The arrogance of the Remain Alliance

[BeElBeeBub]

Presumably the OP's ire is equally directed at the Brexit party as it is denying voters in conservative seats the chance to vote for them (or to want to vote for them but instead vote tactically and not vote for them)

[johnofgwent]

The discussion that Cameron was having at the time was in the context of him explaining why we couldn't stay in the single market and CU and get all of the trade deals and other things that the leave side were promising - part of his point was to point out that the Leave side were promising mutually exclusive things like full freedom to do trade deals, and full access to the EU the same as we have today.  He was pointing out that this was impossible, and that even if these amazing trade deal benefits and deregulation and so on were possible, they would only be possible if we leave the SM and CU.  In this respect he was correct but he was not advocating it as a good option.



I've listened to enough deetailed interviews, and enough of the "on the hour" news bulletins after them, to figure out that without the detailed context of a conversation you have to be very careful about interpreting what was meant.



The other point is that the "didn't know what you were voting for" refers partly to the opinion that many voters didn't even know what the SM and CU was at the time, not surprising considering how complex it is.  I'll bet you that even today, if you asked 100 random voters on the street to explain the single market and the customs union, and what the differences are between them and the pros and cons of them, I'll bet you that less than 5% would be able to do so correctly.

The only problem with this claim is that for the past twenty years both left and right have fought a war of words and in some cases bullets and blood off the back of single sentence soundbites.



And I don't have time to listen to some arsehole politician  droning on about some dreary vague context. He said what he said and if he didn't want me to take it at face value perhaps he should have said something else. After all, he made enough noise about Blair's soundbite politics.

[Javert]

No, that's not "weak" evidence at all.



That is EXACTLY WHY I VOTED TO LEAVE



The Arch remainer in charge of the government declared publicly in a piece to camera rebroadcast god knows how many times that a vote to leave made no sense at all unless one at the same time left both the single market and the customs union. The antidemocrats have tried peddling the "you didn't know what you were voting for" bull shyte from the moment they realised the majority had told them to go do something biological,but the fact is, when the prime minister says a vote to leave wuld mean leaving the EU, the Single Market AND tyeh customs union because to do anything else made no sense, I thought he was making a policy commitment to go along with his other one about going straight to brussels the day after the vote to deliver our decision and I bloody well expected him to stand by it.

The discussion that Cameron was having at the time was in the context of him explaining why we couldn't stay in the single market and CU and get all of the trade deals and other things that the leave side were promising - part of his point was to point out that the Leave side were promising mutually exclusive things like full freedom to do trade deals, and full access to the EU the same as we have today.  He was pointing out that this was impossible, and that even if these amazing trade deal benefits and deregulation and so on were possible, they would only be possible if we leave the SM and CU.  In this respect he was correct but he was not advocating it as a good option.



I've listened to enough deetailed interviews, and enough of the "on the hour" news bulletins after them, to figure out that without the detailed context of a conversation you have to be very careful about interpreting what was meant.



The other point is that the "didn't know what you were voting for" refers partly to the opinion that many voters didn't even know what the SM and CU was at the time, not surprising considering how complex it is.  I'll bet you that even today, if you asked 100 random voters on the street to explain the single market and the customs union, and what the differences are between them and the pros and cons of them, I'll bet you that less than 5% would be able to do so correctly.

[johnofgwent]

But....surely we can all agree that no one voted for no-deal?



The only (weak) evidence that comes anywhere near proving this, is a video of Cameron saying "we will leave the SM and CU" - That's not enough. The leave campaigns themselves campaigned on leaving with a deal - all of them.



Boris bought back a awful deal, so did May.



That doesn't mean a 2nd ref would do any good, it would just be exactly the same as the first one. The electoral comm wouldn't do a damn thing about cheating on either side.



And revoke is anti-democratic.



That basically means we are stuffed.

No, that's not "weak" evidence at all.



That is EXACTLY WHY I VOTED TO LEAVE



The Arch remainer in charge of the government declared publicly in a piece to camera rebroadcast god knows how many times that a vote to leave made no sense at all unless one at the same time left both the single market and the customs union. The antidemocrats have tried peddling the "you didn't know what you were voting for" bull shyte from the moment they realised the majority had told them to go do something biological,but the fact is, when the prime minister says a vote to leave wuld mean leaving the EU, the Single Market AND tyeh customs union because to do anything else made no sense, I thought he was making a policy commitment to go along with his other one about going straight to brussels the day after the vote to deliver our decision and I bloody well expected him to stand by it.

[johnofgwent]

The Remain Alliance between the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Plaid Cymru is an indication of just how deep the contempt for the electorate and how arrogant some of our politicians have become.



The Remain Alliance removes the right of the individual voter to decide who they wish to vote for tactically or at all.



As an example i the Liberal Democrats (arguably neither liberal nor democratic) and the Greens don't field a candidate in deference to Plaid Cymru, they are effectively instructing the voters in that constituency to vote Plaid Cymru. That is fine if they are a far left nationalist who wishes to remain in the EU. However what if it is a moderate left of centre Unionist? Such a voter would be reluctant and angry to be forced to vote for a far left nationalist party or spoil their paper. They might even vote Tory in protest at being disenfranchised!



