Interesting how successfully the JRM scuffle is being spun as hard left violence when actually watching the videos you clearly see sometime tries to punch a leftie and hits a woman in the face
Its the balaclavas, face masks and shouted slogans.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
Isn't Hammond being accused of advocating the sort of Norway style Soft Brexit that you have advocated yourself?
These days it appears that Hammond is simply doing everything he can to frustrate Brexit. And since he is seemingly advocating remaining in the Customs Union then, no, he is not advocating a Norway style Brexit.
Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.
Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.
So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....
All nonsense.
Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
The EU would accept Britain back on similar terms.
Britain, however, should have the decency not to inflict itself on the EU again until it has firmly settled on a decision to stay in the EU. It is for that reason I would not support a second referendum unless there was good evidence that the public had collectively changed its mind. So far that evidence doesn’t exist.
What Leavers are remarkably incurious about are the implications of Britain leaving the EU when they no longer command majority support for their project and they have completely failed to convince sceptics that it’s a good idea. Why they think a divided country with a large part deeply angry at them is going to prosper beats me.
"No longer command majority support"? So now we have a new vote every time opinion polls change? That will keep us busy on here with general elections.....
The audacity with which fervent Remainers point to opinion polls with tiny samples as being of equal weight to a full on referendum in which 1m+ more people wanted to leave than remain staggers me. As it should all democrats.
Interesting aricle as always, thanks David. I agree with part 1 - an "Are you sure about what you said last year?" referendum isn't going to happen. But part 2 is not as unlikely as David suggests. If the negotiations are clearly leading to an unsatisfactory result, opinion against leaving may well harden, and the democratic case for asking the public "Now you know the detail, do you still want to do it?" is strong.
Where I differ from David is his assessment of how the EU27 would react. David writes " Some seem to hope that without a deal, the default would be to remain. They are wrong: the default still be to leave.". That's the legal reality, but not the political reality. The EU would be more than pleased to stop the clock for 12 months while the issue is sorted out, and on that basis it's inconceivable that Parliament would actually defy the outcome of a second referendum and refuse to suspend the process. Emergency legislation to halt it would follow (the EU doesn't need to legislate to stop the clock, they merely have to agree at Council level).
What that would need above all is an obviously bad negotiating outcome that shifted both public opinion and say 20 Tory MPs into the "hang on, this isn't a good idea" camp. I actually don't think that's the most likely outcome - I think that a half-arsed deal will be worked out that people feel they can go along with and hope for the best. But a cursory inspection of May and Davis's record to date doesn't encourage certainty in the smooth competence required even for that.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.
Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.
So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....
All nonsense.
Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
The EU would accept Britain back on similar terms.
Britain, however, should have the decency not to inflict itself on the EU again until it has firmly settled on a decision to stay in the EU. It is for that reason I would not support a second referendum unless there was good evidence that the public had collectively changed its mind. So far that evidence doesn’t exist.
What Leavers are remarkably incurious about are the implications of Britain leaving the EU when they no longer command majority support for their project and they have completely failed to convince sceptics that it’s a good idea. Why they think a divided country with a large part deeply angry at them is going to prosper beats me.
I think that the re-accession talks will be quite prolonged, not so much on terms of entry or regulatory alignment as these will still be extant, but rather to be certain that the British had got over their tantrum.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Again no. It was the arrogance of Remain who seriously thought that the EU could and should change to suit the UK in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They (you) are still doing it now even when it has become blindingly obvious that the EU is not willing to alter its aspirations just to suit one recalcitrant member. And nor should they.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
You probably could - though it would be a different category of vote, much less formally binding than the last referendum (remember the fun arguments over that...). Parliament could even hold a vote to indicate their approval or otherwise of the organised mass opinion poll.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
.
How do you expect a referendum to take place unless it is mandated by government? Ask Justin how many small straws he is holding? A celebrity variety show featuring only Remainers with a Strictly style vote?
Mr. Tyndall, desire for a third choice is entirely understandable, as most Britons like the economics and dislike the politics of the EU. I agree with you, however, that it's simply unrealistic, and a cop-out position adopted by those unwilling to either take the difficult step of leaving or openly advocate remaining in an ever-integrating EU.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
Isn't Hammond being accused of advocating the sort of Norway style Soft Brexit that you have advocated yourself?
These days it appears that Hammond is simply doing everything he can to frustrate Brexit. And since he is seemingly advocating remaining in the Customs Union then, no, he is not advocating a Norway style Brexit.
Hammond is working off evidence on the Customs Union that the cost of leaving the Customs Union massively outweighs the benefit of any eventual third party deals that are enabled by leaving. This evidence was fabricated according to Rees-Mogg. "Norway" and the customs union aren't incompatible and you can have both together, even if actual Norway didn't choose to do that.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
I must admit I never viewed him as a sceptic and of course he supported Remain during the referendum.
On that basis he's fanatical? From that measure I suppose theres's not much wriggle room left on the vituperomoter for Clarke, Soubry etc, hence 'traitor' & 'saboteur' from certain Brexiteers (who aren't fanatical at all I'm sure).
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
Isn't Hammond being accused of advocating the sort of Norway style Soft Brexit that you have advocated yourself?
These days it appears that Hammond is simply doing everything he can to frustrate Brexit. And since he is seemingly advocating remaining in the Customs Union then, no, he is not advocating a Norway style Brexit.
Both are merely forms of Soft Brexit.
Staying in the Customs Union for the present seems an eminently sensible solution to both the Irish question and the aqueous border, particularly in view of our lack of preparation for either. While it does restrict the possibility of other trade deals (currently looking rarer than rocking horse dung!), it need not be a permanent one. Setting a date of say 2025 to leave the CU would give time to negotiate post CU deals without being over a barrel.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Again no. It was the arrogance of Remain who seriously thought that the EU could and should change to suit the UK in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They (you) are still doing it now even when it has become blindingly obvious that the EU is not willing to alter its aspirations just to suit one recalcitrant member. And nor should they.
I never said that. The EU is a multilateral organisation that operates multilaterally. I was referring to people who criticised Cameron for not getting the EU to change on the demand of one member. On the whole they were disingenuous.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The question is whether a referendum absolutely required an Act of Parliament. I don't immediately see that one is strictly necessary. If the only way of timing it was to skip the legislative stage and that was legally possible, in the appropriate circumstances I expect a government would do it.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
I must admit I never viewed him as a sceptic and of course he supported Remain during the referendum.
