There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Really the answer is that it would be a complete horlicks
Opinions are so entrenched that I can't see opinion moving so far to Remain. Much of the difference between Leave and Remain is down to very firmly entrenched values.
It could theoretically move to a maximum of 60:40 opinion Remain/Leave (which is where Cameron thought the first referendum would end up) but I'd expect it to draw much closer in any campaign.
Yes. Cameron was, in the final analysis, a disaster. The cavalier approach to such a constitutionally profound issue is not a simple error of judgment, but verging on criminal.
The probem is that the political classes did not foresee problems probably because they thought they would walk it to remain
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
Power is nothing without control, as the advert said. By Leaving, Britain is condemning itself to be a rule-taker rather than participating in rule-making. But the little Englanders will be happy that they can keep out the foreigners, so that's alright.
You are contradicting yourself. You say we’d be a rule-taker outside the EU, but at the same time we would have the power to control immigration which we currently lack.
You might not want control over immigration to this country. That is an extreme position.
I appreciate that you may be monomaniac about the subject, but there are other things to control than just immigration.
Britain already has considerable control over immigration. It chooses not to use many of those powers because those in authority (correctly in my view) regard immigration as a necessity. There also needs to be some recognition by Leavers - entirely absent so far as I can see - that hypothetical immigrants themselves have agency and won't just come at a peremptory command should Britain decide that it after all needs immigration.
You, of all people, accusing someone else of monomania?
Neither of the brothers have changed their view about leaving, but Marvin said he was sceptical as to whether politicians would follow through. “What they really want to do is kill democracy. They didn’t like the answer they got before and so they’ll just keep asking until people agree. As if we are all mindless morons,” he said.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Really the answer is that it would be a complete horlicks
Opinions are so entrenched that I can't see opinion moving so far to Remain. Much of the difference between Leave and Remain is down to very firmly entrenched values.
It could theoretically move to a maximum of 60:40 opinion Remain/Leave (which is where Cameron thought the first referendum would end up) but I'd expect it to draw much closer in any campaign.
Which would resolve and heal very little.
If it is held a neck and neck answer needs to be avoided some how
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Really the answer is that it would be a complete horlicks
Opinions are so entrenched that I can't see opinion moving so far to Remain. Much of the difference between Leave and Remain is down to very firmly entrenched values.
And the 'shifts' in polling down to differential turnout claims. Very few have changed their minds - and given all Remain has done is repeat the claims that lost them the vote that's hardly surprising.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The referendum did count. Let’s stop this nonsense about anti democratic Remainers. Since the vote, the government hA been pursuing the result voted for.
A second referendum is, as above, better termed a Referedum on the agreement. But it is desirable I think because of the very flawed or process set in train by Cameron.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Really the answer is that it would be a complete horlicks
Opinions are so entrenched that I can't see opinion moving so far to Remain. Much of the difference between Leave and Remain is down to very firmly entrenched values.
It could theoretically move to a maximum of 60:40 opinion Remain/Leave (which is where Cameron thought the first referendum would end up) but I'd expect it to draw much closer in any campaign.
Which would resolve and heal very little.
If it is held a neck and neck answer needs to be avoided some how
The report, while measured in tone, is pretty damning.
There's been some discussion amongst trade specialists that the UK can only get the third party agreements shipped if it's the EU that does some of the negotiations with those parties [the irony]
Yes. Cameron was, in the final analysis, a disaster. The cavalier approach to such a constitutionally profound issue is not a simple error of judgment, but verging on criminal.
The probem is that the political classes did not foresee problems probably because they thought they would walk it to remain
Yes. And worse, it was the same with the Scottish ref.
Cameron was a gifted salesman and a good “Chairman”. But he was disgracefully negligent on detail - even those that go to the heart of our very existence and integrity as a nation.
This is UKIP's darkest hour and there is no Gary Oldman to pull the irons out of the fire. The party has written its name into British history and whatever its current travails this can never be erased.
Without Nigel Farage & UKIP there would never have been a referendum on EU membership.
But because of its travails UKIP has become utterly useless in defending the popular will to leave the widely reviled European Union, so hated that even Macron admits France would vote to follow the UK out the door if it could.......
The question is, fight with what?
I'm sorry to say it can't be with UKIP, which is melting away before our eyes......
In that case why don't the Brexit forces, the insurgents, do a Momentum and all join the Tory party? With just 30,000 members the Corbynite Momentum now dominates popular discourse on the left of British politics.
Let's face it, UKIP achieved its goal of gaining & then winning the referendum without success in Westminster.
Maybe by flooding back into the Conservative party we can change the course of history again. With a leadership challenge on the cards once more, this may be the perfect time .
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Really the answer is that it would be a complete horlicks
Opinions are so entrenched that I can't see opinion moving so far to Remain. Much of the difference between Leave and Remain is down to very firmly entrenched values.
It could theoretically move to a maximum of 60:40 opinion Remain/Leave (which is where Cameron thought the first referendum would end up) but I'd expect it to draw much closer in any campaign.
Which would resolve and heal very little.
If it is held a neck and neck answer needs to be avoided some how
The intelligent Remainers will note that even the Guardian ICM poll notes it may have a pro-Remain sample and even on that gives just a wafer thin lead for Remain in a re-run of 51%/49%.
Intelligent Remainers should consider the effect the campaign would have.
Given how some of them conduct themselves on here, with infinite sneering and pomposity, they might be a bit upset if public opinion doesn't respond to that "haven't you learnt your lesson yet?" approach quite as well as they think.
To the Leavers - why worry about a second referendum? Seems very unlikely there will be one.
Leavers worry about a second referendum because they know that they have completely failed so far to secure a consensus for their mad hobbyhorse. They never stop to ponder the deeper question of why they have been so unpersuasive.
This is UKIP's darkest hour and there is no Gary Oldman to pull the irons out of the fire. The party has written its name into British history and whatever its current travails this can never be erased.
Without Nigel Farage & UKIP there would never have been a referendum on EU membership.
But because of its travails UKIP has become utterly useless in defending the popular will to leave the widely reviled European Union, so hated that even Macron admits France would vote to follow the UK out the door if it could.......
The question is, fight with what?
I'm sorry to say it can't be with UKIP, which is melting away before our eyes......
In that case why don't the Brexit forces, the insurgents, do a Momentum and all join the Tory party? With just 30,000 members the Corbynite Momentum now dominates popular discourse on the left of British politics.
Let's face it, UKIP achieved its goal of gaining & then winning the referendum without success in Westminster.
Maybe by flooding back into the Conservative party we can change the course of history again. With a leadership challenge on the cards once more, this may be the perfect time .
Surely the last thing your Tory HQ paymasters want?
