Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

Deal or No Deal?

  • Voted Leave - May's Deal

  • Voted Leave - No Deal

  • Voted Leave - Second Referendum

  • Did not vote/abstained - May's Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - No Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - Second Referendum

  • Voted Remain - May's Deal

  • Voted Remain - No Deal

  • Voted Remain - Second Referendum

Results are only viewable after voting.
Johnnypenso
Already acknowledged but you missed the part where the Pound was in decline before the Brexit vote when everyone was thinking and polls were agreeing, that there would be no Brexit. The market went through a brief correction immediately following Brexit and has since stabilized. So this puts a whole new spin on the "value of the pound falling" claim because it isn't falling and hasn't fallen for 2 years, in spite of the massive uncertainty concerning the future of Brexit. A falling currency is good for exports among other things so it isn't necessarily all bad either.
Click to expand...


If you mean it's stabilized at an extremely low level against the Euro (only equaled at the lowest point in the months immediately following the 2008 financial crisis), you're right.

Tired Tyres
That was speculaters betting on a remain vote and buying sterling and then dumping it as quick as they could when the vote went the other way.
Click to expand...

Again, you're right. The Pound steadily lost ground following the Brexit referendum announcement, there was a brief rise when it was expected that Brexit would be defeated & then a precipitous plunge following the actual vote to leave. Why would anyone, speculators or otherwise, dump the Pound if they considered Brexit a positive outcome?

It's not an academic matter for me, as currency exchange significantly effects my business & my personal life.
 
Another day, another resignation

Scott Mann is the ninth Conservative to resign in protest at the PM's Chequers plan.
Click to expand...

I'm gona ask what is perhaps a silly question, but maybe @Touring Mars will know.
The DUP occupy 10 seats in the Commons (to get Tory majority after the 2016 GE), if the Tories lost 10 MP's (due to resignations), would that mean that the government would be forced to call another election, or would they just not be able to get anything passed in the house?
 
Last edited:
baldgye
Another day, another resignation



I'm gona ask what is perhaps a silly question, but maybe @Touring Mars will know.
The DUP occupy 10 seats in the Commons (to get Tory majority after the 2016 GE), if the Tories lost 10 MP's (due to resignations), would that mean that the government would be forced to call another election, or would they just not be able to get anything passed in the house?
Click to expand...
They haven't lost them as MPs just as cabinet members.

I would have thought you knew. Resigning as an MP triggers an automatic by election.
 
Last edited:
It's going to be an interesting week for the Brexit process.

It now looks very likely that Theresa May is going to have to accept the amendments tabled by European Research Group (headed by the prominent Tory Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg) which will essentially force May to adopt a harder policy in the upcoming negotiations with the EU.

One of the easier to understand amendments will make it illegal for the British government to impose a customs border between Northern Ireland and mainland UK. That will no doubt cause ructions within the EU negotiating party, and (as is presumably the intent) will kill any negotiations on a 'soft Brexit' stone dead. But May has no choice but to accept most (and probably all) of the amendments, since otherwise the Hard Brexiteers in the Tory party will call a vote of no confidence and, perhaps more meaningfully, will vote against any bill that is seen to be 'soft'.

Theresa May attempted to blind-side the Brexit hardliners in her own party by appealing to soft Brexit supporters among the opposition, but this has fallen flat because a) it would cause the Conservative party to collapse and b) the penny appears to have dropped that soft Brexit is the 'worst of all worlds' scenario that no-one actually wants - i.e. why give up our seat at the table if we are essentially not leaving the EU?
 
Thanks @Lizard I wasn't sure the process that would follow.
I thought that MP's couldn't resign out-right and was slightly confused by the wording the news reports I was reading. Many of them seem to conflate the resignation from Cabinet with those of non-MP members of the Tories, who literally left the party (it seems).
 
baldgye
Thanks @Lizard I wasn't sure the process that would follow.
I thought that MP's couldn't resign out-right and was slightly confused by the wording the news reports I was reading. Many of them seem to conflate the resignation from Cabinet with those of non-MP members of the Tories, who literally left the party (it seems).
Click to expand...
If you change party allegiance there is a by election too iirc.
 
baldgye
I guess this means she's going to try and force through what ever she can, and hope it pleases everyone?
Click to expand...
May is a remainer trying to leave the EU and therefore go against what she believes. It's difficult to work out how much support she has for this vassel state status in 104 pages. How many of her MPs are remainers and how many are rabid hard out and yesterday types and what the so called opposition is planning.
 