On that basis he's fanatical? From that measure I suppose theres's not much wriggle room left on the vituperomoter for Clarke, Soubry etc, hence 'traitor' & 'saboteur' from certain Brexiteers (who aren't fanatical at all I'm sure).
If Hammond is a fanatic, he's the best disguised one I've ever seen. I suspect there's a bit of projection going on...
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Again no. It was the arrogance of Remain who seriously thought that the EU could and should change to suit the UK in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They (you) are still doing it now even when it has become blindingly obvious that the EU is not willing to alter its aspirations just to suit one recalcitrant member. And nor should they.
I never said that. The EU is a multilateral organisation that operates multilaterally. I was referring to people who criticised Cameron for not getting the EU to change on the demand of one member. On the whole they were disingenuous.
Do you think we should get criticism for pointing out that Cameron had NOT got the EU to change, depsite him trying to convince us that he had?
I think that is the point I am making, there is an age at which old people become incapable in the same way we consider children to be incapable. Obviously we can all point to exclusions at either end of the age spectrum but if we are saying, as seems to be the case with jury service, that ones judgement starts to be impaired beyond the age of 75 them restricting the right to be involved in certain professions or making judgemental decisions such as voting would appear to be reasonable. The company I worked for told me at the age of 59 that they were making me redundant because "I was blocking the promotion path for younger people" (I was an engineer). Clearly a 75 year old MP is doing likewise and is beyond their "shelf life".
Well, I'm 68 on Monday and doing two jobs that most people would think full-time, so I have a dog in the fight. I think that age is a very rough approximation of capability, and barriers based on age are lazy thinking. Companies nowadays can't say "You're 65 so we have to lose you, sorry about that", they have to say "We feel you're no longer as good as you were", which is more hurtful but also fairer.
I don't personally favour age limits on voting either way. I doubt if many 12 year old or 110 year olds want to vote, but if they do, I don't see solid evidence that they're necessarily less competent than the average 50 year old, or some ethical reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a say. A minimum test (e.g. "Can you name two political parties?") might be more appropriate.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.
Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.
So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....
All nonsense.
Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
How could they remove the Article 50 rights without doing so for every other EU country ? It is part of the EU constitution.
You think there won't be a "review" of the impracticalities of Article 50 when the next set of Treaty changes come along? Good Little Europeans will decide it is too difficult to do in practice. Best just forget it, eh?
I think you're a touch paranoid.
No. I just observe how the EU has worked in the past.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Again no. It was the arrogance of Remain who seriously thought that the EU could and should change to suit the UK in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They (you) are still doing it now even when it has become blindingly obvious that the EU is not willing to alter its aspirations just to suit one recalcitrant member. And nor should they.
I never said that. The EU is a multilateral organisation that operates multilaterally. I was referring to people who criticised Cameron for not getting the EU to change on the demand of one member. On the whole they were disingenuous.
Do you think we should get criticism for pointing out that Cameron had NOT got the EU to change, depsite him trying to convince us that he had?
No. I agree with that criticism. Cameron shouldn't have pretended he could singlehandedly change the EU on demand. My objection is with those that used it as a handle to say the EU was unfit for purpose because it was incapable of change. No functional membership organisation would allow single members to dictate policy.
Cameron should have argued from first principles: the EU is good for us because X. He was led into a trap.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The question is whether a referendum absolutely required an Act of Parliament. I don't immediately see that one is strictly necessary. If the only way of timing it was to skip the legislative stage and that was legally possible, in the appropriate circumstances I expect a government would do it.
You need legislation to: 1) Authorise spending for a referendum 2) Compel local authorities to organise a ballot 3) Set standards for the referendum that need to be complies with
Failing to do so would meant that ministers wouldn't have money to pay local returning officers and there is a very good chance some councils would refuse to participate given their political leanings. The lack of standards would cause chaos.
In short, it would be an excellent way of demonstrating how a banana republic runs elections. Election observers from NGOs would be united in condemnation of the mess that had been created.
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Again no. It was the arrogance of Remain who seriously thought that the EU could and should change to suit the UK in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They (you) are still doing it now even when it has become blindingly obvious that the EU is not willing to alter its aspirations just to suit one recalcitrant member. And nor should they.
I never said that. The EU is a multilateral organisation that operates multilaterally. I was referring to people who criticised Cameron for not getting the EU to change on the demand of one member. On the whole they were disingenuous.
Do you think we should get criticism for pointing out that Cameron had NOT got the EU to change, depsite him trying to convince us that he had?
No. I agree with that criticism. Cameron shouldn't have pretended he could singlehandedly change the EU on demand. My objection is with those that used it as a handle to say the EU was unfit for purpose because it was incapable of change. No functional membership organisation would allow single members to dictate policy.
Cameron should have argued from first principles: the EU is good for us because X. He was led into a trap.
Who was arguing that the EU was unfit for purpose? It works fine for ITS OWN purpose. It's just that the purposes of the EU and the UK could not be alligned. That's what most were pointing out. Ultimately, that was why Remain lost. It had insufficient arguments to overcome that widely held belief.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Again no. It was the arrogance of Remain who seriously thought that the EU could and should change to suit the UK in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. They (you) are still doing it now even when it has become blindingly obvious that the EU is not willing to alter its aspirations just to suit one recalcitrant member. And nor should they.
I never said that. The EU is a multilateral organisation that operates multilaterally. I was referring to people who criticised Cameron for not getting the EU to change on the demand of one member. On the whole they were disingenuous.
Do you think we should get criticism for pointing out that Cameron had NOT got the EU to change, depsite him trying to convince us that he had?
No. I agree with that criticism. Cameron shouldn't have pretended he could singlehandedly change the EU on demand. My objection is with those that used it as a handle to say the EU was unfit for purpose because it was incapable of change. No functional membership organisation would allow single members to dictate policy.
Cameron should have argued from first principles: the EU is good for us because X. He was led into a trap.
Who was arguing that the EU was unfit for purpose? It works fine for ITS OWN purpose. It's just that the purposes of the EU and the UK could not be alligned. That's what most were pointing out. Ultimately, that was why Remain lost. It had insufficient arguments to overcome that widely held belief.