Given how some of them conduct themselves on here, with infinite sneering and pomposity, they might be a bit upset if public opinion doesn't respond to that "haven't you learnt your lesson yet?" approach quite as well as they think.
One thing the Remain campaign didn't do last time was personal attacks on the leading Leavers. A poster of David Davis with the slogan "Hasn't he learnt his lesson yet?" might be quite effective.
Neither of the brothers have changed their view about leaving, but Marvin said he was sceptical as to whether politicians would follow through. “What they really want to do is kill democracy. They didn’t like the answer they got before and so they’ll just keep asking until people agree. As if we are all mindless morons,” he said.
The intelligent Remainers will note that even the Guardian ICM poll notes it may have a pro-Remain sample and even on that gives just a wafer thin lead for Remain in a re-run of 51%/49%.
Intelligent Remainers should consider the effect the campaign would have.
Given how some of them conduct themselves on here, with infinite sneering and pomposity, they might be a bit upset if public opinion doesn't respond to that "haven't you learnt your lesson yet?" approach quite as well as they think.
Within the nested quotes of your post:
"Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining."
To the Leavers - why worry about a second referendum? Seems very unlikely there will be one.
Leavers worry about a second referendum because they know that they have completely failed so far to secure a consensus for their mad hobbyhorse. They never stop to ponder the deeper question of why they have been so unpersuasive.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
Power is nothing without control, as the advert said. By Leaving, Britain is condemning itself to be a rule-taker rather than participating in rule-making. But the little Englanders will be happy that they can keep out the foreigners, so that's alright.
It is the latter sneering attitude over the years that has created much resentment and ill-feeling amongst much of the wwc in the Midlands and the north which fed the leave vote.
Neither of the brothers have changed their view about leaving, but Marvin said he was sceptical as to whether politicians would follow through. “What they really want to do is kill democracy. They didn’t like the answer they got before and so they’ll just keep asking until people agree. As if we are all mindless morons,” he said.
This is UKIP's darkest hour and there is no Gary Oldman to pull the irons out of the fire. The party has written its name into British history and whatever its current travails this can never be erased.
Without Nigel Farage & UKIP there would never have been a referendum on EU membership.
But because of its travails UKIP has become utterly useless in defending the popular will to leave the widely reviled European Union, so hated that even Macron admits France would vote to follow the UK out the door if it could.......
The question is, fight with what?
I'm sorry to say it can't be with UKIP, which is melting away before our eyes......
In that case why don't the Brexit forces, the insurgents, do a Momentum and all join the Tory party? With just 30,000 members the Corbynite Momentum now dominates popular discourse on the left of British politics.
Let's face it, UKIP achieved its goal of gaining & then winning the referendum without success in Westminster.
Maybe by flooding back into the Conservative party we can change the course of history again. With a leadership challenge on the cards once more, this may be the perfect time .
Surely the last thing your Tory HQ paymasters want?
Given how some of them conduct themselves on here, with infinite sneering and pomposity, they might be a bit upset if public opinion doesn't respond to that "haven't you learnt your lesson yet?" approach quite as well as they think.
One thing the Remain campaign didn't do last time was personal attacks on the leading Leavers. A poster of David Davis with the slogan "Hasn't he learnt his lesson yet?" might be quite effective.
Such posters would be appealing to your core vote, and useful in driving their turnout alone.
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
Yes. That to me is the toughest challenge.
But perhaps we could craft the referendum question to somehow *incentivise* a better offer from the EU.
Indeed, something along these lines was suggested by Boris before the last vote.
This would be the truly Machiavellian strategy and, if followed, would of course need to be war gamed in complete secrecy.
A second referendum incentivises the EU to offer us good terms. They will want to appear reasonable. The more manic leavers want a hard Brexit for just this reason. If the EU can be portrayed as the enemy people are more likely to want to leave it.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Really the answer is that it would be a complete horlicks
Opinions are so entrenched that I can't see opinion moving so far to Remain. Much of the difference between Leave and Remain is down to very firmly entrenched values.
It could theoretically move to a maximum of 60:40 opinion Remain/Leave (which is where Cameron thought the first referendum would end up) but I'd expect it to draw much closer in any campaign.
Which would resolve and heal very little.
If it is held a neck and neck answer needs to be avoided some how
The intelligent Remainers will note that even the Guardian ICM poll notes it may have a pro-Remain sample and even on that gives just a wafer thin lead for Remain in a re-run of 51%/49%.
Intelligent Remainers should consider the effect the campaign would have.
Given how some of them conduct themselves on here, with infinite sneering and pomposity, they might be a bit upset if public opinion doesn't respond to that "haven't you learnt your lesson yet?" approach quite as well as they think.
Maybe these questions on a second referendum will concentrate minds and help everyone on both sides to realise that throwing insults is no substitute for reasoned arguments
Given how some of them conduct themselves on here, with infinite sneering and pomposity, they might be a bit upset if public opinion doesn't respond to that "haven't you learnt your lesson yet?" approach quite as well as they think.
One thing the Remain campaign didn't do last time was personal attacks on the leading Leavers. A poster of David Davis with the slogan "Hasn't he learnt his lesson yet?" might be quite effective.
And again.
Have you stopped to think for a moment that Davis might be articulating the feelings of million who voted to leave?
It is only a short mental hop to realise that what you're actually saying is: "Haven't leavers learnt their lesson yet?".
Neither of the brothers have changed their view about leaving, but Marvin said he was sceptical as to whether politicians would follow through. “What they really want to do is kill democracy. They didn’t like the answer they got before and so they’ll just keep asking until people agree. As if we are all mindless morons,” he said.
That suggests the country has divided even further, which a second referendum would further reinforce.
The 'regretful proles having seen the error of their ways' meme rarely survives contact with reality.....
Remain had regular solid leads all the way until the final month of the campaign.
The best thing you can say is that it'd be unpredictable. Many Remainers would prefer to roll the dice again and cross their fingers. Many Leavers want to avoid taking the risk for a similar reason.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
It wouldn't be called a second referendum but a referendum on the terms.
What should the questions be? Do you accept the terms that the Government have negotiated for exiting the EU or do you reject them and prefer to stay in the EU? Who will decide on the questions? Parliament (with input from the electoral commission). It would follow a rejection by Parliament of the negotiated terms and an acceptance of an amendment to hold a referendum on the terms so that voters have the final say. This would occur in November this year.
How long would a campaign last? Eight weeks.
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed? The Government would present the deal that they have agreed (in outline) with the EU. When should it be held? January and February 2019.
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL? Six weeks from mid November.
What if it is neck and neck? The majority wins.
