I just love the idea that those who believe so passionately in the will of the people also believe that when the people do not vote for a Tory government they should get one anyway!
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Incidentally my wife who is far less interested in politics than I am said unprompted last night "Theresa May is going to screw up Brexit isn't she?" I imagine that's a very widespread opinion now.
Yes. And the key point is that people think Theresa May and the Tories are going to screw up Brexit. They do not blame the EU. Which is very bad news for Tories and cliff edge Brexiteers and very good news for Labour and advocates of a second referendum.
It's holiday season, so realistically we need to see more polls over coming weeks. But it does feel like the mood is changing.
If the media keep making up unsubstantiated bollocks about food and medicines in order to destabilise the negotiation process
"People will shit themselves" is a direct quote from Government sources
There’s already plenty of things that government routinely does and prepares for that could fall under that description. There’s whole departments inside the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the MoD who do nothing but plan for disasterous scenarios that we all hope will never happen.
If certain sections of the media seem intent on provoking the panic buying of food and medicines, they can expect to find themselves in a lot of trouble for what should be bloody obvious reasons.
Mr. Dawning, my understanding is that we would just remain on pre-existing terms, with the possible exception of the rebate (as that isn't specified in a treaty, unlike the opt-outs from the single currency and Schengen). That's what Kuenssberg said when asked a while ago about it.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
I'm not sure that Britain, in its present divided enervated state, can inflict itself on the rest of the EU. It needs to have its breakdown in full before it can re-engage properly with the rest of the world.
Incidentally my wife who is far less interested in politics than I am said unprompted last night "Theresa May is going to screw up Brexit isn't she?" I imagine that's a very widespread opinion now.
Yes. And the key point is that people think Theresa May and the Tories are going to screw up Brexit. They do not blame the EU. Which is very bad news for Tories and cliff edge Brexiteers and very good news for Labour and advocates of a second referendum.
Not sure about that. Look at the main story in the Express (as quoted on the BBC site).
Incidentally my wife who is far less interested in politics than I am said unprompted last night "Theresa May is going to screw up Brexit isn't she?" I imagine that's a very widespread opinion now.
Yes. And the key point is that people think Theresa May and the Tories are going to screw up Brexit. They do not blame the EU. Which is very bad news for Tories and cliff edge Brexiteers and very good news for Labour and advocates of a second referendum.
It's holiday season, so realistically we need to see more polls over coming weeks. But it does feel like the mood is changing.
Outside of politics I know precisely one person who wants to overturn the referendum. Despite almost everyone I know voting Remain.
Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with.
My other half (remainer) is infuriated with continuity Remainers who try to frustrate the decision.
If the media keep making up unsubstantiated bollocks about food and medicines in order to destabilise the negotiation process
"People will shit themselves" is a direct quote from Government sources
There’s already plenty of things that government routinely does and prepares for that could fall under that description. There’s whole departments inside the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the MoD who do nothing but plan for disasterous scenarios that we all hope will never happen.
If certain sections of the media seem intent on provoking the panic buying of food and medicines, they can expect to find themselves in a lot of trouble for what should be bloody obvious reasons.
The point is that Brexit was marketed as being totally risk free. These contingency plans expose such claims as bogus - at best the result of naive blue-sky thinking, at worst a shameful attempt to bury the potential dangers in order to win at all costs.
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Mr. Dawning, my understanding is that we would just remain on pre-existing terms, with the possible exception of the rebate (as that isn't specified in a treaty, unlike the opt-outs from the single currency and Schengen). That's what Kuenssberg said when asked a while ago about it.
Some of the friendlier elements of the EU might allow that. Plenty of others will take great pleasure in screwing us over in the event of a u-turn. (This isn't a result of the EU being particularly wicked; it's just that not everyone tolerates being mucked around.)
Outside of politics I know precisely one person who wants to overturn the referendum. Despite almost everyone I know voting Remain.
Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with.
My other half (remainer) is infuriated with continuity Remainers who try to frustrate the decision.
I realise as a Conservative and a supporter of May figures like this morning's make grim reading but let me (as a LEAVE voter and no friend of your Party) spell it out in simple terms.
"Got on With" equals we are all bored, tired and fed up with the chaotic, half-arsed flailing round of May, the ex-FS Johnson, the ex-DexEU Davis and the useless Fox. We are all tired of the national interest being sacrificed on the altar of keeping that useless waste of space called the Conservative Party "united". If May wants to herd cats let her do it on her own time and without getting the rest of us involved.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
If the media keep making up unsubstantiated bollocks about food and medicines in order to destabilise the negotiation process
"People will shit themselves" is a direct quote from Government sources
There’s already plenty of things that government routinely does and prepares for that could fall under that description. There’s whole departments inside the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the MoD who do nothing but plan for disasterous scenarios that we all hope will never happen.
If certain sections of the media seem intent on provoking the panic buying of food and medicines, they can expect to find themselves in a lot of trouble for what should be bloody obvious reasons.
The stoics of Britain were dialling 999 because KFC had run out of chicken. I'd suggest that the amount of provoking of panic by the media necessary to induce a national prolapse is minimal.
Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.
It is still probably less likely than not - but over the last year the chance has increased from tiny to not insignificant.
Your last point is wrong; boycotting a referendum wouldn't work in practice and would be ignored in principle.
Of course it would work. Leavers just say that you ignored our vote last time, so why should be vote again? Remain can scream and shout but this is perfectly true. It would be easy to make the case for a principled boycott. And as soon as it happens, the result has no legitimacy. Remain wins on a reduced turnout - nobody is going to accept that result. There would be nothing gained, so there would be no point doing it.
Outside of politics I know precisely one person who wants to overturn the referendum. Despite almost everyone I know voting Remain.
Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with.
My other half (remainer) is infuriated with continuity Remainers who try to frustrate the decision.
I realise as a Conservative and a supporter of May figures like this morning's make grim reading but let me (as a LEAVE voter and no friend of your Party) spell it out in simple terms.
"Got on With" equals we are all bored, tired and fed up with the chaotic, half-arsed flailing round of May, the ex-FS Johnson, the ex-DexEU Davis and the useless Fox. We are all tired of the national interest being sacrificed on the altar of keeping that useless waste of space called the Conservative Party "united". If May wants to herd cats let her do it on her own time and without getting the rest of us involved.
Seconded (apart from the bit about being a Leaver!)
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Well I am afraid that you are misinformed. Barnier first and foremost was told to get a deal to secure the Brexit bill. No Deal would be an abject failure for Barnier.
As an unelected official, he is happy to play poker because it is someone else's money. But the NI backstop demand I think will go down in history as a massive tactical error. It never makes sense to demand someone in a negotiation do something they have no ability to deliver. He has played this hand too hard to be able to backpedal, which is now needed to get a deal at all.
You are simply assuming that May will be around to surrender to him. If not, he loses.
Mr. Fenman, May is not a Leaver. Blaming Leavers generally for her approach is peculiar.
Yes, she is. She wasn't before the referendum, but since then, she's advocated leaving, carried out planning for leaving, and done her level best to deliver the referendum result in the letter and the spirit of the referendum. I may not be her greatest fan, but I genuinely believe she's tried her best to deliver a Brexit that gives as much as possible of what was promised and the minimum possible risk. While dealing with a very fractious party.
She can't afford not to be a Leaver (I do not subscribe to the williamglenn view that she's engaged in some sort of amazing "Batman Gambit" to deny Brexit).
