If we vote for Brexit what happens

mrginge

hang on a minute. I thought the evil Mrs may was lurching the tories to the right, pushing for the total withdrawal from all things European and single-handedly destroying the country's future?

But it appears that now she is the great saviour of the soft brexit loving blairites and will deliver exactly what they wanted all along, while reining in the right wingers.
That's one hell of a transformation.

I've said all through this process that the govt is playing a very good game.
Brexit could never be dominated by one faction, be it the Tory right, the lords, the snp or any other group. It has to ultimately be a broad spread under a strong mandate.

It's time we came together and put some trust in the only credible option for delivering a sensible compromise.

mayonnaise

....and according to the brexiteers' favourite rag, anyone with an opposing view, anyone seeking to hold Mrs. May to account is a saboteur and needs to be crushed.

Tromking

mayonnaise wrote: »

....and according to the brexiteers' favourite rag, anyone with an opposing view, anyone seeking to hold Mrs. May to account is a saboteur and needs to be crushed.

Priceless!
The Master of hyperbole complains about.......Er......hyperbole!

Enterprise_1701C

BobQ wrote: »

The markets seem unclear on the motivation only the outcome. I agree its likely that she will be returned with a bigger majority and clearly believes it will strengthen her hand in negotiations. Not sure if this in negotiations with the EU or her own party!

Your theory that she is a closet soft Brexiter is plausible. But equally plausible is that such a majority will enable her to get rid of her more pragmatic "friends" and steam on to the hard Brexit promised land.

The eu read the papers. They would have seen all the threats, labour saying they would not vote for anything they didn't like from the eu, snp saying they will block the Great Repeal Bill etc, not exactly a show of unity, more a show of the desire to wreck Brexit.

She needs to show she has Westminster behind her to give her a strong hand in the eu, she needs them to believe that what she says goes.

Currently all the infighting in the House is not exactly making the eu think she has a strong hand for negotiations.

kabayiri

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

...
She needs to show she has Westminster behind her to give her a strong hand in the eu, she needs them to believe that what she says goes.

Currently all the infighting in the House is not exactly making the eu think she has a strong hand for negotiations.

Of course she does. We all need a strong government for the next 5 or even 10 years.

There will be plenty of challenges and disputes with the EU, even if the Brexit negotiations go well.

You need a strong mandate.

It's not just Brexit.

I firmly believe that the likes of LibDem/Labour/SNP would give up on deficit reduction and slide us into more long term debt to buy short term popularity from the public.

Enterprise_1701C

kabayiri wrote: »

Of course she does. We all need a strong government for the next 5 or even 10 years.

There will be plenty of challenges and disputes with the EU, even if the Brexit negotiations go well.

You need a strong mandate.

It's not just Brexit.

I firmly believe that the likes of LibDem/Labour/SNP would give up on deficit reduction and slide us into more long term debt to buy short term popularity from the public.

They have done before so why would a leopard change it's spots.

Labour are carping on about nhs funding, conveniently forgetting to mention all the PFI "initiatives" they tied them into that mean new buildings etc are costing them a fortune. One example is Barts, building costs were £1.1bn, it will eventually cost the nhs £7.1bn. At the other end of the spectrum is Sherwood Forest Hospitals Trust, construction cost £326 mn, eventual cost £2.2bn. So basically the nhs is spending £2bn a year on Labour's vanity projects.

kabayiri

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

They have done before so why would a leopard change it's spots.

Labour are carping on about nhs funding, conveniently forgetting to mention all the PFI "initiatives" they tied them into that mean new buildings etc are costing them a fortune. One example is Barts, building costs were £1.1bn, it will eventually cost the nhs £7.1bn. At the other end of the spectrum is Sherwood Forest Hospitals Trust, construction cost £326 mn, eventual cost £2.2bn. So basically the nhs is spending £2bn a year on Labour's vanity projects.

How about the PFI financed refuelling air tanker project under Labour. Original price : £1.5bn. Final price well over £10bn.

I can't trust Labour on matters with money. They just think throwing more money at every problem is the answer.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

CKhalvashi wrote: »

So, if you'd like to give an explanation as to exactly why you think I'm wrong using numbers and fully breaking it down, feel free. If you don't, then stop throwing insults around and showing off to your mates on here just for the sake of it.

There are quite enough explanations surrounding your post without me needing to add to them.
Though I will, later.
Throwing insults around - says you, saying that I "show off to mates on here just for the sake of it".

If you really want to be taken seriously your past history of deceit and coercion make that difficult.
Would you like me to provide evidence and links again?
Methinks you may prefer to remain silent on that.
Responding as you have does not improve your prospects of being taken seriously.

________________________________________________

As to figures etc - as said, enough has been posted since to more-than fully exonerate my stance.
Here's more though - if you really want it?

Indeed, some experts estimate that the Tories will take as many as 56 seats from Labour, leaving them with a 200-seat lead over the official opposition party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/uk-general-election-2017-poll-tracker-odds/

As the polls currently stand (and, obviously, there are seven weeks to go) a Conservative majority looks very, very likely. The size of it is a different matter – the twenty-one point lead in the recent YouGov, ICM and ComRes polls would produce a majority in excess of a hundred, a nine point lead like in the Opinium poll at the weekend would only see a small increase in the Tory majority.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Is that balanced enough?
At this moment in time then, we could reasonably expect the Tories to gain anywhere between a few hundred seats and "a small increase".
Not "Just so that this is on record, I'm predicting a hung Parliament with major Con losses in the SW, and some gains in the North." as you said.

It's an election.
Things may change.
But to a hung parliament?
Extremely unlikely - and as has been pointed out, you got this very wrong before too.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

It would appear that - in the furore surrounding the GE announcement - the IMF's upgraded forecast (yes, again) for UK economic growth has been overlooked:

Britain's economy will grow at a much faster rate than previously predicted, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

While the forecast growth for many economies has been increased slightly, the 0.5% rise in predicted UK growth this year is striking - it is, by far, the biggest change made in any of the IMF's forecasts.

http://news.sky.com/story/imf-raises-forecast-for-uk-economic-growth-to-2-in-2017-10842188

wotsthat

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

It would appear that - in the furore surrounding the GE announcement - the IMF's upgraded forecast (yes, again) for UK economic growth has been overlooked:

Does it help us answer the question 'if we vote for Brexit what happens?'.

Not sure it does.