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.
Well I'm here in Dorset too and I hear plenty of people who think the whole thing has been a terrible mistake. Just depends on who you mix with I guess.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
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.
I can never work out when Leavers complain that Brexit has been run by Remainers whether they are trying to claim Sir Ivan Rogers as one of their own. At the time, they didn't seem too struck on him and approved of Theresa May's decision to oust him.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
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?
There is no Leave deal that the Conservative party can agree. It is the Conservative party that is the problem here.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
On basis that if in any point in time opinion polls show a desire to leave the EU again we then imediately have another referendum to come out, maybe.....
On basis that if in any point in time opinion polls show a desire to leave the EU again we then imediately have another referendum to come out, maybe.....
Glad to see that PB has turned it's attention back to Brexit today. Did we manage to sort out the Israeli-Palastine question last night? - I went to bed early and missed the end.
On basis that if in any point in time opinion polls show a desire to leave the EU again we then imediately have another referendum to come out, maybe.....
It would not be undemocratic to do so
Maybe just have one every 2 years no matter what, just to be sure?
Glad to see that PB has turned it's attention back to Brexit today. Did we manage to sort out the Israeli-Palastine question last night? - I went to bed early and missed the end.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
We supported the move to QMV generally IIRC. And, given our population, it would be pretty difficult to get something through if we werer against it, unless, for whatever reason we’d got ourselves right out on a limb.
On basis that if in any point in time opinion polls show a desire to leave the EU again we then imediately have another referendum to come out, maybe.....
It would not be undemocratic to do so
A system whereby every morning we vote by text whether we're in or out the EU on that day every weekday morning, and automatically join and leave the EU depending on the daily vote.
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.
I can never work out when Leavers complain that Brexit has been run by Remainers whether they are trying to claim Sir Ivan Rogers as one of their own. At the time, they didn't seem too struck on him and approved of Theresa May's decision to oust him.
I can only go on reportage from Shipman's book. Rogers was an expert, but he didn't suffer fools gladly, if at all. Unfortunately, he considered both May and the Three Brexiteers idiots all. Being right is scant protection from the wrath of ones superiors, as I can attest from personal experience.
A hard Brexit is less threatening to the survival of the EU than a soft “cherry-picking” Brexit.
May is, therefore, faced with an EU that is stronger than the UK economically and so does not need a deal as badly as the UK does, but which, because of its internal weakness, cannot give her the kind of deal she wants without risking its own existence.
British requests for a major evolution in the EU’s current approach were, therefore, always going to be a non-starter.
Brexit was always going to be either pointless (the UK stays in the Single Market but loses its ability to vote on Single Market laws) or disruptive (the UK leaves the Single Market and faces massive economic disruption).
Glad to see that PB has turned it's attention back to Brexit today. Did we manage to sort out the Israeli-Palastine question last night? - I went to bed early and missed the end.
We're sending David Davis.
Easiest peace process ever.
Have the whole thing sorted by Christmas.
I really, really don’t the sound of the third statement.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
We supported the move to QMV generally IIRC. And, given our population, it would be pretty difficult to get something through if we werer against it, unless, for whatever reason we’d got ourselves right out on a limb.
The EMU has a QMV majority. Non-EMU nations get completely and utterly fucked by it.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
The only way that the EU could have moved from unanimous voting to QMV was with the agreement of the UK.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
We supported the move to QMV generally IIRC. And, given our population, it would be pretty difficult to get something through if we werer against it, unless, for whatever reason we’d got ourselves right out on a limb.
What, like supporting an incompetent, corrupt drunk like Junker for President? Cameron was vociferously opposed (and has been amply vindicated) but was simply ignored on the back of some stitch up agreed between various countries as to how the goodies were to be handed out.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
On basis that if in any point in time opinion polls show a desire to leave the EU again we then imediately have another referendum to come out, maybe.....
If there's a relevant time constraint making it critical to have a decision right then, I'd be sympathetic. If there wasn't, I'm sure there will be obsessive parties for obsessive Leavers who will stand at general elections offering fresh referendums.
Maybe just have one every 2 years no matter what, just to be sure?
If we had a written constitution, that would be entirely feasible and arguably a good thing.
Just as we have to legitimise the Government periodically, there is a democratic argument for saying we ought to legitimise specific decisions of government periodically as well.
As SeantT says, if we had had a vote on Lisbon, this would probably not have happened.
In the case or periodic votes, it would also be much less likely that there would be such a horrendous campaign, and that illegality on such a grand scale would be tolerated.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
We supported the move to QMV generally IIRC. And, given our population, it would be pretty difficult to get something through if we werer against it, unless, for whatever reason we’d got ourselves right out on a limb.
What, like supporting an incompetent, corrupt drunk like Junker for President? Cameron was vociferously opposed (and has been amply vindicated) but was simply ignored on the back of some stitch up agreed between various countries as to how the goodies were to be handed out.
Dave's biggest failure was thinking he could rely on Merkel. In both cases she protected her own interests, fair enough, but Dave should have realised she was going to revert to type.
Brexit was always going to be either pointless (the UK stays in the Single Market but loses its ability to vote on Single Market laws)
The UK wouldn't lose its say if we became EFTA or EEA members. The UK government would agree a common position with Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein as well as consulting the government of Switzerland, and would then engage with the EU via EFTA's mechanisms joint organs.
Glad to see that PB has turned it's attention back to Brexit today. Did we manage to sort out the Israeli-Palastine question last night? - I went to bed early and missed the end.