That is the question, but it wasn't how it was framed: Is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? On the question, I suspect Remain would have won. Instead the question was, could the EU change? So good manipulation from the Leave side and poor awareness from Cameron.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
I tend to agree with that, though not that the EU was totally unreformable from our point of view.
The 'renegotiation' was not an entirely stupid idea. The lack of real effort and (with the benefit of hindsight) absurdly truncated timescale meant the results were always likely to be a disappointment to everyone except those who were waiting to say 'I told you so'.
Her insistence from the start on the very hardest of Brexits - something that was not the view of at least Gove and Boris - has made negotiations almost impossible. She lacks both the conviction and the ability to try and make the project work.
ROFL
You think the project could "work" if only it was done differently...
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
That's a very fair assessment. David Cameron tried to sell us a pig in a poke. Then went all in with calling us Little Englanders if we didn't buy his pig in a poke. Those of us who had pounded the pavement to get him elected and re-elected as PM found that hard to stomach.
If Cameron or his aides really did read pb.com, there was plenty of evidence on here to show that the Renegotiation, the selling of the Renegotiation and then the Referendum itself were all going badly wrong from his perspective.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
I tend to agree with that, though not that the EU was totally unreformable from our point of view.
The 'renegotiation' was not an entirely stupid idea. The lack of real effort and (with the benefit of hindsight) absurdly truncated timescale meant the results were always likely to be a disappointment to everyone except those who were waiting to say 'I told you so'.
A good point about the timescale. The 2015 manifesto had the commitment for a referendum by the end of 2017, and I think most of us were expecting it to be around September last year. The timetable chosen put additional pressure on the renegotiation, which could really have done with another six months or even a year.
(Goes back to reading All Out War, which is a fantastic book in case anyone here hasn’t read it yet!)
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
What’s doubly nuts about this is that the thing that would probably have convinced you and many others was restrictions on free movement, something that is entirely related to the integrity of the single market.
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.
Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.
So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....
I think some Remainers simply want Leavers to feel as angry and upset as they feel, and would enjoy a second referendum where they won by a very narrow margin, so they could have their revenge.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
I tend to agree with that, though not that the EU was totally unreformable from our point of view.
The 'renegotiation' was not an entirely stupid idea. The lack of real effort and (with the benefit of hindsight) absurdly truncated timescale meant the results were always likely to be a disappointment to everyone except those who were waiting to say 'I told you so'.
A good point about the timescale. The 2015 manifesto had the commitment for a referendum by the end of 2017, and I think most of us were expecting it to be around September last year. The timetable chosen put additional pressure on the renegotiation, which could really have done with another six months or even a year.
(Goes back to reading All Out War, which is a fantastic book in case anyone here hasn’t read it yet!)
I am half way through All Out War at the moment. It’s brilliant. Cameron comes across as a complete berk.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
That's a very fair assessment. David Cameron tried to sell us a pig in a poke. Then went all in with calling us Little Englanders if we didn't buy his pig in a poke. Those of us who had pounded the pavement to get him elected and re-elected as PM found that hard to stomach.
If Cameron or his aides really did read pb.com, there was plenty of evidence on here to show that the Renegotiation, the selling of the Renegotiation and then the Referendum itself were all going badly wrong from his perspective.
I think it's even more fundamental than that: the EU thought they'd given us an amazing deal; we thought it was shite.
The chasm between how the UK public and EU sees the world was - and is - just simply too large.
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
The attempt to blame a bad Brexit on Remainers is pathetic.
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The question is whether a referendum absolutely required an Act of Parliament. I don't immediately see that one is strictly necessary. If the only way of timing it was to skip the legislative stage and that was legally possible, in the appropriate circumstances I expect a government would do it.
You need legislation to: 1) Authorise spending for a referendum 2) Compel local authorities to organise a ballot 3) Set standards for the referendum that need to be complies with
Failing to do so would meant that ministers wouldn't have money to pay local returning officers and there is a very good chance some councils would refuse to participate given their political leanings. The lack of standards would cause chaos.
In short, it would be an excellent way of demonstrating how a banana republic runs elections. Election observers from NGOs would be united in condemnation of the mess that had been created.
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
It would be relatively easier to call a general election to ratify a proposed change of policy. Not that I think such a course of action is remotely likely, because the politicians concerned would not want to run the risk of the public disagreeing with them.
But in a theoretical world where the MPs were not humans, with human ambitions, and not concerned with the domestic political implications, then that would be a way to get around the timing issues.
Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.
Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.
So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....
One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
I am sure they didn't think that. They set David Cameron up to fail in his negotiations with the EU: See, the EU is incapable of change; we're better out of it. Rather than the real question: is Britain better being part of a collective Europe or operating alone? Mr Cameron walked into the trap, so I don't have a huge sympathy for him.
Cameron’s ill-fated negotiation was a massive turning point. Personally I was a fence-sitter (and Cameron supporter) until that day, but the lack of substance that Dave came back with told me that the EU was unreformable and the choices were either a federal superstate or we leave. From re-reading this forum from that day in February 2016, it was clear that a lot of conservatives (and Conservatives) decided that day to back Leave.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
What’s doubly nuts about this is that the thing that would probably have convinced you and many others was restrictions on free movement, something that is entirely related to the integrity of the single market.
I think that something on equal treatment might have helped, but to be perfectly honest a lot of the problems could have been addressed (with extreme political difficulty) by British governments, such as tax credits and housing benefit. My personal dislike of the EU (as an institution) came from the way Lisbon was railroaded through and that trade deals such as with Canada contained little of the financial services which is our biggest export. It also doesn’t help that their legislation originates in the unelected Commission, and that they can’t get auditors to sign off their accounts.
I was prepared take a pragmatic view if both the British government and the EU could have been a little more flexible. But it wasn’t to be.
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
The attempt to blame a bad Brexit on Remainers is pathetic.
Own it.
Shrug. I am a remainer and I'm pissed off that remainer politicians are doing such a bad job of representing my interests.
Of course, as a Remainer, I think that all Brexits are bad Brexits, but some are clearly worse than others.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
"For any UK-wide referendum to be held legislation has to be passed by the UK Parliament for each vote to take place, as there is no pre-determined format or voting franchise for any such vote.", "..its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted."
The 1975 EEC referendum, 2011 AV referendum and 2016 EU referendum all required legislation. In Scotland, the 1979, 1997, and 2014 votes also required legislation; Scotland Act 1978, Referendums (Scotland & Wales) Act 1997, and the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.