I have also seen the charge going around that the difficulties and disorder around the negotiations are somehow down to it being led by the wrong people, who are Remainers at heart. Whatever May's issues and problems, I can believe she genuinely wants the best for the country and her Party, and to fulfil the mandate she's been lumbered with. I don't see that if Davis, or Fox, or Johnson were PM that we'd be in a better place - it's not down to ideological purity, but the intransigent and often mutually contradictory requirements.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
Process:
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
Outside of politics I know precisely one person who wants to overturn the referendum. Despite almost everyone I know voting Remain.
Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with.
My other half (remainer) is infuriated with continuity Remainers who try to frustrate the decision.
I realise as a Conservative and a supporter of May figures like this morning's make grim reading but let me (as a LEAVE voter and no friend of your Party) spell it out in simple terms.
"Got on With" equals we are all bored, tired and fed up with the chaotic, half-arsed flailing round of May, the ex-FS Johnson, the ex-DexEU Davis and the useless Fox. We are all tired of the national interest being sacrificed on the altar of keeping that useless waste of space called the Conservative Party "united". If May wants to herd cats let her do it on her own time and without getting the rest of us involved.
"Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with."
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
That's the point. It can't be "just, got on with it". No matter how badly people want that easy fix. There is no way now to leave the EU without chaos. It is now crystal clear that if we did want to leave, then the process should have been a five year one, or perhaps even longer, as we unwind stuff like customs. This should have been made clear as part of the terms of the referendum.
The Brexiteers have lied repeatedly to the country about the whole process.
If the media keep making up unsubstantiated bollocks about food and medicines in order to destabilise the negotiation process
"People will shit themselves" is a direct quote from Government sources
There’s already plenty of things that government routinely does and prepares for that could fall under that description. There’s whole departments inside the Cabinet Office, Home Office and the MoD who do nothing but plan for disasterous scenarios that we all hope will never happen.
If certain sections of the media seem intent on provoking the panic buying of food and medicines, they can expect to find themselves in a lot of trouble for what should be bloody obvious reasons.
The stoics of Britain were dialling 999 because KFC had run out of chicken. I'd suggest that the amount of provoking of panic by the media necessary to induce a national prolapse is minimal.
Indeed so. There’s a fine line between silly season reporting and provoking people into panic buying of essentials. My fear is that too many of the media have lost their minds over Brexit and won’t see the difference.
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
I think few people in the UK understand what getting to and through ENA entails. Like all of the Grandes écoles applicants spend two years (khâgne/hypokhâgne) just preparing for the entrance exam! It is unabashedly elitist, intellectual and difficult. In addition to being very intelligent successful candidates also need an almost bottomless capacity for organisation, hard work and attention to detail.
It is a system we would do well to replicate in the UK as we could sorely use our own cadre of énarques about now...
Outside of politics I know precisely one person who wants to overturn the referendum. Despite almost everyone I know voting Remain.
Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with.
My other half (remainer) is infuriated with continuity Remainers who try to frustrate the decision.
I realise as a Conservative and a supporter of May figures like this morning's make grim reading but let me (as a LEAVE voter and no friend of your Party) spell it out in simple terms.
"Got on With" equals we are all bored, tired and fed up with the chaotic, half-arsed flailing round of May, the ex-FS Johnson, the ex-DexEU Davis and the useless Fox. We are all tired of the national interest being sacrificed on the altar of keeping that useless waste of space called the Conservative Party "united". If May wants to herd cats let her do it on her own time and without getting the rest of us involved.
That's fine in principle but (as you well know) it's not how parliamentary government works. May has no choice but to try to keep the Tory Party as united as possible, and the DUP in alliance.
It's easy to say "get on with it" but not very meaningful unless you have a specific "it" to get on with.
First steps would be to agree initial trade deals and mutual free movement. Then we could establish deeper defence partnerships – sending British ships to defend the North West Passage and offering a British nuclear shield to Australia. We could move on perhaps to a customs union (though that might not be necessary) and regulatory convergence. Perhaps we could eventually establish some political oversight institutions – a Parliament, a Court and a civil service. One presumes these would be located in New Zealand, so as not to favour any of the three main players.
No-one here who understands the Tory party expects a second referendum.
This should be quite telling.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
When is the latest that a 2nd referendum could be organised for it to happen before 29th March?
We had a 51-day lead in for the 2017 GE, though this was a bit longer than necessary because May left time for the two-week No Confidence period in case Labour voted against a GE. 51 days would take us back to 6th February. I think it's 21st January that the Government have to report to Parliament if they don't have a deal agreed with the EU.
I would think that in a scenario where it becomes obvious that there is no deal to be made then there isn't much time to organise either another referendum or a GE before we crash out with no deal.
I expect that we will crash out with no deal with Theresa May as PM.
Edit: The 29th is a Friday, so any vote on a Thursday would need to be by the 28th at the latest, so one day earlier than my above dates.
dates/
A referendum does not absolutely have to be legislated for, cf the Australian postal vote referendum on gay marriage.
The flaws of holding any second referendum on a different basis to the original should be obvious.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
If Leavers don’t support the outcome of any second referendum because they don’t think it was fair, then we (all) have a serious problem. Your emotional response to my post suggest you’re not thinking this through rationally. It’s not enough to use a loose postal ballot to bounce the country into Remain on a 54-46% score. It wouldn’t be seen as legitimate and would make current national divisions look like a picnic.
I stand by what I’ve said before: a second referendum is firstly very unlikely before we Leave and would only take place when the decision had *already been made*.
In other words, only if public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of Remaining, including a majority of Leavers.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
Process:
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
Thats fantasy.
Those 48 letters would be in with the 1922 before the ink was dry.
Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.
It is still probably less likely than not - but over the last year the chance has increased from tiny to not insignificant.
Your last point is wrong; boycotting a referendum wouldn't work in practice and would be ignored in principle.
Of course it would work. Leavers just say that you ignored our vote last time, so why should be vote again? Remain can scream and shout but this is perfectly true. It would be easy to make the case for a principled boycott. And as soon as it happens, the result has no legitimacy. Remain wins on a reduced turnout - nobody is going to accept that result. There would be nothing gained, so there would be no point doing it.
Boycotting a vote is the last refuge of those who know they're going to lose. Very few people care afterwards.
Arguing that turnout was down would have the same traction as the arguments Remainers have put forwards that the 2016 referendum was illegitimate because only 37% of the electorate voted Leave. No-one cares. Or that the referendum was "advisory". No-one cares.
Boycotting the vote, ensuring a loss, and complaining that it was illegitimate afterwards would look like the boycotters thought they were going to lose; complaining afterwards would look like being a sore loser. Just like those who've complained about "37%!!!" and "It was only advisory!!" have looked like sore losers. And achieved nothing.
As it happens, I think that any referendum on the deal (which is still, in my mind, unlikely) would be hard fought and the issues over immigration (which drove a big chunk of the Leave vote last time) are still there. Leave still have that, coupled with the "Remain are sore losers" advantage. Remain have the issues of No Deal and there being no specific deal on Leaving that the people could agree on, coupled with more youngsters entering the electoral pool (it does look like this is a cohort thing rather than an ageing thing, so more like attitudes to gay marriage (remaining with a cohort as they age) than on supporting Conservatives (where a cohort tends to switch over as they age)).
It's by no means a given either way. I think Leave would actually still have the edge, and abandoning the field in order to try to complain about the result afterwards wouldn't help matters at all.
I think “bias” means no longer bias in favour of Labour.
I presume you'd love a bias in favour of the Conservatives. Unfortunately, two wrongs don't make a right.