We're sending David Davis.
Easiest peace process ever.
Have the whole thing sorted by Christmas.
Good scheme - keeps him from meddling in UK politics. We have a track-record of sending has-been politicians to the Middle East on doomed missions. Though you'd think they already have enough problems of their own without us dumping on them.
What, like supporting an incompetent, corrupt drunk like Junker for President? Cameron was vociferously opposed (and has been amply vindicated) but was simply ignored on the back of some stitch up agreed between various countries as to how the goodies were to be handed out.
I really wish Brexiteers would avoid this sort of actionable bullshit. It's possible to dislike the EU without putting OGH in libellous risk.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
Previous referendums have waited 30-40 years before being revisited as the public has changed its mind - or not in the case of Scotland.
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?
There is no Leave deal that the Conservative party can agree. It is the Conservative party that is the problem here.
Glad to see that PB has turned it's attention back to Brexit today. Did we manage to sort out the Israeli-Palastine question last night? - I went to bed early and missed the end.
Yes it was sorted, all Corbyn's fault , was the consensus.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
On basis that if in any point in time opinion polls show a desire to leave the EU again we then imediately have another referendum to come out, maybe.....
The next referendum will not be a repeat of the first; it will be to put the options of No Deal versus Remain. If by any chance May manages to strike a deal with the EU that her Party doesn't scupper then there will be no second referendum. But if we are faced with No Deal, there will be. That's my prediction.
Leave could well win that 2nd ref but at least we'd have committed to No Deal as a country.
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
We are 2 years into implementation, and it's a total clusterfuck.
It's not undemocratic to ask people to vote more than once.
It would be undemocratic to ask the people to vote in a second GE before a government had been formed following a first one (unless there was no possible such government).
It's the same with referendums: there was a majority for Leave, therefore the UK should leave. Once we have left, it's perfectly democratic for people to organise for Britain to rejoin. But not before.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
We supported the move to QMV generally IIRC. And, given our population, it would be pretty difficult to get something through if we werer against it, unless, for whatever reason we’d got ourselves right out on a limb.
What, like supporting an incompetent, corrupt drunk like Junker for President? Cameron was vociferously opposed (and has been amply vindicated) but was simply ignored on the back of some stitch up agreed between various countries as to how the goodies paid for by the UK were to be handed out.
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.)
Why this attitude of "they're bullying us"? It is a negotiation where we are trying to get some concessions/deals from someone else. What we are after is effectively there's, they have ownership of it. If they don't let us have it, why are they bullying us? We are effectively leaving the club, so why should we feel entitled to retaining some perks of being in the club? We can buy some perks, but they don't have to sell them to us. As far as I can see, we are either in or out.
I would prefer to be in for a host of reasons, including free movement and access to all trade markets for free. I have never been anti-immigration, I don't see what the fuss is about. Guest workers have been a tradition for years, they work here, they pay taxes, they can't claim benefits. I wouldn't expect anything different if I worked in France or Germany.
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%
Interesting study, thanks - hadn't seen that. I think that the "Common Sense" group is less easily pinned down in the Nationalist camp, since if they were there then there would never be anything but a Tory government. Rather, this group is an extension of the "swing voter" group, as well as the "Don't usually vote" group, and they tend to prioritise according to whatever happens to be in the news. But like the swing voters, they do want low taxes, and ity's this bloc of floating voters that inhibits both Tory and Labour governments from raising taxes, even when there's an apparently popular reason to do so (like helping the NHS).
Regardless, I think these schools of thought are quite distinctive and poorly distinguished by our rigid FPTP-driven party system.
It would be undemocratic to ask the people to vote in a second GE before a government had been formed following a first one (unless there was no possible such government).
It's the same with referendums: there was a majority for Leave, therefore the UK should leave. Once we have left, it's perfectly democratic for people to organise for Britain to rejoin. But not before.
Brexit was always going to be either pointless (the UK stays in the Single Market but loses its ability to vote on Single Market laws)
The UK wouldn't lose its say if we became EFTA or EEA members. The UK government would agree a common position with Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein as well as consulting the government of Switzerland, and would then engage with the EU via EFTA's mechanisms joint organs.
I think the other interesting aspect to EFTA/EEA membership is that the EFTA court has the ability to set legal precedent for the EU so if the UK was to take an issue to the EFTA court and win, the resulting judgement would have to then be applied across the whole EU, since the ECJ is legally bound to take EFTA court judgements as precedent in its own judgements.
The reason that helps us is that the EFTA court isn't as bound by the "ever-closer integration of the European people" line as the ECJ which has used that as justification for all sorts of land grabbing.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
Yes, they are. Governments do not need the consistent approval of all of their actions, all the time. We don't get a new general election just because Labour's now ahead in the polls.
In any case, I suspect that (as in 2016), if there were a new referendum, there would be a strong swing to Leave, under the guise of "the people vs the politicians".
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
Previous referendums have waited 30-40 years before being revisited as the public has changed its mind - or not in the case of Scotland.
Come back in 2046 please - respect the result.
I'm not currently in favour of a third referendum, because at present it would solve nothing. One side or the other needs to persuade the other to live with its preferred choice. Right now neither is yet succeeding (there are perhaps early indications that Leave support is flaking away but those are too tentative to act on just now).
Britain looks set for at least a generation of decline and disintegration as this continues to unravel.