I'm sure it would be theoretically possible to pay for and organise sending out ballots by post to every household, and also for someone to count them. But would both the format and the voting method be politically acceptable and legally watertight?
Either way the vote went, it would be open to all sorts of challenges on the grounds of potential fraud and manipulation. It wouldn't settle anything and would just make divisions and cries of betrayal worse.
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The question is whether a referendum absolutely required an Act of Parliament. I don't immediately see that one is strictly necessary. If the only way of timing it was to skip the legislative stage and that was legally possible, in the appropriate circumstances I expect a government would do it.
You need legislation to: 1) Authorise spending for a referendum 2) Compel local authorities to organise a ballot 3) Set standards for the referendum that need to be complies with
Failing to do so would meant that ministers wouldn't have money to pay local returning officers and there is a very good chance some councils would refuse to participate given their political leanings. The lack of standards would cause chaos.
In short, it would be an excellent way of demonstrating how a banana republic runs elections. Election observers from NGOs would be united in condemnation of the mess that had been created.
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
Would the issue of a referendum without legislation not be that the Leave side would boycot it, leading to something like an 80% Remain vote on a 35% turnout - which would be then argued as illegitimate to overturn the original plebiscite?
Her insistence from the start on the very hardest of Brexits - something that was not the view of at least Gove and Boris - has made negotiations almost impossible. She lacks both the conviction and the ability to try and make the project work.
ROFL
You think the project could "work" if only it was done differently...
Bless.
Given your profound ignorance of the basic principles involved I will excuse your dribbling interjections. You really must try harder if you want to be able to surrender the class dunce hat one day.
There wont be a second referendum on the UK leaving the EU. But let's face it Remoaners would vote against any deal, no matter what its merits, because they dont accept democracy unless it goes their way, and they dont care that there would be dire consequences for democracy itself if a democratic vote were overturned.
We will be leaving the EU next year. MPs who try to reverse that or impose Brexit in Name Only will expose themselves to losing their seats. If a BRINO then there will be a campaign to bring about a Brexit in reality.
Remoaners are wasting a lot of energy in their pathetic campaign to set aside democracy. They would be better advised to start organising a campaign to apply for re-entry after we have left.
Her insistence from the start on the very hardest of Brexits - something that was not the view of at least Gove and Boris - has made negotiations almost impossible. She lacks both the conviction and the ability to try and make the project work.
Boris has told confidantes that still having to accept dictats from Brussels would leave the UK as “just another Norway” and the nationwide vote’s landmark result would have proved “a total waste of time”.
In that soft Brexit scenario, the mop-haired Tory boss has even claimed to pals: “I’d rather us stay in than leave like that”.
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
The attempt to blame a bad Brexit on Remainers is pathetic.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
Isn't Hammond being accused of advocating the sort of Norway style Soft Brexit that you have advocated yourself?
These days it appears that Hammond is simply doing everything he can to frustrate Brexit. And since he is seemingly advocating remaining in the Customs Union then, no, he is not advocating a Norway style Brexit.
Hammond is working off evidence on the Customs Union that the cost of leaving the Customs Union massively outweighs the benefit of any eventual third party deals that are enabled by leaving. This evidence was fabricated according to Rees-Mogg. "Norway" and the customs union aren't incompatible and you can have both together, even if actual Norway didn't choose to do that.
You cannot be in EFTA and be in the Customs Union. The consequence of this is you cannot be in the EEA outside of the EU and be in the Customs Union. So Norway is not an option if you want to remain in the Customs Union.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The question is whether a referendum absolutely required an Act of Parliament. I don't immediately see that one is strictly necessary. If the only way of timing it was to skip the legislative stage and that was legally possible, in the appropriate circumstances I expect a government would do it.
You need legislation to: 1) Authorise spending for a referendum 2) Compel local authorities to organise a ballot 3) Set standards for the referendum that need to be complies with
Failing to do so would meant that ministers wouldn't have money to pay local returning officers and there is a very good chance some councils would refuse to participate given their political leanings. The lack of standards would cause chaos.
In short, it would be an excellent way of demonstrating how a banana republic runs elections. Election observers from NGOs would be united in condemnation of the mess that had been created.
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
That was a glorified opinion poll and was subject to legal challenge. The same would apply here, it would be an almighty mess and would not be viewed as having the same legitimacy as a referendum legislated for by parliament.
Could it happen? Yes. Would it create more problems than it would solve? Yes.
If a referendum happens it will be underpinned by legislation. If you'd like a wager on it I'd be very happy to oblige.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
I am a remainer and I'm pissed off that remainer politicians are doing such a bad job of representing my interests.
If you think Brexit is going badly, you are still pissed off at the wrong people...
I'm more pissed off at the government, of course, but that doesn't preclude being pissed off at Remainer politicians as well. And given the subject of the thread that's what I expressed.
I can also let you know my opinions on Empire, vaccines, climate science and gender politics if you like?
Clearly the time for a second referendum is AFTER HM Gov have negotiated what our world outside the EU will look like and that is likely to be towards the end of the transition phase not 2019 rather 2020. There is no point in asking people whether they would like a rethink when there is no detail on offer. Show us what our world will ACTUALLY look like outside the EU and then we can make an informed choice. The problem with the first referendum, that makes it invalid rather than legitimate as some suggest here, was that there were "50 shades" of Leave and only one of Remain. Well at least three; WTO, Canada and Norway style agreements and it is only right and proper that we the people get to choose our path. Which of these did the Conservatives offer in the last GE? (Hint: they still can't tell us). Give us the figures so we can choose how much of the NHS needs to be privatised and how many new hospitals, etc cannot be built because of our reduced tax take. People need to know how many millions won't be going into the NHS because we are leaving the EU and at least they can stop moaning about its poor service.
As it seems the Transition consists of membership without representation, this is the only realistic time for a further referendum before Brexit actually changes economic relationships. Technically it would be a Rejoin referendum.
Personally, I would favour the Rejoin referendum be in about a decade. Voters would then know what the actual Brexit package was and what it meant to them, and also the future direction of the E27.