This extremely arrogant and undemocratic policy decision on behalf of the LDs, Plaid and Greens may, and I hope will, turn round to bite them

There simply is no way on gods earth a welsh labour voter is going to vote for boris



This is the essence of what I have been posting to any who can be arsed to read it across "pro brexit" social media territory for weeks.



In most of the constituencies around here, the tories can be counted upon to generally lose their deposits for a whole raft of reasons.



The latest being that in a survey of all welsh labour councils, across the political spectra, twenty thousand families who find themselves tenants of private social housing who are being hit by the bedroom tax have literally nowhere else to go even if they wanted to as there are less than sixty vacant two bed properties in wales. And last year, the labour controlled welsh assembly government, who are responsible for housing policy and planning in wales and have been for the past 22 years, built the massive total of fifty seven council owned properties last year, with privatised social landlords (housing associations) building a total of three hundred and ninety seven.



I do not know who the leave voters in that population will vote for, i fear they won't vote at all



The only hope against the "cancel brexit at all costs" bull shite is for Nigel to conjure up someone who can be found tolerable by the five million hugely disgruntled labour voters who voted to leave and are now being kicked in the teeth.

[Nick]

But....surely we can all agree that no one voted for no-deal?



The only (weak) evidence that comes anywhere near proving this, is a video of Cameron saying "we will leave the SM and CU" - That's not enough. The leave campaigns themselves campaigned on leaving with a deal - all of them.



Boris bought back a awful deal, so did May.



That doesn't mean a 2nd ref would do any good, it would just be exactly the same as the first one. The electoral comm wouldn't do a damn thing about cheating on either side.



And revoke is anti-democratic.



That basically means we are stuffed.

Think you should check out the title of this thread. Are you going to tell me what I did and didn't vote for, also that I didn't understand the choice I made?



To answer your question no, we can't all agree. What you fail to acknowledge is there is no such thing as no deal. It's either WTO or a deal, A millisecond after no deal is agreed there is a deal, either WTO or the EU requesting that everything stay the same whilst we agree a deal.



There is absolutely no condition under which there is no deal.

[Thomas]

interesting among recent polls again , boris johnson is trusted more on brexit than labour and jeremy corbyn are......

@britainelects

 4h4 hours ago

More

On who would you trust more on the issue of Brexit:



B. Johnson: 36%

J. Swinson: 15%

J. Corbyn: 12%



None of them: 28%



via @YouGov

[/b]



so when dynamis says this....

In my humble opinion, Bojo brought back the least supportable deal he possibly could, in the hopes it would not get anywhere.



I believe he wants no deal Brexit at any cost.

the english public seem to have faith in boris johnson to get brexit done and deliver a good deal .

[Borg Refinery]

No we can't all agree that no-one voted for No Deal.



The majority voted to Leave; the manner of leaving was not detailed and many voted to leave in whatever manner transpired or gave no thought to the ramifications of No Deal. The terms hard and soft Brexit only came into being following the referendum and I also think it fair to say that many leavers did not anticipate the process was going to be as difficult and divisive as it has proven.

Agreed. I think Brexit could have been sorted out in 6 months with perhaps a bad outcome for the UK, but not a really bad outcome, we would roughly have recovered...in time.



However, it is true that all the leave campaigns touted a deal. Not one of them touted no deal as even being an option.

Recent opinion polls , for what they are worth, do I believe show some 13% of those who provided an opinion have No Deal as a first choice and the Brexit Party are proposing No Deal as their raison-d'etre! Most Leavers have No Deal as their second choice ahead of Labour's soft Brexit, in as much as we know what their policy really is, and Revoking Article 50 and Remaining. In truth I don't know if these No Dealers always supported No Deal, or just so utterly hacked off with the ineptitude of Parliament on this issue, that they just want it all to be over.

I can see the rationale behind that, but could never support it.



Even Javid (as CofEx) was forced to concede, on Marr, that no deal is "the worst possible outcome".



I accept that British Remainers have been pretty well out of order..as proven by this latest farce, but same is true for the other sides.



In my humble opinion, the ref was a farce with record cheating and guile from both sides; and external manipulation on both sides too. Whilst a 2nd ref nor revoke are acceptable options; my personal belief is that only a new govt or a different leader will be able to (possibly) successfully renegotiate anything with the EU.



Which is probably impossible in the first place, odds must be 100k to 1.

As a Leaver myself I am happy to admit that while I do not see a No Deal Brexit as cataclysmic it does provide me with concerns which the present, and here we differ, deal does not.I think BoJo did an outstanding job in renegotiating the WA in the face of strong resistance from the EU and subject to the most disgraceful shenanigans on the part of the opposition parties; he then managed to pilot it successfully through its second reading

supported in part by 19 moderate Labour MPs, at which point he realised he was being set up, and finally shamed Labour into agreeing a GE.

