General Election 2019

I see that Mark François believes that Farage has "screwed up." I am surprised to see him giving an opinion as he was going to explode last night if we didn't leave the EU by 11.00 pm

 

The backstop was unacceptable to all which is why May's deal was constantly rejected. The threat of being locked in this dreadful undemocratic organisation has been removed. Johnson's deal is quite different which is why it passed the first parliamentary stage. Nobody is saying it is perfect but finally leaving is the prize worth stomaching the many imperfections. Under a new Johnson government, with a decent majority, the UK may still eventually leave without a deal at the end of the transition period.

 

In what way is it different to her proposals that there could be a border in the Irish Sea?

 

Boris's deal is excellent - he promised to unite the country - what people didn't realise is that he was talking about Ireland.

 

There is a time constraint on NI being aligned to the EU. I'm sure most UK citizens will welcome the day when NI VOTES to become a single entity with the RoI. This will need to be the democratic choice of the people of NI. Apparently we subsidise NI as much as we waste on the EU. Maybe when the republic is faced with unpalatable instructions from Brussels over centralisation of tax policies it will also leave the EU.

 

Your domino effect is just not going to happen SH. There will be no more countries leaving the EU for one simple reason. The sequence of events leading up to the Brexit referendum were only possible in the UK due to its first past the post voting system - only there could the internal problems of one party lead to such far reaching consequences. In all other EU countries you would need a coalition of parties who were all offering a referendum. In other more democratic countries they do not have parties claiming majorities based on about 35% of the vote, and do not have the centralized powers found in the UK.

 

There is no time constraint at all. The assembly, if it ever meets again, will be able to leave after four years if this magical technology has arrived. Meanwhile the proposal has created a second border, and this time within the UK.

 

The Macron boy said France would probably decide to leave given the choice, it just shows the amount of animosity towards Brussels in France and other nation states. When the success of Brexit becomes plainly obvious there will be increased support for national control.

 

You are running into the area of pure speculation which you cannot support by any evidence. This is getting close to my rules that statements without evidence may be removed.

 

There are many parts of the UK which would like to free themselves from the shackles of Westminster SH. Unfortunately they have to ask for Westminster's permission to hold referendums on this. Apparently this big bully federalist EU. allowed you to have as many referendums as you like, allowed you to keep your currency, keep your unique voting system, and has allowed you one opt out after another.

 

You need to try harder to not fall into political censorship again. If you simply want a Tory / Brexit bashing clique set up again carry on with that nonsense.

 

It is weird that a sovereign nation has to ask others for permission to govern, thankfully that will soon be over.

 

Do you not understand the difference between putting forward something which is evidenced based and something which is only guesswork or your opinion?

 

Maybe you should go on a moderator impartiality course to hone your skill set? We really don't want the clique to ruin the threads again.

 

The tragedy of British politics is that even on here I typed in a Labour vote on our poll. Honestly speaking my first choice would be for the Green Party but like so many others I will go for my second choice, or even third. How many millions in the UK end up voting against something and not actually for what they believe in ? What are the consequences of a whole country doing this ? The big parties will focus their campaign on the votes of a couple of hundred thousand voters in the swing seats of the UK the rest are not important because you don't have to win the majority over to your cause - 35% will do nicely. Thinking back to the 80s when the left was so badly split - in any real democracy this would have been a good thing because it gave the voters more choice - in reality it was a disaster because under FPTP the Tories were able to storm in with a majority based on a minority of the votes cast. The rest of history has reflected the same theme - always after an election the majority are left scratching their heads thinking 'I didn't vote for this'. Whole regions are left thinking this - is there any other country in the Western World where a governing party can have 60% in some constituencies and only 10% in others such as in Glasgow or Liverpool ? There is no other country where such wild regional differences can occur - not even between West and East Germany. Parties want the swing voters in the swing seats and will channel all their resources into these seats - they will also adapt their policies for these voters and not for the country as a whole.

 

Can we move on from this theme please ?

 

We have discussed this many times. The UK rejected the LibDem alternative to FPTP during the coalition. There will not be a change to the UK's democratic system so I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve Cologne. If there is a decent Tory majority any change will not certainly happen for at least the next five years.

If you say the socialists were split in the 80's they are certainly split now. I cannot see any evidence that traditional Labour voters are embracing the present hard left agenda as preferred by the leadership.

 

You are probably right that if there is a Tory government returned then nothing will change. However there is every chance that all this election will achieve is another hung parliament. We have seen that since 2016 there has been the bare minimum of legislation passed and over the past twelve months everything has ground to a standstill. I would suspect a minority government might well decide to put forward a better system than the last proposal, but the real problem is that the UK is not used to compromise, hence the current chaos.

 

I do not think it was the LibDem alternative SH. It was a concocted confused plan put together by both parties - in the end nobody really understood what was being put forward - proportional representation is a much simpler system than what was actually presented to the electorate then - even I was scratching my head trying to understand what was being proposed. One of the biggest tragodies is that Tony Blair actually wanted to bring in a PR. system but was talked out of it by those close to him. The simplest version is a marriage between FPTP and PR. the constituency sizes double and there is still one direct mandate per constituency - the parties are then rounded up afterwards from a reserve list of MPs to represent the exact vote that the party got in the country. It means that some MPs in parliament are actually representing constituencies, others are not. Can you honestly put your hand on your heart and say that you think 35% of the votes cast should allow a majority in the House of Commons ? Can you claim this as being democratic when it is the only system in Europe which operates in this way ?

 

The alternative system as put forward by the LibDems was theirs alone. The Tories only agreed at the time to hold the ballot in exchange for an agreement to change the constituency boundaries and reduce the number of MPs. The LibDems reneged on the deal once their plan to change the political system was roundly rejected by the electorate.

I am perfectly happy with the present system, I suspect most voters in England would agree.