There wouldn't be a rejoin referendum. What kind of a deal would we get rejoining if we go in with a mandate to join whatever? What would have to happen would be a party would have to win an election on a manifesto to join if suitable terms can be obtained. It might ask for the decision to be ratified in a referendum, and that might well be quite a good card to play. So the sequence would be load, aim, shoot. The mess we are in at the moment is because first we held a referendum, then we started the process and we still haven't worked out what we want to achieve. Shoot, aim, load.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
"For any UK-wide referendum to be held legislation has to be passed by the UK Parliament for each vote to take place, as there is no pre-determined format or voting franchise for any such vote.", "..its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted."
The 1975 EEC referendum, 2011 AV referendum and 2016 EU referendum all required legislation. In Scotland, the 1979, 1997, and 2014 votes also required legislation; Scotland Act 1978, Referendums (Scotland & Wales) Act 1997, and the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.
I'm sure it would be theoretically possible to pay for and organise sending out ballots by post to every household, and also for someone to count them. But would both the format and the voting method be politically acceptable and legally watertight?
Either way the vote went, it would be open to all sorts of challenges on the grounds of potential fraud and manipulation. It wouldn't settle anything and would just make divisions and cries of betrayal worse.
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
IMHO, if a clear majority of the public did not wish Brexit to proceed, a second referendum would probably not be needed to stop it.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
You think the EU should become a foreign power; we don't.
Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
Almost too stupid to respond to, except you must also remember people died opposing Brexit
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
You think the EU should become a foreign power; we don't.
The EU already is a foreign power. It always has been.
What would a second referendum achieve? Its proponents assume that it would result in a sweeping victory for Remain, but i think that's a false assumption.
Expedited legislation requires near or complete consensus in both houses. Do I need to elaborate on how that wouldn't be the case in this instance?
No-one expects it to happen tomorrow. The premise for a second referendum would be that the government had decided it was in its interests, and the opposition parties would have no valid reason to oppose it.
If we got to that point, I think it would be a fait accompli from the moment the PM announced it, in the same way that the GE2017 election wasn't held up by the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
"For any UK-wide referendum to be held legislation has to be passed by the UK Parliament for each vote to take place, as there is no pre-determined format or voting franchise for any such vote.", "..its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted."
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
IMHO, if a clear majority of the public did not wish Brexit to proceed, a second referendum would probably not be needed to stop it.
It works both ways. If Remainers want 60%+ of the British public to want to stay in the EU, then they need to campaign for the EU to offer the UK a more detached relationship that's politically sustainable.
Similarly, if Leavers want the 60%+ of the British public who are naturally eurosceptic to all rally around them, and for the deal to stick long-term, then they need to build a post-Brexit relationship with the EU that's as economically sustainable as it is politically acceptable.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
"For any UK-wide referendum to be held legislation has to be passed by the UK Parliament for each vote to take place, as there is no pre-determined format or voting franchise for any such vote.", "..its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted."
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
IMHO, if a clear majority of the public did not wish Brexit to proceed, a second referendum would probably not be needed to stop it.
It works both ways. If Remainers want 60%+ of the British public to want to stay in the EU, then they need to campaign for the EU to offer the UK a more detached relationship that's politically sustainable.
A politically sustainable relationship is one that is anchored, not one that is detached.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
Over a 20-30 year time horizon, Brexit is absolutely fine, even actively beneficial, because all our businesses and trading relationships will have re-calibrated, and the economy will be of a different kind due to a changing world and technological developments. The rEU represents only 5% of global population and <20% of the world's economy today, and it's falling.
It's the next 5-10 years that are more ambiguous.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
Interesting aricle as always, thanks David. I agree with part 1 - an "Are you sure about what you said last year?" referendum isn't going to happen. But part 2 is not as unlikely as David suggests. If the negotiations are clearly leading to an unsatisfactory result, opinion against leaving may well harden, and the democratic case for asking the public "Now you know the detail, do you still want to do it?" is strong. .
Public opinion isn’t going to change on the basis of a bad deal.
People aren’t paying attention and why would they - Brexit is even boring many of the political obsessives like us.
The daily express may get upset about ECJ jurisdiction or the Telegraph may moan about a delay to sign new trade deals, but I don’t think the public will much care.
They will change their minds if there are real life bad consequences and if they blame Brexit for them. For me that’s basically only possible after Brexit and even then not that likely.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
"For any UK-wide referendum to be held legislation has to be passed by the UK Parliament for each vote to take place, as there is no pre-determined format or voting franchise for any such vote.", "..its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted."
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
IMHO, if a clear majority of the public did not wish Brexit to proceed, a second referendum would probably not be needed to stop it.
It works both ways. If Remainers want 60%+ of the British public to want to stay in the EU, then they need to campaign for the EU to offer the UK a more detached relationship that's politically sustainable.
A politically sustainable relationship is one that is anchored, not one that is detached.
You have nothing new to say on the subject, and you never will.
Mr. (Sean) F, not in legal terms, but if we voted to leave and then remained because the political class (even with polling indicative of wider support) decided to ignore the democratic decision of the electorate that would create a very dangerous situation.
It is highly unlikely that there will be another referendum and I believe that it would be a disaster for the country if there were one - dividing us even more than we are divided now; but "can't" is a very big word. Politicians make decisions for themselves and to buy some time, which is how we got the Cameron referendum. It could happen again.
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
Unfortunately, Mrs May chose to exclude Remain voters and politicians from the Brexit process almost as soon as she became Prime Minister. We are where we are because she chose to play to the right wing press and court the Brexit loons in her party, rather than build a consensus that could unite the country. We are reaping the consequences of the choices she alone made.
Clearly the time for a second referendum is AFTER HM Gov have negotiated what our world outside the EU will look like and that is likely to be towards the end of the transition phase not 2019 rather 2020. There is no point in asking people whether they would like a rethink when there is no detail on offer. Show us what our world will ACTUALLY look like outside the EU and then we can make an informed choice. The problem with the first referendum, that makes it invalid rather than legitimate as some suggest here, was that there were "50 shades" of Leave and only one of Remain. Well at least three; WTO, Canada and Norway style agreements and it is only right and proper that we the people get to choose our path. Which of these did the Conservatives offer in the last GE? (Hint: they still can't tell us). Give us the figures so we can choose how much of the NHS needs to be privatised and how many new hospitals, etc cannot be built because of our reduced tax take. People need to know how many millions won't be going into the NHS because we are leaving the EU and at least they can stop moaning about its poor service.
