Is it me or is no Brexit looking a whole lot more likely tonight?

[Bearbehind]

If no deal is pretty much off the table following the parliamentary votes tonight then the choice is ‘shit deal’ or no Brexit.

It’s clear which Remainers would prefer but what about Leavers?

There was no soft, hard, in this, out of that, Norway, Canada etc, these have all been created since by the establishment whom are tying everything in knots while we quietly wait, biding our time waiting for the will of the people to be delivered

Er no love, soft, hard, Norway, Canada always existed as the options, you were just too lazy to research your vote.

There was no soft, hard, in this, out of that, Norway, Canada etc, these have all been created since by the establishment whom are tying everything in knots while we quietly wait, biding our time waiting for the will of the people to be delivered

This is the bit i really don't get, 36% of the electorate voted for Brexit 17m out of 46m plus 10m who are not on the electoral roll.

Regardless of who won, that is not a fcuking majority! also, you are excluding the possibility that in 2.5 years, people can change their minds, this is no doubt because its going against you.

I can guarantee you that had remain won and Leave then creeped ahead in the polls, you'd be shouting from the roof tops for a PV lol!

And btw if you have no idea what the actual options are - wtf does ‘will of the people’ mean? You don’t even know yourself!

you were just too lazy to research your vote.

Can You provide evidence that I didn't research and agonise over My vote please to support your assumptions.

Not sweeping generalisations, I am talking about a sourced bibliography with links proving that I did not personally do this.

No?

Thought not.

😂 @ stroppy Britain getting drunk then stuck in the door whilst everyone looks on laughing at the clowns in Westminster.

And by "the will of the people" I mean precisely the majority of the electorate (whom chose to turn up and vote ) and selected the box "leave the European Union" rather than "Remain a member of the European" in response the the question "Should the United Kingdom remains member of the European Union or leave the European Union?.

*There was no soft, hard, in this, out of that, Norway, Canada etc, these have all been created since by the establishment whom are tying everything in knots while we quietly wait, biding our time waiting for the will of the people to be delivered

Er no love, soft, hard, Norway, Canada always existed as the options, you were just too lazy to research your vote.*

Yes this. I voted remain but there were clearly groups arguing for Norway/single market/hard Brexit type options.

I don’t know what I think should happen. I voted remain so one one level that would be fantastic, but while I think the govt can’t send us into the abyss of no deal, part of me thinks to just revoke article 50 and not leave isn’t fair on the leave voters. A lot of whom may be thick, racist gammon, but they never forced this, they were given a vote and had their say.

On the subject of funding, I am always amazed that David Cameron's £9,000,000 leaflet drop to the whole country, unbiasedly telling us to remain, and sent days before official campaigning started gets such little mention.....

What is there to say though? The government officially supported remain, so of course the leaflet was “biased”. It was hardly a secret

😂 @ MPs having angry gammon men turning up at their surgery.

I’m no friend or sympathiser to the leave voters. But where has this term “gammon” sprung from? It’s horrible.

Personally I don't agree, I can think of nine million reason why I object to tax payers money being used to influence a referendum.

muesli
I think all of us can agree that we’ve learned a lot more about the reality of what Brexit looks like since the original referendum.

There was hyperbole and outright mendaciousness on each side of the campaign. I don’t think people who knew what they were voting for have changed their minds but there are people on both sides who regret their vote and would welcome the opportunity to choose again.

What do you think should happen if parliament becomes deadlocked? It’s looking increasingly like the gov will not be able to command a majority.

Realistically, it’ll have to be a second ref or a general election.

Sleight

Hard to tell isn't it?

My own view is that in some form MP's would rather back Mrs May eventually.

MP's on the first reading tend to vote with their constituents wish for obvious reasons, however I think it will be a different story at a later date, as ultimately I think they would rather back her than crash out with no deal.

I expect it to go to the wire, but ultimately they will back her as the lesser of two evils.