It's impossible to come up with a fair system under the current arrangements - all you can do is make it as "less unfair" as possible.
I do think we need to encourage voter participation and registration systems unfortunately disenfranchise some people. OTOH, we're not at the stage where anyone can walk in anywhere and vote in their "home" constituency at a polling station hundreds of miles away but the current arrangements smack of an attempt by one party to disenfranchise people who would likely vote for other parties and that's as much gerrymandering as redrawing constituency boundaries.
Nope. It’s you who has a partisan obsession with the Conservative Party and it’s members, not me.
Gerrymandering is where one party redraws electoral districts on a partisan basis to favour themselves. In Britain, we have an independent electoral commission doing it (by law) on no such basis and are instead trying to form equal sized constituencies to be fairer to voters.
There is no gerrymandering. It’s just Labour hate it as it disadvantages them with some undersized inner city seats they’ve benefited from for a long time.
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Well I am afraid that you are misinformed. Barnier first and foremost was told to get a deal to secure the Brexit bill. No Deal would be an abject failure for Barnier.
As an unelected official, he is happy to play poker because it is someone else's money. But the NI backstop demand I think will go down in history as a massive tactical error. It never makes sense to demand someone in a negotiation do something they have no ability to deliver. He has played this hand too hard to be able to backpedal, which is now needed to get a deal at all.
You are simply assuming that May will be around to surrender to him. If not, he loses.
It’s a succinct explainantion of why there’s going to be no deal, as it’s impossible for the British PM (let alone one supported by Ulster Unionists) to agree to the effective annexation of Northern Ireland.
It’s Mrs May’s unamended Chequers deal, or it’s no deal at all.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
Process:
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
Thats fantasy.
Those 48 letters would be in with the 1922 before the ink was dry.
And before the VoNC happened, polls would show big support for May's decision and it would be apparent that removing her in order to prevent a referendum a) wouldn't work and b) would be suicidal for the party.
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Will the Governments of the EU praise him for getting a No Deal which seems now by far the likeliest outcome
A referendum does not absolutely have to be legislated for, cf the Australian postal vote referendum on gay marriage.
The flaws of holding any second referendum on a different basis to the original should be obvious.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
If Leavers don’t support the outcome of any second referendum because they don’t think it was fair, then we (all) have a serious problem. Your emotional response to my post suggest you’re not thinking this through rationally. It’s not enough to use a loose postal ballot to bounce the country into Remain on a 54-46% score. It wouldn’t be seen as legitimate and would make current national divisions look like a picnic.
I stand by what I’ve said before: a second referendum is firstly very unlikely before we Leave and would only take place when the decision had *already been made*.
In other words, only if public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of Remaining, including a majority of Leavers.
Leavers are never going to support the outcome of any second referendum. They have opposed the judiciary, the House of Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the governor of the Bank of England, the BBC and the Electoral Commission. There are no circumstances in which they are going to support the outcome of a second referendum.
The country's civic structures are being taken apart one by one by nihilistic Leavers. This is not something to factor into deciding whether or not to hold a second referendum, except in the sense that it forms part of Britain's breakdown.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
Process:
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
Thats fantasy.
Those 48 letters would be in with the 1922 before the ink was dry.
And before the VoNC happened, polls would show big support for May's decision and it would be apparent that removing her in order to prevent a referendum a) wouldn't work and b) would be suicidal for the party.
It would still happen though. She would be challenged by the Brexiteers immediately who would block her putting through the second referendum and seek to install a tory leader which wouldn't put it up.
Wether it would be suicidal electoratly is of secondary importance for them. Securing Brexit with a no deal would be worth any price for them.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
In the (as yet still moderately unlikely) event of a second referendum, the EU might be interested in offering attractive terms for re-admittance (or simple cancellation of A50) in advance of the vote. One thing is fairly certain, whatever terms are on offer are likely to be far better than those offered for re-admittance once we have left.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
And it's easier to get a 2nd referendum passed than calling a GE, I suspect
Suspect not, actually.
GE has set and established rules (established parties, it happens at most every five years)
2nd ref would be novel (what is the question, what are the funding restrictions, who is nominated official groups).
And that is before various attempts to tilt the balance are considered. Dates of purdah etc
A general election would not settle the Brexit question, because both Labour and the Conservatives are so bitterly divided. A vote for one candidate from either party would be no indication of what the voter thought about Brexit.
It would be very helpful, in the event of a first referendum with clearly defined alternatives, for the Remain side not to be headed by leading Conservative politicians. They can all work for whichever of the Leave alternatives they have managed to agree among themselves (and with the EU negotiators, of course)..
Is this an outlier or a start of a trend? Something to watch intently.
On these numbers, Remain 54 - Leave 45, although looking like a continuation of the trend toward Remain, is still potentially within margin of error.
The scary thing is the lack of support for Deal, 85% do not want it.
What this poll teases out is that catch-all support for Leave does not equate to support for each Leave. As the ultimate Leave becomes clearer, support for Leave will presumably decline.
If (and that's a big if) this poll is typical, it looks entirely possible that at the crunch point the public would prefer to remain by a clear margin. That would make for some very interesting dynamics.
Try and understand. There is not going to be another referendum. If there was, the Leave side would boycott it and it would therefore be pointless.
It is still probably less likely than not - but over the last year the chance has increased from tiny to not insignificant.
Your last point is wrong; boycotting a referendum wouldn't work in practice and would be ignored in principle.
Of course it would work. Leavers just say that you ignored our vote last time, so why should be vote again? Remain can scream and shout but this is perfectly true. It would be easy to make the case for a principled boycott. And as soon as it happens, the result has no legitimacy. Remain wins on a reduced turnout - nobody is going to accept that result. There would be nothing gained, so there would be no point doing it.
That would depend entirely on size of the vote to remain. A boycott could equally be described as couldn't be bothered to turn out.
Before we start looking at numbers of MPs and constituency sizes, the first question needs to be what is an MP for ? What should they do - how should they interact with the electorate, local councils and other professional organisations as well as business and the private sector ? We should define an MP's roles and responsibilities far more clearly than seems the case.
Definition would make little to no difference. It's pretty clear that their technical job is to scrutinise and pass legislation at Westminster. Why, then, do they act as "super-councillors"? Because (a) it's the right thing to do and (b) it helps them get re-elected (or re-selected).
Even in the event of a second referendum, there will be a 'signifigant' proportion of the population which will deem the forces of remain to have cheated them.
This will run and will in british politics for decades whichever way it goes.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
Process:
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
Thats fantasy.
Those 48 letters would be in with the 1922 before the ink was dry.
And before the VoNC happened, polls would show big support for May's decision and it would be apparent that removing her in order to prevent a referendum a) wouldn't work and b) would be suicidal for the party.
It would still happen though. She would be challenged by the Brexiteers immediately who would block her putting through the second referendum and seek to install a tory leader which wouldn't put it up.
Wether it would be suicidal electoratly is of secondary importance for them. Securing Brexit with a no deal would be worth any price for them.
They wouldn’t be able to block it. From the moment the words crossed her lips it would be politically impossible to stop, even if they did VoNC her.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Britain would be made to pay heavily to Remain as well. That’s how the EU works.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Will the Governments of the EU praise him for getting a No Deal which seems now by far the likeliest outcome
Yes, I think they probably will.
You think the EU has the UK over a barrel now, just imagine the kind of stranglehold they'll have once the no-deal catastrophe strikes.
