Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[Zeb]

Does the 'unity platform' include the EU? Because they've made it clear that the May deal is 'the' deal not 'a' deal.

*edit - seems he thinks there's an option to work with the Tory Remainers. Does this mean that the single market is part of the platform to pass question 2. is it actually ditch Brexit completely to get the SNP on board?

SNP aren't opposed to 'Norway' from what I know, though sure Elmo or Iska can correct if I have that wrong. Have lots of questions about what he's up to so who knows? Could just be more show and unicorn promises. Sure he's not daft enough to think if the front bench isn't seen to be acting in the national interest that the backbenchers are going to passively wait on the fruits of Corbyn having a good long hard think about it all.

[mikey_LFC]

No political parties.
So nobody has a political ideology for voters to judge. decisions in government are based on the parties ideology.
Tories believe you have to pay your own way in this world, don't ask people with money to spend their hard earned cash subsidizing your standard of living.
Decisions in government aren't always based on common sense, they are based on political beliefs.
You have to have a opposition to expose the flaws in every government policy.

Why would no political parties mean no opposition to exposing flaws in suggested policy?

I’m suggesting a move away from policy introduced based on political belief. Sure you can test each belief, but it’s no basis for decision making. Which is why very few if any other systems employ similar decision making methods.

[Iska]

SNP aren't opposed to 'Norway' from what I know, though sure Elmo or Iska can correct if I have that wrong.

I think that’s the snp’s red line, presumably with a view to using it as a grievance to push for re-entry with independence.  I haven’t been paying that much attention to them though.

Edit: the SNP have a sizeable independence/leave membership too, somehow, so they’ve a problem to solve if their position gets to be anything more than theoretical.  Could be, when it comes to Europe, that they turn back into the Tartan Tories.

[Riquende]

also helps when the opposition is a joke

I'm trying not to dwell on that point.





How would you effectively end political parties? Even informally, any of these theoretical representatives who are of similar mindsets would communicate in private and caucus together in any votes. Even in the Roman senate of Cicero's day you had the 'Optimates' and the 'Populares' who could be relied upon to vote in specific ways (the latter probably egged on by Tribune of the Plebs Nigellus Faragus).

[oldfordie]

Why would no political parties mean no opposition to exposing flaws in suggested policy?

I’m suggesting a move away from policy introduced based on political belief. Sure you can test each belief, but it’s no basis for decision making. Which is why very few if any other systems employ similar decision making methods.

It's not accepting realty. people have principles and beliefs, they make political decisions based on these principles.  I know what sort of world a Tory candidate wants and I know some of the decisions he will make as I know his basic principles. they are not based on looking at the facts and coming to the right decision they are based on keeping as much cash in his pocket as possible,  you can't move away from this fact. the party system at least give us some information to decide what sort of world the candidate wants.

[mikey_LFC]

It's not accepting realty. people have principles and beliefs, they make political decisions based on these principles.  I know what sort of world a Tory candidate wants and I know some of the decisions he will make as I know his basic principles. they are not based on looking at the facts and coming to the right decision they are based on keeping as much cash in his pocket as possible,  you can't move away from this fact. the party system at least give us some information to decide what sort of world the candidate wants.

I think that demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the party political system. Well done.

Just as the referendum posed a binary question for a complex issue, the party political system dominated by two parties does the same. A representative of a party is seen as the party, dehumanising the candidates and the nuances of their viewpoint. On top of that, the system itself forces people to follow the party line bringing about an actual narrowing of the range of views.

As a system it’s nice for ease of voting by encouraging tribalism but it’s hardly productive.

[oldfordie]

I think that demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the political system. Well done.

Just as the referendum posed a binary question for a complex issue, the party political system dominated by two parties does the same. A representative of a party is seen as the party, dehumanising the candidates and the nuances of their viewpoint. On top of that, the system itself forces people to follow the party line bringing about an actual narrowing of the range of views.

As a system it’s nice for ease of voting by encouraging tribalism but it’s hardly productive.

I will step out now as we are derailing the thread, the trouble with ideology + theories is people can go to deep and loose sight of some basic facts, you loose sight of the main goal.

[mikey_LFC]

I will step out now as we are derailing the thread, the trouble with idrology + theories is people can go to deep and loose sight of some basic facts, you loose sight of the main goal.

I completely agree.

