If we vote for Brexit what happens

CKhalvashi

mrginge wrote: »

I don't know what you're getting so excited about. The consequence of the govt not getting their plans through is a general election.

May should, and I expect will, simply not give an inch.

That's how our democracy works.

That's exactly what I want to happen, as in all honesty I doubt the Tories will do as well as they're doing in the polls in reality.

We also have to remember that what is polling nationally is very unlikely to be the case in each seat.

Richmond Park was 88th on the list for the Lib Dems. 50 of those are Conservative seats, and I haven't had time (and can't really be bothered to check) which way they went in the referendum, and whether the LDs have held them previously (although I'd take a bet that a good number of them will have at least one of those factors)

Please do remember that in England and Wales, if the LDs take more from Cons than the Cons in turn take from Labour, we are very likely to end up with a hung parliament. Copeland was 30th on the Lab defence list, and some have no chance of going Conservative (think Cambridge, plus some heavily remain inner city seats).

Also remember there's been no serious campaigning yet, that could well change everything against what you want, especially when issues other than Brexit come into play locally. If the Con share gets stronger in areas they already hold seats and those they have no chance of taking then it renders the entire thing pointless. Same goes for Labour drops with seats they had no chance in anyway, allowing them to hold most of those they do.

mrginge

CKhalvashi wrote: »

That's exactly what I want to happen, as in all honesty I doubt the Tories will do as well as they're doing in the polls in reality.

We also have to remember that what is polling nationally is very unlikely to be the case in each seat.

Richmond Park was 88th on the list for the Lib Dems. 50 of those are Conservative seats, and I haven't had time (and can't really be bothered to check) which way they went in the referendum, and whether the LDs have held them previously (although I'd take a bet that a good number of them will have at least one of those factors)

Please do remember that in England and Wales, if the LDs take more from Cons than the Cons in turn take from Labour, we are very likely to end up with a hung parliament. Copeland was 30th on the Lab defence list, and some have no chance of going Conservative (think Cambridge, plus some heavily remain inner city seats).

Also remember there's been no serious campaigning yet, that could well change everything against what you want, especially when issues other than Brexit come into play locally. If the Con share gets stronger in areas they already hold seats and those they have no chance of taking then it renders the entire thing pointless. Same goes for Labour drops with seats they had no chance in anyway, allowing them to hold most of those they do.

Well I was being a bit facetious really, because nobody actually wants a GE at the moment, other than your lot and their 9% poll rating.

And that's why these amendments will be bounced straight back to the lords with a reduced majority, but still a majority.

No tories (except Clarke) are going to vote against the govt position.

CKhalvashi

mrginge wrote: »

Well I was being a bit facetious really, because nobody actually wants a GE at the moment, other than your lot and their 9% poll rating.

And that's why these amendments will be bounced straight back to the lords with a reduced majority, but still a majority.

No tories (except Clarke) are going to vote against the govt position.

11.1% averaged actually, however that's not the issue

The point I was making is that if the Cons get their 2.5% swing (or even 3, 4%) but lose their Parliamentary majority it will make some interesting issues. The link above is a uniform swing and the current political situation is by no means uniform; we're likely to see some 20+% LD swings in some remain, some 10% in some marginal and some negative in heavily leave seats. There is no 'average' seat in any of these categories for any party and each one has its own issues which will be for each party to address.

I would personally like an election, not necessarily to lose the Cons their majority (although IMO that would be a bonus) but as a chance for all parties to set out their negotiating strategy. I'd also personally like to see the public asked what is wanted, even if not through a referendum. As you know, I have prioritised the Remain view on this thread, however I've spoken to Leave voters, some of whom don't like the way the government is going with this.

An MP with a 4% lead is not in a safe position at all, and I don't think it's fair or reasonable to categorise all Leave or Remain voters in any one category. There are 46.5 million people with 46.5 million ambitions invited to vote, statistically there can probably be 50 broad subgroups of people, who can be brought into 5 broad groups, one of which each political party can target (or attempt to compete with another party offering the same basic strategy). Surely then the party(ies) that gets the biggest share of seats should be able to attempt to implement Brexit as they wish, or not as may be the case.

You're free to think differently, and don't let me stop you, however I can explain what I think, why I think it and what I'd like to see done about it, and that makes my opinion just as valid as any you may have. Life would be boring if we agreed on everything

vivatifosi

Interesting note in this week's Lost in the Mire on Tim Marshall's blog.

Apparently the Trade Ministers of all 52 Commonwealth Countries are meet in in London on Thursday and Friday.

http://www.thewhatandthewhy.com/things-we-lost-in-the-mire-10-2/

vivatifosi

Breaking news: Heseltine sacked as govt advisor for rebelling over Brexit.

fatbeetle

The Paris-based organisation (OECD) predicts that after expanding 1.8% in 2016, the UK economy will grow 1.6% this year. That is faster than the 1.2% it was predicting in late November.
More doom and gloom ;-)

Shakethedisease

All over social media at the moment and am only posting it because it's relevant to the thread, lots of people are discussing it elsewhere... and it sounds strangely plausible. ( Heseltine sacked as advisor at 83 etc ). Definitely no room for deviation from some so far un-named end point is there ?

1. I've had some information on Brexit from a source close to Number 10. They are well placed and reliable...
2. "May has already made plans to walk away from negotiations, but not until after the French and German elections..."
3. "...blaming EU intransigence for the break down". Between the lines they want to avoid blaming Germany directly as it would be untrue.
4. So, that's your end game. Brexit is a pre-planned blame game.

mayonnaise

vivatifosi wrote: »

Breaking news: Heseltine sacked as govt advisor for rebelling over Brexit.

No dissenting voices allowed.

CKhalvashi

mayonnaise wrote: »

No dissenting voices allowed.

Exactly what I thought!

They have the right to do it, I'm not denying that, but it does raise questions over our authoritarian leader with her control freakish style.

Heseltine is right that this is a cross-party issue, and he is completely right to vote on his conscience. Anyone that denies this doesn't believe in democracy.

Andy_L

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Heseltine is right that this is a cross-party issue, and he is completely right to vote on his conscience. Anyone that denies this doesn't believe in democracy.

Isn't the very point of the Lords that (perhaps their sole saving grace) as they don't need to worry about re-election or career progression, they are free to ignore politics & vote as they see fit