Tired Tyres
May is a remainer trying to leave the EU and therefore go against what she believes. It's difficult to work out how much support she has for this vassel state status in 104 pages. How many of her MPs are remainers and how many are rabid hard out and yesterday types and what the so called opposition is planning.
Click to expand...

The problem for the Remainer MP's is that they mostly represent constituencies that voted to Leave, giving them conflicting priorities. This is why most of the Commons have been stunned into a Pokemon style confusion, hurting its-self in the process.
I read an analysis on the FT that seems to suggest that while the white paper fails more than it succeeds, what it does succeed in might be enough to carry us out of the EU.

When I think about it, the one and really only thing May has been known for since her promotion to PM has been to survive total ****-storms. I'm now beginning to worry that she will continue to survive long enough to enact a Brexit that no-one wanted or voted for...

Interesting to note;
 
Last edited:
baldgye
The problem for the Remainer MP's is that they mostly represent constituencies that voted to Leave, giving them conflicting priorities. This is why most of the Commons have been stunned into a Pokemon style confusion, hurting its-self in the process.
Click to expand...
Yeh, this is perhaps the single biggest problem in the whole Brexit debacle - 57% of Tory MPs (and a higher proportion in the Cabinet) voted to Remain, but 7 out of 10 Tory constituencies who they represent voted to Leave.

That maybe shows how out of touch Tory MPs are with their constituents, but it also puts the Government on a virtually impossible mission - there is not enough support for a 'clean break'/Hard Brexit, a soft Brexit is pointless, and both the Government and the Opposition are committed to leaving the EU!

Parliament are currently debating the amendments tabled by Jacob Rees-Mogg, and I'm a little surprised that JRM spoke when speakers were down to just 4 minutes allocated time each, while others spoke for far longer earlier in the 'debate', mostly in opposition to the amendments. It's the first time that JRM has been able to attempt to explain in Parliament what the more far-reaching consequences of each of the amendments will have (or, more importantly, prevent), ranging from the Irish border to future VAT arrangements with the EU... with 4 major (and very controversial) amendments to get through, that gave him a total of just 60 seconds per amendment to speak... that seems pretty ridiculous, not least since they've been debating on this topic for nigh on 3 hours now.

From what is being said, it doesn't look like JRM will get the backing he needs for those amendments to be accepted, even though Theresa May (and the whips) appear to have already conceded them!
 
Touring Mars
Yeh, this is perhaps the single biggest problem in the whole Brexit debacle - 57% of Tory MPs (and a higher proportion in the Cabinet) voted to Remain, but 7 out of 10 Tory constituencies who they represent voted to Leave.

That maybe shows how out of touch Tory MPs are with their constituents, but it also puts the Government on a virtually impossible mission - there is not enough support for a 'clean break'/Hard Brexit, a soft Brexit is pointless, and both the Government and the Opposition are committed to leaving the EU!

Parliament are currently debating the amendments tabled by Jacob Rees-Mogg, and I'm a little surprised that JRM spoke when speakers were down to just 4 minutes allocated time each, while others spoke for far longer earlier in the 'debate', mostly in opposition to the amendments. It's the first time that JRM has been able to attempt to explain in Parliament what the more far-reaching consequences of each of the amendments will have (or, more importantly, prevent), ranging from the Irish border to future VAT arrangements with the EU... with 4 major (and very controversial) amendments to get through, that gave him a total of just 60 seconds per amendment to speak... that seems pretty ridiculous, not least since they've been debating on this topic for nigh on 3 hours now.

From what is being said, it doesn't look like JRM will get the backing he needs for those amendments to be accepted, even though Theresa May (and the whips) appear to have already conceded them!
Click to expand...
I worry that we are heading-headlong into a horrible ‘worse of both’ deals, that’s only fit to build more EU resentment... though I guess that’s better than economical castration... *shrugs*

...but I guess the sliver of hope that the government collapse is still fairly large
(iOS bug means I can’t link this within that sentence)
https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-...nd-brexiteers-threaten-chequers-plan-11439184
 
Last edited:


That tweet is a thread with more information and a link to a Daily Mail article. There is also a Sky News article if, like me, you’d rather not go to the Daily Mail’s website.

The story is developing.
 
Last edited:
baldgye


That tweet is a thread with more information and a link to a Daily Mail article. There is also a Sky News article if, like me, you’d rather not go to the Daily Mail’s website.

