-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Theresa May survives no confidence vote after huge Brexit defeat
- Thread starter MassiveNights
- Start date
You're exactly right. When people are confronted by evidence that they were wrong they tend to double down. You have been able to feel the narrative shift this way for the last two years, "terrible way the EU has treated us in negotiations", etc.
The private health service industry is going to do gangbusters with it brexit, it is an industry that is going to positively explode in the UK considering how if brexit happens NHS privatization is going to be just around the corner.
In response to no deal hardship the Conservatives will morph into a full on far right nationalistic party and blame the EU for people's suffering. They've been going that route for the last 2 years. Things are bleak for this country.
May is like the turd that won't flush.
She's the worst PM in my lifetime. I expect nothing from these talks. That WA will be put through parliament again and it will be too late for anything else.
She's the worst PM in my lifetime. I expect nothing from these talks. That WA will be put through parliament again and it will be too late for anything else.
I think you misspelled Cameron there, the original fuckboy who started all of this
Maybe we should have a referendum to ask if we should have a referendum? On the one hand the government take an advisory only vote as though it is bound in blood, but as soon as the question comes about whether we should look again at it, then suddenly they know best and the public shouldn't have a say?
The vote was (a) advisory and (b) close. Considering all the elements that came out after the fact - illegal activities around the leave campaign, plus breaking down the leave voters by what they actually wanted (which we don't know) - its possible the current leave deal isn't what many leave voters wanted - easily to the point where the number that *do* think May's deal is a good one is a potentially tiny minority of voters.
A second referendum now we have had at least some of the cards on the table seems sensible to me.
This whole thing is like watching Death playing chess against you and then he goes 'mate in 3'. You don't know what moves you're going to make but you know you're fucked whatever happens.
You're not wrong. People outside of the cities see shops close, towns die, because the government has failed to spread the wealth. What you would expect is that the government would invest into infrastructure from the wealth gained in London. Wealth that could make comuting from a far off town to London possible. That hasn't happened so people have to move to London and the wealth that should be improving the whole country is kept there.
The cause is lax government policy that does nothing to address this and legalised tax loop holes. In the UK it's not illegal to look for ways not to pay tax, so a lot of companies pay whatever they feel like they should. Then you have the Panama Papers that exposed how the rich put their money where it can't be taxed.
What people in this country are crying out for is an explanation and a way to fix it. The last 4 government and more have been happy to blame the EU for this. Now this is the end result and without something drastic things are just going to stay the same. I honestly think if some left wing populist, outside off the system came along, promising this, they'd probably win.
That means the UK will take part in the elections for the European parliament in May?
The idea that you can just "cancel" the referendum without seriously harming the country is silly. As silly as the idea that Brexit won't do serious harm.
What is needed is either a compromise that delivers Brexit with the least amount of damage. Possibly retaining SM and CU membership in some form.
OR
A valid way out of delivering it at all. Which is either via a 2nd referendum OR a General election. Given neither main party will stand against Brexit formally a GE is useless.
Effectively for people like us there are two options - a soft Brexit OR a 2nd referendum.
A soft Brexit guarantees minimum harm - yes people will complain but ultimately it protects the country whilst exiting the EU project. It has downsides of course but it is a guarantee.
A 2nd referendum offers the chance to stay in, but it isn't a guarantee. Is anyone convinced that would be the result?
It is a tough choice for me because I worry a second referendum could deliver an even worse Brexit mandate. The likes of Farage are already starting to hint and being keen on a 2nd vote because it lets them peddle more nonsense and aim at a hard no deal Brexit. On the other hand if we exit into a CU/SM membership state the likes of Farage will still be banging on.
What a choice.....
What is needed is either a compromise that delivers Brexit with the least amount of damage. Possibly retaining SM and CU membership in some form.
OR
A valid way out of delivering it at all. Which is either via a 2nd referendum OR a General election. Given neither main party will stand against Brexit formally a GE is useless.
Effectively for people like us there are two options - a soft Brexit OR a 2nd referendum.
A soft Brexit guarantees minimum harm - yes people will complain but ultimately it protects the country whilst exiting the EU project. It has downsides of course but it is a guarantee.
A 2nd referendum offers the chance to stay in, but it isn't a guarantee. Is anyone convinced that would be the result?
