Should remainers vote for the Libs?

[herewego]

Jockman said:

Remember, 30% of Lib Dems voted FOR Brexit.

Did the rest abstain or does that mean that 70% voted to remain?

[Hayek]

sammyboy said:

I’ve really tried to stick my head in the sand over the last few months with the Brexit talk, can someone just explain in laymen's terms what a hard Brexit looks like compared to a "soft" (is that what its being called?) Brexit.

'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.

[avinalarf]

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.

[footnote]

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;-)

[oyster]

jonnyb said:

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

Why?

It's ridiculous to TLandCruiser because although 52% of people voted to leave the EU, we are all supposed to become lemmings and just accept, without discussion and protest, that the will of a small minority of the 52% should be carried. (i.e. a very hard Brexit).

[Foliage]

We are fked, the party system is currently a 1 party system... may bob help us

[crankedup]

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.

Are you referring to your local election or the GE?

[crankedup]

jonnyb said:

El stovey said:

jonnyb said:

Likes Fast Cars 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.

So you would vote-out a very good MP just because of Brexit? Guess what - Brexit is here to stay. Why punish a good MP? It's like firing someone for doing their job and having no-one to replace them with (as you say "there is no credible opposition in this country").

Because in a democracy, when something happens you don't like, you use your vote to get it changed.
It looks like frisbee is lucky enough to be in a constituency where it might make a difference.

But the PM didn't want Brexit either. She's just decided she should sort it out as that's the democratic result of the vote the last PM (who didn't want Brexit either) arranged,

Voting out a PM who didn't want Brexit because you don't want Brexit isn't going to stop Brexit. Best you can hope for is that a PM who holds your view might be well placed to get a result in the negotiations you might be more in support of than an ardent leaver would try to negotiate.

Would you really want the PM to ignore the Brexit result or try to reverse it after the vote? I'm not sure that would make her a very good PM. She didn't want it, but is trying to do the best for her country with what the voters have presented her with.

Brexit will happen, but the type is very much up for grabs.

I don't want Brexit, and certainly don't want the version that Mrs May has put forward, outside the customs union, outside the single market ect.

Mrs May is all but certain to win this election, the question is by how much. To my mind every vote for the LibDems is a voter telling Mrs May that they are unhappy with her direction of travel and that she should change.

Equally, a vote for UKIP is a vote telling her to move further to the right.

She may be trying to do her best, but that is not good enough.

And I haven't even started on Grammar schools yet!

Judging from your post you would like to see our PM go into the Brexit negotiates with a weakened hand. We must demonstrate that we are not afraid of leaving ALL of the 'so called' eu benefits behind, this will assist us to perhaps negotiate the best deal for the UK.

[footnote]

On the original question, yes, remainers should vote for the Lib Dems, as should anyone who wants active scrutiny/oversight of government.

[egor110]

oyster said:

jonnyb said:

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

Why?

It's ridiculous to TLandCruiser because although 52% of people voted to leave the EU, we are all supposed to become lemmings and just accept, without discussion and protest, that the will of a small minority of the 52% should be carried. (i.e. a very hard Brexit).

Surely 52% is the majority not a small minority ?

Other than emigrate you have no other option than accepting the result.

Protesting is to late , the voting day was the only day anyone's opinion mattered .

If the lib dems do get enough votes to form a coalition how exactly are they going to prevent a hard brexit when they have no sway over the E.U negotiating team ?

[Pooh]

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.

[crankedup]

oyster said:

jonnyb said:

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

Why?

It's ridiculous to TLandCruiser because although 52% of people voted to leave the EU, we are all supposed to become lemmings and just accept, without discussion and protest, that the will of a small minority of the 52% should be carried. (i.e. a very hard Brexit).

Which is precisely why the Government has called the GE, this will ensure, assuming the Tories win the GE, that the majority will of the electorate are served according to the democratic vote. Electorate hands over the decision making to the Government of the day.

[avinalarf]

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.

[jonnyb]

egor110 said:

oyster said:

jonnyb said:

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

Why?

It's ridiculous to TLandCruiser because although 52% of people voted to leave the EU, we are all supposed to become lemmings and just accept, without discussion and protest, that the will of a small minority of the 52% should be carried. (i.e. a very hard Brexit).

Surely 52% is the majority not a small minority ?

Other than emigrate you have no other option than accepting the result.

Protesting is to late , the voting day was the only day anyone's opinion mattered .

If the lib dems do get enough votes to form a coalition how exactly are they going to prevent a hard brexit when they have no sway over the E.U negotiating team ?

I think you probably need to reread the post, he was talking about a small minority of the 52% wanting a hard Brexit.

Also, why does everyone think the EU wants a hard brexit? Keeping us in the single market would be a win for them, it is Mrs May that has said we want out of it, and the customs union. All the EU have said is what is required for continued membership of both.

Personally I think freemovemt of people and jurisdiction of the ECJ is a small price to pay. But then I would have us in the Euro and eventually abolish parliament and the monarchy in favour of pan European federalism.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

HerrSchnell said:

Article 50 has been invoked meaning Brexit is happening regardless.

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.)

[hyphen]

Tim Farron (hardcore christian) has again evaded questions on his views on homosexuality.So to expand the thread title:


Should Remainers vote for Libs knowing that the leader considers homosexuality a sin?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/19/absolut...

[p1stonhead]

hyphen said:

Tim Farron (hardcore christian) has again evaded questions on his views on homosexuality.So to expand the thread title:


Should Remainers vote for Libs knowing that the leader considers homosexuality a sin?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/19/absolut...

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

[cb31]

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?

[egor110]

jonnyb said:

egor110 said:

oyster said:

jonnyb said:

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

Why?

It's ridiculous to TLandCruiser because although 52% of people voted to leave the EU, we are all supposed to become lemmings and just accept, without discussion and protest, that the will of a small minority of the 52% should be carried. (i.e. a very hard Brexit).

Surely 52% is the majority not a small minority ?

Other than emigrate you have no other option than accepting the result.

Protesting is to late , the voting day was the only day anyone's opinion mattered .

If the lib dems do get enough votes to form a coalition how exactly are they going to prevent a hard brexit when they have no sway over the E.U negotiating team ?

I think you probably need to reread the post, he was talking about a small minority of the 52% wanting a hard Brexit.

Also, why does everyone think the EU wants a hard brexit? Keeping us in the single market would be a win for them, it is Mrs May that has said we want out of it, and the customs union. All the EU have said is what is required for continued membership of both.

Personally I think freemovemt of people and jurisdiction of the ECJ is a small price to pay. But then I would have us in the Euro and eventually abolish parliament and the monarchy in favour of pan European federalism.

That wasn't what we voted for though was it .

The vote was simply do you want to stay or leave , not how you want to leave.

[Hayek]

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.