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Will the Governments of the EU praise him for getting a No Deal which seems now by far the likeliest outcome
Yes. Because his remit is to protect the single market and the four freedoms. The 27 can live with some damage to their trade with the UK. Of course, they are hoping that Brexit just collapses in the face of reality as looks increasingly likely.
Before any second referendum we would need a 'cast iron' (sic) promise that the UK would remain on the basis on current treaty obligations and be exempt from any further integration of the EU.
Does the EU even have that in their power to offer. Otherwise we might be signing up for a relationship very different from even the current status quo.
Before any second referendum we would need a 'cast iron' (sic) promise that the UK would remain on the basis on current treaty obligations and be exempt from any further integration of the EU.
Does the EU even have that in their power to offer. Otherwise we might be signing up for a relationship very different from even the current status quo.
No.
There is no legal basis for assuming A50 is revocable. However, the UK could sign an accession treaty and rejoin the EU at the precise moment it leaves, of course. But such an accession treaty would have to go through the full EU27 ratification process.
Which means it would be subject to the full might of EUCO horsetrading to get it through the 27 parliaments.
As such the EU could make zero guarantees the UK's relationship would be unchanged.
May is on a walking holiday again so any piece of madness is possible on her return but to volte face now and offer a second referendum on a leave/remain basis would surely be too much, even for her.
I am sure she feels like Macbeth who expressed an earlier view of Brexit: “I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er,”
Like Macbeth all her earlier sins of failing to prepare, failing to set out a clear negotiating position, failing to get a position agreed by the Cabinet until way too late in the process and failing to keep any sort of grip on the narrative allowing ever more silly scare stories to run in the media have come back to haunt her. The old, and somewhat optimistic phrase, cometh the hour cometh the man, has rarely been proven quite so sadly wrong. She has been a disaster for our country.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
Process:
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
Thats fantasy.
Those 48 letters would be in with the 1922 before the ink was dry.
Indeed. Also, "May announces a referendum" doesn't just equal "a referendum will happen". The PM (indeed, the government) does not have the power to simply impose a referendum on the country.
But the fatal flaw is the "all the opponents of what I want suddenly agree with me in a moment of enlightenment" dream-like optimism.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Britain would be made to pay heavily to Remain as well. That’s how the EU works.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
Yes. That's why I'd vote Leave in any second referendum, having voted Remain in the first.
When you think about it, it's almost axiomatic: The only thing that would render representation proportional to the vote is if you got proportional representation.
Business Conservative: soft Brexit or Remain, flexible on immigration, socially fairly liberal, free market Liberal: Remain, pro-immigration, socially very liberal, free market Social democrat: Remain, flexible on immigration, socially liberal, regulated free market
.
You can almost stick a fag packet between them if you really try...
and yet, there's no party really representing them at the moment. Bizarre.
Before any second referendum we would need a 'cast iron' (sic) promise that the UK would remain on the basis on current treaty obligations and be exempt from any further integration of the EU.
Does the EU even have that in their power to offer. Otherwise we might be signing up for a relationship very different from even the current status quo.
No.
There is no legal basis for assuming A50 is revocable. However, the UK could sign an accession treaty and rejoin the EU at the precise moment it leaves, of course. But such an accession treaty would have to go through the full EU27 ratification process.
Which means it would be subject to the full might of EUCO horsetrading to get it through the 27 parliaments.
As such the EU could make zero guarantees the UK's relationship would be unchanged.
Indications are (not least the comment by the French Europe minister last week) that the EU would be so relieved the UK was not leaving that a relationship similar to the current one would be agreed.
A referendum does not absolutely have to be legislated for, cf the Australian postal vote referendum on gay marriage.
The flaws of holding any second referendum on a different basis to the original should be obvious.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
If Leavers
In other words, only if public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of Remaining, including a majority of Leavers.
Leavers are never going to support the outcome of any second referendum. They have opposed the judiciary, the House of Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the governor of the Bank of England, the BBC and the Electoral Commission. There are no circumstances in which they are going to support the outcome of a second referendum.
The country's civic structures are being taken apart one by one by nihilistic Leavers. This is not something to factor into deciding whether or not to hold a second referendum, except in the sense that it forms part of Britain's breakdown.
I don’t think that’s true, provided a majority of Leavers themselves supported a referendum. In other words, hard Leave got down into the 20-25% bracket. But, even if they didn’t, they sure as hell wouldn’t accept it at all if it was done on any different basis to the original one purely on the grounds they’d never accept a proper one, so what the hell.
I’m afraid much of the rest of your post there is hyperbolic. The countries civic institutions are not being taken apart. There are certainly Leavers who rail and wail against them but they do not constitute the majority. I think most Leavers simply fear the mandate of the vote won’t be honoured, and there are influential forces out there who are determined to stop it. Some of that is true. It’s the idea there’s active collusion between those institutions and the influential Remainers which isn’t.
You are exaggerating, no doubt with the best of intentions in mind, but exaggerating nonetheless.
Before any second referendum we would need a 'cast iron' (sic) promise that the UK would remain on the basis on current treaty obligations and be exempt from any further integration of the EU.
Does the EU even have that in their power to offer. Otherwise we might be signing up for a relationship very different from even the current status quo.
No.
There is no legal basis for assuming A50 is revocable. However, the UK could sign an accession treaty and rejoin the EU at the precise moment it leaves, of course. But such an accession treaty would have to go through the full EU27 ratification process.
Which means it would be subject to the full might of EUCO horsetrading to get it through the 27 parliaments.
As such the EU could make zero guarantees the UK's relationship would be unchanged.
And they would have to want us back. It's a little detail that remainers are content to ignore. The rest of the EU are simply not going to want the UK back in with a very sizeable minority determined to push for our departure yet again as soon as an opportunity arises.
That's fine in principle but (as you well know) it's not how parliamentary government works. May has no choice but to try to keep the Tory Party as united as possible, and the DUP in alliance.
It's easy to say "get on with it" but not very meaningful unless you have a specific "it" to get on with.
There comes a point when a Party realises its best interests and those of the country are incompatible. Nick Clegg came to realise the interests of promoting a no-fees policy for students in terms of electoral popularity were incompatible with the Government message of restoring the public finances. Major could have cut taxes in 1996-97 in a desperate attempt to win back voters but he didn't. The Conservatives were annihilated in 1997 and Brown inherited a sound and solid economy.
The last sentence sums it up - from 24/6/16 to today there has been no clear national debate about what voting LEAVE meant and where we should go from that vote. Instead, May and the Conservatives simply said "We'll sort it. Trust us". That was popular following the pain and anguish of the EU debate for the first half of 2017.
People stopped wanting to talk about the EU and the future - they wanted to bury their heads in the sands and abdicated all ownership and responsibility to May and the Conservatives.
That was wrong - May should have said in the autumn of 2016 - "we need to have a national conversation about the future, about the UK's place in the world and its future relationship with the EU". That COULD have happened - instead we had months of flapping, a pointless GE and the calling of A50 without a coherent plan in place.
Even now we don't have an "it" - Chequers was a bunch of barely coherent platitudes at best and as soon as the ERG got a whiff of it the changes came. May could and should have faced down the ERG at that moment - her consistent equivocation is good for survival but damaging for credibility and authority as this morning's data confirms.
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Will the Governments of the EU praise him for getting a No Deal which seems now by far the likeliest outcome
Yes, I think they probably will.
You think the EU has the UK over a barrel now, just imagine the kind of stranglehold they'll have once the no-deal catastrophe strikes.
The UK will be effectively run by fiat by Merkel.
I don’t see any evidence for that.