It is a tough choice for me because I worry a second referendum could deliver an even worse Brexit mandate. The likes of Farage are already starting to hint and being keen on a 2nd vote because it lets them peddle more nonsense and aim at a hard no deal Brexit. On the other hand if we exit into a CU/SM membership state the likes of Farage will still be banging on.
What a choice.....
This post sums exactly why Brexit is a thing. Failed governments and their failure to invest in areas outside of the metropolitan elite and blaming the EU for 40 years for all the bad things that have happened.
It's true what people say "you reap what you sow" and they've been sowing that discontent for decades.
It's true, but the truly crazy thing is that the EU actually helped those areas that have been ignored by the UK gov.
A question just to see where people generally sit on this. Given these two scenarios, which would people prefer:
1. MPs vote in a series on indicative votes showing there is a majority for a "Norway Plus" deal (or whatever) where we retain a customs union, access to the single market and freedom of movement. May goes back to the EU and it's agreed. It's basically pointless, but causes little to no damage other than losing our say in regulation.
2. We have a second referendum where the options are remain, May's deal and no deal. This puts remain in play, but there is a very real chance we end up with May's deal, losing the chance to to have a 'Brexit in name only' deal
Which do you go for?
1. MPs vote in a series on indicative votes showing there is a majority for a "Norway Plus" deal (or whatever) where we retain a customs union, access to the single market and freedom of movement. May goes back to the EU and it's agreed. It's basically pointless, but causes little to no damage other than losing our say in regulation.
2. We have a second referendum where the options are remain, May's deal and no deal. This puts remain in play, but there is a very real chance we end up with May's deal, losing the chance to to have a 'Brexit in name only' deal
Which do you go for?
Corbyn is really a terrible terrible politician.
His refusal to talk to May is the story this morning, not her own intransigence, but Corbyn's. That's some going. Costs nothing to talk: write a letter like the SNP, LD, and PC did stating your opening position, go for a behind closed doors meeting, then come up and say "she's not willing to listen, we just got the same tired robotic soundbites and dusty old red lines" and the onus is on her the one who's deal was torpedoed. Corbyn has somehow managed to put the onus on him to drop his demands.
And frankly if you're going to speak to the likes of Hamas without any preconditions, you should be able to have a 10 minute sit down with even a UK PM as odious as May.
His refusal to talk to May is the story this morning, not her own intransigence, but Corbyn's. That's some going. Costs nothing to talk: write a letter like the SNP, LD, and PC did stating your opening position, go for a behind closed doors meeting, then come up and say "she's not willing to listen, we just got the same tired robotic soundbites and dusty old red lines" and the onus is on her the one who's deal was torpedoed. Corbyn has somehow managed to put the onus on him to drop his demands.
And frankly if you're going to speak to the likes of Hamas without any preconditions, you should be able to have a 10 minute sit down with even a UK PM as odious as May.
Oh lol, hadn't seen this before I spent too long writing my post on my phone.
In that scenario Norway. I can just imagine the press and Brexiteers hyping no deal in a possible second referendum.
A question for BritishEra: I was watching VIce and caught some footage of pro-Exit Brits arguing with pro-Remain, and those wanting to exit were talking about being ready to "die for their freedoms (sic)". What freedoms, exactly, are they referring to? Are they just the UK's version of the US conservatives that don't actually understand the Constitution or concepts of freedom, just repeating jingoism inspired by nationalism?
They should never have taken the results of the referendum and acted on them. They should have taken the results and started a cross party consultation period - published a document for industry and others to weigh in on. Get the facts straight and understood before then deciding whether to take the *advisory* input from the public forwards
To paraphrase my mum when I was little : If the referendum said to put your finger in the fire, would you?
To paraphrase my mum when I was little : If the referendum said to put your finger in the fire, would you?
Oh I'm aware the EU did try and help with those areas but all the funding in the world wouldn't help when we are governed by the gammons (Tories)
I still can't believe that anyone buys into this crap. Whatever Corbyn did, you'd have headlines in the usual papers about how bad whatever he did was. He could have fed five thousand people with five loaves and two fishes and the story would be about how he was putting local food companies out of business.
And if you want to know what happens when you enter into good faith negotiations with the Tories, maybe you could ask Nick Clegg.
Indeed. He's as dim as they come.
