Should remainers vote for the Libs?
Discussion
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.
HerrSchnell said:
The point of electing an MP to Parliament is that they are the best person to represent their constituency, Article 50 has been invoked meaning Brexit is happening regardless.
Considering the above points I think a LD vote is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Considering the above points I think a LD vote is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
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!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.
rxe said:
I think the talk of hard brexit as an objective is overdone. I don't believe any one, even Farage, wants a "hard, burn 'em all and us" Brexit. What everyone wants is a sensible agreement that lets the Germans carry on selling BMWs to us, and for us to sell Financial Services to them. This is what in all likelihood we'll get.
However, in any negotiation, you want to be holding a big stick. May's stick is "I've been given a huge majority by my population to agree any damn deal I like. I'd prefer to have a good deal, but I'll invoke mutually assured destruction if you won't give me a good deal."
The way to get a good deal for the country is either to give her that majority, or give her nothing. The absolute worst outcome is a razor thin majority or similar that continues to whine and is on the other side in the negotiation.
If Farron was in charge, he'd crawl over to Brussels, roll on his back and appeal to their religious convictions to give us a good deal. They say "boo" and he'd be back here waving some bit of paper like Chamberlain.
Corbyn would miss his 'plane to Brussels and arrive after the negotiations have finished because he took his bicycle.
Totally agree.However, in any negotiation, you want to be holding a big stick. May's stick is "I've been given a huge majority by my population to agree any damn deal I like. I'd prefer to have a good deal, but I'll invoke mutually assured destruction if you won't give me a good deal."
The way to get a good deal for the country is either to give her that majority, or give her nothing. The absolute worst outcome is a razor thin majority or similar that continues to whine and is on the other side in the negotiation.
If Farron was in charge, he'd crawl over to Brussels, roll on his back and appeal to their religious convictions to give us a good deal. They say "boo" and he'd be back here waving some bit of paper like Chamberlain.
Corbyn would miss his 'plane to Brussels and arrive after the negotiations have finished because he took his bicycle.
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.
I hope this goes some way to explain to people that all this talk about hard or soft Brexit is ridiculous. Brexit is Brexit. No-one at this stage can choose the outcome. Negotiations will determine the outcome. 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.
We need to think about our red lines, and who will be better placed to serve our interests in these negotiations whilst protecting our red lines.
MYOB 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.
I hope this goes some way to explain to people that all this talk about hard or soft Brexit is ridiculous. Brexit is Brexit. No-one at this stage can choose the outcome. Negotiations will determine the outcome. 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.
We need to think about our red lines, and who will be better placed to serve our interests in these negotiations whilst protecting our red lines.
Thats why people dont want May who has said this is off the table.
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.
It amazes me that this isn't obvious to everyone.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.
MYOB said:
p1stonhead said:
There are many red lines though arent there? To some people its being in the EEA above most other things.
Thats why people dont want May who has said this is off the table.
But that's only because the EU has clearly stated this is not an option.Thats why people dont want May who has said this is off the table.
bobbo89 said:
Are those voting LD to avoid a hard Brexit not concerned that what could result is an absolute mess of a deal that's worse than the hard Brexit they voted to avoid?
No, they seem unconcerned that their 'protest vote' will actually cause far more damage to the UK in the Brexit negotiations. They're the type of people that plead with a murderer to 'be nice'. The EU is not nice, they don't play nice, they won't be nice to us, they will try to f
k us. 'We' need to stand up to them now and get the best deal for the UK, whether or not people support Brexit, they better get behind it as the alternative is standing beside a plane with a piece of paper in the hand!p1stonhead said:
MYOB said:
p1stonhead said:
There are many red lines though arent there? To some people its being in the EEA above most other things.
Thats why people dont want May who has said this is off the table.
But that's only because the EU has clearly stated this is not an option.Thats why people dont want May who has said this is off the table.
FN2TypeR said:
p1stonhead said:
There are many red lines though arent there? To some people its being in the EEA above most other things.
Thats why people dont want May who has said this is off the table.
She said that an early general election was off of the table, too.Thats why people dont want May who has said this is off the table.
king whining, bhing, moaning and backbiting too - so had to change that. Sometimes people are forced to change their views.HerrSchnell said:
frisbee said:
I'm voting LD, they are very likely to regain the seat where I live. The local conservative who won the last election is very good but I don't support Brexit.
Its a shame that there is no credible opposition in this country.
The point of electing an MP to Parliament is that they are the best person to represent their constituency, Article 50 has been invoked meaning Brexit is happening regardless.Its a shame that there is no credible opposition in this country.
Considering the above points I think a LD vote is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The LibDem view is that there should be a final referendum on the outcome of the negotiation. As far as I can see this means that if a referendum majority decide the terms are not acceptable then Brexit is cancelled.
herewego said:
HerrSchnell said:
frisbee said:
I'm voting LD, they are very likely to regain the seat where I live. The local conservative who won the last election is very good but I don't support Brexit.
Its a shame that there is no credible opposition in this country.
The point of electing an MP to Parliament is that they are the best person to represent their constituency, Article 50 has been invoked meaning Brexit is happening regardless.Its a shame that there is no credible opposition in this country.
Considering the above points I think a LD vote is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The LibDem view is that there should be a final referendum on the outcome of the negotiation. As far as I can see this means that if a referendum majority decide the terms are not acceptable then Brexit is cancelled.
As said, in reality its probably a bad idea, but techincally it makes sense.Some people think this is an afront to democracy or some sort of treason but i cant see how.
Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 19th April 10:22
p1stonhead said:
Did they? I dont recall that. If they did then fair enough but I dont see why they wouldnt offer it to us when others have it?
Others have it but they have to allow for freedom of movement for EU citizens. And the UK's position is that we no longer want the freedom of movement as we want to have control of our borders.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff