Brexit again...

[Fosse69]

 

6 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

This discussion confirms my belief that a second referendum, like the first, would be madness.

But the cure is elusive

[For Us All]

5 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

This discussion confirms my belief that a second referendum, like the first, would be madness.

 

6 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

This discussion confirms my belief that a second referendum, like the first, would be madness.

Another one would ignored by the losers once again.

[For Us All]

This parliament is toxic and achieving nothing.Have an election and drain the swamp.

[Fosse69]

2 hours ago, geosname said:

I understand what you mean, however it is still flawed I think.

1 remain

2 leave no deal

3 leave whatever deal.

30 million vote, 15 million vote 1 only, 7.5 million vote 2 & 3, 7.5 million vote 3 & 2 so either 2 or 3 gets eliminated.... no way 2 or 3 could win.

Same scenario but 7.5 million vote 1 & 3...... 7.5 million vote 1 & 2.... the leave vote as above..... the leave vote still starts at 15 million ... no way 2 or 3 could catch up.

So we then have another vote between 1 & 3 or 1 & 2..... would that be a single vote?.... I'm losing myself.... I will come back to it

I think the Scottish parliament uses a similar system if you need a research source?

[Fosse69]

4 minutes ago, For Us All said:

This parliament is toxic and achieving nothing.Have an election and drain the swamp.

Since the referendum the same party has been in Government, time for change if toxic?

[geosname]

57 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

 

Geo, a straight answer, do YOU think we can get better terms around the world in or out of the EU?

Around the world I think probably out because we can set the rules to get them.... which we can't do whilst in the EU ... I'm not saying we should.

I think the trade deal with the EU would be crap which would swallow up the benefits gained from elsewhere..... I think eventually one would balance the other so we gain nothing for taking the initial hit of leaving.

I think, apart from the initial good news of deals being struck, it could take 20 to 40 years before we reaped any real benefit.

I think the pound will climb when (if) we finally leave because it lifts the uncertainty but fall back and sink lower for an extended period.... bliping occasionally on news of a deal.

[geosname]

17 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

Will the EU consider that an election is likely to result in another hung parliament. If they want a conclusive end to this shambles they could offer an extension to 31/01/2020, on the proviso that instead of an election in December a referendum on Leave or Remain is held. In January if Remain is the result revoke Article 50. Or  if Leave is the result, Parliament to vote on whether to have May`s deal or Johnson`s deal, Withdrawal  to be completed by the end of March.

EU dictating what parliament must do....... I can't see that going down well.

Where is the default on the suggestion?...... have a referendum or election or we don't give you an extension...... Boris would love that..... the opposition would throw a fit.

What a good idea..... cat in the pigeons. 

[geosname]

8 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

Since the referendum the same party has been in Government, time for change if toxic?

Have an election.

[Fosse69]

3 minutes ago, geosname said:

Around the world I think probably out because we can set the rules to get them.... which we can't do whilst in the EU ... I'm not saying we should.

I think the trade deal with the EU would be crap which would swallow up the benefits gained from elsewhere..... I think eventually one would balance the other so we gain nothing for taking the initial hit of leaving.

I think, apart from the initial good news of deals being struck, it could take 20 to 40 years before we reaped any real benefit.

I think the pound will climb when (if) we finally leave because it lifts the uncertainty but fall back and sink lower for an extended period.... bliping occasionally on news of a deal.

We will no longer have the muscle, not as bad off as the Swiss though. They have just made a deal with China, China can export  straight away, but the Swiss cannot export to China for 15 years. 

[Bycarsbill]

23 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

I agree, it is a shambles, I don't think there is a right or simple decision. Referendums and Representative Democracy conflict and should not be mixed, but they are, how it will be solved I haven't a clue. My worry is it will go on for ever, as Farage said the UK will never be the same after October 2019.

As the Eagle's Hotel California says: "You can check out but you can never leave."  How true!

[Fosse69]

1 minute ago, Bycarsbill said:

As the Eagle's Hotel California says: "You can check out but you can never leave."  How true!

How many will say why bother?

[Andyregs]

3 hours ago, geosname said:

I understand what you mean, however it is still flawed I think.

1 remain

2 leave no deal

3 leave whatever deal.

30 million vote, 15 million vote 1 only, 7.5 million vote 2 & 3, 7.5 million vote 3 & 2 so either 2 or 3 gets eliminated.... no way 2 or 3 could win.

Same scenario but 7.5 million vote 1 & 3...... 7.5 million vote 1 & 2.... the leave vote as above..... the leave vote still starts at 15 million ... no way 2 or 3 could catch up.

So we then have another vote between 1 & 3 or 1 & 2..... would that be a single vote?.... I'm losing myself.... I will come back to it

Firstly if someone gets a majority on the first voted, you don’t need to transfer the vote. If 30 million votes. 15 million and 1 would win. But what it means is the leave vote  wasn’t split as they received 15 million. If remain didn’t receive 15 million and 1 votes, then the next choice would come into play. That would then depend on what remainers voted second, and if any leaders voted second to remain. It’s perfectly fair in this scenario unless you don’t understand or are trying to twist things. Just because one option gets eliminated, doesn’t mean the vote does. So if no deal came third, those votes would go to their next choice which would presumably by leave with a deal. All this vote does is allow the question to be answered of ‘are leavers happy with the deal over remain or no deal, and if not what alternative is preferable. Stay or no deal.’

If there is ‘no way to catch up’ then it’s a clear democratic majority where split votes make no difference. What you’re suggesting is to bias the voting to make the minority votes win. 

[Howjy04]

The ever decisive EU can’t agree on the length of an extension.Back again on Monday.🙄

[Fosse69]

4 minutes ago, Howjy04 said:

The ever decisive EU can’t agree on the length of an extension.Back again on Monday.🙄

27 countries now waiting on one country to make its mind up on whether it wants an election or not, not to blame this time, it was sorted until Johnson started his smoke and mirrors prank.

[geosname]

15 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

Firstly if someone gets a majority on the first voted, you don’t need to transfer the vote. If 30 million votes. 15 million and 1 would win. But what it means is the leave vote  wasn’t split as they received 15 million. If remain didn’t receive 15 million and 1 votes, then the next choice would come into play. That would then depend on what remainers voted second, and if any leaders voted second to remain. It’s perfectly fair in this scenario unless you don’t understand or are trying to twist things. Just because one option gets eliminated, doesn’t mean the vote does. So if no deal came third, those votes would go to their next choice which would presumably by leave with a deal. All this vote does is allow the question to be answered of ‘are leavers happy with the deal over remain or no deal, and if not what alternative is preferable. Stay or no deal.’

If there is ‘no way to catch up’ then it’s a clear democratic majority where split votes make no difference. What you’re suggesting is to bias the voting to make the minority votes win. 

To be honest I'm not sure what I was suggesting, I lost myself.