Thank you - again the problem is the EU itself. Do we go back in with all our opt outs, do we have to agree to closer union, do we have to join the Euro, are we able to have some control over immigration, etc
On my timing, we revoke Article 50, with EU support, and stay in on current terms. We have some control over immigration, that other EU countries use, but for some reason we have not.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
Power is nothing without control, as the advert said. By Leaving, Britain is condemning itself to be a rule-taker rather than participating in rule-making. But the little Englanders will be happy that they can keep out the foreigners, so that's alright.
It is the latter sneering attitude over the years that has created much resentment and ill-feeling amongst much of the wwc in the Midlands and the north which fed the leave vote.
Crassness combined with stupidity.
Interesting, isn't it, to see some Remainers complain of rule-taking not rule-making who originally wanted to opt for a Leave via a "conscious uncoupling" through the EEA.
Amazing they have the audacity to accuse the Leavers of inconsistency.
Mr. Walker, that sounds to me like trying to reform the EU. A nice theory, but utterly irrelevant to reality.
I just refuse to believe that the EU cannot be “reformed”. We (the UK) led the creation of the single market, and the accession of the Eastern countries.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
Maybe these questions on a second referendum will concentrate minds and help everyone on both sides to realise that throwing insults is no substitute for reasoned arguments
The divide between Leave and Remain is steadily widening, not shrinking. This is caused in large part by a government which has decided to implement a militant majoritarianism, offering no comfort either tangible or presentational to the minority. That won't change until the government changes, I expect.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The majority at the last referendum does count. Everyone accepts that. But in a democracy the people can change their minds in the light of new facts. It happens at every general election. The terms of the agreement are new facts.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
Yes. That to me is the toughest challenge.
But perhaps we could craft the referendum question to somehow *incentivise* a better offer from the EU.
Indeed, something along these lines was suggested by Boris before the last vote.
This would be the truly Machiavellian strategy and, if followed, would of course need to be war gamed in complete secrecy.
A second referendum incentivises the EU to offer us good terms. They will want to appear reasonable. The more manic leavers want a hard Brexit for just this reason. If the EU can be portrayed as the enemy people are more likely to want to leave it.
The failure of the EU to accept that we're (among with our 100bn intra EU goods trade deficit) actually leaving has been a massive stumbling block during the negotiations. The notion that we might not leave would only make this worse.
Mr. Walker, the size (in terms of member states) and mindless ideology makes it impossible. In order for business to be conducted vetoes are removed because otherwise it'd get endlessly clogged up. This also fits the desire of bureaucratic oafs who want to build a little empire and pretend they're the Romans (who had an extremely small bureaucracy).
The eurozone has critical mass for QMV and the EU had plenty of opportunity to offer an associated type status to Cameron when he got his 'renegotiation', which went down so well it was likened to Neville Chamberlain's piece of paper.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
Power is nothing without control, as the advert said. By Leaving, Britain is condemning itself to be a rule-taker rather than participating in rule-making. But the little Englanders will be happy that they can keep out the foreigners, so that's alright.
It is the latter sneering attitude over the years that has created much resentment and ill-feeling amongst much of the wwc in the Midlands and the north which fed the leave vote.
Crassness combined with stupidity.
Interesting, isn't it, to see some Remainers complain of rule-taking not rule-making who originally wanted to opt for a Leave via a "conscious uncoupling" through the EEA.
Amazing they have the audacity to accuse the Leavers of inconsistency.
Must be those posters, I guess.
The options are participation in rule-making; rule-taking; and no rules at all. The first was rejected in the referendum; the last would be a disaster. Which leaves rule-taking as the only realistic outcome. I don't see the inconsistency. Participation is clearly the best choice, but the population wasn't given the choice in that stupid referendum. They could only choose or reject one option without considering the alternatives.
Maybe these questions on a second referendum will concentrate minds and help everyone on both sides to realise that throwing insults is no substitute for reasoned arguments
The divide between Leave and Remain is steadily widening, not shrinking. This is caused in large part by a government which has decided to implement a militant majoritarianism, offering no comfort either tangible or presentational to the minority. That won't change until the government changes, I expect.
No idea what you mean.
There has been plenty for a soft remainer for me, along with plenty I dislike. I can't say I see "militant majoritarianism" in a government which expresses at least four views each week!
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Does it really matter.?? I don't give a feck about how many were there..There are so many on here and elsewhere itching for Brexit to be a disaster. I was absolutely against Brexit but we are where we are,. Everyone ought to be trying to make the best of it for our Country's sake, not trying to stab people in the back
Yes it really matters if Britain has lost much of its influence as a result. It's a bit tragic when with Trumpian desperation Leavers try to convince themselves that black is white because black might mean something they don't want to think about.
Making the best of it means recognising reality. No service is being done to anyone by kidding yourself.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
About 8,000 years ago, people moved from hunter gatherers to farmers with animals and crops. Villages and townships evolved as people became static property owners. They no longer had total power over their own homes and were prepared to share individual power for mutual protection. This is Society 101. "Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence." That's just not so.
Maybe these questions on a second referendum will concentrate minds and help everyone on both sides to realise that throwing insults is no substitute for reasoned arguments
The divide between Leave and Remain is steadily widening, not shrinking. This is caused in large part by a government which has decided to implement a militant majoritarianism, offering no comfort either tangible or presentational to the minority. That won't change until the government changes, I expect.
Lovely sounding words, as ever, Alastair.
But flip it on it's head and the same concept could be written as follows:
Those who lost a referendum haven't accepted that their view is a minority one.
Oh, and wouldn't a change of Govt be the exercise of 'militant majoritarianism'?
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
It wouldn't be called a second referendum but a referendum on the terms.
What should the questions be? Do you accept the terms that the Government have negotiated for exiting the EU or do you reject them and prefer to stay in the EU? Who will decide on the questions? Parliament (with input from the electoral commission). It would follow a rejection by Parliament of the negotiated terms and an acceptance of an amendment to hold a referendum on the terms so that voters have the final say. This would occur in November this year.
How long would a campaign last? Eight weeks.
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed? The Government would present the deal that they have agreed (in outline) with the EU. When should it be held? January and February 2019.
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL? Six weeks from mid November.
What if it is neck and neck? The majority wins.
Thank you - again the problem is the EU itself. Do we go back in with all our opt outs, do we have to agree to closer union, do we have to join the Euro, are we able to have some control over immigration, etc
On my timing, we revoke Article 50, with EU support, and stay in on current terms. We have some control over immigration, that other EU countries use, but for some reason we have not.
Fair enough but how do you get the EU to consent to it
Mr. Walker, that sounds to me like trying to reform the EU. A nice theory, but utterly irrelevant to reality.
