. However in order to achieve the best possible outcome for the country we need to present one united front against the EU negotiators. Any hint of dissent or weakness will give the EU negotiators the upper hand - if they think we're desperate for 'soft' Brexit (and I use that term under duress) they will take the piss wherever they can because they'd know that's what we needed.

Right now we need a united front, a government with a mandate and a solid majority and to hold our negotiating cards close to our chest.

In addition to that, do Tory voters really want to entrust the economy to the LDs or Labour again just as a 'protest'? Whilst I don't agree with any party 100%, I do think that currently the only credible party is the one in charge at the moment. Vote them back in, let them sort out the whole Brexit thing and then see if any of the other parties has managed to arrange a piss-up in a brewery by 2022.

Voting for Labour or the LDs at this stage would be idiocy; the sort of idiocy which - for example - resulted in Trump running the USA.

[WCZ]

Funk said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that...!

Here's how I see it. Brexit is happening, end of. How it happens is still up for question. Voting LD could result in us ending up with a fractured coalition government again (and we saw how well that worked). There is no 'hard' or 'soft' Brexit - there is only 'Brexit'. .

we'll see what the EU says (I'm sure they'll make some kind of statement or hint within the next few weeks)