I'm not currently in favour of a third referendum, because at present it would solve nothing. One side or the other needs to persuade the other to live with its preferred choice. Right now neither is yet succeeding (there are perhaps early indications that Leave support is flaking away but those are too tentative to act on just now).
Britain looks set for at least a generation of decline and disintegration as this continues to unravel.
I'm not in favour of the electorate bailing out the Tories. This is their mess and they should be made to own it.
EURef 3 is a get out of jail free card for May and the Tories they've done nothing to deserve.
What, like supporting an incompetent, corrupt drunk like Junker for President? Cameron was vociferously opposed (and has been amply vindicated) but was simply ignored on the back of some stitch up agreed between various countries as to how the goodies were to be handed out.
I really wish Brexiteers would avoid this sort of actionable bullshit. It's possible to dislike the EU without putting OGH in libellous risk.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
The only way that the EU could have moved from unanimous voting to QMV was with the agreement of the UK.
The extension of QMV into additional areas has always been sold as part of the price for enlargement of the Union. Successive treaties have amended the weighting and rules for QMV, particularly in terms of blocking minorities. It's a classic bureaucratic 'boiled frog' approach to getting shit done.
However, lest I lapse into the sin of hating on the EU, here's a balanced view on how QMV has worked out for the UK, sadly from 2015, but it should suffice:
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?
There is no Leave deal that the Conservative party can agree. It is the Conservative party that is the problem here.
Convenient though it might be for you to blame the Tory Party (not least because it's a saleable argument, as the divisions within the Party *are* a problem); it's far from the only problem.
Actually, I disagree with you: there is a Leave deal that the Tories could broadly sign up to: it's just that the EU won't sign up to it. Could a Labour government make a deal? I'm not sure that Corbyn could because he'd be a hopeless negotiator (yes, Davis and May haven't covered themselves in glory but that just demonstrates the difficulty: they, at least, have government experience and a desire to deliver on practical politics). Perhaps Labour could, in principle, but it would sharpen the division between their middle and their voting base, perhaps to stretching point.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
Previous referendums have waited 30-40 years before being revisited as the public has changed its mind - or not in the case of Scotland.
Come back in 2046 please - respect the result.
I'm not currently in favour of a third referendum, because at present it would solve nothing. One side or the other needs to persuade the other to live with its preferred choice. Right now neither is yet succeeding (there are perhaps early indications that Leave support is flaking away but those are too tentative to act on just now).
Britain looks set for at least a generation of decline and disintegration as this continues to unravel.
I totally agree, sadly. There isn't much we can do about it, unless we re-apply to the EU in 2025 or something.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
Previous referendums have waited 30-40 years before being revisited as the public has changed its mind - or not in the case of Scotland.
Come back in 2046 please - respect the result.
Britain looks set for at least a generation of decline and disintegration as this continues to unravel.
The only time in recent we have had even a decade of decline and disintegration was the 1970s - under Labour. Oh and when we joined the EU...
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
We supported the move to QMV generally IIRC. And, given our population, it would be pretty difficult to get something through if we werer against it, unless, for whatever reason we’d got ourselves right out on a limb.
What, like supporting an incompetent, corrupt drunk like Junker for President? Cameron was vociferously opposed (and has been amply vindicated) but was simply ignored on the back of some stitch up agreed between various countries as to how the goodies were to be handed out.
Dave's biggest failure was thinking he could rely on Merkel. In both cases she protected her own interests, fair enough, but Dave should have realised she was going to revert to type.
Merkel grew up in the prison-country that was East Germany. Foreign travel was impossible for most people and anyone who tried to cross the border without permission would be shot on sight. Older readers who visited Berlin when the wall was in place will remember the crosses placed on the western side showing where escapees had been killed merely for trying to reach the other half of the city. Free movement seemed an impossible dream at that time.
It's not surprising that Merkel resisted any downgrading of free movement, the surprise is that Cameron thought he could change her mind.
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?
There is no Leave deal that the Conservative party can agree. It is the Conservative party that is the problem here.
Thus "No Deal" Brexit - all you have to do is "nothing" which, thanks to their bickering and infighting, the Tories have become supremely good at.
Merkel grew up in the prison-country that was East Germany. Foreign travel was impossible for most people and anyone who tried to cross the border without permission would be shot on sight. Older readers who visited Berlin when the wall was in place will remember the crosses placed on the western side showing where escapees had been killed merely for trying to reach the other half of the city. Free movement seemed an impossible dream at that time.
It's not surprising that Merkel resisted any downgrading of free movement, the surprise is that Cameron thought he could change her mind.
Indeed. I think it's not just about free movement, but also on other aspects where Dave trusted Merkel and she, unsurprisingly, failed to deliver or never intended to deliver. The whole Junker fiasco comes to mind.
It's not surprising that Merkel resisted any downgrading of free movement, the surprise is that Cameron thought he could change her mind.
That was the Eton boy in him. They're always bred to have a superannuated belief in their own self worth, and they assume that everyone else will fall in line.
Sadly for him, the tropes of the British class system aren't so effective east of Calais.
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.
Wasn't that broadly what Cameron did get in his negotiations with the EU?
" Luckily there are two simple solutions. They are simple because they decouple imports and exports, in a way that most economists and consumers should support.
First, we should offer the EU a two year one-sided free trade agreement. This would allow the EU to import any goods and services to the UK without any tariffs or non-tariff barriers. We would not ask for anything in return except that during the life of the agreement, the EU will negotiate, in good faith, a comprehensive free trade agreement with the UK. There is no reason for the EU to refuse such a deal, and it could be negotiated very quickly, as would simply state that the terms of the EU’s imports to the UK will stay exactly the same."