The most immediate consequence of no deal is that the UK will rapidly seek new non-EU markets for its imports and exports.
The problem with no deal is that Parliament (or HMG, more accurately) doesn’t have the arithmetic resilience to pass any new legislation or supplementary trade deals in its wake, and its not clear if the public is willing to endure 2-4 years of significant disruption to make it out the other side.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
And it's easier to get a 2nd referendum passed than calling a GE, I suspect
Suspect not, actually.
GE has set and established rules (established parties, it happens at most every five years)
2nd ref would be novel (what is the question, what are the funding restrictions, who is nominated official groups).
And that is before various attempts to tilt the balance are considered. Dates of purdah etc
A general election would not settle the Brexit question, because both Labour and the Conservatives are so bitterly divided. A vote for one candidate from either party would be no indication of what the voter thought about Brexit.
It would be very helpful, in the event of a first referendum with clearly defined alternatives, for the Remain side not to be headed by leading Conservative politicians. They can all work for whichever of the Leave alternatives they have managed to agree among themselves (and with the EU negotiators, of course)..
One significant difference between EURef1 and EURef2 is that the Tory Party would almost certainly be officially aligned with some Leave option (the Deal, if there is one; Leave if there isn't). This would make a significant difference to the funding allowed. The Conservatives' neutrality in EURef1 meant a loss of £7m in allowed spend to whichever side it would have campaigned for.
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
Process:
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
Thats fantasy.
Those 48 letters would be in with the 1922 before the ink was dry.
Indeed. Also, "May announces a referendum" doesn't just equal "a referendum will happen". The PM (indeed, the government) does not have the power to simply impose a referendum on the country.
But the fatal flaw is the "all the opponents of what I want suddenly agree with me in a moment of enlightenment" dream-like optimism.
Indeed. Labours priority would not be a second referendum. It would be a GE.
Before any second referendum we would need a 'cast iron' (sic) promise that the UK would remain on the basis on current treaty obligations and be exempt from any further integration of the EU.
Does the EU even have that in their power to offer. Otherwise we might be signing up for a relationship very different from even the current status quo.
No.
There is no legal basis for assuming A50 is revocable. However, the UK could sign an accession treaty and rejoin the EU at the precise moment it leaves, of course. But such an accession treaty would have to go through the full EU27 ratification process.
Which means it would be subject to the full might of EUCO horsetrading to get it through the 27 parliaments.
As such the EU could make zero guarantees the UK's relationship would be unchanged.
Indications are (not least the comment by the French Europe minister last week) that the EU would be so relieved the UK was not leaving that a relationship similar to the current one would be agreed.
Oh sure, that's a possibility. But the idea that anyone can make "cast iron guarantees" the UK would go through a full accession process and end up exactly where it started seems implausible.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Britain would be made to pay heavily to Remain as well. That’s how the EU works.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
Yes. That's why I'd vote Leave in any second referendum, having voted Remain in the first.
Before any second referendum we would need a 'cast iron' (sic) promise that the UK would remain on the basis on current treaty obligations and be exempt from any further integration of the EU.
Does the EU even have that in their power to offer. Otherwise we might be signing up for a relationship very different from even the current status quo.
No.
There is no legal basis for assuming A50 is revocable. However, the UK could sign an accession treaty and rejoin the EU at the precise moment it leaves, of course. But such an accession treaty would have to go through the full EU27 ratification process.
Which means it would be subject to the full might of EUCO horsetrading to get it through the 27 parliaments.
As such the EU could make zero guarantees the UK's relationship would be unchanged.
Indications are (not least the comment by the French Europe minister last week) that the EU would be so relieved the UK was not leaving that a relationship similar to the current one would be agreed.
Oh sure, that's a possibility. But the idea that anyone can make "cast iron guarantees" the UK would go through a full accession process and end up exactly where it started seems implausible.
A straightforward revocation of A50 would do the trick.
Perhaps we could get a ruling on it from the ECJ ?
You need to show your working there, because that's where your errors are. How does a refusal to call a second referendum automatically lead to a general election? Even more so, how does a GE negate the need for a new referendum, when the last GE didn't stop people calling for one, even though it's almost certain not to happen.
The politicians who wanted to "take back control" can't make a decision. They will put it back to the people.
The people can vote again on the question of in or out, or they can replace the politicians.
A 2nd referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only way to avoid a 2nd referendum.
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
Process:
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
Your process falls down on point 2, let alone the rest which is wishful thinking.
f it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Except it's not.
If we really just have WTO, the panes don't fly.
Since that really would be cataclysmic, what the WTO advocates really mean is WTO for trade, but membership are agreements on all the rest of the stuff we actually need to function in the modern World.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Britain would be made to pay heavily to Remain as well. That’s how the EU works.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
Yes. That's why I'd vote Leave in any second referendum, having voted Remain in the first.
Outside of politics I know precisely one person who wants to overturn the referendum. Despite almost everyone I know voting Remain.
Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with.
My other half (remainer) is infuriated with continuity Remainers who try to frustrate the decision.
I realise as a Conservative and a supporter of May figures like this morning's make grim reading but let me (as a LEAVE voter and no friend of your Party) spell it out in simple terms.
"Got on With" equals we are all bored, tired and fed up with the chaotic, half-arsed flailing round of May, the ex-FS Johnson, the ex-DexEU Davis and the useless Fox. We are all tired of the national interest being sacrificed on the altar of keeping that useless waste of space called the Conservative Party "united". If May wants to herd cats let her do it on her own time and without getting the rest of us involved.
"Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with."
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
That's the point. It can't be "just, got on with it". No matter how badly people want that easy fix. There is no way now to leave the EU without chaos. It is now crystal clear that if we did want to leave, then the process should have been a five year one, or perhaps even longer, as we unwind stuff like customs. This should have been made clear as part of the terms of the referendum.
The Brexiteers have lied repeatedly to the country about the whole process.
Yes, Brexit should have been marketed as a vast, long-term project, with A50 only invoked after years of research, development and agreement on our side. The problem is that too many insufficiently serious characters like DD saw it just as an amusing little experiment, much like his by-election jape.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Britain would be made to pay heavily to Remain as well. That’s how the EU works.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
Yes. That's why I'd vote Leave in any second referendum, having voted Remain in the first.
Even if the polls were 60/40 remain ? (Which would likely be the case if there ever were to be a second vote.)
You're going round in circles, supported by flimsy assertions. You need to show the political processes.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
The party is already split. The deal is already undermined. Remain is already leading the polls. UKIP are already resurgent.
The politicians want a way to avoid the inevitable blame for the disaster to come.
Their default card is to put it back to the people.
Leavers are never going to support the outcome of any second referendum. They have opposed the judiciary, the House of Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the governor of the Bank of England, the BBC and the Electoral Commission. There are no circumstances in which they are going to support the outcome of a second referendum.
The country's civic structures are being taken apart one by one by nihilistic Leavers. This is not something to factor into deciding whether or not to hold a second referendum, except in the sense that it forms part of Britain's breakdown.
I don’t think that’s true, provided a majority of Leavers themselves supported a referendum. In other words, hard Leave got down into the 20-25% bracket. But, even if they didn’t, they sure as hell wouldn’t accept it at all if it was done on any different basis to the original one purely on the grounds they’d never accept a proper one, so what the hell.
I’m afraid much of the rest of your post there is hyperbolic. The countries civic institutions are not being taken apart. There are certainly Leavers who rail and wail against them but they do not constitute the majority. I think most Leavers simply fear the mandate of the vote won’t be honoured, and there are influential forces out there who are determined to stop it. Some of that is true. It’s the idea there’s active collusion between those institutions and the influential Remainers which isn’t.