[Zeb]

I think that’s the snp’s red line, presumably with a view to using it as a grievance to push for re-entry with independence.  I haven’t been paying that much attention to them though.

Edit: the SNP have a sizeable independence/leave membership too, somehow, so they’ve a problem to solve if their position gets to be anything more than theoretical.  Could be, when it comes to Europe, that they turn back into the Tartan Tories.

Ah, makes sense. Cheers. "Playing chess with mice" does seem a good summary for trying to count votes on this.

[Ray K]

@DavidDavisMP
I have spent the last few days in Washington talking to US Government Trade and Treasury officials encouraging a free trade deal with the UK. Excellent response. They have already started on the procedures to allow negotiations to start immediately once we leave the EU in March.
This will not be possible if we accept the Government's proposed deal with Europe, which will block every avenue of negotiation with America.
We have to have a Canada+++ deal to allow us to have a free trade deal with America


Couple of questions, Dave. Are backbench MPs normally authorized to talk trade deals with the US? Who paid for the trip? Did you bring any civil servants along with you?
But above all, why the fuck did you head over to the US when you couldn't be arsed heading to Brussels to negotiate when it was literally your only fucking job?

[TepidT2O]

Remember this one too?

“Within minutes of a vote for Brexit the CEO’s of Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi will be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding that there be no barriers to German access to the British market” - David Davis, 2016.

[Alan_X]

I’d suggest your representative is your MP, not the party you vote for. So if the representative you vote for doesn’t win, you’re unrepresented.


No the public aren’t involved in the decision making. The decisions are taken based on the result of the trials. Fact based decision-making. The moderators would come up with the success criteria for the trials.

So the moderators will be making political decisions. Determining the success criteria is not a fact based exercise. I'm assuming you still have taxation in your model. What level of tax do you make people pay and how do you judge the success? Do you have a welfare state and if so what's the redistribution model? Suppose the 'facts' show that letting a few people starve at the bottom is fine for the country as a whole?

And let's face it, any fact based assessment of genetic disease would show the benefits of eugenics. We do it with farm animals - why not with people? because the way we treat people is a political decision not a fact based decision.

What about education? Is success the number of qualifications? Or the general fitness for life? Are academic subjects as valuable as engineering and vocational subjects? Do you allow private schools?

And how do you 'trial' a road network? or a major infrastructure project like a nuclear power station? Do you allow nuclear power stations?

Farming - what's the policy on GMOs? Fact based studies show they are essential to the survival of the planet and organic farming is land intensive and of no benefit. Fact based assessment means no more organic foods.

Yours is a well intentioned idea but would easily turn into Brave New World.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

I'm trying not to dwell on that point.





How would you effectively end political parties? Even informally, any of these theoretical representatives who are of similar mindsets would communicate in private and caucus together in any votes. Even in the Roman senate of Cicero's day you had the 'Optimates' and the 'Populares' who could be relied upon to vote in specific ways (the latter probably egged on by Tribune of the Plebs Nigellus Faragus).

toprotilnal representation would help imo

[Alan_X]

@DavidDavisMP
I have spent the last few days in Washington talking to US Government Trade and Treasury officials encouraging a free trade deal with the UK. Excellent response. They have already started on the procedures to allow negotiations to start immediately once we leave the EU in March.
This will not be possible if we accept the Government's proposed deal with Europe, which will block every avenue of negotiation with America.
We have to have a Canada+++ deal to allow us to have a free trade deal with America


Couple of questions, Dave. Are backbench MPs normally authorized to talk trade deals with the US? Who paid for the trip? Did you bring any civil servants along with you?
But above all, why the fuck did you head over to the US when you couldn't be arsed heading to Brussels to negotiate when it was literally your only fucking job?

He really is a massive tool.

Of course they want to do a deal now we're out you stupid c*nt. Just like a pride of lions wants to 'negotiate' with a calf that's been cut off from the herd.

An open target, shooting fish in a barrel, dealing with some of the most incompetent people amnd worst negotiators in teh history of British politics... they will be looking to offload any old shite, chlorinated chicken and shite cars while picking off the NHS and anything else they can get.

[CornerFlag]

Remember this one too?

From just before the vote:

Outside the EU we will be able to sign more trade deals more quickly that better suit our economy

Also, just looking through some of his tweets and the replies, some of the accounts that have replied have been... iffy.  Just found one that mysteriously stopped posting Mid-June 2016.  Can't imagine why...