Indeed. I think it's not just about free movement, but also on other aspects where Dave trusted Merkel and she, unsurprisingly, failed to deliver or never intended to deliver. The whole Junker fiasco comes to mind.
Cameron underestimated Merkel time and time again. Not surprisingly, he was a Tory man and she was just some foreign woman. Of course he could outsmart her.
Except, of course, you don't win five straight terms of office in the richest and most powerful nation in Europe without being very good at politics.
Yes, they are. Governments do not need the consistent approval of all of their actions, all the time. We don't get a new general election just because Labour's now ahead in the polls.
In any case, I suspect that (as in 2016), if there were a new referendum, there would be a strong swing to Leave, under the guise of "the people vs the politicians".
Indeed. The Remainers think that their active attempts to undermine Brexit will turn those who voted to Leave to their cause. It's utterly deluded. What it is doing however is giving another kicking to the reputation of the political class, who like never before (and I include expenses) are betraying their attitude of being the masters of the voters, not their servants.
Mr.* Sarissa, no. He got a promise of the same value as Blair's on CAP reform. The only legally binding promise is one in a treaty. Cameron got lip service, the same way the electorate did on a referendum on the Constitution.
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.)
Yes. To reverse a vote before the first one had been implemented would be deeply undemocratic.
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
The public is entitled to change its mind. A minority aren't entitled to keep a majority to a course of action which is now disapproved of.
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
Previous referendums have waited 30-40 years before being revisited as the public has changed its mind - or not in the case of Scotland.
Come back in 2046 please - respect the result.
Britain looks set for at least a generation of decline and disintegration as this continues to unravel.
The only time in recent we have had even a decade of decline and disintegration was the 1970s - under Labour. Oh and when we joined the EU...
That's the 1970s, half of which was under the Conservatives who joined us up to the EEC.
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.
Being in the room hasn't made a difference so far in 40 years.
Do you honestly believe that?
When it came down to it, the EU has been more than willing to ignore British interests and push the German line. Sure we may have had some say in the background on whatever technical stuff, but then again so does Norway (my preferred method of leaving).
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
We supported the move to QMV generally IIRC. And, given our population, it would be pretty difficult to get something through if we werer against it, unless, for whatever reason we’d got ourselves right out on a limb.
Yes, Britain was generally pro-QMV, on pragmatic grounds (avoiding some desirable reform being blocked by e.g. Greece in order to get their way on something else).
I think we've marginalised ourselves in recent years - lots of little decisions (such as the Conservative withdrawal from the main EPP conservative parliamentary group) gradually made us seem semi-detached. When we suddenly took a keen interest, as in attempting to oppose Juncker, we were surprised to find that almost nobody was listening. There is a British belief which persists to this day that we can swing decisions by peeling off governments individually, but most EU governments don't really want to micromanage the EU and get into complex quarrels about it.
I think we've marginalised ourselves in recent years - lots of little decisions (such as the Conservative withdrawal from the main EPP conservative parliamentary group) gradually made us seem semi-detached. When we suddenly took a keen interest, as in attempting to oppose Juncker, we were surprised to find that almost nobody was listening. There is a British belief which persists to this day that we can swing decisions by peeling off governments individually, but most EU governments don't really want to micromanage the EU and get into complex quarrels about it.
It's a mistake many of the newer euroreactionary movements are keen to avoid. I think they observed the way the Tories locked themselves out of influential committee positions by leaving the EPP and have decided it's ultimately self-defeating.
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 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?
There is no Leave deal that the Conservative party can agree. It is the Conservative party that is the problem here.
Convenient though it might be for you to blame the Tory Party (not least because it's a saleable argument, as the divisions within the Party *are* a problem); it's far from the only problem.
Actually, I disagree with you: there is a Leave deal that the Tories could broadly sign up to: it's just that the EU won't sign up to it. Could a Labour government make a deal? I'm not sure that Corbyn could because he'd be a hopeless negotiator (yes, Davis and May haven't covered themselves in glory but that just demonstrates the difficulty: they, at least, have government experience and a desire to deliver on practical politics). Perhaps Labour could, in principle, but it would sharpen the division between their middle and their voting base, perhaps to stretching point.
Yep - it is true that a cake and eat it deal would unite the Tories. But cake and eat it was never on offer and would never have been on offer. Nothing in the EU27 approach to the negotiations should have come as a surprise to anyone.
Hopeless negotiators can make deals - just not very good ones. But there is no good deal for the UK in leaving the EU. There are significant downsides to every single option. In the end. Corbyn does not care that much about the detail, so would leave it to others. And Labour would undoubtedly be able to unite around BRINO - and bring well over 50% of the country with it.
I think we've marginalised ourselves in recent years - lots of little decisions (such as the Conservative withdrawal from the main EPP conservative parliamentary group) gradually made us seem semi-detached. When we suddenly took a keen interest, as in attempting to oppose Juncker, we were surprised to find that almost nobody was listening. There is a British belief which persists to this day that we can swing decisions by peeling off governments individually, but most EU governments don't really want to micromanage the EU and get into complex quarrels about it.
It's a mistake many of the newer euroreactionary movements are keen to avoid. I think they observed the way the Tories locked themselves out of influential committee positions by leaving the EPP and have decided it's ultimately self-defeating.