I just refuse to believe that the EU cannot be “reformed”. We (the UK) led the creation of the single market, and the accession of the Eastern countries.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
The EU is being reformed. But it is being reformed by the members of the Eurozone, to their needs, not to ours.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Does it really matter.?? I don't give a feck about how many were there..There are so many on here and elsewhere itching for Brexit to be a disaster. I was absolutely against Brexit but we are where we are,. Everyone ought to be trying to make the best of it for our Country's sake, not trying to stab people in the back
Yes it really matters if Britain has lost much of its influence as a result. It's a bit tragic when with Trumpian desperation Leavers try to convince themselves that black is white because black might mean something they don't want to think about.
Making the best of it means recognising reality. No service is being done to anyone by kidding yourself.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
About 8,000 years ago, people moved from hunter gatherers to farmers with animals and crops. Villages and townships evolved as people became static property owners. They no longer had total power over their own homes and were prepared to share individual power for mutual protection. This is Society 101. "Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence." That's just not so.
Amazing that the concept of Freehold survived the agricultural revolution, eh?
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
It wouldn't be called a second referendum but a referendum on the terms.
What should the questions be? Do you accept the terms that the Government have negotiated for exiting the EU or do you reject them and prefer to stay in the EU? Who will decide on the questions? Parliament (with input from the electoral commission). It would follow a rejection by Parliament of the negotiated terms and an acceptance of an amendment to hold a referendum on the terms so that voters have the final say. This would occur in November this year.
How long would a campaign last? Eight weeks.
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed? The Government would present the deal that they have agreed (in outline) with the EU. When should it be held? January and February 2019.
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL? Six weeks from mid November.
What if it is neck and neck? The majority wins.
Thank you - again the problem is the EU itself. Do we go back in with all our opt outs, do we have to agree to closer union, do we have to join the Euro, are we able to have some control over immigration, etc
On my timing, we revoke Article 50, with EU support, and stay in on current terms. We have some control over immigration, that other EU countries use, but for some reason we have not.
Fair enough but how do you get the EU to consent to it
They want us to stay. They have seen the budget consequences of us leaving, and also the reduction in the projection of power of the EU. They'll help us stay.
Mr. Walker, the size (in terms of member states) and mindless ideology makes it impossible. In order for business to be conducted vetoes are removed because otherwise it'd get endlessly clogged up. This also fits the desire of bureaucratic oafs who want to build a little empire and pretend they're the Romans (who had an extremely small bureaucracy).
The eurozone has critical mass for QMV and the EU had plenty of opportunity to offer an associated type status to Cameron when he got his 'renegotiation', which went down so well it was likened to Neville Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Cameron did not ask for associate membership (however defined). I recall reading that the Germans were expecting him to - but he didn’t.
I was as disappointed as anyone with the renegotiation. It is easier to see in hindsight, though, that it was a thousand times better than anything now being contemplated.
We need a statesman. We do not, as a country, go in for bold thinking, bit if ever there was a time for that, it is now.
In that light, perhaps it *is* time for Boris. I detest him. Even his fellow travellers (Gove) don’t trust him. His own wife can not vouch for him. But he’s the only front rank politician who can almost do the vision thing.
Maybe these questions on a second referendum will concentrate minds and help everyone on both sides to realise that throwing insults is no substitute for reasoned arguments
The divide between Leave and Remain is steadily widening, not shrinking. This is caused in large part by a government which has decided to implement a militant majoritarianism, offering no comfort either tangible or presentational to the minority. That won't change until the government changes, I expect.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
The only second referendum that would make sense is:
"Do you want to leave the EU on the terms negotiated or rescind the notification and remain in the EU?"
Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining.
Really the answer is that it would be a complete horlicks
Opinions are so entrenched that I can't see opinion moving so far to Remain. Much of the difference between Leave and Remain is down to very firmly entrenched values.
It could theoretically move to a maximum of 60:40 opinion Remain/Leave (which is where Cameron thought the first referendum would end up) but I'd expect it to draw much closer in any campaign.
Which would resolve and heal very little.
If it is held a neck and neck answer needs to be avoided some how
Simple solution. Give the 3m EU nationals in the UK and the 1m UK nationals in the rEU the vote, After all, they have the most skin in the game and were denied the vote last time.
Mr. Walker, that sounds to me like trying to reform the EU. A nice theory, but utterly irrelevant to reality.
I just refuse to believe that the EU cannot be “reformed”. We (the UK) led the creation of the single market, and the accession of the Eastern countries.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
The EU is being reformed. But it is being reformed by the members of the Eurozone, to their needs, not to ours.
Yes, because we have forfeited our voice and influence. The UK is not alone. There are other countries who wish to be part of Europe, but not in thrall to the Eurozone.
But it requires serious thinking about a European architecture for the 21st century. Instead, we are following a policy of finger in the ears and yah boo sux.
Maybe these questions on a second referendum will concentrate minds and help everyone on both sides to realise that throwing insults is no substitute for reasoned arguments
The divide between Leave and Remain is steadily widening, not shrinking. This is caused in large part by a government which has decided to implement a militant majoritarianism, offering no comfort either tangible or presentational to the minority. That won't change until the government changes, I expect.
No idea what you mean.
There has been plenty for a soft remainer for me, along with plenty I dislike. I can't say I see "militant majoritarianism" in a government which expresses at least four views each week!
Every concession made to address the concerns of former Remain voters has been extracted by the EU.
You haven't answered my questions on this thread yet unless I missed your reply
I would be genuinely interested in your observations
- What should the questions be
Ideally it would be a binary question - the deal or remain, but this depends on there being a deal which at least some of the hard Brexiteers are able to back as the best long-term option for them, otherwise it risks being seen as a stich-up. The 'no deal' option needs to be delegitimised first.
- Who will decide on the questions
Parliament.
- How long would a campaign last
4 weeks of official campaigning.
- How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
Ideally you might get a statement from the council that they would accept a revocation of Article 50.
- When should it be held
- This autumn.
- How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
If we keep everything but the question the same as last time it should be quick.
- What if it is neck and neck
That's not ideal, but if it's a referendum on the A50 deal, it would confer legitimacy either way.
There are many calling for a second referendum and to those remainer's on here it would be of assistance if you could give me a proper answer to these genuine questions.
What should the questions be
Who will decide on the questions
How long would a campaign last
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
When should it be held
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
What if it is neck and neck
I would respectively ask for a considered response and it would be appreciated
It wouldn't be called a second referendum but a referendum on the terms.
What should the questions be? Do you accept the terms that the Government have negotiated for exiting the EU or do you reject them and prefer to stay in the EU? Who will decide on the questions? Parliament (with input from the electoral commission). It would follow a rejection by Parliament of the negotiated terms and an acceptance of an amendment to hold a referendum on the terms so that voters have the final say. This would occur in November this year.
How long would a campaign last? Eight weeks.
How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed? The Government would present the deal that they have agreed (in outline) with the EU. When should it be held? January and February 2019.
How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL? Six weeks from mid November.