In my humble opinion, Bojo brought back the least supportable deal he possibly could, in the hopes it would not get anywhere.



I believe he wants no deal Brexit at any cost.

Finally should we have the nightmare of Labour being given the opportunity to negotiate a soft brexit, with a customs union and subject to the ECJ I would prefer Remain.

That's understandable - being subjected while having no say in the running of the EU is pretty undemocratic.



That's why I get so irritated when folks on this forum screech "you labour red lefty" at me, it's just so irrelevant and pointless and so far away from my position.

[Major Sinic]

But not all tactical voting websites are fronts for the LDs, at least one is upfront about voting tactically to keep the Tories out. (It has also been going for years.)

The poster did not say all tactical voting websites are lying LD fronts, he stated various.

[papasmurf]

This alliance by the way is a farce, and various 'tactical voting' websites have been exposed as lying front groups for the LDs that misrepresent the data and stuff...Typical...

But not all tactical voting websites are fronts for the LDs, at least one is upfront about voting tactically to keep the Tories out. (It has also been going for years.)

[Major Sinic]

But....surely we can all agree that no one voted for no-deal?



The only (weak) evidence that comes anywhere near proving this, is a video of Cameron saying "we will leave the SM and CU" - That's not enough. The leave campaigns themselves campaigned on leaving with a deal - all of them.



Boris bought back a awful deal, so did May.



That doesn't mean a 2nd ref would do any good, it would just be exactly the same as the first one. The electoral comm wouldn't do a damn thing about cheating on either side.



And revoke is anti-democratic.



That basically means we are stuffed.

No we can't all agree that no-one voted for No Deal.



The majority voted to Leave; the manner of leaving was not detailed and many voted to leave in whatever manner transpired or gave no thought to the ramifications of No Deal. The terms hard and soft Brexit only came into being following the referendum and I also think it fair to say that many leavers did not anticipate the process was going to be as difficult and divisive as it has proven.



Recent opinion polls , for what they are worth, do I believe show some 13% of those who provided an opinion have No Deal as a first choice and the Brexit Party are proposing No Deal as their raison-d'etre! Most Leavers have No Deal as their second choice ahead of Labour's soft Brexit, in as much as we know what their policy really is, and Revoking Article 50 and Remaining. In truth I don't know if these No Dealers always supported No Deal, or just so utterly hacked off with the ineptitude of Parliament on this issue, that they just want it all to be over.



As a Leaver myself I am happy to admit that while I do not see a No Deal Brexit as cataclysmic it does provide me with concerns which the present, and here we differ, deal does not.I think BoJo did an outstanding job in renegotiating the WA in the face of strong resistance from the EU and subject to the most disgraceful shenanigans on the part of the opposition parties; he then managed to pilot it successfully through its second reading

supported in part by 19 moderate Labour MPs, at which point he realised he was being set up, and finally shamed Labour into agreeing a GE.



Finally should we have the nightmare of Labour being given the opportunity to negotiate a soft brexit, with a customs union and subject to the ECJ I would prefer Remain.

[Borg Refinery]

This alliance by the way is a farce, and various 'tactical voting' websites have been exposed as lying front groups for the LDs that misrepresent the data and stuff...Typical...

[Borg Refinery]

But....surely we can all agree that no one voted for no-deal?



The only (weak) evidence that comes anywhere near proving this, is a video of Cameron saying "we will leave the SM and CU" - That's not enough. The leave campaigns themselves campaigned on leaving with a deal - all of them.



Boris bought back a awful deal, so did May.



That doesn't mean a 2nd ref would do any good, it would just be exactly the same as the first one. The electoral comm wouldn't do a damn thing about cheating on either side.



And revoke is anti-democratic.



That basically means we are stuffed.

[Major Sinic]

Not remotely hysterical.



It is a demonstration of a growing arrogance and a growing contempt for democracy by a group of politicians who wish for one single outcome to one single issue and be damned to all other issues, and in a desperate effort to achieve that goal, they are denying the electorate in around 10% of constituencies the right to a political choice which would otherwise have been offered.



Believe me this is likely to have a more negative affect on Labour than the Tories so I am not putting forward this argument from self interest.



Stand myself! Not a particularly intelligent suggestion apart from its rather extreme suggestion, but why would a right of centre English Tory Leaver, disinterested at best in the continuation of the Union wish to stand in a Welsh constituency under such circumstances.



As Thomas observes Sir John Curtice, one of the very few credible and non-partisan commentators observes; its effect will in all probability be minimal. No the reason I have put forward this topic is firstly because I believe it demonstrates both an arrogance and a contempt for democracy and secondly because, although born of a sincere consideration, it struck me as a worthwhile debating topic.

[Major Sinic]

Isn't this a bit hysterical.



There is no obligation on any party to stand candiates in any election and no obligation on any voter to vote at all, or for any particular candidate.  In the end, you are voting for a candidate rather than a party so if you are really that unhappy, you can always stand yourself.