A lot of the newer anti-EU parties are going into the ECR just as the Tories will leave it. Either the ECR or EFDD will end up as the third biggest grouping and given that their aims are fairly well aligned they may end up co-operating on votes which could make them about the same size as the leftist group given they are set to lose loads of Labour MEPs.
Uh, Germany under Merkel (who became Chancellor in 2005) totally restricted Free Movement from the 2004 Accession countries for many years (unlike the UK). So that's your theory out the window.
I think what British politicians, especially lazy Tory hacks like most Brexiteers seem to be, fail to appreciate about German politics, is that unlike UK politics, it's incredibly, tediously consensus driven.
German politicians are constantly negotiating. Coalitions, party groupings, Stag-Rat relations. It's all negotiation, negotiation, negotiation.
UK politics is confrontational, oppositional.
Which means German politicians are predisposed to be naturally suited to thriving in the EU. whereas UK politicians are hopelessly out of their depth. They try to throw their weight around in a way that would work in the UK, and then are stunned to find they're being ignored.
Corbyn very much cares about the details, he's passionately eurosceptic (see his voting record), he thinks the EU a corporate swindle, and BRINO would, inter alia, mean adopting EU rules against state aid for industry etc.
So you're talking shite. Leaver Corbyn would be at war with his own Remainer party, just as Remainer TMay is at war with her Leaver party.
Corbyn is so fucking lucky.
Never underestimate the importance of luck in politics, of course. But Corbyn is lucky, lucky, lucky.
Mr. Palmer, the British political class might have been pro-QMV. The electorate was never troubled for its collective opinion.
The political class integrated us more and more and more, and are now shrieking it's difficult to leave. No shit, Sherlock. You threw away vetoes, entangled us in EU regulation, and refused to ask us for decades on end whether we wanted Maastricht, or Lisbon, even though the latter had been promised in the manifestos of the three major parties.
That very refusal to consult public opinion is one reason why people voted to leave. Because we thought we'd never get another chance.
A refusal to Lisbon would've been a great way of relieving the pressure, signalling the public's position on the EU without the nuclear option.
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 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?
There is no Leave deal that the Conservative party can agree. It is the Conservative party that is the problem here.
Conveneir voting base, perhaps to stretching point.
Yep - it is true that a cake and eat it deal would unite the Tories. But cake and eat it was never on offer and would never have been on offer. Nothing in the EU27 approach to the negotiations should have come as a surprise to anyone.
Hopeless negotiators can make deals - just not very good ones. But there is no good deal for the UK in leaving the EU. There are significant downsides to every single option. In the end. Corbyn does not care that much about the detail, so would leave it to others. And Labour would undoubtedly be able to unite around BRINO - and bring well over 50% of the country with it.
Corbyn very much cares about the details, he's passionately eurosceptic (see his voting record), he thinks the EU a corporate swindle, and BRINO would, inter alia, mean adopting EU rules against state aid for industry etc.
So you're talking shite. Leaver Corbyn would be at war with his own Remainer party, just as Remainer TMay is at war with her Leaver party.
Corbyn has absolutely no idea whatsoever about the details and little interest in them - 40 years of political life demonstrate that clearly. It is also much harder for him to stand against his party than it is for May to stand against hers.
Corbyn has absolutely no idea whatsoever about the details and little interest in them - 40 years of political life demonstrate that clearly. It is also much harder for him to stand against his party than it is for May to stand against hers.
You say that, but Labour's democracy roadshow is going to abolish the National Policy Forum, which will give the leadership and NEC almost complete control over policy.
Corbyn controls both; after the rulebook changes, the only way for continuity remainers to undermine him on policy will be via conference, once a year.
And conference's timetable is very easily nobbled by forces loyal to Corbyn.
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.
Wasn't that broadly what Cameron did get in his negotiations with the EU?
Yes. That was the most important aspect of Dave's Deal. Unfortunately, the Leavers were so keen to tear into it like a pack of hyenas that it was ignored and a golden opportunity missed. We should have all united behind Dave's deal. Even if you thought it didn't go far enough, it was a great starting point for levering future developments.
I'm certainly not going to defend FPTP but Labour's problems here have far more to do with the distribution of their vote and how huge it is in their strongest areas than it has to do with the specific boundaries.
GE 2017:
Seats where either Con or Lab scored 50-60% of the vote: Con 155 Lab 107
Seats where either Con or Lab scored 60-70% of the vote: Con 88 Lab 78
Seats where either Con or Lab scored 70-80% of the vote: Con 0 Lab 27
Seats where either Con or Lab scored over 80%+ of the vote: Con 0 Lab 10
There are no possible FPTP boundaries that wouldn't give Labour problems while their vote is astonishingly badly distributed. Having said that, if they took back a good number of the Scottish seats that the SNP quite narrowly hold over them then they'd make things look considerably less uneven in relation to the Conservatives.
Interesting figures. Shows how Labour piles up votes in safe seats.
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 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?
There is no Leave deal that the Conservative party can agree. It is the Conservative party that is the problem here.
Conveneir voting base, perhaps to stretching point.
Yep - it i
Corbyn very much cares about the details, he's passionately eurosceptic (see his voting record), he thinks the EU a corporate swindle, and BRINO would, inter alia, mean adopting EU rules against state aid for industry etc.
So you're talking shite. Leaver Corbyn would be at war with his own Remainer party, just as Remainer TMay is at war with her Leaver party.
Corbyn has absolutely no idea whatsoever about the details and little interest in them - 40 years of political life demonstrate that clearly. It is also much harder for him to stand against his party than it is for May to stand against hers.