[oldfordie]

Enjoyed reading some of the comments.
https://twitter.com/DJGCoops/status/1063717332416151552

Just made the mistake of taking a look at the comments underneath the latest @mrjamesob LBC Brexit video. Immediately greeted with: ‘We don’t want to end up like Grease’ <closes laptop>


Dawn Lawes
‏ @dawnyyogini

We better shape up..

Rob VDS
‏ @Robinvds70
4h4 hours ago

Cos we need a plan.....


Johnathan Taylor
‏ @JohnnyT92
3h3 hours ago

Cos my heart is set on EU


rasher
‏ @johnb1526
5h5 hours ago
Replying to @DJGCoops @mrjamesob

"I got bills...there multiplying"

[Jiminy Cricket]

I've been mulling over the WA for the past few days. A few weeks ago, I would have argued (I believe I did at RAWK) that MPs should vote for the WA if it seems reasonable (in the circumstances). Well, I think the actual WA agreement is what was largely expected (in the round). But having it there in front me, seeing some of the details, and even realising that No Deal would be an absolute disaster for the country, I cannot now argue for its acceptance. I feel like I am being threatened with a good kicking if I do not hand over my wallet. I would be highly unlikely to hand over my wallet in such a situation (I'd fight and risk the kicking) - and this is how I feel about the threat of No Deal.

So, I think the Labour Party should vote against the WA, but for different reasons than Corbyn et al. I wish to see A50 retracted and the UK to remain a full member of the EU. Corbyn may not admit to it, but clearly he wishes for something more extreme than what the WA offers. The WA, as constituted, would not allow for Corbyn's imagined socialist utopia. He is not only thick, but thoroughly dishonest too.

If the WA agreement is not accepted by Parliament, and there is no reversal of A50, then we are almost certainly heading for No Deal. But, in that scenario, it also would seem almost certain that within weeks the UK will return to the EU and beg for the belated activation of the WA (of course, the Eu would acquiesce). So, in the longer run, we loose little by rejecting the WA and risking No Deal. I know that some (very many of us) will be hit very hard by No Deal, but we should not give into threats of kickings. And, before anyone starts, I and some people close to me are reliant upon medications which might well be disrupted in the event of No Deal. The present situation for the nation is as bad as a war. The threat of deaths does not negate all other arguments and considerations.

[Robinred]

He really is a massive tool.

Of course they want to do a deal now we're out you stupid c*nt. Just like a pride of lions wants to 'negotiate' with a calf that's been cut off from the herd.

An open target, shooting fish in a barrel, dealing with some of the most incompetent people amnd worst negotiators in teh history of British politics... they will be looking to offload any old shite, chlorinated chicken and shite cars while picking off the NHS and anything else they can get.

But he’s a former marine and talks really well.

He and JRM highlight the problem the great British public have: they confuse veneer and substance.

[Currywurst]

I've been mulling over the WA for the past few days. A few weeks ago, I would have argued (I believe I did at RAWK) that MPs should vote for the WA if it seems reasonable (in the circumstances). Well, I think the actual WA agreement is what was largely expected (in the round). But having it there in front me, seeing some of the details, and even realising that No Deal would be an absolute disaster for the country, I cannot now argue for its acceptance. I feel like I am being threatened with a good kicking if I do not hand over my wallet. I would be highly unlikely to hand over my wallet in such a situation (I'd fight and risk the kicking) - and this is how I feel about the threat of No Deal.

So, I think the Labour Party should vote against the WA, but for different reasons than Corbyn et al. I wish to see A50 retracted and the UK to remain a full member of the EU. Corbyn may not admit to it, but clearly he wishes for something more extreme than what the WA offers. The WA, as constituted, would not allow for Corbyn's imagined socialist utopia. He is not only thick, but thoroughly dishonest too.

If the WA agreement is not accepted by Parliament, and there is no reversal of A50, then we are almost certainly heading for No Deal. But, in that scenario, it also would seem almost certain that within weeks the UK will return to the EU and beg for the belated activation of the WA (of course, the Eu would acquiesce). So, in the longer run, we loose little by rejecting the WA and risking No Deal. I know that some (very many of us) will be hit very hard by No Deal, but we should not give into threats of kickings. And, before anyone starts, I and some people close to me are reliant upon medications which might well be disrupted in the event of No Deal. The present situation for the nation is as bad as a war. The threat of deaths does not negate all other arguments and considerations.

