Should remainers vote for the Libs?
Discussion
sidicks said:
herewego said:
You think that people will vote Tory to ensure brexit goes ahead so that if it turns out to have been a stupid move they can poke fun at the Tories?
That's one of the daftest strategies I've heard.
I don't see how people can call themselves remoaners or remainers then vote for a Conservative candidate, it doesn't make sense unless they were never really remainers..
In a General Election (most) people will vote for their chosen party based on a number of (potentially) conflicting issues.That's one of the daftest strategies I've heard.
I don't see how people can call themselves remoaners or remainers then vote for a Conservative candidate, it doesn't make sense unless they were never really remainers..
sidicks said:
cookie118 said:
1) But if a party is elected into government and it is a key pledge of their manifesto then surely that also represents the will of the people?
As above, with a GE it's much harder to say that, because people are clearly voting with a number of different things in mind. With the referendum it was a single question and there was no ambiguity.Of course, as above, it's purely a theoretical question as it won't come close to happening.
cookie118 said:
2) So in response to this you would be ok with a Brexit that retains the 'four freedoms' our contributions to the EU and some form of control of the ECJ over our courts? Because the will of the people regarding these points cannot be decided by the referendum-people were voting based on a large number of different issues.
A poor analogy - it what way would that be 'leaving the EU'?2) We'd invoke article 50 and leave. The terms of the referendum would be met. It'd be the minimim amount of separation but the degree of separation was never voted on-just that we'd leave.
What I'm getting at with these points is you seem to be saying with 1) that you cannot read into the 'will of the people' on specific issues based on how they vote But with 2) you can read into the 'will of the people' on specific issues based on how they vote.
cookie118 said:
1) You seem to be saying that when people vote for a political party the manifesto points from the party does not then have the right to take it through parliament because it might not represent the 'will of the people' because there are so many other issues mixed in? For example were the tories right to have the referendum in the first place because it might not represent the 'will of the people' to have one?
No, I did not say that. A party in power has the right to implement its manifesto. It does not follow that everything in that manifesto represents the 'will of the people'. That's quite different.cookie118 said:
2) We'd invoke article 50 and leave. The terms of the referendum would be met. It'd be the minimim amount of separation but the degree of separation was never voted on-just that we'd leave.
Both sides were quite explicit (before the vote) on some key parts of what 'leaving' meant.cookie118 said:
What I'm getting at with these points is you seem to be saying with 1) that you cannot read into the 'will of the people' on specific issues based on how they vote But with 2) you can read into the 'will of the people' on specific issues based on how they vote.
See above.Jimboka said:
The ideal outcome will be a narrow Conservative majority.
Small enough to make life very difficult, as it is now.
But enough to keep them in power & to prolong the entertainment, watching them fail to deliver their pie in the sky promises.
I'd settle for that. Ideally I'd like a coalition government but that's a personal preference regardless of this unique situation.Small enough to make life very difficult, as it is now.
But enough to keep them in power & to prolong the entertainment, watching them fail to deliver their pie in the sky promises.
A narrow majority will throw the mix back in the pot very effectively.
Most Tory mps didn't (and in principle I would imagine, still don't) support Leave anyway.
There's always the potential for a split Labour Party and a split Conservative Party as a result of this.
sidicks said:
cookie118 said:
1) You seem to be saying that when people vote for a political party the manifesto points from the party does not then have the right to take it through parliament because it might not represent the 'will of the people' because there are so many other issues mixed in? For example were the tories right to have the referendum in the first place because it might not represent the 'will of the people' to have one?
No, I did not say that. A party in power has the right to implement its manifesto. It does not follow that everything in that manifesto represents the 'will of the people'. That's quite different.cookie118 said:
2) We'd invoke article 50 and leave. The terms of the referendum would be met. It'd be the minimim amount of separation but the degree of separation was never voted on-just that we'd leave.
Both sides were quite explicit (before the vote) on some key parts of what 'leaving' meant.cookie118 said:
What I'm getting at with these points is you seem to be saying with 1) that you cannot read into the 'will of the people' on specific issues based on how they vote But with 2) you can read into the 'will of the people' on specific issues based on how they vote.