What if it is neck and neck? The majority wins.
Thank you - again the problem is the EU itself. Do we go back in with all our opt outs, do we have to agree to closer union, do we have to join the Euro, are we able to have some control over immigration, etc
On my timing, we revoke Article 50, with EU support, and stay in on current terms. We have some control over immigration, that other EU countries use, but for some reason we have not.
Fair enough but how do you get the EU to consent to it
They want us to stay. They have seen the budget consequences of us leaving, and also the reduction the projection of power of the EU. They'll help us stay.
The truth is that Juncker's is the failure in all of this together with his elite. They should have given Cameron something tangible on immigration and we would not be here now. Many critise Cameron but not many attack the EU for their short sightedness and why for any sake is Juncker's still there
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
Yes. That to me is the toughest challenge.
But perhaps we could craft the referendum question to somehow *incentivise* a better offer from the EU.
Indeed, something along these lines was suggested by Boris before the last vote.
This would be the truly Machiavellian strategy and, if followed, would of course need to be war gamed in complete secrecy.
A second referendum incentivises the EU to offer us good terms. They will want to appear reasonable. The more manic leavers want a hard Brexit for just this reason. If the EU can be portrayed as the enemy people are more likely to want to leave it.
The failure of the EU to accept that we're (among with our 100bn intra EU goods trade deficit) actually leaving has been a massive stumbling block during the negotiations. The notion that we might not leave would only make this worse.
I don't think that's true at all. I think the EU is very aware we're leaving.
The problem we have is that their negotiating position sees no problems for them on our departure. (Or perhaps more accurately, it sees that we will have greater problems with a 'no deal' scenario.)
All that being said, so far the negotiations have been very much a 'score draw'. We are paying an exit bill, but it is - at the headline level - 60% below the numbers touted around. And some of the payments don't actually happen for many decades, and we get a transition period (which we asked for). That's actually a pretty good result for us, I'd have thought.
The difficult bit for us is that we want the ability to sell financial products into the EU under the passporting scheme, and I suspect that they won't go for that without serious concessions in other areas.
This is UKIP's darkest hour and there is no Gary Oldman to pull the irons out of the fire. The party has written its name into British history and whatever its current travails this can never be erased.
Without Nigel Farage & UKIP there would never have been a referendum on EU membership.
But because of its travails UKIP has become utterly useless in defending the popular will to leave the widely reviled European Union, so hated that even Macron admits France would vote to follow the UK out the door if it could.......
The question is, fight with what?
I'm sorry to say it can't be with UKIP, which is melting away before our eyes......
In that case why don't the Brexit forces, the insurgents, do a Momentum and all join the Tory party? With just 30,000 members the Corbynite Momentum now dominates popular discourse on the left of British politics.
Let's face it, UKIP achieved its goal of gaining & then winning the referendum without success in Westminster.
Maybe by flooding back into the Conservative party we can change the course of history again. With a leadership challenge on the cards once more, this may be the perfect time .
The current government is already implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. I can't see why Arron Banks feels it necessary to send in the clowns. They're already here.
Mr. Walker, that sounds to me like trying to reform the EU. A nice theory, but utterly irrelevant to reality.
I just refuse to believe that the EU cannot be “reformed”. We (the UK) led the creation of the single market, and the accession of the Eastern countries.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
No, there have been various different strategies attempted wrt trying to shape the EU - from TonynBlair's enthusiasm to John Major's non-co-operation to Gordon Brown's turning up late when the photos had already been taken. The result of every strategy Britain has tried has been further integration, because that's what the EU, France and Germany want and in the face of that opposition there's feck all we can do about it. Of course, we'd like to see a reformed EU - but we've been playing that tune for 40 years without success and it's time to accept that no-one on the continent with any clout wants to listen.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Making the best of it means recognising reality. No service is being done to anyone by kidding yourself.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
About 8,000 years ago, people moved from hunter gatherers to farmers with animals and crops. Villages and townships evolved as people became static property owners. They no longer had total power over their own homes and were prepared to share individual power for mutual protection. This is Society 101. "Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence." That's just not so.
Amazing that the concept of Freehold survived the agricultural revolution, eh?
Step outside your door and you are subject to numerous laws, regulations, practices, conventions, good manners that safeguards your security and provides you with goods and services.
You haven't answered my questions on this thread yet unless I missed your reply
I would be genuinely interested in your observations
- What should the questions be
Ideally it would be a binary question - the deal or remain, but this depends on there being a deal which at least some of the hard Brexiteers are able to back as the best long-term option for them, otherwise it risks being seen as a stich-up. The 'no deal' option needs to be delegitimised first.
- Who will decide on the questions
Parliament.
- How long would a campaign last
4 weeks of official campaigning.
- How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
Ideally you might get a statement from the council that they would accept a revocation of Article 50.
- When should it be held
- This autumn.
- How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
If we keep everything but the question the same as last time it should be quick.
- What if it is neck and neck
That's not ideal, but if it's a referendum on the A50 deal, it would confer legitimacy either way.
Thanks William for your reply. The replies seem to be fairly sensible but the position with the EU would have to be written in concrete as they are far too distrusted
This is UKIP's darkest hour and there is no Gary Oldman to pull the irons out of the fire. The party has written its name into British history and whatever its current travails this can never be erased.
Without Nigel Farage & UKIP there would never have been a referendum on EU membership.
But because of its travails UKIP has become utterly useless in defending the popular will to leave the widely reviled European Union, so hated that even Macron admits France would vote to follow the UK out the door if it could.......
The question is, fight with what?
I'm sorry to say it can't be with UKIP, which is melting away before our eyes......
In that case why don't the Brexit forces, the insurgents, do a Momentum and all join the Tory party? With just 30,000 members the Corbynite Momentum now dominates popular discourse on the left of British politics.
Let's face it, UKIP achieved its goal of gaining & then winning the referendum without success in Westminster.
Maybe by flooding back into the Conservative party we can change the course of history again. With a leadership challenge on the cards once more, this may be the perfect time .
The current government is already implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. I can't see why Arron Banks feels it necessary to send in the clowns. They're already here.
If enough kippers join in next couple of years then will it be enough to push JRM over the line? I guess it depends on whether is in the last two.
Mr. Walker, that sounds to me like trying to reform the EU. A nice theory, but utterly irrelevant to reality.
I just refuse to believe that the EU cannot be “reformed”. We (the UK) led the creation of the single market, and the accession of the Eastern countries.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
No, there have been various different strategies attempted wrt trying to shape the EU - from TonynBlair's enthusiasm to John Major's non-co-operation to Gordon Brown's turning up late when the photos had already been taken. The result of every strategy Britain has tried has been further integration, because that's what the EU, France and Germany want and in the face of that opposition there's feck all we can do about it. Of course, we'd like to see a reformed EU - but we've been playing that tune for 40 years without success and it's time to accept that no-one on the continent with any clout wants to listen.
As above, we’ve led some of *the* reforms of the EU in the past.
Blair came closest to the sort of leadership I am calling for. However, he was wrong to advocate for Euro membership, and Iraq trashed his ability to be taken seriously on foreign policy.
The continued 'you don't have to leave' and 'you haven't said what you want' suggests otherwise.
I agree with you on the score draw, mind. It feels like the realisation dawned on them after the election - that even without a majority in Parliament the PM is going to respect the referendum result.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Making the best of it means recognising reality. No service is being done to anyone by kidding yourself.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
About 8,000 years ago, people moved from hunter gatherers to farmers with animals and crops. Villages and townships evolved as people became static property owners. They no longer had total power over their own homes and were prepared to share individual power for mutual protection. This is Society 101. "Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence." That's just not so.
Amazing that the concept of Freehold survived the agricultural revolution, eh?
Step outside your door and you are subject to numerous laws, regulations, practices, conventions, good manners that safeguards your security and provides you with goods and services.
Maybe these questions on a second referendum will concentrate minds and help everyone on both sides to realise that throwing insults is no substitute for reasoned arguments
The divide between Leave and Remain is steadily widening, not shrinking. This is caused in large part by a government which has decided to implement a militant majoritarianism, offering no comfort either tangible or presentational to the minority. That won't change until the government changes, I expect.
No idea what you mean.
There has been plenty for a soft remainer for me, along with plenty I dislike. I can't say I see "militant majoritarianism" in a government which expresses at least four views each week!
Every concession made to address the concerns of former Remain voters has been extracted by the EU.
I'm not sure I agree but in any event that's not what's important, at least to me.
Of all the Brexit outcomes, I am now more and more confident that neither the worst nor the best will be achieved.
The EU is being reformed. But it is being reformed by the members of the Eurozone, to their needs, not to ours.
If Brexit were reversed, do you think we should join the Euro?
Yes. If the Establishment will not allow us to be independent, we should be a leading player in the EU, which requires membership of the Eurozone. I think we should aspire to more than being a province that jealously guards a degree of extra autonomy, in exchange for being outside the room when decisions are made.
I appreciate that Remainers think Brexit will result in the latter anyway. You don’t need to point it out.
Mr. Walker, that sounds to me like trying to reform the EU. A nice theory, but utterly irrelevant to reality.
I just refuse to believe that the EU cannot be “reformed”. We (the UK) led the creation of the single market, and the accession of the Eastern countries.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
No, there have been various different strategies attempted wrt trying to shape the EU - from TonynBlair's enthusiasm to John Major's non-co-operation to Gordon Brown's turning up late when the photos had already been taken. The result of every strategy Britain has tried has been further integration, because that's what the EU, France and Germany want and in the face of that opposition there's feck all we can do about it. Of course, we'd like to see a reformed EU - but we've been playing that tune for 40 years without success and it's time to accept that no-one on the continent with any clout wants to listen.
As above, we’ve led some of *the* reforms of the EU in the past.
Blair came closest to the sort of leadership I am calling for. However, he was wrong to advocate for Euro membership, and Iraq trashed his ability to be taken seriously on foreign policy.
This is UKIP's darkest hour and there is no Gary Oldman to pull the irons out of the fire. The party has written its name into British history and whatever its current travails this can never be erased.
Without Nigel Farage & UKIP there would never have been a referendum on EU membership.
But because of its travails UKIP has become utterly useless in defending the popular will to leave the widely reviled European Union, so hated that even Macron admits France would vote to follow the UK out the door if it could.......
The question is, fight with what?
I'm sorry to say it can't be with UKIP, which is melting away before our eyes......
In that case why don't the Brexit forces, the insurgents, do a Momentum and all join the Tory party? With just 30,000 members the Corbynite Momentum now dominates popular discourse on the left of British politics.
Let's face it, UKIP achieved its goal of gaining & then winning the referendum without success in Westminster.
Maybe by flooding back into the Conservative party we can change the course of history again. With a leadership challenge on the cards once more, this may be the perfect time .
The current government is already implementing UKIP's 2015 manifesto piecemeal. I can't see why Arron Banks feels it necessary to send in the clowns. They're already here.
If enough kippers join in next couple of years then will it be enough to push JRM over the line? I guess it depends on whether is in the last two.
Mr. Walker, that sounds to me like trying to reform the EU. A nice theory, but utterly irrelevant to reality.
I just refuse to believe that the EU cannot be “reformed”. We (the UK) led the creation of the single market, and the accession of the Eastern countries.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
No, there have been various different strategies attempted wrt trying to shape the EU - from TonynBlair's enthusiasm to John Major's non-co-operation to Gordon Brown's turning up late when the photos had already been taken. The result of every strategy Britain has tried has been further integration, because that's what the EU, France and Germany want and in the face of that opposition there's feck all we can do about it. Of course, we'd like to see a reformed EU - but we've been playing that tune for 40 years without success and it's time to accept that no-one on the continent with any clout wants to listen.
As above, we’ve led some of *the* reforms of the EU in the past.
Blair came closest to the sort of leadership I am calling for. However, he was wrong to advocate for Euro membership, and Iraq trashed his ability to be taken seriously on foreign policy.
By giving up a chunk of the rebate for nothing?
I actually don’t know the details of that. If true, he was a prize arse. But I often wonder if this is another Brexiter canard.
(See also, armchair criticism of EU trade policy, the so-called scandal around failures to approve the EU accounts, the so-called “EU army” etc etc.)
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
If we're voting on the A50 deal the question of good or bad terms doesn't really apply in that sense. We'll have terms for an orderly departure and a transition period, but the real horse trading will come later.
The EU is being reformed. But it is being reformed by the members of the Eurozone, to their needs, not to ours.
If Brexit were reversed, do you think we should join the Euro?
Yes. If the Establishment will not allow us to be independent, we should be a leading player in the EU, which requires membership of the Eurozone. I think we should aspire to more than being a province that jealously guards a degree of extra autonomy, in exchange for being outside the room when decisions are made.
I appreciate that Remainers think Brexit will result in the latter anyway. You don’t need to point it out.
The EU should not mean the Eurozone. The continent does not need a straitjacket, but a series of overlapping agreements, with the single market at its core.
The UK is the right nation to advance that vision.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The majority at the last referendum does count. Everyone accepts that. But in a democracy the people can change their minds in the light of new facts. It happens at every general election. The terms of the agreement are new facts.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
So your suggestion is we should have a rerun of the referendum every time the polls say opinion has shifted,? Not exactly a recipe for stability.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the Guardian was trying to paint the PM in as worst light as possible.