The difference between this and a war is that we're doing it to ourselves. Willing to risk killing our own people for some unquantifiable return.

[Alan_X]

The difference between this and a war is that we're doing it to ourselves. Willing to risk killing our own people for some unquantifiable return.

Sovereignty mate. We're getting our country back...

One of the few good things hat might come out of Brexit will be the vox pops with those dozy Brexit twats.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/pUrv37O6S8A?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/pUrv37O6S8A?fs=1</a>

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/jofDZjruhD4?fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/jofDZjruhD4?fs=1</a>

So you've got it back... how's it feel?

[mikey_LFC]

So the moderators will be making political decisions. Determining the success criteria is not a fact based exercise. I'm assuming you still have taxation in your model. What level of tax do you make people pay and how do you judge the success? Do you have a welfare state and if so what's the redistribution model? Suppose the 'facts' show that letting a few people starve at the bottom is fine for the country as a whole?

And let's face it, any fact based assessment of genetic disease would show the benefits of eugenics. We do it with farm animals - why not with people? because the way we treat people is a political decision not a fact based decision.

What about education? Is success the number of qualifications? Or the general fitness for life? Are academic subjects as valuable as engineering and vocational subjects? Do you allow private schools?

And how do you 'trial' a road network? or a major infrastructure project like a nuclear power station? Do you allow nuclear power stations?

Farming - what's the policy on GMOs? Fact based studies show they are essential to the survival of the planet and organic farming is land intensive and of no benefit. Fact based assessment means no more organic foods.

Yours is a well intentioned idea but would easily turn into Brave New World.

Determining success criteria isn’t to say plucked from thin air or just decided upon. In trying to solve issues through a trial, you need some way of seeing if it works. You can survey the local population used in the trial and see if the reported issues of the particular category have subsided or you can use statistical analysis to study the trend of correlated indicators. That’s all I meant. The actual decision would then be made by the success of the trial not by an individual. It’s roll out could also be applied to some but not all areas in an actual detailed voting system once all the facts are clear from the trial (a means for preventing unethical decisions too).

An ethical framework could be put in place though I don’t see many people suggesting it’s okay for people to starve or die. Given the issues of all, rather than the majority are used, you’d cover the issues of the poorest in society so they couldn’t be overlooked. It’s not just a what’s best for the general population or the average.

Taxation, welfare, education, energy etc. would be decided on by experts in the relevant field with taxation balanced around the other initiatives deemed necessary from other trials / evidence from other parts of the world

I’d say the GMOs vs organic isn’t cut and dry from facts as it depends on what issues you are trying to solve, these won’t be monetary decisions.

As for infrastructure, seeing where issues were raised on roads etc could allow you to better understand where to direct resource and attention.

Also I’d say any of the suggestions you’ve put forward as pitfalls could as easily occur in the current democratic system. The difference is tackling the issues in a more scientific way, as you’d expect from entries into academic journals rather than the subjective back and forth debate that currently exists.

These were all initial ideas based off a question on how to move away from general elections. I clearly won’t be able to come up with a complete robust system but it’s a start.

As someone mentioned, this isn’t on topic really, so I’ll withdraw this talk from the thread. Although I’m sure people welcome a distraction from Brexit talk!

[stara]

North Yorkshire potter Lee Cartledge has designed a commemorative Brexit mug. "I'm not a political person really, but it is a political statement I guess"

[Alan_X]

I might split and move a few posts mikey. Alternative models are interesting - One option I used to think was interesting would be to assign MPs the same way you do jury service. Anyway let’s park it for the moment.

[Nessy76]

Simon Wren-Lewis has been hugely supportive of Labour's policy on Brexit the past couple of years. Don't think he's currently advising the frontbench on economics but he's a voice they have listened to in the past. Seems important that he's now suggesting it's past time to be honest with the electorate about the choices and allow them to make an informed one. (And implying to let it happen before Labour comes to power...)

Spoiler

[close]

Blog

Good read that. The missing element is how you sell any of it to an electorate that has already lost all faith in the entire political system, and that is willing to believe things it knows to be untrue.

[mikey_LFC]

I might split and move a few posts mikey. Alternative models are interesting - One option I used to think was interesting would be to assign MPs the same way you do jury service. Anyway let’s park it for the moment.

Good idea! 

[oldfordie]

The difference between this and a war is that we're doing it to ourselves. Willing to risk killing our own people for some unquantifiable return.

I agree with this.
Dear People-Saying-We-Survived-WW2-So-We'll-Survive #Brexit:
1 You weren't in WW2
2 Lots of people didn't survive WW2
3 We didn't vote for WW2 in a fraudulent Referendum
4 UK was receiving massive support from foreign allies in WW2--not telling them to fuck off
 5 WW2 wrecked UK

[ShakaHislop]

I believe that the political declaration isn't legally binding but this part of it should still concern those who want a unicorn-free soft Brexit.

and the fact that the United Kingdom will be a non-Schengen third country that does not provide for the free movement of persons

Page 5 of https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/outline_of_the_political_declaration.pdf

[Jiminy Cricket]

I've been mulling over the WA for the past few days. A few weeks ago, I would have argued (I believe I did at RAWK) that MPs should vote for the WA if it seems reasonable (in the circumstances). Well, I think the actual WA agreement is what was largely expected (in the round). But having it there in front me, seeing some of the details, and even realising that No Deal would be an absolute disaster for the country, I cannot now argue for its acceptance. I feel like I am being threatened with a good kicking if I do not hand over my wallet. I would be highly unlikely to hand over my wallet in such a situation (I'd fight and risk the kicking) - and this is how I feel about the threat of No Deal.

So, I think the Labour Party should vote against the WA, but for different reasons than Corbyn et al. I wish to see A50 retracted and the UK to remain a full member of the EU. Corbyn may not admit to it, but clearly he wishes for something more extreme than what the WA offers. The WA, as constituted, would not allow for Corbyn's imagined socialist utopia. He is not only thick, but thoroughly dishonest too.

If the WA agreement is not accepted by Parliament, and there is no reversal of A50, then we are almost certainly heading for No Deal. But, in that scenario, it also would seem almost certain that within weeks the UK will return to the EU and beg for the belated activation of the WA (of course, the Eu would acquiesce). So, in the longer run, we loose little by rejecting the WA and risking No Deal. I know that some (very many of us) will be hit very hard by No Deal, but we should not give into threats of kickings. And, before anyone starts, I and some people close to me are reliant upon medications which might well be disrupted in the event of No Deal. The present situation for the nation is as bad as a war. The threat of deaths does not negate all other arguments and considerations.

The difference between this and a war is that we're doing it to ourselves. Willing to risk killing our own people for some unquantifiable return.

The difference between this and a war is that we're doing it to ourselves. Willing to risk killing our own people for some unquantifiable return.

I agree with this.
Dear People-Saying-We-Survived-WW2-So-We'll-Survive #Brexit:
1 You weren't in WW2
2 Lots of people didn't survive WW2
3 We didn't vote for WW2 in a fraudulent Referendum
4 UK was receiving massive support from foreign allies in WW2--not telling them to fuck off
 5 WW2 wrecked UK

I'm not sure if I'm being misunderstood, failing to make myself clear, or if I am misunderstanding you, oldfordie, and Currywurst. But I never suggested that the EU is doing anything nefarious, nor, indeed, anything at all. Yes, of course it is self-inflicted damage to the UK.

[oldfordie]

The difference between this and a war is that we're doing it to ourselves. Willing to risk killing our own people for some unquantifiable return.
I agree with this.
Dear People-Saying-We-Survived-WW2-So-We'll-Survive #Brexit:
1 You weren't in WW2
2 Lots of people didn't survive WW2
3 We didn't vote for WW2 in a fraudulent Referendum
4 UK was receiving massive support from foreign allies in WW2--not telling them to fuck off
 5 WW2 wrecked UK

I'm not sure if I'm being misunderstood, failing to make myself clear, or if I am misunderstanding you, oldfordie, and Currywurst. But I never suggested that the EU is doing anything nefarious, nor, indeed, anything at all. Yes, of course it is self-inflicted damage to the UK.

Of course not,  they way I took it was we are about to volountry bring about living conditions and shortages you should only experience due to war. I should off added I agree with you.

[TheShanklyGates]

Europe Elects
‏ @EuropeElects

UK, ComRes poll:

EU membership ref.

Remain: 51% (-4)
Leave: 49% (+4)

+/- vs. 11 Jan. '18

Field work: 14/11/18 – 15/11/18
Sample size: 1,752

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1063859818576916481

Starting to think this country deserves everything it fucking gets. Christ on a bike.