As it seems the Transition consists of membership without representation, this is the only realistic time for a further referendum before Brexit actually changes economic relationships. Technically it would be a Rejoin referendum.
Personally, I would favour the Rejoin referendum be in about a decade. Voters would then know what the actual Brexit package was and what it meant to them, and also the future direction of the E27.
There wouldn't be a rejoin referendum. What kind of a deal would we get rejoining if we go in with a mandate to join whatever? What would have to happen would be a party would have to win an election on a manifesto to join if suitable terms can be obtained. It might ask for the decision to be ratified in a referendum, and that might well be quite a good card to play. So the sequence would be load, aim, shoot. The mess we are in at the moment is because first we held a referendum, then we started the process and we still haven't worked out what we want to achieve. Shoot, aim, load.
I think we actually agree. A rejoin referendum would be part of a process, and a nessecary one because of precedent. Initially a government has to be elected on a rejoin manifesto, and then there has to be accession talks on terms before being validated by a referendum. This would take some years not least because we would need to reassure the EU27 of our serious intent.
Mr. (Sean) F, not in legal terms, but if we voted to leave and then remained because the political class (even with polling indicative of wider support) decided to ignore the democratic decision of the electorate that would create a very dangerous situation.
That could be corrected at the next general election.
Just come to the thread and compliment David on his well argued case which is largely consistent with comments I have been making over the last few months
There is not going to be a second referendum and the remainer's should get their act together and work on a strategy that enables the Country to reconsider joining sometime post our complete exit
Nothing else is going to be effective.
And has anyone noticed that Sky are promoting an article that there is a surge in UK holidays because of Post Brexit anxiety.!!!!!!!!!!! They have lost the plot
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
y.
"For any UK-wide referendum to be held legislation has to be passed by the UK Parliament for each vote to take place, as there is no pre-determined format or voting franchise for any such vote.", "..its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted."
The 1975 EEC referendum, 2011 AV referendum and 2016 EU referendum all required legislation. In Scotland, the 1979, 1997, and 2014 votes also required legislation; Scotland Act 1978, Referendums (Scotland & Wales) Act 1997, and the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.
I'm sure it would be theoretically possible to pay for and organise sending out ballots by post to every household, and also for someone to count them. But would both the format and the voting method be politically acceptable and legally watertight?
Either way the vote went, it would be open to all sorts of challenges on the grounds of potential fraud and manipulation. It wouldn't settle anything and would just make divisions and cries of betrayal worse.
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
IMHO, if a clear majority of the public did not wish Brexit to proceed, a second referendum would probably not be needed to stop it.
Procedurally, for sure, but politically it would be almost impossible to justify setting aside a referendum without another public vote.
What the new referendum people want is a minimum of more options to dilute the Leave vote (I think).
From the 'no more foreigners' through to 'we've tried it for 40 years and the trend towards a super-state is inexorable, so no thanks' and on to 'we British are 'orrible, I want to be a proper foreigner.'
Clumping these and the other possibilities into digestible chunks will be impossible and pointless. It's a gradation. Referendums are suited to binary votes and we've had one. Parliament went for it overwhelmingly and the people decided.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
I must admit I never viewed him as a sceptic and of course he supported Remain during the referendum.
On that basis he's fanatical? From that measure I suppose theres's not much wriggle room left on the vituperomoter for Clarke, Soubry etc, hence 'traitor' & 'saboteur' from certain Brexiteers (who aren't fanatical at all I'm sure).
If Hammond is a fanatic, he's the best disguised one I've ever seen. I suspect there's a bit of projection going on...
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
Isn't Hammond being accused of advocating the sort of Norway style Soft Brexit that you have advocated yourself?
These days it appears that Hammond is simply doing everything he can to frustrate Brexit. And since he is seemingly advocating remaining in the Customs Union then, no, he is not advocating a Norway style Brexit.
Hammond is working off evidence on the Customs Union that the cost of leaving the Customs Union massively outweighs the benefit of any eventual third party deals that are enabled by leaving. This evidence was fabricated according to Rees-Mogg. "Norway" and the customs union aren't incompatible and you can have both together, even if actual Norway didn't choose to do that.
You cannot be in EFTA and be in the Customs Union. The consequence of this is you cannot be in the EEA outside of the EU and be in the Customs Union. So Norway is not an option if you want to remain in the Customs Union.
We would probably have our own association agreement with the EU that mirrors the EEA. Both Norway and the EU are happy with their arrangement and don't want us messing it up. EFTA has no opinion on customs and is explicitly not a customs union but will act as a broker for its members in negotiating PTAs. Being part of the EU Customs Union doesn't preclude us from EFTA membership. We had this discussion before.
Interesting aricle as always, thanks David. I agree with part 1 - an "Are you sure about what you said last year?" referendum isn't going to happen. But part 2 is not as unlikely as David suggests. If the negotiations are clearly leading to an unsatisfactory result, opinion against leaving may well harden, and the democratic case for asking the public "Now you know the detail, do you still want to do it?" is strong. .
Public opinion isn’t going to change on the basis of a bad deal.
People aren’t paying attention and why would they - Brexit is even boring many of the political obsessives like us.
The daily express may get upset about ECJ jurisdiction or the Telegraph may moan about a delay to sign new trade deals, but I don’t think the public will much care.
They will change their minds if there are real life bad consequences and if they blame Brexit for them. For me that’s basically only possible after Brexit and even then not that likely.
I think that's correct. The principles of being for or against Brexit are a good deal more interesting than the minutiae.
The political consequence of Remainers being fixated on a referendum that won't happen and of trying to prevent any type of Brexit at all is that they have made themselves almost irrelevant in the debate over what type of Brexit we should have.
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
Unfortunately, Mrs May chose to exclude Remain voters and politicians from the Brexit process almost as soon as she became Prime Minister. We are where we are because she chose to play to the right wing press and court the Brexit loons in her party, rather than build a consensus that could unite the country. We are reaping the consequences of the choices she alone made.
I do not think it was ever possible to reconcile the factions, any more than the SNP would be reconciled to permanant Union.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
If it has not been passed by Parliament through an act then I assume it has no legal standing.
Advisory only, you mean? I think the government could work with that.
When was the last national referendum in the UK that was not sanctioned by Parliament?
