Brexit Deal

[Zep]

Does the Brexit party get some sort of allowance for polling say 33% in less than 3 months as opposed to the rest being around since the year dot.....

Perhaps the 33% gained in such a short time is a huge sign of the desire for hardness over a floppy flacid,in out option.

Personally, I’m an out, in, out in, roll over, moan and fall kinda voter.

I’ll be honest, in my view it doesn’t. The Brexit party could be considered a protest vehicle, it might not remain (sorry) one. They have rapidly distilled all of the voters who are strongly in favour of a hard Brexit by mostly hollowing out the Con and UKIP vote. Last time out UKIP got 27% and the Cons 23%. The BNP were the Brexit type party on the wane then, they got 1%.

Labour have lost out to the Lib Dem’s because they flip-flopped on their position on a second ref in my view.

I don’t think the Brexit party will be able to continue on their trajectory, as this thread has proved, it is an extremely hard sell to move peoples opinions. The result does reflect quite well the polling analysis I posted a few pages ago.

What I will say though, is that I am not upset that we have eurosceptics representing us in the EU parliament. This in itself will serve to moderate those who advocate a federal Europe. And is the mechanism by which it would be moderated should be end up remaining (sorry) in some form.

 

[Wattie]

I’ll be honest, in my view it doesn’t. The Brexit party could be considered a protest vehicle, it might not remain (sorry) one. They have rapidly distilled all of the voters who are strongly in favour of a hard Brexit by mostly hollowing out the Con and UKIP vote. Last time out UKIP got 27% and the Cons 23%. The BNP were the Brexit type party on the wane then, they got 1%.

Labour have lost out to the Lib Dem’s because they flip-flopped on their position on a second ref in my view.

I don’t think the Brexit party will be able to continue on their trajectory, as this thread has proved, it is an extremely hard sell to move peoples opinions. The result does reflect quite well the polling analysis I posted a few pages ago.

What I will say though, is that I am not upset that we have eurosceptics representing us in the EU parliament. This in itself will serve to moderate those who advocate a federal Europe. And is the mechanism by which it would be moderated should we end up remaining (sorry) in some form.

Ok smarty pants, but what about an apology for those of us on viagra?

 

[Zep]

Ok but what about an apology for those of us on viagra?

As Elton John said, sorry is the hardest word. Sorry.

 

[philw696]

 

[MaserCoupe]

View attachment 57125

Hmmmh difficult one this Phil, is it that one is dangling on a string but works for a living, while the other one wilfully just strings you along???

 

[Wattie]

As Elton John said, sorry is the hardest word. Sorry.

No offfence taken Zep,the medication ensures “i’m still standing”.

 

[MarkMas]

....If the Brexit Party poll 33% of the vote, UKIP 3%, this would reflect 36% of the public wanting a hard Brexit. If you add the Cons to the total (a sort of Brexit, maybe) then this would be 47%. If you take the Lib Dem’s, Labour (who’s grass roots are known to be heavily in favour of a second ref), Green, SNP and Change UK then this is 51% of the vote.....

Well if BP+UKIP+Con = 47%, then add the 20-50% of Labour who want Brexit and you have a clear majority for Brexit, surely?

Or to put it another way, my EU election (aka proxy 2nd Referendum) result maths goes:

• Votes for: BP+UKIP + 70% of Con plus 30% of Lab = Leave

and

• Votes for: Green+Change+LD + 30% of Con plus 70% of Lab = Remain

Let's see how that turns out.....

 

[MarkMas]

I have to say, I don’t think this is going to be a particularly good result for those that believe in a No Deal Brexit.

If the Brexit Party poll 33% of the vote, UKIP 3%, this would reflect 36% of the public wanting a hard Brexit. ....

You seem to be conflating 'no deal Brexit' with 'hard Brexit', where one is a negotiating position and the other is an intended outcome. Personally I would like a so-called 'hard' Brexit ie the UK is completely out of the EU, but where we trade with the EU in a civilised and controlled way, with mutual respect for standards (and if necessary, tariffs), just as we (and the EU) should be trading with everyone else.