You are exaggerating, no doubt with the best of intentions in mind, but exaggerating nonetheless.
You have your party's MPs currently sending round the begging bowl to encourage a challenge to the Electoral Commission on the ground of bias (no evidence actually so far provided beyond a disobliging decision). A friendly newspaper labelled the judiciary "enemies of the people" for having issued a decision that established the process for Brexit. Need I go on?
Far from being hyperbolic, it is a sad fact of everyday British politics that Leavers are looking to dismantle and politicise the country's institutions in any respect that they get in the way, and this is seen by them as entirely normal. No Leave voices are ever heard stating that this is unacceptable, that the country's institutions need to be shored up rather than undermined. Where are the Leavers who are considering what post-Brexit British institutions are going to look like?
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Will the Governments of the EU praise him for getting a No Deal which seems now by far the likeliest outcome
Yes. Because his remit is to protect the single market and the four freedoms. The 27 can live with some damage to their trade with the UK. Of course, they are hoping that Brexit just collapses in the face of reality as looks increasingly likely.
I am really not sure the governments of Holland, Spain, Belgium etc will think dont worry about all this unemployment, at least we stuck two fingers up to the UK.
A straightforward revocation of A50 would do the trick.
Perhaps we could get a ruling on it from the ECJ ?
I think we'd need rulings from the ECJ and SCOTUK.
Though since the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't mention revocation at all, I think it'd be a difficult case to argue.
Lisbon says the EUCO can extend the article 50 process (presumably indefinitely) by unanimous consent, but it doesn't mention any power to revert to the status quo ante.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Britain would be made to pay heavily to Remain as well. That’s how the EU works.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
Yes. That's why I'd vote Leave in any second referendum, having voted Remain in the first.
Even if the polls were 60/40 remain ? (Which would likely be the case if there ever were to be a second vote.)
I dont see that, British people will see the EU trying to bully us.
It has to be said. Michel Barnier has played a blinder. He's met both his briefs, the public one to fight for and stick to the EU red lines and the private one to stop Brexit. Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
Will the Governments of the EU praise him for getting a No Deal which seems now by far the likeliest outcome
Yes, I think they probably will.
You think the EU has the UK over a barrel now, just imagine the kind of stranglehold they'll have once the no-deal catastrophe strikes.
The UK will be effectively run by fiat by Merkel.
That's different from being in the EU how? At least this way we won't pay for the pleasure.
Also, a no deal brexit is pretty much the only outcome where the Germans would have no say over anything to do with the UK. A deal would still result in some kind of trade recognition. No deal would be no deal.
Nope. It’s you who has a partisan obsession with the Conservative Party and it’s members, not me.
Gerrymandering is where one party redraws electoral districts on a partisan basis to favour themselves. In Britain, we have an independent electoral commission doing it (by law) on no such basis and are instead trying to form equal sized constituencies to be fairer to voters.
There is no gerrymandering. It’s just Labour hate it as it disadvantages them with some undersized inner city seats they’ve benefited from for a long time.
Actually I just fancied yanking Mortimer's chain but as I've got a rise out of you as well, I'll consider that a result.
The Electoral Commission makes proposals which then go out for comment - it's at that stage that the various parties seek a more favourable redrawing of boundaries so that one of their Wards goes into a more promising seat and they lose a Ward controlled by another Party.
This is part of the argument when you have towns like York or elsewhere - sometimes you get an East-West or North-South split and sometimes you get an Inner and Outer split which the parties generally like as it creates two safe seats rather than two marginals.
I've been to these public hearings - the lawyers for each Party argue the toss often argue over a Ward with two or three thousand trying to claim "natural" boundaries and so on but it's either about creating a safer seat for their side or making another Party's seat more marginal.
a no deal brexit is pretty much the only outcome where the Germans would have no say over anything to do with the UK. A deal would still result in some kind of trade recognition. No deal would be no deal.
f it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Except it's not.
If we really just have WTO, the panes don't fly.
Since that really would be cataclysmic, what the WTO advocates really mean is WTO for trade, but membership are agreements on all the rest of the stuff we actually need to function in the modern World.
Well yes. WTO is 'feasible' in the sense that it's 'possible to do' (unlike the other schemes that have been dreamt up, which could never even be implemented). Whether that arrangement will be anything other that disastrous is another question though.
a no deal brexit is pretty much the only outcome where the Germans would have no say over anything to do with the UK. A deal would still result in some kind of trade recognition. No deal would be no deal.
a no deal brexit is pretty much the only outcome where the Germans would have no say over anything to do with the UK. A deal would still result in some kind of trade recognition. No deal would be no deal.
Well yes. WTO is 'feasible' in the sense that it's 'possible to do' (unlike the other schemes that have been dreamt up, which could never even be implemented). Whether that arrangement will be anything other that disastrous is another question though.
it's 'possible to do', as long as there are also a lot of other agreements in place...
There are now at least five schools of thought with significant popular support:
Nationalist: anti-EU, anti-immigration, socially conservative, protectionist Business Conservative: soft Brexit or Remain, flexible on immigration, socially fairly liberal, free market Liberal: Remain, pro-immigration, socially very liberal, free market Social democrat: Remain, flexible on immigration, socially liberal, regulated free market Socialist: Reluctant Remain or soft Brexit, pro-immigration, socially liberal, state industries, protectionist
Actual studies show that four of your five schools of thought have very little support.
Nationalist = 'Common Sense' and 'Our Britain' (anti-immigration, nationalist, broadly isolationist) = 50% of the population Business Conservative = 'Free Liberals' and 'New Britain'= 13% Liberal = 'Progressives' = 11% Social Democrat = 'Democratic Socialists' = 8% Socialist = 'Community' (though this group is actually broadly anti-immigration) = 5%
a no deal brexit is pretty much the only outcome where the Germans would have no say over anything to do with the UK. A deal would still result in some kind of trade recognition. No deal would be no deal.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Britain would be made to pay heavily to Remain as well. That’s how the EU works.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
Yes. That's why I'd vote Leave in any second referendum, having voted Remain in the first.
Same here, you cannot go against democracy
So you'd accept a verdict of 'Remain' in the said 2nd referendum?
A straightforward revocation of A50 would do the trick.
Perhaps we could get a ruling on it from the ECJ ?
I think we'd need rulings from the ECJ and SCOTUK.
Though since the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't mention revocation at all, I think it'd be a difficult case to argue.
Lisbon says the EUCO can extend the article 50 process (presumably indefinitely) by unanimous consent, but it doesn't mention any power to revert to the status quo ante.
I wouldn't assume that an indefinite (or even extremely lengthy - say, 100 years) extension is legal, as it would be contrary to the "intention to withdraw" and the requirement of the EU to negotiate an "agreement with that [departing] State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal" - which is implicitly a dynamic process which ends either with an agreement or at a cut-off.
On balance, I'd say that the Council does have the scope to make such a decision but there's certainly an arguable case to the contrary.
Leavers don't get to determine what constitutes democracy. If it becomes apparent that there is no longer continued support for their mad hobbyhorse, the country should change course. So it may be a case of needs must. Or it may be a case of a back-up plan securing the Parliamentary support necessary for a statutory referendum that might otherwise would not be forthcoming quickly enough.
As it happens, I'm not expecting a second referendum (and I'm not at all sure how I would vote or if I would vote in any second referendum).
