• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

2019 General Election Poll and Discussion

Which party will you vote for at the 2019 General Election?

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 4 4.4%

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 15 16.7%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 3 3.3%

  • Labour

    Votes: 42 46.7%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 14 15.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Not Voting/Can't Vote

    Votes: 6 6.7%

  • Not Yet Decided

    Votes: 6 6.7%
  • Total voters
    90
DiogoJ42 said:
Looks like the Brexit Party will not run against Tory seats, to avoid splitting the vote. I think that's just assured Boris victory.
Click to expand...

Short of the Tories doing something as equally stupid as 2017 I would say this could be the case...

Labour & Lib Dems will need to pull their fingers out and do a similar agreement if they want to get anywhere... But that's doubtful...
 
DiogoJ42 said:
Looks like the Brexit Party will not run against Tory seats, to avoid splitting the vote. I think that's just assured Boris victory.
Click to expand...
Farage Ltd are still standing in the Labour marginals that lie at heart of Tory election strategy, so it's not a done deal - definitely changes the dynamic though.

As interesting, or perhaps more so was Farage praising Johnson's commitment to end the transition in Dec 2020 (I don't think he will, for the record). Also praised them chasing a Canada-style FTA, so perhaps lining up another 'betrayal' when they shoot for something else.

If Farage Ltd voters in marginals now flock to Tories, that will help them, but that is indeed an 'if'.

Potentially, the most significant thing is the wider U-turn where Farage has done 180 degrees and moved from 'This is not Brexit' to 'I think this is Brexit' - that could convince Leave voters, irrespective of their allegiance that he was mistaken the first 1000 times he said it and take comfort in what he said today.

Arise, Sir Nigel, or indeed, Lord.
 
Last edited:
Reef...ecosystem built by coral under water.
Wreath...laid by Corbyn yesterday.
Homophobes and homonyms, always my nit pick favourites.
No need to get a life, it is closed season.
Could we quote our sources on red top rants as well, please and thank you.
 
bluesonichd said:
[Corbyn] is a disgrace, people want him as PM yet he has no respect for those that died for us.
Click to expand...
Do you have anything to say which isn't an attack on Corbyn? After the tories have been in power for a decade, you would have thought you'd have tons to say about their achievements. If you can only attack and smear the opposition, it sort of shows how terrible the last decade has been...

Also, I see you're still avoiding the question about what you want to get out of Brexit.
 
grrrr said:
Labour voted against the deal because they want to deliver brexit with a better deal, providing that the people of the UK want that deal. I don't see how you can class that as being a 'traitor' - actually asking the people of our country what they want, rather than just pressing ahead blindly.
Click to expand...
...I didn't...what I actually said was...
Britford said:
the difference is that (as far as I can tell) they voted against the deal with the intention of still delivering Brexit...just not with that deal, so I wouldn't really call that treachery.
Click to expand...
in response to...
grrrr said:
You could say exactly the same for the ERG within the Conservatives.

There was a deal on the table. And yet... the ERG voted against that deal, and therefore against the wishes of the majority who voted to leave.

What do you say about that? Are the ERG traitors for not getting Brexit done at any cost? You surely can't be contemplating voting for a party who prevented Brexit from happening, can you?
Click to expand...
—————————————————————
grrrr said:
Just a quick comparison. Pro-brexit march in Whitehall, October 31st:
yjBPLbp.png


People's vote / anti-brexit march around the same time:
HHtbjwy.png


To me, it looks like "the will of the people" has changed, significantly. Why not put it back to the people in a confirmatory referendum?
Click to expand...
It obviously can't be anything to do with the fact that London voted almost entirely to remain...by a privileged middle/upper-middle class who can afford to travel to protests instead of working.......
I'm also sure that it's got nothing to do with Brexiteers (upon seeing parliament almost unanimously working against them) feeling disenfranchised and feeling that any protest would be pointless!

grrrr said:
Because the vote was only ever advisory, NOT binding.
Click to expand...
So...because we gave the incorrect answer, that vote was "advisory" and therefore, we only advised that the country wanted to leave and should have to vote again?
Let's just ignore all the promises from all sides (including a now broken, campaign pledge from Labour) about how this "advisory" vote would be respected and acted upon, shall we?
grrrr said:
It was also a pretty close thing, I wouldn't say there was a clear mandate for brexit given a 48/52 split
Click to expand...
Except the mandate of majority...but yeah, I agree, we should just change the rules so the 48% gets it's way!
grrrr said:
Now that we know what the outcome of a brexit deal (or a no-deal exit) looks like, why not have a confirmatory referendum? If you're so sure that the people of the UK actually want this, then surely there's no harm in having a second referendum, because it will surely go your way?
Click to expand...
Benzin said:
Make a 2nd referendum binding instead of advisory and there's the solution...
Click to expand...

No, Because we already voted under the expectation and agreement that it WOULD be binding!

This is how it starts...this time they are going to use the "no true mandate" excuse.
What if the next "binding" referendum comes back as Brexit too? Did we not know what we voted for? Did we not have all the necessary information? Have the circumstances changed again?

Benzin said:
A democracy that doesn't consider the changes over nearly 4 years of political and social change isn't a democracy at all...
Click to expand...
A democracy that picks and chooses which votes to act on and which to ignore, isn't a democracy at all...not even if its using "social change" as an excuse!