[Red Beret]

Europe Elects
‏ @EuropeElects

UK, ComRes poll:

EU membership ref.

Remain: 51% (-4)
Leave: 49% (+4)

+/- vs. 11 Jan. '18

Field work: 14/11/18 – 15/11/18
Sample size: 1,752

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1063859818576916481

Starting to think this country deserves everything it fucking gets. Christ on a bike.

Oh it does.  As usual a large number of people are going to have to suffer mightily because of the idiocy of a minority.  When we go crawling back to the EU in about 10-15 years begging to be let back in they'll make sure they tie us down so hard we can never get out again.  Force us to accept the Euro, the lot.

[rob1966]

Europe Elects
‏ @EuropeElects

UK, ComRes poll:

EU membership ref.

Remain: 51% (-4)
Leave: 49% (+4)

+/- vs. 11 Jan. '18

Field work: 14/11/18 – 15/11/18
Sample size: 1,752

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1063859818576916481

Starting to think this country deserves everything it fucking gets. Christ on a bike.

Sky news the other morning, there was some expert on, I only caught a little snippet - he said if we have a No Deal that within a week we will be crawling back to the EU. It does look like we are going to have to detonate the bomb for the fuckwits to see the reality of what they have done.

[stara]

5 WW2 wrecked UK Europe

and until you let go and recognize that tidbit your lot never ever ever ever ever come back to Europe.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Sky news the other morning, there was some expert on, I only caught a little snippet - he said if we have a No Deal that within a week we will be crawling back to the EU. It does look like we are going to have to detonate the bomb for the fuckwits to see the reality of what they have done.

And there is the single advantage of a No Deal Brexit: it would shut up most of the hardcore Brexiteers. Unfortunately, anything short of a No Deal Brexit will mean that we will never hear the end of it.

[Iska]

That poll.  Honestly, it’s like half the country think we’re at war with the EU; the precise number only wavers up and down slightly depending on how under siege they feel.

It’s like, they’re not even engaging with the Leave/Remain question anymore.  It’s become an identity question - as if the pollsters are asking ‘do you feel British or European? Pick one.’, and the worse it gets for Britain, the more people read the question that way and rally round accordingly.  And that’s all the numbers are measuring, basically how much Blitz Spirit is in the air.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Europe Elects
‏ @EuropeElects

UK, ComRes poll:

EU membership ref.

Remain: 51% (-4)
Leave: 49% (+4)

+/- vs. 11 Jan. '18

Field work: 14/11/18 – 15/11/18
Sample size: 1,752

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1063859818576916481

Starting to think this country deserves everything it fucking gets. Christ on a bike.

Yep absolutely.

You stuggle to see how anyone can see the absolute shambles going on and thinking "Hey! This is a GOOD idea!! The Government is doing a great job and we GET A BLUE PASSPORT!!" (Made in France, obviously)..

[Red Beret]

And there is the single advantage of a No Deal Brexit: it would shut up most of the hardcore Brexiteers. Unfortunately, anything short of a No Deal Brexit will mean that we will never hear the end of it.

I wish.  In the event of a No Deal, they'll blame all the UK's hardships on the EU being a bunch of mean spirited bastards who are out to make an example out of us because we're just so awesome and they're so jealous that we beat Hitler.

[Andy-oh-six]

I wish.  In the event of a No Deal, they'll blame all the UK's hardships on the EU being a bunch of mean spirited bastards who are out to make an example out of us because we're just so awesome and they're so jealous that we beat Hitler.

Absolutely. It’s the bloody foreigners’ fault and that’s why we are better off without them!

[jason67]

So here is a genuine question to all of you that believe voting is an absolute must.

Have you changed your views over the last year or so?

Do you still think that the political process of electing MPs to serve the people is working? 

And how will you vote in the future?

For the record I myself don't vote as I believe the system is corrupt and has been for decades, but I'd like to know how many others are fed up with what is happening at the moment.

[TheShanklyGates]

So here is a genuine question to all of you that believe voting is an absolute must.

Have you changed your views over the last year or so?

Do you still think that the political process of electing MPs to serve the people is working? 

And how will you vote in the future?

For the record I myself don't vote as I believe the system is corrupt and has been for decades, but I'd like to know how many others are fed up with what is happening at the moment.

I am seriously considering spoiling my ballot at the next general election. None of them deserve my vote.