Last night he simply needed to do what Cable did. Politely accept. Meet. Explain his position. Then write a clear public letter explaining it.
The man is utterly dreadful. I was hopeful with Corbyn up until this year when it is clear his aim is for the Tories to engineer a hard Brexit take us out and hope he can profit from the mess that ensues.
Corbyn should resign.
All about Corbyn today, I know some of you think he did not have to go, I disagree he did have to go, even to make his red lines formal, and tbh what he asked of May she can not do without changing the bill that past parliament.
Looks like at least Hammond is on the same page as Corbyn
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ked-phone-call-business-leaders-a8731891.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ked-phone-call-business-leaders-a8731891.html
I think it's been pointed out before you couldn't have a referendum with those 3 questions as it would be loaded in favor of 'Remain'. There are people who want a hard Brexit and there are those who do want Brexit but with a deal. So you're taking all the Brexit voters and splitting them in twain. People would call foul if they tried that.
It takes quite an effort for May to go from being humiliated with the biggest parliamentary defeat by a PM for almost a century to being shown as providing initiative. But Corbyn did it. That's pretty impressive.
I will put my hands up, I said it right in here when he was making it, I thought it was a brutal speech, which decimated Corbyn. He is hated in here and elsewhere for good reason, but rarely have I seen a speech made to get such a response from all sides of the house, but that is just my opinion
We absolutely can have three options - it would use something like the single transferable vote and use first and second preferences.
They won't die for shit. At best they're willing to stand out in the cold for days in front of parliament cosplaying as gilets jaunes and calling Owen Jones a poofter.
Any 2nd referendum with "No Deal" on the ballot would be the most grossly irresponsible move by any govt ever. It's barking mad for No Deal to be even in play, let alone something you'd give the British people the option to actually vote for. Though I'm unsure on who feels the wrath of the public in the event of no-deal. I'm not convinced people will blame the EU. Food shortages, prices rises, travel chaos, medicine shortages, etc... I think people will just turn on the govt.
The potential unrest from no-deal actually frightens me.
The potential unrest from no-deal actually frightens me.
I should find out. The summary I read went back to 1920. Wouldn't be surprised if it was...
I think we can safely all agree that if there's a No Deal Brexit, May and the Tory press will somehow blame it on Corbyn.
I'm not sure if this polling has previously been posted. Apologies if it has but I find it really remarkable. The choice of Corbyn as best PM over May has completely collapsed amongst remain supporters:
Some of those numbers are crazy. Wow.
I think if there is a 2nd referendum it will be No Brexit or Mays Deal. And that's it. They will advertise the Brexit as a proper one this time where people know exactly what their getting.
Corbyn collapsed his own support. His complete reluctance to get behind a second referendum is ridiculous.
Instead or we have had is fantasy talk of a customs union and renegotiation with the EU.
Nope. his popularity (or lack of it) is down to being completely inept at his job and not allowing the opposition to do their best to hold the Government to true account in what is the most important issue of modern times.
I have never seen a leader of the opposition miss more open goals than Corbyn. And that's not media games, that's all on him. But sure, blame it on media games if it makes you feel better.
Pretty much. There is no majority in Parliament for no deal so it won't appear on a ballot. And while her deal was voted down, she could pass it if it was attached to a referendum.
The only variation would be a different deal in place of May's, with or without a referendum.
I'd be careful about YouGov. They're consistently polling a Tory lead which is fine, but they're literally the only pollster to do so. Doesn't mean they're wrong but they're a clear outlier from the polling herd.
To put it in context, there have been 27 polls since the start of November. 11 have shown a Tory lead, 10 of those have been from YouGov, of the other 16 polls Labour are up in 11 of them and there are 5 ties. There's not been a non YouGov Tory lead since Kantar gave them a 1% lead on the 12th of November.
Even this week we have YouGov showing two seperate 6% Tory leads, and a 5% Tory lead today. Meanwhile three other separate pollsters are showing 2%-3% Labour leads. There's a clear house effect in the YouGov numbers. Doesn't mean they're wrong but do the frequency of YouGov's polling and the fact it's the pollster for the Times and Sunday Times it's given undue prominence.
I don't disagree that Corbyn's numbers are almost certainly terrible and almost certainly worse than May's but given YouGov's GE numbers, they're probably not as bad as they're being stated.