The story is developing.
Click to expand...

It's a non issue mate. It won't render the vote null and void. Nothing short of a new referendum or Liberal Democrat win in a General Election would do that.
 
Last edited:
baldgye
Oh ok, breaking the law is a non-issue, just like lying about what people where voting for was? Why do we even bother having laws about our democratic process?

Oh and yeah... the Lib Dem’s being useful? Another good one!




...also how was this still a thing?
Click to expand...
You mean the thing that Remain pointed out was wrong the same day Leave made the claim? Or the EU which did the same thing? Or were you not paying attention at the time?

Regarding LAW. That's the thing that goes through two houses at least twice before becoming law. Did this do that by any chance? It's a 7.14% overspend. Can you guarantee Remain didn't do the same?

I'd spend your time asking Labour why they aren't being an opposition at all and the Liberal Democrats what they are playing at if I was you.
 
Tired Tyres
Regarding LAW. That's the thing that goes through two houses at least twice before becoming law. Did this do that by any chance? It's a 7.14% overspend. Can you guarantee Remain didn't do the same?
Click to expand...
Remain haven't been charged with breaking electoral law.

Tired Tyres
I'd spend your time asking Labour why they aren't being an opposition at all and the Liberal Democrats what they are playing at if I was you.
Click to expand...
Why is that my job (but if you'd read this thread you'd understand why the commons are paralysed by Brexit and there stance on it)? ...and what relevance does that have to LEAVE LITERALLY BREAKING ELECTORAL LAW?
 
baldgye
Remain haven't been charged with breaking electoral law.


Why is that my job (but if you'd read this thread you'd understand why the commons are paralysed by Brexit and there stance on it)? ...and what relevance does that have to LEAVE LITERALLY BREAKING ELECTORAL LAW?
Click to expand...
So in your previous post you say they broke the law and now in this one your saying they haven't been charged and then accuse them of doing just that. News flash buddy. You are assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. Not on a forum, not on twitter and not in a newspaper.

The reason I suggested a better way to spend your time was to direct your energy in a direction it might do some good in. You have an MP. And yes it is your job. You vote don't you? That makes you responsible for what happens.
 
baldgye
So I guess these fines are imaginary then?
Click to expand...
You can be fined by your library. Does that mean you've broken the law? You can be fined for all sorts of reasons without breaking the law. Or does the imaginary you have only work with Brexit?
 
Tired Tyres
You can be fined by your library. Does that mean you've broken the law? You can be fined for all sorts of reasons without breaking the law. Or does the imaginary you have only work with Brexit?
Click to expand...

:lol:

“The Electoral Commission has followed the evidence and conducted a thorough investigation into spending and campaigning carried out by Vote Leave and BeLeave. We found substantial evidence that the two groups worked to a common plan, did not declare their joint working and did not adhere to the legal spending limits. These are serious breaches of the laws put in place by Parliament to ensure fairness and transparency at elections and referendums. Our findings relate primarily to the organisation which put itself forward as fit to be the designated campaigner for the ‘leave’ outcome.”
Click to expand...

I guess this guy should spend less time being a keyboard warrior on the internet too

:lol:

...I guess I need to stop assuming that you actually read the press release
 
baldgye
:lol:



I guess this guy should spend less time being a keyboard warrior on the internet too

:lol:

...I guess I need to stop assuming that you actually read the press release
Click to expand...
You need to stop assuming anything at all don't you? I've suggested you redirect your energy in a more productive way. You would rather post here. Fine. That's on you.
 
The Electoral Commission have concluded that electoral law was broken by the official Leave campaign, so it is only right that something is done about it. So far, despite allegations of similar behaviour on the Remain side, there have been no such conclusions of illegal activity. Either way, two wrongs don't make a right - if Leave broke the law (and it is now pretty clear that they did) then there must be consequences - regardless of what the other side did.

The big question now is, what is an appropriate response?... and that does depend to a large extent on the conduct of the other side too. If it transpires that the other side also broke electoral law in a similar manner, then one could rightly argue that there was probably no net advantage gained or any substantive difference made to the result of the referendum - in that case, an appropriate response would be to fine or jail those directly responsible for the law-breaking and leave it at that. But, if it transpires that one side did gain an advantage and thereby the result of the referendum was substantively affected by illegal means, then that changes what the response ought to be dramatically. Let's remember that these campaigns only existed for one simple reason - to tip the referendum result in their favour. Hence, if they deliberately and knowingly broke the law in order to gain an unfair advantage that led directly to the result going their way, then a fair response to that would be to declare the result void and have a re-run.
 