So there are multiple different sources claiming the room had plenty of empty seats. And a right-leaning Brexit-supporting magazine that said it was full, with a few pictures that don't exactly prove their point. Hmm.
Making the best of it means recognising reality. No service is being done to anyone by kidding yourself.
What about power? Remainers like you go on endlessly about influence, but what about power?
Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence. Remainers keep bringing up the Empire because they want to help govern other nations, even at the expense of real power at home.
About 8,000 years ago, people moved from hunter gatherers to farmers with animals and crops. Villages and townships evolved as people became static property owners. They no longer had total power over their own homes and were prepared to share individual power for mutual protection. This is Society 101. "Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence." That's just not so.
Amazing that the concept of Freehold survived the agricultural revolution, eh?
Step outside your door and you are subject to numerous laws, regulations, practices, conventions, good manners that safeguards your security and provides you with goods and services.
About 8,000 years ago, people moved from hunter gatherers to farmers with animals and crops. Villages and townships evolved as people became static property owners. They no longer had total power over their own homes and were prepared to share individual power for mutual protection. This is Society 101. "Most people would rather have power over their own home, rather than influence over some kind of communal residence." That's just not so.
Actually there is no evidence that the shift was necessarily done voluntary. The latest evidence is that the Neolithic Revolution was characterised by a massive growth in warfare and conquest.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The majority at the last referendum does count. Everyone accepts that. But in a democracy the people can change their minds in the light of new facts. It happens at every general election. The terms of the agreement are new facts.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
So your suggestion is we should have a rerun of the referendum every time the polls say opinion has shifted,? Not exactly a recipe for stability.
No. I'm not suggesting that. We had a referendum on the principle of leaving the EU without any clarity of what that meant in practice. Various models were floated but voters hadn't a clue about customs unions, "frictionless trade" and all the rest. When the concrete terms are clear, then people are entitled to have a final say on those terms. It is nothing to do with opinion polls.
Mr. Walker, a referendum on the terms is a powerful incentive for the EU to give us the worst possible deal to try and get us to change our minds.
So?
Not caring about that reveals a rather nasty conceit - that pro Europeans don't care about democracy, just about a pro EU outcome...
I do care about democracy and the future of our country. That's why I favour a referendum on the terms once we know what they are.
The problem being you will not know the terms of EU membership going forward because they are not fixed. The EU will continue to evolve in ways that are out of our hands whether we are in or out.
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
The majority at the last referendum does count. Everyone accepts that. But in a democracy the people can change their minds in the light of new facts. It happens at every general election. The terms of the agreement are new facts.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
So your suggestion is we should have a rerun of the referendum every time the polls say opinion has shifted,? Not exactly a recipe for stability.
No. I'm not suggesting that. We had a referendum on the principle of leaving the EU without any clarity of what that meant in practice. Various models were floated but voters hadn't a clue about customs unions, "frictionless trade" and all the rest. When the concrete terms are clear, then people are entitled to have a final say on those terms. It is nothing to do with opinion polls.
So we should have a referendum every time the EU tries to change anything?
The EU is being reformed. But it is being reformed by the members of the Eurozone, to their needs, not to ours.
If Brexit were reversed, do you think we should join the Euro?
Yes. If the Establishment will not allow us to be independent, we should be a leading player in the EU, which requires membership of the Eurozone. I think we should aspire to more than being a province that jealously guards a degree of extra autonomy, in exchange for being outside the room when decisions are made.
I appreciate that Remainers think Brexit will result in the latter anyway. You don’t need to point it out.
The EU should not mean the Eurozone. The continent does not need a straitjacket, but a series of overlapping agreements, with the single market at its core.
The UK is the right nation to advance that vision.
Absolutely hilarious. Your post encapsulates the delusion that has characterised British engagement with the EEC/EU since 1973.
The objective of the organisation is to create a federal European state. It has been since 1957, and it is not going to change now. It is not up for debate; no other significant member is interested in doing so. The Eurozone already constitutes a voting majority, and France and Germany have never wavered in driving integration forward (apart from a wobble under De Gaulle).
Britain constitutes 12% of the population and 12% of the votes in certain parts of the institutions. We will never be in a position to drive the agenda; we have no permanent allies, because our approach has always been transactional. The only way to be at the heart of EU politics is to be on the leading edge of integration. Everything else is delusion.
We tried your approach for 40 years. Brexit was the result.
@williamglenn - be careful, you might agree with this
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
Headline voting intention is just people giving 10/10 likelihood to vote, is that right? If so, it shows the Tories are continuing to fail to enthuse their voters.
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.
Headline voting intention is just people giving 10/10 likelihood to vote, is that right? If so, it shows the Tories are continuing to fail to enthuse their voters.
Comments
It could theoretically move to a maximum of 60:40 opinion Remain/Leave (which is where Cameron thought the first referendum would end up) but I'd expect it to draw much closer in any campaign.
Which would resolve and heal very little.
Why?
The majority won the last referendum. But some want that not to count. So why would the next referendum be decisive?
Neither of the brothers have changed their view about leaving, but Marvin said he was sceptical as to whether politicians would follow through. “What they really want to do is kill democracy. They didn’t like the answer they got before and so they’ll just keep asking until people agree. As if we are all mindless morons,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/26/uk-brexit-voters-mansfield-bristol-torbay-leeds-post-referendum
This, of course, will get a lot of attention. Just as the right/wrong poll of last week with the "right" lead, did.
Let’s stop this nonsense about anti democratic Remainers. Since the vote, the government hA been pursuing the result voted for.
A second referendum is, as above, better termed a Referedum on the agreement. But it is desirable I think because of the very flawed or process set in train by Cameron.
To the Leavers - why worry about a second referendum?
Seems very unlikely there will be one.
https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/953260923543867394
And worse, it was the same with the Scottish ref.
Cameron was a gifted salesman and a good “Chairman”. But he was disgracefully negligent on detail - even those that go to the heart of our very existence and integrity as a nation.
From Leave.EU chairman Arron Banks:
This is UKIP's darkest hour and there is no Gary Oldman to pull the irons out of the fire. The party has written its name into British history and whatever its current travails this can never be erased.
Without Nigel Farage & UKIP there would never have been a referendum on EU membership.
But because of its travails UKIP has become utterly useless in defending the popular will to leave the widely reviled European Union, so hated that even Macron admits France would vote to follow the UK out the door if it could.......
The question is, fight with what?
I'm sorry to say it can't be with UKIP, which is melting away before our eyes......
In that case why don't the Brexit forces, the insurgents, do a Momentum and all join the Tory party? With just 30,000 members the Corbynite Momentum now dominates popular discourse on the left of British politics.
Let's face it, UKIP achieved its goal of gaining & then winning the referendum without success in Westminster.