The
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
Curious.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
"For any UK-wide referendum to be held legislation has to be passed by the UK Parliament for each vote to take place, as there is no pre-determined format or voting franchise for any such vote.", "..its format, the franchise for each plebiscite, and how each count is to be conducted."
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
IMHO, if a clear majority of the public did not wish Brexit to proceed, a second referendum would probably not be needed to stop it.
It works both ways. If Remainers want 60%+ of the British public to want to stay in the EU, then they need to campaign for the EU to offer the UK a more detached relationship that's politically sustainable.
A politically sustainable relationship is one that is anchored, not one that is detached.
You have nothing new to say on the subject, and you never will.
Is that an 'essential' in the person-spec for becoming a member of PB?
Mr. (Sean) F, not in legal terms, but if we voted to leave and then remained because the political class (even with polling indicative of wider support) decided to ignore the democratic decision of the electorate that would create a very dangerous situation.
That wouldn't be why we remained though. It would be because implementing the result had led to a failure that the public had turned away from.
Brexit is a flaming bag left by the voters on the doorstep of Downing Street, and the Brexit Ultras in the Tory party are complaining that the PM isn't stamping hard enough
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
There is no good Brexit for you because you dont accept democracy.Actually Brexit is wonderful. It means that the UK is independent from the Orwellian superstate of the EU. You think we should be under the control of a foreign power -fine. But remember people died to prevent that.
Over a 20-30 year time horizon, Brexit is absolutely fine, even actively beneficial, because all our businesses and trading relationships will have re-calibrated, and the economy will be of a different kind due to a changing world and technological developments. The rEU represents only 5% of global population and
I agree with the last paragraph, but would dispute the first. There is a very strong argument for saying that there are many places in the UK that have still to recover from the decline of heavy manufacturing in the 1980s. Were Nissan to leave Sunderland, for example, because the final Brexit deal made car manufacturing unsustainable in the UK what would take its place to provide the kind of well paid, sustainable jobs that keep communities functioning? The same applies to Airbus and other high end manufacturers whose supply lines are entwined with the EU27.
Looking at the UK as a whole, we undoubtedly recovered from the 1980s, but specifically what happened is that certain parts of the country - London and the South East and pockets elsewhere - motored forward while leaving the rest behind. I am not saying that this will happen with Brexit, but it could. That's why the kind of Brexit deal we get is so important. And why the Cliff Edge is a non-starter for any government that has the good of the country as its first priority.
I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
I must admit I never viewed him as a sceptic and of course he supported Remain during the referendum.
On that basis he's fanatical? From that measure I suppose theres's not much wriggle room left on the vituperomoter for Clarke, Soubry etc, hence 'traitor' & 'saboteur' from certain Brexiteers (who aren't fanatical at all I'm sure).
If Hammond is a fanatic, he's the best disguised one I've ever seen. I suspect there's a bit of projection going on...
Too wet and wimpy to be a fanatic
For a wet wimp, he certainly puts up a good fight.
PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
If you're the Prime Minister of a country you can announce that your government intends to do something then ask parliament to pass the legislation necessary to do it. That's the whole point of being Prime Minister.
It's of course always possible that you'll announce something but when you try to do it parliament will tell you to piss off, and that happens from time to time, but that doesn't generally prevent Prime Ministers from announcing things.
There is nothing wrong with the result of the first referendum.
What's wrong with the result of the first referendum is that it doesn't answer the question that needs asking, which is what do we want to be? Part of a collective Europe or a Britain standing alone? I suspect we will find out the hard way that being part of a collective Europe is better. Then the issue is, how are we a satisfactory part of the collective without being a member of it when the members are calling the shots?
The only thing that could convince me of the need for a new referendum would be a new offer from the EU.
Then, I think the argument could convincingly be made that the referendum should be rerun. Many people really wanted to stay in a reformed EU, but despaired of the EU ever reforming itself.
To me, a new offer from the EU would be some indication that the EU has had a period of introspection and concluded that all is not well.
In the absence of this, I can see no justification of a re-run on the same question as before.
Indeed, the reaction of the EU so far has reinforced my belief that I cast my vote wisely the first time round.
Comments
Happy to help.
But then again, I suppose they did lose to a bus
Where I differ from David is his assessment of how the EU27 would react. David writes " Some seem to hope that without a deal, the default would be to remain. They are wrong: the default still be to leave.". That's the legal reality, but not the political reality. The EU would be more than pleased to stop the clock for 12 months while the issue is sorted out, and on that basis it's inconceivable that Parliament would actually defy the outcome of a second referendum and refuse to suspend the process. Emergency legislation to halt it would follow (the EU doesn't need to legislate to stop the clock, they merely have to agree at Council level).
What that would need above all is an obviously bad negotiating outcome that shifted both public opinion and say 20 Tory MPs into the "hang on, this isn't a good idea" camp. I actually don't think that's the most likely outcome - I think that a half-arsed deal will be worked out that people feel they can go along with and hope for the best. But a cursory inspection of May and Davis's record to date doesn't encourage certainty in the smooth competence required even for that.
Not that it's going to happen.
How do you expect a referendum to take place unless it is mandated by government? Ask Justin how many small straws he is holding? A celebrity variety show featuring only Remainers with a Strictly style vote?
Good grief.
That's the choice we have.
From that measure I suppose theres's not much wriggle room left on the vituperomoter for Clarke, Soubry etc, hence 'traitor' & 'saboteur' from certain Brexiteers (who aren't fanatical at all I'm sure).
Staying in the Customs Union for the present seems an eminently sensible solution to both the Irish question and the aqueous border, particularly in view of our lack of preparation for either. While it does restrict the possibility of other trade deals (currently looking rarer than rocking horse dung!), it need not be a permanent one. Setting a date of say 2025 to leave the CU would give time to negotiate post CU deals without being over a barrel.
I don't personally favour age limits on voting either way. I doubt if many 12 year old or 110 year olds want to vote, but if they do, I don't see solid evidence that they're necessarily less competent than the average 50 year old, or some ethical reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a say. A minimum test (e.g. "Can you name two political parties?") might be more appropriate.
If there hadn’t been the negotiations at all, Remain would probably have won.
The Constitution, for example.
Cameron should have argued from first principles: the EU is good for us because X. He was led into a trap.
1) Authorise spending for a referendum
2) Compel local authorities to organise a ballot
3) Set standards for the referendum that need to be complies with
Failing to do so would meant that ministers wouldn't have money to pay local returning officers and there is a very good chance some councils would refuse to participate given their political leanings. The lack of standards would cause chaos.
In short, it would be an excellent way of demonstrating how a banana republic runs elections. Election observers from NGOs would be united in condemnation of the mess that had been created.
This is why every other referendum has had legislative backing and in addition to the primary legislation several hundred reams of secondary legislation.
The 'renegotiation' was not an entirely stupid idea.
The lack of real effort and (with the benefit of hindsight) absurdly truncated timescale meant the results were always likely to be a disappointment to everyone except those who were waiting to say 'I told you so'.
You think the project could "work" if only it was done differently...
Bless.
If Cameron or his aides really did read pb.com, there was plenty of evidence on here to show that the Renegotiation, the selling of the Renegotiation and then the Referendum itself were all going badly wrong from his perspective.
(Goes back to reading All Out War, which is a fantastic book in case anyone here hasn’t read it yet!)
If they had accepted that Brexit was going to happen and rallied around EEA membership as a compromise least objectionable to most of the public then they would have had an influence on proceedings. As it is they've left the field open for the Moggers to do the running. It's a gross failure.
Don’t tell me what happens in the end!
The chasm between how the UK public and EU sees the world was - and is - just simply too large.
Own it.
Australia has just held a postal referendum without legislation. Can't see why that wouldn't work here.
Would it be brilliant? No. Would it do the trick? Probably.
But in a theoretical world where the MPs were not humans, with human ambitions, and not concerned with the domestic political implications, then that would be a way to get around the timing issues.
I was prepared take a pragmatic view if both the British government and the EU could have been a little more flexible. But it wasn’t to be.
Of course, as a Remainer, I think that all Brexits are bad Brexits, but some are clearly worse than others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
The 1975 EEC referendum, 2011 AV referendum and 2016 EU referendum all required legislation. In Scotland, the 1979, 1997, and 2014 votes also required legislation; Scotland Act 1978, Referendums (Scotland & Wales) Act 1997, and the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.
I'm sure it would be theoretically possible to pay for and organise sending out ballots by post to every household, and also for someone to count them. But would both the format and the voting method be politically acceptable and legally watertight?
Either way the vote went, it would be open to all sorts of challenges on the grounds of potential fraud and manipulation. It wouldn't settle anything and would just make divisions and cries of betrayal worse.
Any second referendum not held on precisely the same basis as the first is asking for trouble.
https://twitter.com/ArtimusFoul/status/959454717100412928
We will be leaving the EU next year. MPs who try to reverse that or impose Brexit in Name Only will expose themselves to losing their seats. If a BRINO then there will be a campaign to bring about a Brexit in reality.
Remoaners are wasting a lot of energy in their pathetic campaign to set aside democracy. They would be better advised to start organising a campaign to apply for re-entry after we have left.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5339046/boris-johnson-warns-allies-that-brexit-is-still-far-from-certain-and-they-face-a-big-fight-to-deliver-it/
Boris has told confidantes that still having to accept dictats from Brussels would leave the UK as “just another Norway” and the nationwide vote’s landmark result would have proved “a total waste of time”.
In that soft Brexit scenario, the mop-haired Tory boss has even claimed to pals: “I’d rather us stay in than leave like that”.
Maybe ask a friend...
Could it happen? Yes. Would it create more problems than it would solve? Yes.
If a referendum happens it will be underpinned by legislation. If you'd like a wager on it I'd be very happy to oblige.
There is no "good" Brexit. There is only minimising the mess.
We are talking about a vote.
Which part of democracy do you think is undermined by voting?
Take your time...
I can also let you know my opinions on Empire, vaccines, climate science and gender politics if you like?
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04974
I’m not sure that will be the case.
Edit: @chrisoxon above beat me to the point.
If we got to that point, I think it would be a fait accompli from the moment the PM announced it, in the same way that the GE2017 election wasn't held up by the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Similarly, if Leavers want the 60%+ of the British public who are naturally eurosceptic to all rally around them, and for the deal to stick long-term, then they need to build a post-Brexit relationship with the EU that's as economically sustainable as it is politically acceptable.
It's the next 5-10 years that are more ambiguous.
But, Brexit isn't really about that. For the most fervent campaigners, on both sides, it's about values and principles, which is why it's so visceral.
People aren’t paying attention and why would they - Brexit is even boring many of the political obsessives like us.
The daily express may get upset about ECJ jurisdiction or the Telegraph may moan about a delay to sign new trade deals, but I don’t think the public will much care.
They will change their minds if there are real life bad consequences and if they blame Brexit for them. For me that’s basically only possible after Brexit and even then not that likely.
There is not going to be a second referendum and the remainer's should get their act together and work on a strategy that enables the Country to reconsider joining sometime post our complete exit
Nothing else is going to be effective.
And has anyone noticed that Sky are promoting an article that there is a surge in UK holidays because of Post Brexit anxiety.!!!!!!!!!!! They have lost the plot
From the 'no more foreigners' through to 'we've tried it for 40 years and the trend towards a super-state is inexorable, so no thanks' and on to 'we British are 'orrible, I want to be a proper foreigner.'
Clumping these and the other possibilities into digestible chunks will be impossible and pointless. It's a gradation. Referendums are suited to binary votes and we've had one. Parliament went for it overwhelmingly and the people decided.
Looking at the UK as a whole, we undoubtedly recovered from the 1980s, but specifically what happened is that certain parts of the country - London and the South East and pockets elsewhere - motored forward while leaving the rest behind. I am not saying that this will happen with Brexit, but it could. That's why the kind of Brexit deal we get is so important. And why the Cliff Edge is a non-starter for any government that has the good of the country as its first priority.
Was someone calling for magnanimity downthread?
Sigh.
It's of course always possible that you'll announce something but when you try to do it parliament will tell you to piss off, and that happens from time to time, but that doesn't generally prevent Prime Ministers from announcing things.
Then, I think the argument could convincingly be made that the referendum should be rerun. Many people really wanted to stay in a reformed EU, but despaired of the EU ever reforming itself.
To me, a new offer from the EU would be some indication that the EU has had a period of introspection and concluded that all is not well.
In the absence of this, I can see no justification of a re-run on the same question as before.
Indeed, the reaction of the EU so far has reinforced my belief that I cast my vote wisely the first time round.