See above.On the point that both sides were explicit in what leaving meant-does that mean the NHS will definitely get that 350 million
The response from so many has been that the figure was just a 'suggestion' but is that now set in stone?Daniel Hannan certainly said that leaving may not mean the end of free movement-is that set in stone too?
cookie118 said:
So if people vote for the lib dems would they be wrong to either reverse Brexit or keep us in the single market? People have voted for that party-they have the right to implement what is in their manifesto.
On the point that both sides were explicit in what leaving meant-does that mean the NHS will definitely get that 350 million The response from so many has been that the figure was just a 'suggestion' but is that now set in stone?
Daniel Hannan certainly said that leaving may not mean the end of free movement-is that set in stone too?
As far as the single market goes, I'm not sure where the assumption came from that we need to be outside it. I just remember these bits:On the point that both sides were explicit in what leaving meant-does that mean the NHS will definitely get that 350 million
The response from so many has been that the figure was just a 'suggestion' but is that now set in stone?Daniel Hannan certainly said that leaving may not mean the end of free movement-is that set in stone too?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain...
ou sont les biscuits said:
cookie118 said:
So if people vote for the lib dems would they be wrong to either reverse Brexit or keep us in the single market? People have voted for that party-they have the right to implement what is in their manifesto.
On the point that both sides were explicit in what leaving meant-does that mean the NHS will definitely get that 350 million The response from so many has been that the figure was just a 'suggestion' but is that now set in stone?
Daniel Hannan certainly said that leaving may not mean the end of free movement-is that set in stone too?
As far as the single market goes, I'm not sure where the assumption came from that we need to be outside it. I just remember these bits:On the point that both sides were explicit in what leaving meant-does that mean the NHS will definitely get that 350 million
The response from so many has been that the figure was just a 'suggestion' but is that now set in stone?Daniel Hannan certainly said that leaving may not mean the end of free movement-is that set in stone too?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain...
You obviously missed the speeches by David Cameron (the at the time PM) and George Osborne (the CoE) regarding the UK leaving the single Market, along with Michael Gove and Boris Johnson saying the same and all before the referendum.
Nearly a year down the line and the remoaners are still trotting out the same 'Leaving the single market' wasn't on the ballot paper wail.
Have a cup ot tea, and a biscuit, pop a valium and move on, the UK voted to leave the EU, A50 has been invoked, crying won't change it
cookie118 said:
So if people vote for the lib dems would they be wrong to either reverse Brexit or keep us in the single market?
I'm sure i didn't say that.I simply said (and have repeated above) that the outcome of a general election cannot possibly represent the 'will of the people' on a specific issue, when the people concerned have voted for a party for a variety of different reasons. That shouldn't be controversial.
cookie118 said:
People have voted for that party-they have the right to implement what is in their manifesto.
And? Where did I disagree?cookie118 said:
On the point that both sides were explicit in what leaving meant-does that mean the NHS will definitely get that 350 million The response from so many has been that the figure was just a 'suggestion' but is that now set in stone?
Daniel Hannan certainly said that leaving may not mean the end of free movement-is that set in stone too?
Both sides agreed on some key issues. The response from so many has been that the figure was just a 'suggestion' but is that now set in stone?Daniel Hannan certainly said that leaving may not mean the end of free movement-is that set in stone too?
Edited by sidicks on Saturday 29th April 12:11
Jimboka said:
The ideal outcome will be a narrow Conservative majority.
Small enough to make life very difficult, as it is now.
But enough to keep them in power & to prolong the entertainment, watching them fail to deliver their pie in the sky promises.
So you are keen for the Country to fail? How idiotic!Small enough to make life very difficult, as it is now.
But enough to keep them in power & to prolong the entertainment, watching them fail to deliver their pie in the sky promises.
cookie118 said:
sidicks said:
Both sides agreed on some key issues.
Sooo that's a no to the 350 million?
cookie118 said:
What was set in stone during the referendum then-besides the single act of invoking article 50?
Who said anything was 'set in stone'. Keep inventing what you like, some aspects of Brexit were agreed by both sides. Live with it!!sidicks said:
Who said anything was 'set in stone'. Keep inventing what you like, some aspects of Brexit were agreed by both sides. Live with it!!