A second referendum sounds deeply problematic to me. If we vote 'Remain' then I'm sure we'll be forced to negotiate our entire membership arrangements from scratch - a practical nightmare. If it's all about what type of Leave we want, how will that work? Apart from WTO, no one has discovered a form of Leave that is remotely feasible. (WTO is feasible just masochistic.)
Britain would be made to pay heavily to Remain as well. That’s how the EU works.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
Yes. That's why I'd vote Leave in any second referendum, having voted Remain in the first.
Same here, you cannot go against democracy
So you'd accept a verdict of 'Remain' in the said 2nd referendum?
Some might, plenty of people wouldn't and would feel cheated.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Bollocks
So being in the room made a huge difference when the EU stripped us of our financial regulations veto? Or when they continued to drive more and more funds to the CAP despite our continued disagreement? Or when they ignored all of the leaders when we demanded a reduction in the EU budget only for them to increase it by using a reserve funding agreement to be used in emergencies only?
Yes, being in the room has made a huge difference. The EU is run by Germany, for Germany. Slowly the rest of the EU is starting to realise that as well. Some, like the Netherlands are just going to knuckle under, others, like the UK have decided enough is enough.
Outside of politics I know precisely one person who wants to overturn the referendum. Despite almost everyone I know voting Remain.
Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with.
My other half (remainer) is infuriated with continuity Remainers who try to frustrate the decision.
I realise as a Conservative and a supporter of May figures like this morning's make grim reading but let me (as a LEAVE voter and no friend of your Party) spell it out in simple terms.
"Got on With" equals we are all bored, tired and fed up with the chaotic, half-arsed flailing round of May, the ex-FS Johnson, the ex-DexEU Davis and the useless Fox. We are all tired of the national interest being sacrificed on the altar of keeping that useless waste of space called the Conservative Party "united". If May wants to herd cats let her do it on her own time and without getting the rest of us involved.
"Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with."
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
That's the point. It can't be "just, got on with it". No matter how badly people want that easy fix. There is no way now to leave the EU without chaos. It is now crystal clear that if we did want to leave, then the process should have been a five year one, or perhaps even longer, as we unwind stuff like customs. This should have been made clear as part of the terms of the referendum.
The Brexiteers have lied repeatedly to the country about the whole process.
Yes, Brexit should have been marketed as a vast, long-term project, with A50 only invoked after years of research, development and agreement on our side. The problem is that too many insufficiently serious characters like DD saw it just as an amusing little experiment, much like his by-election jape.
When the UK joined the then EEC in 1973 there was a seven year transition period. Sir Ivan Rogers pointed out to the government that leaving what is now a much more integrated EU within two years was not practical, and was sacked for his pains. This clusterf*ck is entirely the fault of the Tories.
Comments
https://twitter.com/gabyhinsliff/status/1023656560076173312
If certain sections of the media seem intent on provoking the panic buying of food and medicines, they can expect to find themselves in a lot of trouble for what should be bloody obvious reasons.
Down here in Dorset, all I hear is that people want it to be got on with.
My other half (remainer) is infuriated with continuity Remainers who try to frustrate the decision.
Leavers will seek someone to blame. Blame yourselves. Putting up a ship of fools against a consummate ENA trained professional is laughable
"Got on With" equals we are all bored, tired and fed up with the chaotic, half-arsed flailing round of May, the ex-FS Johnson, the ex-DexEU Davis and the useless Fox. We are all tired of the national interest being sacrificed on the altar of keeping that useless waste of space called the Conservative Party "united". If May wants to herd cats let her do it on her own time and without getting the rest of us involved.
1. Why, and how, would a Tory Party put to the people a referendum that will split it apart, probably undermine the deal its government has just made, re-energise UKIP, and might well result in Remain winning despite a majority voting for some form of Leave?
2. If not (1), how does anyone else legislated for a referendum?
3. Alternatively, how does a GE come about when Con and DUP MPs won't vote for one.
4. Alternatively, how do the people replace the politicians without a GE?
As an unelected official, he is happy to play poker because it is someone else's money. But the NI backstop demand I think will go down in history as a massive tactical error. It never makes sense to demand someone in a negotiation do something they have no ability to deliver. He has played this hand too hard to be able to backpedal, which is now needed to get a deal at all.
You are simply assuming that May will be around to surrender to him. If not, he loses.
She wasn't before the referendum, but since then, she's advocated leaving, carried out planning for leaving, and done her level best to deliver the referendum result in the letter and the spirit of the referendum.
I may not be her greatest fan, but I genuinely believe she's tried her best to deliver a Brexit that gives as much as possible of what was promised and the minimum possible risk. While dealing with a very fractious party.
She can't afford not to be a Leaver (I do not subscribe to the williamglenn view that she's engaged in some sort of amazing "Batman Gambit" to deny Brexit).
I have also seen the charge going around that the difficulties and disorder around the negotiations are somehow down to it being led by the wrong people, who are Remainers at heart. Whatever May's issues and problems, I can believe she genuinely wants the best for the country and her Party, and to fulfil the mandate she's been lumbered with. I don't see that if Davis, or Fox, or Johnson were PM that we'd be in a better place - it's not down to ideological purity, but the intransigent and often mutually contradictory requirements.
- Polls show 60%+ support for Remain and a growing sense that an exit from Brexit is in the national interest.
- Cabinet meets and makes a decision to hold a second referendum.
- May announces it on the steps of Downing Street.
- The party sucks it up because they will see that there is no alternative.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
That's the point. It can't be "just, got on with it". No matter how badly people want that easy fix. There is no way now to leave the EU without chaos. It is now crystal clear that if we did want to leave, then the process should have been a five year one, or perhaps even longer, as we unwind stuff like customs. This should have been made clear as part of the terms of the referendum.
The Brexiteers have lied repeatedly to the country about the whole process.
It is a system we would do well to replicate in the UK as we could sorely use our own cadre of énarques about now...
It's easy to say "get on with it" but not very meaningful unless you have a specific "it" to get on with.
First steps would be to agree initial trade deals and mutual free movement. Then we could establish deeper defence partnerships – sending British ships to defend the North West Passage and offering a British nuclear shield to Australia. We could move on perhaps to a customs union (though that might not be necessary) and regulatory convergence. Perhaps we could eventually establish some political oversight institutions – a Parliament, a Court and a civil service. One presumes these would be located in New Zealand, so as not to favour any of the three main players.
I stand by what I’ve said before: a second referendum is firstly very unlikely before we Leave and would only take place when the decision had *already been made*.
In other words, only if public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of Remaining, including a majority of Leavers.
Those 48 letters would be in with the 1922 before the ink was dry.
Arguing that turnout was down would have the same traction as the arguments Remainers have put forwards that the 2016 referendum was illegitimate because only 37% of the electorate voted Leave. No-one cares.
Or that the referendum was "advisory". No-one cares.
Boycotting the vote, ensuring a loss, and complaining that it was illegitimate afterwards would look like the boycotters thought they were going to lose; complaining afterwards would look like being a sore loser. Just like those who've complained about "37%!!!" and "It was only advisory!!" have looked like sore losers. And achieved nothing.
As it happens, I think that any referendum on the deal (which is still, in my mind, unlikely) would be hard fought and the issues over immigration (which drove a big chunk of the Leave vote last time) are still there. Leave still have that, coupled with the "Remain are sore losers" advantage. Remain have the issues of No Deal and there being no specific deal on Leaving that the people could agree on, coupled with more youngsters entering the electoral pool (it does look like this is a cohort thing rather than an ageing thing, so more like attitudes to gay marriage (remaining with a cohort as they age) than on supporting Conservatives (where a cohort tends to switch over as they age)).