Is that some kind of joke? He's faced down and utterly defeated his party twice. He has the membership on his side.
Corbyn is not very smart, but McDonnell is, and so is Milne. They know that BRINO would seriously cramp their style.
Eh? Corbyn won because he had the party on his side. The membership is the party. And the party would expect a BRINO, while all the unions would actively demand one.
Ex-tory here, but nobody, ( other than HYUFD ) signed up for a 1,000 year Tory reich. Sooner or later you have to let the other buggers have a go. Leaving Brexit aside (ha ha ha), what is HMG up to, exactly? What's the compelling agenda that we requires us to continue to cling to nurse.
This may come as a surprise to some, but one reason it has seemed relatively so hot is that July follows a May and June that were both the 18th warmest for their month, and April was 24th, so the consistency of the warm spell has coloured perceptions.
By way of comparison to the extremity of the winter, February 2018 was the 106th coldest February and March was the 141st.
Ex-tory here, but nobody, ( other than HYUFD ) signed up for a 1,000 year Tory reich. Sooner or later you have to let the other buggers have a go. Leaving Brexit aside (ha ha ha), what is HMG up to, exactly? What's the compelling agenda that we requires us to continue to cling to nurse.
Labour are praying that fear of Corbyn might be enough to keep them in power, or at least denude Corbyn of a majority.
Corbyn has absolutely no idea whatsoever about the details and little interest in them - 40 years of political life demonstrate that clearly. It is also much harder for him to stand against his party than it is for May to stand against hers.
You say that, but Labour's democracy roadshow is going to abolish the National Policy Forum, which will give the leadership and NEC almost complete control over policy.
Corbyn controls both; after the rulebook changes, the only way for continuity remainers to undermine him on policy will be via conference, once a year.
And conference's timetable is very easily nobbled by forces loyal to Corbyn.
There is no chance on earth Corbyn would agree to Remain or that the Labour party would demand it. But he would be expected by members and the unions to deliver the Jobs First Brexit he has promised. And that means BRINO.
However, this is all academic. There will be no election before next March, so the Tories will preside over Brexit and own its consequences entirely.
This may come as a surprise to some, but one reason it has seemed relatively so hot is that July follows a May and June that were both the 18th warmest for their month, and April was 24th, so the consistency of the warm spell has coloured perceptions.
By way of comparison to the extremity of the winter, February 2018 was the 106th coldest February and March was the 141st.
The warmness is perhaps less important than the dryness.
This has been the driest summer since 1961, and that has lots of unfortunate consequences.
Ex-tory here, but nobody, ( other than HYUFD ) signed up for a 1,000 year Tory reich. Sooner or later you have to let the other buggers have a go. Leaving Brexit aside (ha ha ha), what is HMG up to, exactly? What's the compelling agenda that we requires us to continue to cling to nurse.
Labour are praying that fear of Corbyn might be enough to keep them in power, or at least denude Corbyn of a majority.
I'm aware. However, people don't always vote in accordance with their economic interests (I believe we all know a recent event that exemplifies this).
Actually, one of the things that I've been ruminating on is the rallying cry 'Nobody voted to make themselves poorer'. I've often done things that have objectively made me poorer; left the private sector for the public, raised children, passed up promotions in favour of a better work-life balance and so forth. I'm not sure that we're as driven by filthy lucre as assumed. It's certainly a very shakey rationale for the Conservatives if they think that'll keep them in government.
Mr. Cocque, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate can do little about it (cf foreign aid spending). When asked on the issue itself, we chose to leave despite the status quo having the overwhelming majority of the Establishment on its side.
When was the last time any major party was actually sceptical? Maybe Foot? Which was compromised by him also been far left (although a rather nicer far left than the lunacy of Corbyn).
There is no chance on earth Corbyn would agree to Remain or that the Labour party would demand it. But he would be expected by members and the unions to deliver the Jobs First Brexit he has promised. And that means BRINO.
However, this is all academic. There will be no election before next March, so the Tories will preside over Brexit and own its consequences entirely.
This is as it should be. I don't understand why Referendum 3 brigade are keen to let the Tories off the hook for their self-made flustercuck so easily.
Mr. Cocque, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate can do little about it (cf foreign aid spending). When asked on the issue itself, we chose to leave despite the status quo having the overwhelming majority of the Establishment on its side.
I mean that's pretty much the definition of British Democracy that Sir Humphrey gave.
The electorate can't be expected to understand complex and subtle things, much less know if it's in their best interests or not. Indeed, the whole Brexit saga has demonstrated that the electorate were largely oblivious to the realities of Brexit.
There is no chance on earth Corbyn would agree to Remain or that the Labour party would demand it. But he would be expected by members and the unions to deliver the Jobs First Brexit he has promised. And that means BRINO.
However, this is all academic. There will be no election before next March, so the Tories will preside over Brexit and own its consequences entirely.
This is as it should be. I don't understand why Referendum 3 brigade are keen to let the Tories off the hook for their self-made flustercuck so easily.
I think a lot of people see a referendum as the one chance there is to now save the UK from the economic clusterfook that is approaching. It does look to me to be the only way to break-through the fog, but I doubt very much it will happen and can understand the arguments against - so the cliff edge it probably is to be followed shortly afterwards by some kind of Suez-like humiliation for the UK. I am just very glad we sold our business when we did!