In terms of 'no deal', yes it would be very much better to have the exit take place in a controlled manner, with a trade deal and agreements on loads of other issues.

But 'taking no deal off the table' is incredibly damaging to our negotiating position. If I said to Wheelybin, "I am definitely going to buy your GTS, and I guarantee to make a deal. Now, what is your best price?" he might generously say, "Well, I'll just have the £18.5k, please." But if he was an EU negotiator (based on our experience so far), he would say, "OK, well now I want £39 billion for it."

 

[Wattie]

You seem to be conflating 'no deal Brexit' with 'hard Brexit', where one is a negotiating position and the other is an intended outcome. Personally I would like a so-called 'hard' Brexit ie the UK is completely out of the EU, but where we trade with the EU in a civilised and controlled way, with mutual respect for standards (and if necessary, tariffs), just as we (and the EU) should be trading with everyone else.

In terms of 'no deal', yes it would be very much better to have the exit take place in a controlled manner, with a trade deal and agreements on loads of other issues.

But 'taking no deal off the table' is incredibly damaging to our negotiating position. If I said to Wheelybin, "I am definitely going to buy your GTS, and I guarantee to make a deal. Now, what is your best price?" he might generously say, "Well, I'll just have the £18.5k, please." But if he was an EU negotiator (based on our experience so far), he would say, "OK, well now I want £39 billion for it."

Taking no deal off the table is the “remainers” way of ensuring Brexit doesn’t happen.

Are you seriously suggesting we should actually contemplate “remaining” because Europe won’t give us a deal?

29th March 2017, phone call, Downing St/Brussels.

Theresa- good morning JC, hows it hanging, Ca va bien?
Jean C - Bonjour, non, pas bien, eh.....no not really Theresa, you’ve just triggered Article 50.
Theresa- yes, yes we did Jean.
Jean C - so you’re definitely leaving us then.
Theresa- yes, yes we are. We must respect the referendum result as we’ve all been elected on it and parliament has confirmed that this will happen - unless of course we get “no deal” from you.
I was looking at booking flights to Brussels later this week so we can start our leaving negotiations.....when are you free?
Jean C - click.............beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.
Theresa- Jean, Jean are you still there....there’s such a lot for us to talk about and we only have 730 days left

https://www.sportsmaserati.com/index.php?threads/brexit-deal.27598/post-676210

 

[Zep]

Well if BP+UKIP+Con = 47%, then add the 20-50% of Labour who want Brexit and you have a clear majority for Brexit, surely?

Or to put it another way, my EU election (aka proxy 2nd Referendum) result maths goes:

• Votes for: BP+UKIP + 70% of Con plus 30% of Lab = Leave

and

• Votes for: Green+Change+LD + 30% of Con plus 70% of Lab = Remain

Let's see how that turns out.....

I don't disagree, you can slice it a lot of ways. I was referring to the hard brexit element in my analysis, and your maths has as much validity as mine.

I will say that you missed out SNP 3% Sinn Fein 1%, and Plaid 1% so that would make Green+Change+LD+SNP+SF + 30% Con and 70% Lab = 50.6% and BP+UKIP+DUP 70% Con + 30% Lab = 50.4%. So firstly the maths is ****** because of rounding up and secondly it is waaaay too close to call.

It kind of bears out the poll analysis I posted before. This is the quandary because the two most held views are either Remain or Hard Brexit, So either May's (or a different version of it) or Softer Brexit than May's deal will only serve to **** off large sections of either voting block.

The crazy polling of Soft Brexit

The fate of the compromise Brexit option tells us a lot about the debate in Britain. Depending on how you count it is either the most or least popular outcome.

www.politics.co.uk

 

[Zep]

You seem to be conflating 'no deal Brexit' with 'hard Brexit', where one is a negotiating position and the other is an intended outcome. Personally I would like a so-called 'hard' Brexit ie the UK is completely out of the EU, but where we trade with the EU in a civilised and controlled way, with mutual respect for standards (and if necessary, tariffs), just as we (and the EU) should be trading with everyone else.