There was no soft, hard, in this, out of that, Norway, Canada etc, these have all been created since by the establishment whom are tying everything in knots while we quietly wait, biding our time waiting for the will of the people to be delivered.

In the years leading up to Brexit many of the key Brexit campaigners including Farage said we could stay in the single market and customs union, ie a soft Brexit/Norway type deal. Only after the vote did they start to change their tune. Mendacious lot, aren’t they.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce

ultimately I think they would rather back her than crash out with no deal.

grieve’s amendment today has meant no deal very unlikely as parliament has power to stop it.

Even if some MP’s will now vote for the deal as the significant risk of no deal is no longer there I have been reading the maths still make May getting through this deal unlikely. A tweet by Mike Galsworthy.

“I can’t see any Lab MPs breaking with their party now to support this. Neither SNP, Plaid, LD, Green. DUP are caught.

And there are enough Tories for PV that Govt ain’t gonna get majority.

Govt’s best bet was a no-deal threat to peel off 30-40 Lab votes. That’s gone”

MedicinalGin

@muesli

I don’t even want a second referendum, but the argument that more than one vote is anti-democratic was laid to rest weeks ago.

Having one vote and then never voting again is the exact opposite of democracy.

When there’s a general election do you complain about voting again? Or are we supposed to pick a government and then stick with it, lest we offend anyone for having another pick?

The only reason for not having a further vote would be if nothing has changed.

But a lot has changed.

• We’ve discovered that Facebook’s willingness to share user data with 3rd parties resulted in the algorithmic targeting of propaganda, crucially by only one side of the argument.
• We’ve found out that the main funder of the leave campaign has significant ties to Russia and lied about it.
• We know the possible outcomes better.
• We’ve been able to evaluate how capable our government and opposition are of getting this done in a reasonable way.
• We’ve all come to understand more about the Irish border and Good Friday Agreement.
• All sorts of pre-referendum arguments have been rendered utter dog shit (yes, on both sides).

I could go on and on.

The situation has changed significantly since the vote took place, and it’s perfectly legitimate to argue for another one.

Personally I think it’d be opening Pandora’s box, but I don’t accept the argument that it’s one and done, and anything else is anti-democratic.

Democracy is a fluid thing, as it bloody well should be.

Personally I don't agree, I can think of nine million reason why I object to tax payers money being used to influence a referendum.
And I can think of 39 billion reasons why I object to tax payers' money being used to screw the UK economy.

But where has this term “gammon” sprung from? It’s horrible

Oh I agree, it’s meabt to be ;)

Horrible but apt. Think of Vernon Dursley in a temper. That's what gammon looks like.

Most leave voters wouldn't even notice

Pathetic comments like that help no one and make you look daft.

The Tories are a joke.

Labour are no better tbh.

I'm heartened to see parliament asserting itself a bit more, and really hope that this means we'll avoid a no-deal scenario.

I'm still hoping for a second referendum, personally. It has become abundantly clear that we aren't going to get a deal that's better than what we have at present, and it now seems unlikely that parliament will let us crash out with no deal at all. Consequently, no Brexit seems the only sensible choice open to us, but in light of the 2016 result, I think that option would need to be legitimised by another referendum.

I genuinely don't see what's anti-democratic about another referendum. If you believe in referenda at all - and I accept that there are valid arguments against them, but those who believe the 2016 vote should be binding presumably don't accept those arguments - then what could possibly be wrong with going back to the people to check whether they are happy with how things are proceeding? Leaving the EU is a momentous decision for the UK. We now know more about what it will mean than we did in 2016. What's wrong with asking people if they are sure it's what they want?

If it's still the "will of the people" to leave the EU, now they know what they now know, then a second vote will surely reflect that. "The people" will vote once again to leave, there will be a very clear mandate for May's deal, no deal or whatever people vote for, and the government will just have to get on with it. What on earth is there for the Brexiteers to fear, unless it's that "the people" may have actually changed their minds? Does that mean that their voices should therefore be silenced? So much for the apparent love of democracy....