Mr. Cocque, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate can do little about it (cf foreign aid spending). When asked on the issue itself, we chose to leave despite the status quo having the overwhelming majority of the Establishment on its side.
When was the last time any major party was actually sceptical? Maybe Foot? Which was compromised by him also been far left (although a rather nicer far left than the lunacy of Corbyn).
I know what you mean, but nonetheless. When faced between a choice of two PMs, the electorate has, without fail, chosen the most pro-EU. Including last years.
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.
Well, there are two separate issues - fair representation of people registered to vote (which would be solved by PR) and fair consideration of people who have difficulty in being registered (frequent changes of address, social marginalisation and literacy issues). If you're a 20-year-old, disorganised, don't read very well and change your address every few months, should you be represented?
(Snip).
So how do you give such people 'fair consideration' ? If they move so often, how do you keep track of them for electoral purposes, especially when a move of half-a-mile in an urban area might move them between constituencies? And how does this reflect on boundary consultations which occur once in a blue moon?
Mr. Jessop, indeed. But promising a referendum and then blatantly reneging upon it is going to be more than a little frustrating and, more importantly, undermines trust in politics.
There is no chance on earth Corbyn would agree to Remain or that the Labour party would demand it. But he would be expected by members and the unions to deliver the Jobs First Brexit he has promised. And that means BRINO.
However, this is all academic. There will be no election before next March, so the Tories will preside over Brexit and own its consequences entirely.
This is as it should be. I don't understand why Referendum 3 brigade are keen to let the Tories off the hook for their self-made flustercuck so easily.
Because the well-being of the country is more important than the fortunes of any political party perhaps?
Uh, Germany under Merkel (who became Chancellor in 2005) totally restricted Free Movement from the 2004 Accession countries for many years (unlike the UK). So that's your theory out the window.
I think what British politicians, especially lazy Tory hacks like most Brexiteers seem to be, fail to appreciate about German politics, is that unlike UK politics, it's incredibly, tediously consensus driven.
German politicians are constantly negotiating. Coalitions, party groupings, Stag-Rat relations. It's all negotiation, negotiation, negotiation.
UK politics is confrontational, oppositional.
Which means German politicians are predisposed to be naturally suited to thriving in the EU. whereas UK politicians are hopelessly out of their depth. They try to throw their weight around in a way that would work in the UK, and then are stunned to find they're being ignored.
UK politics never learned to play The Game.
We certainly do politics differently. I'm not sure our politicians are worse, or "out of their depth", indeed that's a silly argument: it's just that English-speaking Anglo-Saxon political culture (from FPTP on) is utterly different to the consensual (as you say) coalition-forming continental model.
This is why we never had the influence of France or Germany, and why we constantly felt "frustrated". It is, in the end, why we are Leaving.
But we are Leaving in the worst possible way, chaotically, angrily, bloodily, steered by a hopelessly divided parliament, which is led by the two worst party leaders in living memory.
Maybe we need a proper Civil War. You know, a real one. With troops manning the hastily erected earthworks in Hampstead.
Let us fight it out.
[swaggering] I conquered the Tube network (inc. Hampstead!) years ago
Interesting study, thanks - hadn't seen that. I think that the "Common Sense" group is less easily pinned down in the Nationalist camp, since if they were there then there would never be anything but a Tory government. Rather, this group is an extension of the "swing voter" group, as well as the "Don't usually vote" group, and they tend to prioritise according to whatever happens to be in the news.
Your criteria for 'Nationalist' were 'anti-EU, anti-immigration, socially conservative, protectionist'. 'Common Sense' had a 25 percentage point Leave majority, split by 47%-9% that immigrants are a burden rather than a benefit, and split 42%-19% on cutting immigration rather than remaining in the single market. Their top priority is to reduce net migration below 100,000 per year, beating out compulsory work for benefit claimants, abolishing the Human Rights Act, and founding new grammar schools - all of which we might see as socially conservative ideas. 'Swing Voters', by contrast, had a 20% remain lead, split 34%-13% in favour of immigrants being a benefit, and 48%-7% on remaining in the single market. The only policy priority they share with 'Common Sense' is compulsory work for benefit claimants, whereas 'Our Britain' and 'Common Sense' share 3/4. So either you need to revise your groupings, or accept that the 'Nationalists' are much stronger than you'd anticipated.
Part of the problem seems to be that you assume a commonality between 'Nationalists' and the Conservatives (which I would also link to your assumption that the 'Socialist'/'Community' group would be pro-immigration, rather than seeing it as a burden by 62%-16%). In fact, the Conservatives don't go nearly far enough in being hostile to foreigners to appeal to 'Our Britain' (which believes overwhelmingly, 68%- 20%, that 'being British means being born here'). There are plenty of 'bigoted old women', as Gordon Brown memorably put it, who still vote for Labour through tribal loyalty despite not agreeing with the metropolitian upper-middle-class skew of their policies.
Regardless, I think these schools of thought are quite distinctive and poorly distinguished by our rigid FPTP-driven party system.
Oh, absolutely. However, given the political layout we see here, the end result of PR isn't a political system dominated by a wonderful and near-permanent left-wing rainbow coalition, who can promise the earth to the electorate and then drop it all in the backroom negotiations required to put together a workable government. The result seems most likely to be a political scene dominated by UKIP on steroids.
As I strongly suspect that isn't what the advocates of PR are hoping for, I feel obliged to point it out to them where I can. All credit to them if they both accept the evidence and maintain their principles in the light of it, of course.