In terms of 'no deal', yes it would be very much better to have the exit take place in a controlled manner, with a trade deal and agreements on loads of other issues.

But 'taking no deal off the table' is incredibly damaging to our negotiating position. If I said to Wheelybin, "I am definitely going to buy your GTS, and I guarantee to make a deal. Now, what is your best price?" he might generously say, "Well, I'll just have the £18.5k, please." But if he was an EU negotiator (based on our experience so far), he would say, "OK, well now I want £39 billion for it."

To me, Hard Brexit and No Deal are extremely close to the same thing. No Deal will be a deal of sorts after all, we wouldn't build a wall, and hard brexit will be a no deal of sorts. For the context of interpreting the results of the election they need to be the same thing as otherwise you end up slicing the vote up into sheets thinner than a piece of Parma Ham. But if you can advise which I should use, I would be happy to acquiesce.

I have made absolutely no comment on the quality of the negotiations. But I disagree with the characterisation of the negotiation, The EU knew that any deal they negotiated needed to meet both the approval of Parliament and the populace as a whole, so to suggest that by taking No Deal off the table as a negotiating position (which, by definition must also be an outcome) does not necessarily preclude honest brokering on both sides.

That no-one was ever going to be happy with everything is the only thing we really knew.

 

[philw696]

 

[MarkMas]

.....This is the quandary because the two most held views are either Remain or Hard Brexit, So either May's (or a different version of it) or Softer Brexit than May's deal will only serve to **** off large sections of either voting block.....

So true. In a way, May has been a disaster because the was trying (in a clumsy way) to get a compromise that was literally and logically impossible to achieve, whatever the political process. We might have got a better outcome by having an unreasonable and driven PM simply (a) going all-out for a 'hard' Brexit and delivering the best version of that, or (b) repudiating the referendum as inconclusive and committing to staying in.

 

[MarkMas]

......

The crazy polling of Soft Brexit

The fate of the compromise Brexit option tells us a lot about the debate in Britain. Depending on how you count it is either the most or least popular outcome.

www.politics.co.uk

This begins with: "There are only four possible outcomes for Brexit: leaving with No Deal, leaving with May's Deal, leaving with a Softer Brexit (either a customs union and/or single market model) or not leaving at all and Remaining. "
But I believe that there is a fifth option of leaving with a better deal than May's deal. I know that the EU says there is no more negotiating room available, but of course they say that. How many times have we, when buying cars, responded to a seller's 'final' offer with, "Oh well, I suppose I will just have to keep looking then." and had them respond "Well, maybe there is a bit more I can do."? It should be possible for a new PM to go back to the EU and say, "OK, nobody wants a 'no deal', as this would be bad for the EU and bad for the UK, but the UK is leaving, and that may be the BATNA if we cannot work something out. So, let's be sensible and do a deal."
It would help if the new PM had a decent mandate, so actually I think we need a second referendum (which I think would increase the Leave percentage, and maybe an election.

 

[Wattie]

That no-one was ever going to be happy with everything is the only thing we really knew.

I’m not sure we did because I really don’t think remainers thought leave would win.

Times are a changing though as people are fed up.
What’s been different with this vote is that the Democratic result has been corrupted....by a country that apparantly stands for democracy.....even though we were all promised it would be respected.

There Are those that cannot and will not accept the result and want to block it. Ex Pm’s ie Blair have meddled in theEu to scupper it at every opportunity.

I’ll tell you now, if remain had won, there would have been no revolution against it- vote accepted because the majority of Mp’s were behind this view.

Once again they got it wrong......they’ve been treacherous bastards ever since.

Therein lies the problem.....but the people aren’t fools.

It’s not the best of 3, now that the “status quo” has ****** it up, so I actually disagree with MarkMas here.

“It would help if the new PM had a decent mandate, so actually I think we need a second referendum (which I think would increase the Leave percentage, and maybe an election.”

