Indicative Vote

worried_jim

kinger101 wrote: »

By definition, no more than 50% can be below average.

Yes, the joke I was making.

Herzlos

martinthebandit wrote: »

Although by some measures he is the most successful politician of his generation

He's the hero to some, laughing stock to many, and history is not going to be kind on him.


Plus, he's emphatically failed to do everything he's set out to - namely to become a part of the establishment that still shuns him.

letitbe90

I find it rather odd that MP's think indicative votes is a good next step. The public are not interested at all about what MP's may converge on - they just want what they voted on. If they end up converging on some soft brexit for example, what is the point? Neither remainers nor leavers want that. We aren't asking for a compromise, this isn't choosing what colour we would like to paint our house. Even Brexit fanatics like Farage thinks remain is a better option than the WA (so imagine an even softer Brexit).

I voted remain and I'd vote remain again, but for the long term future of the country - we should either remain or leave with no deal. No in-between. My biggest fear is May's deal going through or some weird custom union soft brexit. I am fully prepared to accept No-deal will bring a lot of crap with it that say, Theresa May's deal won't, but given the choice between short term benefit vs long term benefit, I'd pick long term benefit.


If it goes to the people, it should be a straight option between remain and no deal brexit, the only two viable long term choices (imo). If it doesn't go to the people, government should choose one or the other.

But for the love of God, don't waste time with indicative votes. People didn't vote for what parliament can create a majority for - that is the whole point of referendums. MP's already know there is huge support for both remain and no-deal Brexit and materially none for any other forms of brexit, so why do they continue to be deluded?

Herzlos

letitbe90 wrote: »

I find it rather odd that MP's think indicative votes is a good next step. The public are not interested at all about what MP's may converge on - they just want what they voted on.

But we don't know what they voted on; that's the problem. It was all things to all people, with a question that was so vague as to be useless.


Having MP's vote to narrow down the type of Brexit to look into going forward is the only real way out of this, and something that should have happened 3 years ago.

whatmichaelsays

letitbe90 wrote: »

I find it rather odd that MP's think indicative votes is a good next step. The public are not interested at all about what MP's may converge on - they just want what they voted on. If they end up converging on some soft brexit for example, what is the point? Neither remainers nor leavers want that. We aren't asking for a compromise, this isn't choosing what colour we would like to paint our house. Even Brexit fanatics like Farage thinks remain is a better option than the WA (so imagine an even softer Brexit).

The problem is that by the definition of the referendum, a 'soft Brexit' would honour the referendum. A 'Norway Brexit', for example would honour the referendum by definition.

The question on the ballot paper was whether the UK should "Remain a member of the EU" or "Leave the EU". Nothing about the EEA, CU, ECJ or SM.

Norway is not a member of the EU so there you have it - by the letter of the law, Brexiters have got what they voted for.

Any claims beyond that are by people twisting the referendum result to their own personal agenda and this is what has got us into this mess in the first place. 17m people probably have 17m views on what Brexit meant to them but by the strict definition of the referendum, we simply cease to become a member of the EU - having any other arrangement or partnership with the EU does not change that.

mayonnaise

'Norway' was even touted by the leave campaign as a desirable outcome.

AnotherJoe

letitbe90 wrote: »

I find it rather odd that MP's think indicative votes is a good next step. The public are not interested at all about what MP's may converge on - they just want what they voted on.

Well, once you work out what that was, let everyone know because sure as heck no one else does.

movilogo

The question on the ballot paper was whether the UK should "Remain a member of the EU" or "Leave the EU". Nothing about the EEA, CU, ECJ or SM.

That's true. Leaving EU yet still following CU, SM etc. is still technically Brexit.

The problem is there will be still sentiments like opposition to FOM (which you can't have if in SM etc.) - which will drag over the years.

Having said that, a big jump to cut off all ties with EU would be difficult. Hence, a soft Brexit on first stage and then working towards No Deal/Hard Brexit later is a good approach.

This is why, though TM's WA is rubbish, actually a pragmatic solution at the moment.

letitbe90

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Well, once you work out what that was, let everyone know because sure as heck no one else does.

What people voted for before is not relevant as it no longer exists. 3 years ago they may have hoped and were promised of a great deal that everyone will like, that hasn't materialised. So we see what is left.

I would gladly bet my mortgage that, given all the brexit options, no deal would win in a public vote by a landslide (this is excluding remain as an option). I mean the polls support my thinking. Many MP's are remainers (like me), seem happy to feign ignorance of this. Some remain MP's stated that the choice should be between Remain and May's deal - which says more about their anti-no deal stance rather than public opinion.

It is not to say nobody might want some Norway option or even Theresa May's deal, but the majority opinion of leavers is that of a no deal now.

Having a "technically, it's brexit" doesn't do anyone favours - it makes our country worse off, an outcome neither remainers or leavers want. They say no deal is better than a bad deal - I will add to that - no brexit is better than a bad brexit. If we go ahead with brexit, it should be a no-deal one.

Spidernick

mayonnaise wrote: »

'Norway' was even touted by the leave campaign as a desirable outcome.

Yes, see examples below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpwDI_aGHc

They don't like you to mention this now and of course Farage now says 'I just meant rich'!