Which bits of Brexit were agreed on then? If nothing is set in stone-would you accept a Brexit that retains free movement and the UK's contributions to the EU?sidicks said:
cookie118 said:
2) We'd invoke article 50 and leave. The terms of the referendum would be met. It'd be the minimim amount of separation but the degree of separation was never voted on-just that we'd leave.
Both sides were quite explicit (before the vote) on some key parts of what 'leaving' meant.http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_trade...
which quotes as part of their reassuring argument :
"...outside the EU - we could probably get access to the Single Market like Norway and Switzerland do..."
Very explicit that! LOL.
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 29th April 13:29
sidicks said:
Jimboka said:
The ideal outcome will be a narrow Conservative majority.
Small enough to make life very difficult, as it is now.
But enough to keep them in power & to prolong the entertainment, watching them fail to deliver their pie in the sky promises.
So you are keen for the Country to fail? How idiotic!Small enough to make life very difficult, as it is now.
But enough to keep them in power & to prolong the entertainment, watching them fail to deliver their pie in the sky promises.
To summarise, I'd personally put up with a bit of short term economic pain and watch the Tories make a pig's ear of the Brexit process such that the majority of the country gets to make a further decision on whether the EU/SM is not actually that bad compared to what real-life hard Brexit leaving looks like in the cold light of day.
footnote said:
I'd settle for that. Ideally I'd like a coalition government but that's a personal preference regardless of this unique situation.
yes. I honestly thought they might have formed a team of all the talents to negotiate Brexit across all parties, after all, it wasn't a party-political issue///ajd said:
"...outside the EU - we could probably get access to the Single Market like Norway and Switzerland do..."
Very explicit that! LOL.
You don't have to be in the single market to have access to the single market. The US has 'access' to the single market. The link you provide has a whole sub-chapter named 'The Failure of the Single Market'. I doubt they were trying to sell it to voters!Very explicit that! LOL.
fido said:
///ajd said:
"...outside the EU - we could probably get access to the Single Market like Norway and Switzerland do..."
Very explicit that! LOL.
You don't have to be in the single market to have access to the single market. The US has 'access' to the single market. The link you provide has a whole sub-chapter named 'The Failure of the Single Market'. I doubt they were trying to sell it to voters!Very explicit that! LOL.
https://quotebrexit.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/leave...
The Leavers on here aren't listening though because it doesn't fit their narrative. It's been pointed out to them many times that official Vote Leave representatives promised that we wouldn't leave the SM. Particularly look at the quotes from elected representatives, like Owen Paterson and Dan Hannan. Even Farage. They gave us mollifying words about cake and eating it. They were either deluded or mendacious. Not sure which is worse.
Remainers have subsequently been vindicated - it wasn't Project Fear to claim we'd end up outside, it was Project Reality. It's Vote Leave who told us a porkie here saying we'd stay in. Of course, it could be otherwise if we still had a Cameron government , but he's done us over and run away.
SilverSixer said:
fido said:
///ajd said:
"...outside the EU - we could probably get access to the Single Market like Norway and Switzerland do..."
Very explicit that! LOL.
You don't have to be in the single market to have access to the single market. The US has 'access' to the single market. The link you provide has a whole sub-chapter named 'The Failure of the Single Market'. I doubt they were trying to sell it to voters!Very explicit that! LOL.
https://quotebrexit.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/leave...
The Leavers on here aren't listening though because it doesn't fit their narrative. It's been pointed out to them many times that official Vote Leave representatives promised that we wouldn't leave the SM. Particularly look at the quotes from elected representatives, like Owen Paterson and Dan Hannan. Even Farage. They gave us mollifying words about cake and eating it. They were either deluded or mendacious. Not sure which is worse.
...
Your posted link and the actual truth, comedy gold presented by Andrew Neil with the utter fool James McGrory of Open Britain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9dKcjfeVTs
Just to finish off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUI5A1Gd5D0
Jimboka said:
The ideal outcome will be a narrow Conservative majority.
Small enough to make life very difficult, as it is now.
Yes, a majority of one or two would be most entertaining. Small enough to make life very difficult, as it is now.
Jimboka said:
But enough to keep them in power & to prolong the entertainment, watching them fail to deliver their pie in the sky promises.
They'll not be able to bypass the fixed term parliament act a second time...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff