[Closed] Can Someone explain link between GE result and Brexit

Actually "doing brexit" is such a monumental task (or rather a set of tasks, many of which are monumental in themselves) that I don't really think there is much chance of it happening. Even if the current cluster**** in parliament can be resolved rapidly (which could happen even if it looks unlikely - politics can move fast on occasion). There are just too many insoluble problems out there.

Back to the subject matter in hand. There's a school of thought that the UK is in need of a dose of disaster capitalism to kick start innovation and to take a low productivity economy into a new direction. That's why the hard right brexiteers are so enthusiastic, because hand in glove with reduced employment rights, you'll create a situation whereby entrepreneurship will flourish and someone will inevitably stumble upon the next big growth industry for the Conservatives to sell to a Japanese investment bank some thirty years down the line.

Of course, a lot of people will be made poorer and the threadbare infrastructure will be starved of much needed investment, but those concerns are always secondary.

Question to the OP - why do you want a hard Brexit whereby we revert to WTO rules?

This has been a total shambles and I blame the Tory party 100% for the mess

I am still crossing my fingers that a 'Hard Brexit' will be implemented.

Genuine question why?

It seems utterly daft to me but I might be missing something, always happy to learn something new.

flanagj

youve earned this

you can choose from any one of these colours, and wear it with pride

[img] [/img]

otherwise mikew nailed you in his first response

kimbers - Member
flanagj
youve earned this
you can choose from any one of these colours, and wear it with pride
otherwise mikew nailed you in his first response

No he did not nail anything but provided obvious views of his. 😆

It's a matter of opposing view points which everyone disagrees on ...

Remainders want to be in EU bureaucratic system while others want out.

The reminders don't agree with Brexit.

The Brexiters don't agree with the remainders.

How hard can that be?

The question is who are willing to give way? 😆

Aside from the general finger pointing (!) above there are some valid points:

Let's say the vote on EU was held again, and was again leave - what do those voting leave think they are voting for?

Doesn't seem either major party being very honest - various members of Labour have said leave means both stay in single market and also said it means leave it completely. Can't be both! As for the conservatives and what they want - who knows.

'Hard' and 'soft' brexit get bandied about but they are largely useless - totally open to individual interpretation what either means in reality.

All parties need to stop claiming who had the best outcome and pointing fingers and actually present some options for public opinion??

flanagaj - Member
As I am struggling to grasp how people are making the link between the outcome of the GE and the appetite for a hard Brexit.

I thought it was pretty straightforward, Justin: May campaigned on a policy of strengthening her mandate for hard brexit by going to the public to seek a better majority than she had. The whole premise of the election was that it was a vote of confidence in her approach; an approach that had a hard brexit at the heart of it. She herself said this, repeatedly.

She also pronounced that 'no deal is better than a bad deal', and sounded her intention for the UK to crash out if the deal wasn't what was desired. The detail on what a good deal comprised was never given. The attitude was hard-nosed, and embellished by her desire to be known as 'bloody difficult'.

Labour, while not ruling out brexit, had a more collegiate tone that seemed to offer other approaches. Discussion did not seem to be ruled out.

So, its pretty simple: TM lost her majority and the extrapolation is- confirmed by much of the RW press now- that the public desire a softer approach than what she offered.

Of course, we didn't have the surety of a one-sentence referendum paper to guide us in this 🙂 and instead must use some subtlety and inference.

NINJA EDIT:

I think that you and others will try a bit of 'creep' on this, both now and over the next wee while, along the lines of: was this GE really about our brexit approach? How do we know for sure? Mibbe it wisnae?

But lets flip that around: if you can argue that a single-sentenced question on a referendum paper can be taken as a 'yes' to a full, hard exit from every European institution that we're a member of- when [i]nothing of any detail[/i] was present on that paper...

.....then I can in turn confidently argue that a GE result was, in the main, a rejection of a PM and Tory stance on that issue.

Inference, as I said.

Still planning that riot if it doesn't happen? 😉 (just kidding you)

The Leave campaign explicitly stated that we would remain in the Single Market, there's a case to be made that those who voted Leave didn't vote for a 'hard' Brexit deal.

The Leave campaign explicitly stated that we would remain in the Single Market, there's a case to be made that those who voted Leave didn't vote for a 'hard' Brexit deal.

Brexit != Brexit.

Maybe this might help the OP.. unless he/she is leaning towards the whole 'restriction' of immigration

[img] [/img]

codybrennan - Member
So, its pretty simple: TM lost her majority and the extrapolation is- confirmed by much of the RW press now- that the public desire a softer approach than what she offered.

Does that mean Scotland agree with Brexit and No independence now since the SNP loss so many seats? That's how I read it? Yes? Coz I can clearly establish some sort of correlation there. 😆

Does that mean Scotland agree with Brexit and No independence now since the SNP loss so many seats? That's how I read it? Yes? Coz I can clearly establish some sort of correlation there.

Probably going to regret this but here goes...

39 seats in Scotland went to parties that openly oppose Brexit
20 seats went to those who support Brexit in some form - but even the Scottish Tories seem to have no appetite for pursuing a hard brexit

Even using magical brexit maths there is no way there is a majority for Brexit in Scotland

Which brings us neatly back here:

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/04/cambridge-analytics-data-brexit-trump ]Were we sold a pup?[/url]

The Referendum only started out in response to Conservative party in-fighting. Different people voted for different things. Leaving aside the usual jingoism that English people do so very well, I know a good many people who voted leave because they don't like brown people (the best quote I ever heard was "and we'll have no more bloody commissioners from bloody Bombay telling us all what to do"). Some were afraid of refugees coming here and suddenly becoming ISIS agents. Others were understandably narked at six years of austerity whereby the government in power cut everything and there was a popular rebellion intended to kick the ruling party in the 'nads. Quite a few acquaintances on social media were miffed at light bulbs, or hairdryers or phantom regulations around fruit and veg.

How do you pick through that lot?

The number of coherent cases I've heard as to why we should leave the EU are very, very few and far between. I'm not saying that these are irrelevant, but they're incredibly uncommon in my experience.

PJM nicely put - do agree I can't see many positives of Brexit - be happy to convinced otherwise by good evidence but healthcare and academia alone seem highly likely to suffer.

My favourite was the guy who voted to stop all the immigrants coming over from Africa.......

[quote=kerley ]Or we have 18 months to pretend to sort it out and give enough time for even the most racist, idiotic, old brexiter to [s]realise it is not a wise thing to do[/s] die and call the whole thing off.

fixed

IGMC

And Steve Baker has been picked as one of the Secretaries of State for the dept for leaving the EU.

Three immediate theories:

1) He was appointed at the insistence of Murdoch and Dacre
2) May is trying to soften her approach by 'winning over' a hardliner, placing Baker amongst moderates
3) May is going all out by appointing a hardliner, to deliver the hard-right vision of Brexit, which will likely stall in the House of Commons if the rumours circulating around a Labour-Conservative moderate-Lib Dem-SNP pact are to be believed.

What I don't understand is why she's trying to form a government. I thought that under the established 2016-2017 democratic process she lost and should shut up and get over it?

Cougar - Moderator
What I don't understand is why she's trying to form a government. I thought that under the established 2016-2017 democratic process she lost and should shut up and get over it?

Lost what?

Conservatives have 318.

You want Labour to govern with 262? 😯 😆

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2017/results ]BBC[/url]

Lost what?

A sufficient majority to form a government. Do pay attention, Bond.

Cougar - Moderator

Lost what?

A sufficient majority to form a government. Do pay attention, Bond.

So what? You want Labour to form the govt? 😆

Even if all opposition parties combine they still cannot beat Conservatives + DUP total.

What's the hurry? You can vote again in the next election after the term since we have Brexit to deal with first.

You want another election next week? 😆

If you look at the result you will realise that there is +5.5% increase in people voting for Conservatives by comparison to the last election.

Don't you think it's interesting, incidentally, that a 54% majority in a democratic election vote isn't sufficient to declare a strong enough majority to form a government, yet a 52% majority in an advisory referendum is considered sufficient to declare that "the people have spoken" and take it as an absolute mandate that that's what we must do?