It's by no means a given either way. I think Leave would actually still have the edge, and abandoning the field in order to try to complain about the result afterwards wouldn't help matters at all.
Gerrymandering is where one party redraws electoral districts on a partisan basis to favour themselves. In Britain, we have an independent electoral commission doing it (by law) on no such basis and are instead trying to form equal sized constituencies to be fairer to voters.
There is no gerrymandering. It’s just Labour hate it as it disadvantages them with some undersized inner city seats they’ve benefited from for a long time.
https://brexitcentral.com/concerned-proposed-withdrawal-agreement/
It’s a succinct explainantion of why there’s going to be no deal, as it’s impossible for the British PM (let alone one supported by Ulster Unionists) to agree to the effective annexation of Northern Ireland.
It’s Mrs May’s unamended Chequers deal, or it’s no deal at all.
The country's civic structures are being taken apart one by one by nihilistic Leavers. This is not something to factor into deciding whether or not to hold a second referendum, except in the sense that it forms part of Britain's breakdown.
Wether it would be suicidal electoratly is of secondary importance for them. Securing Brexit with a no deal would be worth any price for them.
One thing is fairly certain, whatever terms are on offer are likely to be far better than those offered for re-admittance once we have left.
It would be very helpful, in the event of a first referendum with clearly defined alternatives, for the Remain side not to be headed by leading Conservative politicians. They can all work for whichever of the Leave alternatives they have managed to agree among themselves (and with the EU negotiators, of course)..
A boycott could equally be described as couldn't be bothered to turn out.
This will run and will in british politics for decades whichever way it goes.
We’d also never be taken seriously again. We’d have been brought to heel, and the EU and the world would see that we had too.
We decided to Leave, we now must Leave, and give it a chance to succeed.
You think the EU has the UK over a barrel now, just imagine the kind of stranglehold they'll have once the no-deal catastrophe strikes.
The UK will be effectively run by fiat by Merkel.
Does the EU even have that in their power to offer. Otherwise we might be signing up for a relationship very different from even the current status quo.
I'd have said 6.
There is no legal basis for assuming A50 is revocable. However, the UK could sign an accession treaty and rejoin the EU at the precise moment it leaves, of course. But such an accession treaty would have to go through the full EU27 ratification process.
Which means it would be subject to the full might of EUCO horsetrading to get it through the 27 parliaments.
As such the EU could make zero guarantees the UK's relationship would be unchanged.
I am sure she feels like Macbeth who expressed an earlier view of Brexit: “I am in blood stepped in so far that should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er,”
Like Macbeth all her earlier sins of failing to prepare, failing to set out a clear negotiating position, failing to get a position agreed by the Cabinet until way too late in the process and failing to keep any sort of grip on the narrative allowing ever more silly scare stories to run in the media have come back to haunt her. The old, and somewhat optimistic phrase, cometh the hour cometh the man, has rarely been proven quite so sadly wrong. She has been a disaster for our country.
But the fatal flaw is the "all the opponents of what I want suddenly agree with me in a moment of enlightenment" dream-like optimism.
Is that how decades of stability and peaceful progress comes to an end?
I’m afraid much of the rest of your post there is hyperbolic. The countries civic institutions are not being taken apart. There are certainly Leavers who rail and wail against them but they do not constitute the majority. I think most Leavers simply fear the mandate of the vote won’t be honoured, and there are influential forces out there who are determined to stop it. Some of that is true. It’s the idea there’s active collusion between those institutions and the influential Remainers which isn’t.
You are exaggerating, no doubt with the best of intentions in mind, but exaggerating nonetheless.
The last sentence sums it up - from 24/6/16 to today there has been no clear national debate about what voting LEAVE meant and where we should go from that vote. Instead, May and the Conservatives simply said "We'll sort it. Trust us". That was popular following the pain and anguish of the EU debate for the first half of 2017.
People stopped wanting to talk about the EU and the future - they wanted to bury their heads in the sands and abdicated all ownership and responsibility to May and the Conservatives.
That was wrong - May should have said in the autumn of 2016 - "we need to have a national conversation about the future, about the UK's place in the world and its future relationship with the EU". That COULD have happened - instead we had months of flapping, a pointless GE and the calling of A50 without a coherent plan in place.
Even now we don't have an "it" - Chequers was a bunch of barely coherent platitudes at best and as soon as the ERG got a whiff of it the changes came. May could and should have faced down the ERG at that moment - her consistent equivocation is good for survival but damaging for credibility and authority as this morning's data confirms.
The most immediate consequence of no deal is that the UK will rapidly seek new non-EU markets for its imports and exports.
The problem with no deal is that Parliament (or HMG, more accurately) doesn’t have the arithmetic resilience to pass any new legislation or supplementary trade deals in its wake, and its not clear if the public is willing to endure 2-4 years of significant disruption to make it out the other side.
Perhaps we could get a ruling on it from the ECJ ?
You also seriously misread May’s psychology.
If we really just have WTO, the panes don't fly.
Since that really would be cataclysmic, what the WTO advocates really mean is WTO for trade, but membership are agreements on all the rest of the stuff we actually need to function in the modern World.
(Which would likely be the case if there ever were to be a second vote.)
The politicians want a way to avoid the inevitable blame for the disaster to come.
Their default card is to put it back to the people.
Far from being hyperbolic, it is a sad fact of everyday British politics that Leavers are looking to dismantle and politicise the country's institutions in any respect that they get in the way, and this is seen by them as entirely normal. No Leave voices are ever heard stating that this is unacceptable, that the country's institutions need to be shored up rather than undermined. Where are the Leavers who are considering what post-Brexit British institutions are going to look like?
Though since the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't mention revocation at all, I think it'd be a difficult case to argue.
Lisbon says the EUCO can extend the article 50 process (presumably indefinitely) by unanimous consent, but it doesn't mention any power to revert to the status quo ante.
Also, a no deal brexit is pretty much the only outcome where the Germans would have no say over anything to do with the UK. A deal would still result in some kind of trade recognition. No deal would be no deal.
The Electoral Commission makes proposals which then go out for comment - it's at that stage that the various parties seek a more favourable redrawing of boundaries so that one of their Wards goes into a more promising seat and they lose a Ward controlled by another Party.
This is part of the argument when you have towns like York or elsewhere - sometimes you get an East-West or North-South split and sometimes you get an Inner and Outer split which the parties generally like as it creates two safe seats rather than two marginals.
I've been to these public hearings - the lawyers for each Party argue the toss often argue over a Ward with two or three thousand trying to claim "natural" boundaries and so on but it's either about creating a safer seat for their side or making another Party's seat more marginal.
... I mean my Foreign Secretary IS stupid
Nationalist = 'Common Sense' and 'Our Britain' (anti-immigration, nationalist, broadly isolationist) = 50% of the population
Business Conservative = 'Free Liberals' and 'New Britain'= 13%
Liberal = 'Progressives' = 11%
Social Democrat = 'Democratic Socialists' = 8%
Socialist = 'Community' (though this group is actually broadly anti-immigration) = 5%
On balance, I'd say that the Council does have the scope to make such a decision but there's certainly an arguable case to the contrary.
Yes, being in the room has made a huge difference. The EU is run by Germany, for Germany. Slowly the rest of the EU is starting to realise that as well. Some, like the Netherlands are just going to knuckle under, others, like the UK have decided enough is enough.