Tired Tyres
You need to stop assuming anything at all don't you?
Click to expand...
What?
Tired Tyres
I've suggested you redirect your energy in a more productive way. You would rather post here. Fine. That's on you.
Click to expand...
You also suggested that Remain broke the law, which they haven't and refused to acknowledge the reality that Leave have, in-fact broken electoral law.

You then suggested to somehow find out why Labour wont unanimously push a remain agenda, while ignoring my prior post in which I explained that; while many MP's across both the major parties personally voted to Remain, most of them represent constituencies that voted to Leave. So I'm not really sure what you'd like me to do regarding those.
I'm also unsure of what your advice even means regarding the Lib Dems, when their own leader and former leader can't even be bothered to turn up to the last Brexit vote in the commons (something I also linked to on this very page)...


Instead, a while back in this thread I said it was my personal goal to try and push the idea of another vote, before we leave. Spending a few mins posting links and then explaining them to people like you, isn't particularly time or energy consuming. But I thank you for your laughable advice.

Touring Mars
The Electoral Commission have concluded that electoral law was broken by the official Leave campaign, so it is only right that something is done about it. So far, despite allegations of similar behaviour on the Remain side, there have been no such conclusions of illegal activity. Either way, two wrongs don't make a right - if Leave broke the law (and it is now pretty clear that they did) then there must be consequences - regardless of what the other side did.

The big question now is, what is an appropriate response?... and that does depend to a large extent on the conduct of the other side too. If it transpires that the other side also broke electoral law in a similar manner, then one could rightly argue that there was probably no net advantage gained or any substantive difference made to the result of the referendum - in that case, an appropriate response would be to fine or jail those directly responsible for the law-breaking and leave it at that. But, if it transpires that one side did gain an advantage and thereby the result of the referendum was substantively affected by illegal means, then that changes what the response ought to be dramatically. Let's remember that these campaigns only existed for one simple reason - to win the referendum. Hence, if they deliberately and knowingly broke the law in order to gain them an unfair advantage that led directly to the result going their way, then a fair response to that would be to declare the result void and have a re-run.
Click to expand...

David Lammy is using this as a pushing off point to get the House a vote on Brexit prior to anything being made binding, which in it's self could destroy the government.

 
If the result is declared void and the referendum run again, where does that leave many MP's?
The original remain campaign seemed very half hearted which I think was the reason leave won. Would a new remain campaign be any more full blooded? I suspect many of the quieter pro remain politicians would be more wary of their careers over their convictions after spending 2 years saying brexit must be delivered. For example Boris Johnson who I'm sure never believed at any point that leaving the EU was a good idea. He can hardly say he's anything but pro leave now.
 
Conformation
If the result is declared void and the referendum run again, where does that leave many MP's?
The original remain campaign seemed very half hearted which I think was the reason leave won. Would a new remain campaign be any more full blooded? I suspect many of the quieter pro remain politicians would be more wary of their careers over their convictions after spending 2 years saying brexit must be delivered. For example Boris Johnson who I'm sure never believed at any point that leaving the EU was a good idea. He can hardly say he's anything but pro leave now.
Click to expand...
I think that Remain, has a stronger argument now than it did prior to the vote. The economical factors that they attempted to push, that where brushed off very successfully by Leave, now they can point to the actual reality of people be worse off now than before the vote. I'd be surprised if Boris showed his head for another campaign though.

But, to be honest another vote couldn't really be the same as the first one, because May already enacted Art.50. It might instead be "should we remain, or should with leave the eu with X"
X being either the deal the government can scrap together from the remains of the Chequers meeting or a no-deal
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't we talking about an overspending of something in the neighbourhood of $0.01 per voter? Surely we aren't presuming this is in any way significant to the outcome?
 

Similar threads

TenEightyOne
Reddit "Include" Question
Replies
1
Views
553
Jordan
Jordan
DK
Brexit and motorsport
Replies
8
Views
1K
mustafur
mustafur
KSaiyu
The EU
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Hun200kmh
Hun200kmh
Pebb
Honda could be axing its UK car factory in 2022
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Scaff
Scaff
Jimbo221992
Untitled racing league, Monday night UK time.
Replies
3
Views
2K
Bowtner
Bowtner

Latest Posts

Back