The Conservatives are short of an outright majority, but still are the largest party in parliament. The House of Commons has 650 seats, so the opposition parties could team up and block the more offensive pieces of legislation. Moreover a weak parliamentary majority means a greater chance of Conservative MPs rebelling against the party whip, knowing full well that the party cannot afford to fight the resulting by-election if the incumbent MP either crosses the floor or is disciplined.

The end result is usually a loose coalition of factions, which is exactly what we're seeing now. Labour would only have a foot in the door if the largest party couldn't fight a motion of 'no confidence' which could trigger another General Election, one the Conservatives cannot afford to fight.

Theresa May's best course of action in ordinary times would be to tread water, make deals with other parties to put through watered down legislation and to keep the party apparatchiks happy - quite a juggling act.

Unfortunately, our imminent negotiation with Brussels means that May can't make a unilateral decision and bully it through parliament with the party whips - it's all about compromise and consensus. Whatever she does will almost certainly upset one party faction or other. Worst case scenario for May would be a 'no confidence' motion put forward by one of her own renegade MPs.

Cougar - Moderator

Don't you think it's interesting, incidentally, that a 54% majority in a democratic election vote isn't sufficient to declare a strong enough majority to form a government, yet a 52% majority in an advisory referendum is considered sufficient to declare that "the people have spoken" and take it as an absolute mandate that that's what we must do?

Have actually looked at the number on BBC result page? 🙄

If there is a disagreement with the voting system then go argue over that in the Parliament etc ... but in the meantime the BBC result indicates that 318 plus 10 = 328 is the winner. 😆

318 plus 10 = 326 is the winner.

So what? You want Labour to form the govt?

In an ideal world no. But I'd rather Slipknot formed a government than the Tories (there's probably enough of them too)

What's the hurry? You can vote again in the next election after the term since we have Brexit to deal with first.

Who's hurrying?

You want another election next week?

Not especially.

If you look at the result you will realise that there is +5.5% increase in people voting for Conservatives by comparison to the last election.

Unfortunately for you there was a 9.5% increase in those voting for labour. Odd that you didn't mention that.

Don't you think it's interesting, incidentally, that a 54% majority in a democratic election vote isn't sufficient to declare a strong enough majority to form a government, yet a 52% majority in an advisory referendum is considered sufficient to declare that "the people have spoken" and take it as an absolute mandate that that's what we must do?

But they didn't get 54% of the vote, they got 42% didn't they?

If it were referendum style with 2 choices the tories would have beaten labour and now be in power without any of their current problems. Well except they wouldn't because the SNP voters would mostly go Labour, along with Greens and most of the others.

So what we need to do is go to just 2 parties and have a simple choice for people...

akira - Member

318 plus 10 = 326 is the winner.

Pretty normal numbers for chewkw

I was thinking of the 326 line ... 😆

Mind was working very fast coz many on this forum are wrong in their arguments. 😆

But they didn't get 54% of the vote, they got 42% didn't they?

I was comparing Labour vs Conservative figures - a majority over their leading rival, rather than a majority in the house overall. Which was probably wonky thinking, in hindsight.

Mind was working very fast

I doubt that.

Cougar - Moderator
In an ideal world no. But I'd rather Slipknot formed a government than the Tories (there's probably enough of them too)

Once we have exited EU bureaucratic system properly, dust settle etc, we can then start throwing handbags amongst ourselves again ... don't you think so?

Unfortunately for you there was a 9.5% increase in those voting for labour. Odd that you didn't mention that.

kerley - Member
But they didn't get 54% of the vote, they got 42% didn't they?

Conservative 42.4% to be precise.
Labour 40%.

A win is a win.

😛

Okay in that case why not let the dust settle to everyone unite to support the govt deal with Brexit properly.

You'll be waiting a long time.

The government arent dealing with Brexit properly though, they seem to have no plan and if they do they arent sharing it. Anytime theyve been questioned on it it shows they are clueless and the EU know this, we have no bargaining power and May has wasted time and money on an election that has weakened our position further. Cross party negotiation for Brexit is the only way we're not going to get royally shafted.

Cougar - Moderator

Okay in that case why not let the dust settle to everyone unite to support the govt deal with Brexit properly.