As far as I'm concerned, we simply cant be made to revote on an outstanding result, because as soon as we do, a very dangerous precedent is set...
 
Last edited:
Britford said:
As far as I'm concerned, we simply cant be made to revote on an outstanding result, because as soon as we do, a very dangerous precedent is set...
Click to expand...
I am not an advocate for a second referendum, but would put it to you that although it's the same issue the circumstance and information available ahead of the vote are much improved. Like winning something on appeal...

We now have a much better understanding of what Brexit looks like, it's been defined and a number of things that were claimed are now proven to be untrue, or different. If you're a purist "We must leave" or "We must remain" then the detail is perhaps unimportant.
 
It's not that, it's more the principle of the vote being ignored, I dont think its healthy for any public vote to go unanswered, even if the circumstances have changed. Once the referendum contract has been completed by leaving (in whatever form that takes) I would be open to any good faithed referendums on rejoining or negotiating a new deal.
 
Britford said:
It's not that, it's more the principle of the vote being ignored, I dont think its healthy for any public vote to go unanswered, even if the circumstances have changed. Once the referendum contract has been completed by leaving (in whatever form that takes) I would be open to any good faithed referendums on rejoining or negotiating a new deal.
Click to expand...
I understand your position, I don't agree, but I understand. If this election produces another hung parliament, I think that's where things become very interesting.

I still struggle with Brexit being completed "in whatever form that takes" - a Labour Brexit would be entirely different to that proposed by Johnson, a Johnson negotiated Brexit would be entirely different to the one proposed by Farage (the one last week, not this week). So different, that only a portmanteau brings them together, therefore the "referendum contract will be completed" in a way that doesn't reflect what a huge number of the 17.4 million signatories signed up for.
 
Britford said:
because we gave the incorrect answer, that vote was "advisory"
Click to expand...
No, the vote was advisory because under UK law, any referendum is advisory - that was confirmed by the house of lords select committee in 2010: "We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory" (Constitution Committee, Twelfth Report, 17 March 2010).

The only exception to this is if the wording of the act implementing the referendum implicitly specifies that it will be legally binding - so for example, the act for the 2011 referendum on the Alternative Vote contained wording which set out that the result was legally binding and would be enacted by the government.

But, crucially, the 2015 EU Referendum Bill contained no such wording, and therefore was only ever advisory.

This was also made clear in the parliamentary briefing paper published ahead of the vote; so any politician who claimed that the referendum would be legally binding was straight up lying to you:
kSyfEzP.jpg


Britford said:
we already voted under the expectation and agreement that it WOULD be binding!
Click to expand...
Then your expectations of the vote were categorically wrong.

Wouldn't you like to have another vote where the result is legally binding, particularly now that we're all much clearer about what is on the table?
 
Plus it was stated that if the referendum WAS legally binding, a few Leavers would be sat in at Her Majesty's Pleasure right now...

Soooooo it has always been advisory, but with the way Politics is viewed (and the way it was campaigned for, it's easy to tell why people wouldn't know that's the case)...
 
It's an absolute crock of shit that in a democracy we don't vote on the same things multiple times. It happens a lot, May pushed her deal 3 times hoping MPs might have changed their mind (as an example).

The referendum was advisory, as such it means nothing. It was a suggestion to follow a path, we followed that path for the last 3 years no matter how high the expenses got, no matter the disasters that befell us. It's time to ask the public again and see how things have changed.

The idea that voting on something would be undemocratic is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Britford said:
I think it's easier to read "not a real Brexit" as "Brexit in name only" the issue with Boris's deal, is that while we technically leave the EU we are still subject to EU rule and when we are still being told what we can and can't do by Brussels...have we really left...
Anyway,
I want to vote Brexit Party because I think that no deal is better than Boris's deal but After all that's happened, I just think it's best to cut off all ties to the EU lest either the remainer mps or the EU themselves try anything funny...like they have been for the past year...(is that not a reasonable concern at this point?)
Click to expand...

No matter what happens with Brexit, if we want to trade with countries we will need to confirm by the rules they set to trade and their minimum standards. So whether it is Europe, America, New Zealand we will be subject to their rules to trade with them. By being part of the EU we helped to set the minimum standards and therefore trade is easy, the standards we have for our safety are the same as the ones in France etc. If we leave and decide to change those standards then every company will have to make separate products that confirm to each set of standards.
 
jon81uk said:
No matter what happens with Brexit, if we want to trade with countries we will need to confirm by the rules they set to trade and their minimum standards. So whether it is Europe, America, New Zealand we will be subject to their rules to trade with them. By being part of the EU we helped to set the minimum standards and therefore trade is easy, the standards we have for our safety are the same as the ones in France etc. If we leave and decide to change those standards then every company will have to make separate products that confirm to each set of standards.
Click to expand...

A slight correction if I may - that's what WOULD need to happen if we were truly to be free of EU laws and regulations. The reality of what's being proposed by almost every Brexiteer is that we will end up shadowing the EU in terms of standards, without a seat at the table in the making of those rules.

We will always be dominated by, and dependent on, Europe - the richest and most technologically advanced continent on earth.
 
Last edited:
Employment has fallen by nearly 60,000 in the third quarter of 2019.

There is a lot of things to blame this on, and it certainly can't be wholly pinned on brexit, but I've no doubt brexit played it's part in these tens of thousands of people being unemployed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top