Any second referendum should not include “remain” in any shape or form......it should solely focus on the choices for leaving.

Ester McVey- “no deal, means no backstop” , then they cut her off. sky news tonight.......been saying this for months.

 

[Zep]

I’m not sure we did because I really don’t think remainers thought leave would win.

Perhaps you are right, we didn’t know how unhappy everyone would be.

You aren’t happy (well, you don’t sound it), people that don’t want to leave aren’t happy. People that want a different relationship with the EU aren’t happy.

I think it is unfair to paint the remain folks as bad losers, if the result had been different do you genuinely think that the Eurosceptics would have rolled up their towel and wondered off into the distance? I don’t, and that wouldn’t be in line with how political discourse works. It’s not even how life works, we have all had setbacks and had to regroup and try again.

 

[Rwc13]

Even with a new PM, I can still see the political process ending in stalemate as there is no (nor likely to ever be a) majority in Parliament for a no deal Brexit. So no deal only happens if we get to October and the EU decides to bounce us out. The EU knows this too now because of the naive and selfish way that MPs have dealt with this whole matter, so how will any incoming PM negotiate a better position, eg a hard Brexit. So I can see this running up to October and the UK ending up rescinding Article 50 simply because nothing else has been agreed.

 

[Wattie]

That

Perhaps you are right, we didn’t know how unhappy everyone would be.

You aren’t happy (well, you don’t sound it), people that don’t want to leave aren’t happy. People that want a different relationship with the EU aren’t happy.

I think it is unfair to paint the remain folks as bad losers, if the result had been different do you genuinely think that the Eurosceptics would have rolled up their towel and wondered off into the distance? I don’t, and that wouldn’t be in line with how political discourse works. It’s not even how life works, we have all had setbacks and had to regroup and try again.

Thats fair enough, but being British means we accept the result.
We get up and move on,
If we cannot accept results of key votes where our society is affected, by deciding that the majority vote will be respected where on earth does that leave us?

I would suggest it renders our society and it’s opinion meaningless and that we’ll be sheep whose future is determined by elites who think they know better.

 

[Zep]

This begins with: "There are only four possible outcomes for Brexit: leaving with No Deal, leaving with May's Deal, leaving with a Softer Brexit (either a customs union and/or single market model) or not leaving at all and Remaining. "
But I believe that there is a fifth option of leaving with a better deal than May's deal. I know that the EU says there is no more negotiating room available, but of course they say that. How many times have we, when buying cars, responded to a seller's 'final' offer with, "Oh well, I suppose I will just have to keep looking then." and had them respond "Well, maybe there is a bit more I can do."? It should be possible for a new PM to go back to the EU and say, "OK, nobody wants a 'no deal', as this would be bad for the EU and bad for the UK, but the UK is leaving, and that may be the BATNA if we cannot work something out. So, let's be sensible and do a deal."
It would help if the new PM had a decent mandate, so actually I think we need a second referendum (which I think would increase the Leave percentage, and maybe an election.

It does begin with that statement, but only because it needed a frame of reference to understand people’s views. If the poll asked people to write an essay about their ideal relationship, you would have 10,000 different responses. What it has shown is that the appetite for compromise is virtually non-existent.

Perhaps we all need to think about what we would be willing to give up from our various positions in order to get most of what we want.

 

[Wattie]

Even with a new PM, I can still see the political process ending in stalemate as there is no (nor likely to ever be a) majority in Parliament for a no deal Brexit. So no deal only happens if we get to October and the EU decides to bounce us out. The EU knows this too now because of the naive and selfish way that MPs have dealt with this whole matter, so how will any incoming PM negotiate a better position, eg a hard Brexit. So I can see this running up to October and the UK ending up rescinding Article 50 simply because nothing else has been agreed.

But that’s the point...they the Eu had the opportunity to bounce us out last month knowing no deal was off the table, Maywould have had to revoke!
The Eu position was so bad they couldn’t take the risk and Now their Manchurian candidate May has gone.