Maybe by flooding back into the Conservative party we can change the course of history again. With a leadership challenge on the cards once more, this may be the perfect time .
Intelligent Remainers should consider the effect the campaign would have.
Given how some of them conduct themselves on here, with infinite sneering and pomposity, they might be a bit upset if public opinion doesn't respond to that "haven't you learnt your lesson yet?" approach quite as well as they think.
https://twitter.com/AlanDuncanMP/status/956944668708757505
But perhaps we could craft the referendum question to somehow *incentivise* a better offer from the EU.
Indeed, something along these lines was suggested by Boris before the last vote.
This would be the truly Machiavellian strategy and, if followed, would of course need to be war gamed in complete secrecy.
"Since public opinion remains split down the middle, I do not support holding a referendum at this stage, because it would in all probability resolve nothing. My view might be different if polls consistently showed something close to a 2:1 split in favour of remaining."
Crassness combined with stupidity.
It wouldn't cause Leavers to switch.
Have you stopped to think for a moment that Davis might be articulating the feelings of million who voted to leave?
It is only a short mental hop to realise that what you're actually saying is: "Haven't leavers learnt their lesson yet?".
It's utterly barmy.
The best thing you can say is that it'd be unpredictable. Many Remainers would prefer to roll the dice again and cross their fingers. Many Leavers want to avoid taking the risk for a similar reason.
Neither would resolve anything.
I would be genuinely interested in your observations
Amazing they have the audacity to accuse the Leavers of inconsistency.
Must be those posters, I guess.
We can and should aspire to European leadership - an agenda for the EU for others to get behind.
It is the great failure of British foreign policy since approx Maastricht that we have failed to show this leadership - at least in public. Both Tory and Labour have preferred to chase cheap headlines about bent bananas etc.
You question "the majority wins." Why? What do you suggest?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ukip-thurrock-councillors-quit_uk_5a6b5a70e4b06e25326716b0?ncid=tweetlnkukhpmg00000008
Though on the current rate of progress, shadsy will indeed be giving money back to punters on the basis that the party is wound up.
The eurozone has critical mass for QMV and the EU had plenty of opportunity to offer an associated type status to Cameron when he got his 'renegotiation', which went down so well it was likened to Neville Chamberlain's piece of paper.
There has been plenty for a soft remainer for me, along with plenty I dislike. I can't say I see "militant majoritarianism" in a government which expresses at least four views each week!
But flip it on it's head and the same concept could be written as follows:
Those who lost a referendum haven't accepted that their view is a minority one.
Oh, and wouldn't a change of Govt be the exercise of 'militant majoritarianism'?
I was as disappointed as anyone with the renegotiation. It is easier to see in hindsight, though, that it was a thousand times better than anything now being contemplated.
We need a statesman. We do not, as a country, go in for bold thinking, bit if ever there was a time for that, it is now.
In that light, perhaps it *is* time for Boris.
I detest him. Even his fellow travellers (Gove) don’t trust him. His own wife can not vouch for him. But he’s the only front rank politician who can almost do the vision thing.
But it requires serious thinking about a European architecture for the 21st century. Instead, we are following a policy of finger in the ears and yah boo sux.
Ideally it would be a binary question - the deal or remain, but this depends on there being a deal which at least some of the hard Brexiteers are able to back as the best long-term option for them, otherwise it risks being seen as a stich-up. The 'no deal' option needs to be delegitimised first.
- Who will decide on the questions
Parliament.
- How long would a campaign last
4 weeks of official campaigning.
- How can a definitive EU position be either available or guaranteed
Ideally you might get a statement from the council that they would accept a revocation of Article 50.
- When should it be held
- This autumn.
- How long will it take to get it through the HOC and HOL
If we keep everything but the question the same as last time it should be quick.
- What if it is neck and neck
That's not ideal, but if it's a referendum on the A50 deal, it would confer legitimacy either way.
The problem we have is that their negotiating position sees no problems for them on our departure. (Or perhaps more accurately, it sees that we will have greater problems with a 'no deal' scenario.)
All that being said, so far the negotiations have been very much a 'score draw'. We are paying an exit bill, but it is - at the headline level - 60% below the numbers touted around. And some of the payments don't actually happen for many decades, and we get a transition period (which we asked for). That's actually a pretty good result for us, I'd have thought.
The difficult bit for us is that we want the ability to sell financial products into the EU under the passporting scheme, and I suspect that they won't go for that without serious concessions in other areas.
"I believe the 2020s could be the Eurozone decade, globally, as the optimism and creative energies of the Single European State are released."
https://capx.co/whisper-it-but-were-doing-better-than-expected/
Blair came closest to the sort of leadership I am calling for. However, he was wrong to advocate for Euro membership, and Iraq trashed his ability to be taken seriously on foreign policy.
The continued 'you don't have to leave' and 'you haven't said what you want' suggests otherwise.
I agree with you on the score draw, mind. It feels like the realisation dawned on them after the election - that even without a majority in Parliament the PM is going to respect the referendum result.
Of all the Brexit outcomes, I am now more and more confident that neither the worst nor the best will be achieved.
I appreciate that Remainers think Brexit will result in the latter anyway. You don’t need to point it out.
Melanie McDonagh"
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-ft-is-now-a-sensationalist-rag-say-ft-readers/
If true, he was a prize arse. But I often wonder if this is another Brexiter canard.
(See also, armchair criticism of EU trade policy, the so-called scandal around failures to approve the EU accounts, the so-called “EU army” etc etc.)
The continent does not need a straitjacket, but a series of overlapping agreements, with the single market at its core.
The UK is the right nation to advance that vision.
Many MPs are appalled by the Prime Minister’s ‘visionless mediocrity’
James Forsyth"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/the-tory-drift-goes-on-but-replacing-may-is-impossible/
The objective of the organisation is to create a federal European state. It has been since 1957, and it is not going to change now. It is not up for debate; no other significant member is interested in doing so. The Eurozone already constitutes a voting majority, and France and Germany have never wavered in driving integration forward (apart from a wobble under De Gaulle).
Britain constitutes 12% of the population and 12% of the votes in certain parts of the institutions. We will never be in a position to drive the agenda; we have no permanent allies, because our approach has always been transactional. The only way to be at the heart of EU politics is to be on the leading edge of integration. Everything else is delusion.
We tried your approach for 40 years. Brexit was the result.
@williamglenn - be careful, you might agree with this
All giving voting intention:
Con 42
Lab 40
Headline voting intention:
Con 39
Lab 42
I thought going from "All" to "Headline Intention" normally moved numbers in favour of Con.
Whereas here, it moves numbers significantly in favour of Lab.
I guess reflects high enthusiasm level of Lab supporters - and maybe vice versa for Con.