You'll be waiting a long time.

akira - Member
The government arent dealing with Brexit properly though, they seem to have no plan and if they do they arent sharing it. Anytime theyve been questioned on it it shows they are clueless and the EU know this, we have no bargaining power and May has wasted time and money on an election that has weakened our position further. Cross party negotiation for Brexit is the only way we're not going to get royally shafted.

Clueless? 😆

You tell me who have knowledge of exiting EU bureaucratic system?

Which country has done so before UK?

Better still ask EU bureaucrats if they have dealt with member state exiting their bureaucratic system before? 😀

In the case of Greece they are at a deadlock ... nobody knows what to do ... can't move forward and can't move backward. Both are clinging on and perhaps sinking together. 😆

edit: [b]UK the pioneer, the explorer and the first![/b] 😀

Sometimes the fact that no-one has done something before is a big clue to whether its a good idea or not.
So you're saying the Tories have no idea what they're doing or what will happen or how to do it but they're going to carry on regardless? Doesn't sound very smart to me.

I agree with Akira, there's too much at stake for one party to run with it. The plans need to be scrutinised and debated in parliament.

The Conservatives' approach had been "we're just following the will of the people", making no concession to the 48.2% who voted remain. Indeed, the narrative in the press until now has been to force acceptance from almost half of those who voted, interestingly almost the same percentage of those who hold a degree. In the absence of rational argument, a media campaign was the only way for them.

However, efforts to circumvent parliament vis a visa sidestepping taking responsibility if hard Brexit did impact on living standards.

Senior ministers are rightly scared as to outcomes, but they'd been hitherto silenced by the party whip and the parliamentary majority. The only rational way forward is for all parties to work together.

akira - Member
Sometimes the fact that no-one has done something before is a big clue to whether its a good idea or not.

So you're saying the Tories have no idea what they're doing or what will happen or how to do it but they're going to carry on regardless? Doesn't sound very smart to me.

Cross party negotiation for Brexit is the only way we're not going to get royally shafted.

Cross party negotiation [i]against [/i]Brexit is the only way we're not going to get royally shafted.

They want to prevent Brexit happening? It's happening ...

Except, it's not, is it.

After the referendum, the first thing that happened was that the man who promised to see it through washed his hands of the matter.

Then the government had to position someone else as PM.

Then the first action they took was a protracted court battle for an attempt at an illegal power grab.

Then they finally got around to triggering A50 with a "white paper" that was back-of-an-envelope stuff like the kid who'd forgotten to do his homework and knocked it out on the bus.

Then we went to Brussels, made a load of demands and got laughed at.

Then a snap General Election, which looks like it's going to rumble on and on.

Assuming we don't have another election, we'll probably see May resign, so we'll have another leadership battle to contend with. And then I don't doubt they'll find something else to procrastinate over. The resuming of hostilities in NI, yeah, that might be a bit of a distraction.

We're, what, a year on from the referendum and we've made the square root of absolutely **** all headway into negotiations or even into defining what it is we actually "want." And now the clock is ticking, we're three months into a two year deadline with no indication that it's going to progress any time soon.

And then what happens in [s]two years[/s] fifteen months' time and we've got absolutely nothing to show for it? You'd have to be either a stone bonker or irrevocably corrupt to walk away with a "no deal" proposal.

No wonder you want us to "shut up and get on with it," you must be absolutely shitting yourself that it's not going to come to fruition.

Tories know what they are doing but the gullible don't

Shut
Up

You tell me who have knowledge of exiting EU bureaucratic system?

Tories know what they are doing

I think that it's probably for the best if our troll friend sits out the remainder of the thread, don't you guys?

Chewkw, your response is neither required, nor wanted.

PJM1974 - Member
I think that it's probably for the best if our troll friend sits out the remainder of the thread, don't you guys?

Chewkw, your response is neither required, nor wanted

Can you imagine being stuck in the same office as that clown?

£100 says he's universally despised by all his colleagues

akira - Member
So no-one has knowledge of it but the Tories know what they're doing?
My ancestors were born in Scotland and stayed there for ages, not sure what you're talking about.

Or you can say that EU bureaucrats are also clueless ...

Not exactly is in your yours ancestors but British ancestors of the past. 🙄

I think the fact that Brexit was barely mentioned in the election is very telling about how far any of the parties have got with forming any kind of plan.