Because the well-being of the country is more important than the fortunes of any political party perhaps?
Just a wild guess.
Oh don't be so naive.
The people arguing for EURef 3 are doing so because they want to be able to say I TOLD YOU SO.
I also don't see how any remain campaign would win. The leave campaign would be run on the basis of "people vs the elites". Those kinds of campaigns only ever have one winner, I'd expect leave to registers an even bigger victory than last time. What then for remainers?
Comments
And while 60-40 might sound convincing, it isn't really. It'd mean 40% of the population was committed - probably fairly strongly - to Leave, with most backing that option even with no deal. In those circumstances, I think it would be impossible to avoid a major realignment on the right, with UKIP2 polling well in excess of 20%, probably leading to a Corbyn majority government.
Leave would only be postponed in those circumstances as when Labour lost power, the right-of-centre would probably back withdrawal based only on a general election mandate.
It's not undemocratic to ask people to vote more than once.
As I said, what difference did having a seat at the table really make when the EU moved financial regulations away from unanimity (giving us an effective veto over the regulation of our most important industry) to QMV (allowing the EMU nations to band together and win every vote, which is exactly what has happened)? If we couldn't make a difference there, then what value does being in the room really hold?
The minority are entitled to vote for UKIP2.
Easiest peace process ever.
Have the whole thing sorted by Christmas.
May is, therefore, faced with an EU that is stronger than the UK economically and so does not need a deal as badly as the UK does, but which, because of its internal weakness, cannot give her the kind of deal she wants without risking its own existence.
British requests for a major evolution in the EU’s current approach were, therefore, always going to be a non-starter.
Brexit was always going to be either pointless (the UK stays in the Single Market but loses its ability to vote on Single Market laws) or disruptive (the UK leaves the Single Market and faces massive economic disruption).
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/eu-cannot-give-may-the-deal-she-wants-without-risking-its-own-existence-1.3579809#.W17lNTFH_44.twitter
Just as we have to legitimise the Government periodically, there is a democratic argument for saying we ought to legitimise specific decisions of government periodically as well.
As SeantT says, if we had had a vote on Lisbon, this would probably not have happened.
In the case or periodic votes, it would also be much less likely that there would be such a horrendous campaign, and that illegality on such a grand scale would be tolerated.
F1: in exciting news, when I put together the mid-season ramble, it will include some splendid graphs. I know you'll all be thrilled.
We should have made him PM, Boris Foreign Sec., Peter Bone Home Sec., Leadsom as Chancellor and (of course) the loveable David Davis at DexEU.
That way, Brexit would be done right and the Leavers would have no one to blame, except themselves.
Come back in 2046 please - respect the result.
Leave could well win that 2nd ref but at least we'd have committed to No Deal as a country.
It's the same with referendums: there was a majority for Leave, therefore the UK should leave. Once we have left, it's perfectly democratic for people to organise for Britain to rejoin. But not before.
Regardless, I think these schools of thought are quite distinctive and poorly distinguished by our rigid FPTP-driven party system.
We triggered article 50.
We are negotiating (no) deal.
And it's shit.
It's not undemocratic to ask people to vote.
The reason that helps us is that the EFTA court isn't as bound by the "ever-closer integration of the European people" line as the ECJ which has used that as justification for all sorts of land grabbing.
In any case, I suspect that (as in 2016), if there were a new referendum, there would be a strong swing to Leave, under the guise of "the people vs the politicians".
https://www.stwater.co.uk/about-us/reservoir-levels/
Britain looks set for at least a generation of decline and disintegration as this continues to unravel.
EURef 3 is a get out of jail free card for May and the Tories they've done nothing to deserve.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23264789
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/12/why-good-europeans-despair-jean-claude-juncker-commission
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/12/09/juncker-has-to-show-his-colours-in-the-fight-on-corruption/
No even vaguely democratic organisation would have chosen such a President, let alone against the vigorous opposition of its second largest member.
However, lest I lapse into the sin of hating on the EU, here's a balanced view on how QMV has worked out for the UK, sadly from 2015, but it should suffice:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2015/nov/02/is-uk-winner-or-loser-european-council
Actually, I disagree with you: there is a Leave deal that the Tories could broadly sign up to: it's just that the EU won't sign up to it. Could a Labour government make a deal? I'm not sure that Corbyn could because he'd be a hopeless negotiator (yes, Davis and May haven't covered themselves in glory but that just demonstrates the difficulty: they, at least, have government experience and a desire to deliver on practical politics). Perhaps Labour could, in principle, but it would sharpen the division between their middle and their voting base, perhaps to stretching point.
It's not surprising that Merkel resisted any downgrading of free movement, the surprise is that Cameron thought he could change her mind.
In fact, it seems to be what they do best.
Sadly for him, the tropes of the British class system aren't so effective east of Calais.
as the Guardian put it:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/02/eu-deal-key-points-what-cameron-wanted-and-what-he-got
https://capx.co/a-simple-alternative-to-a-no-deal-brexit/
" Luckily there are two simple solutions. They are simple because they decouple imports and exports, in a way that most economists and consumers should support.
First, we should offer the EU a two year one-sided free trade agreement. This would allow the EU to import any goods and services to the UK without any tariffs or non-tariff barriers. We would not ask for anything in return except that during the life of the agreement, the EU will negotiate, in good faith, a comprehensive free trade agreement with the UK. There is no reason for the EU to refuse such a deal, and it could be negotiated very quickly, as would simply state that the terms of the EU’s imports to the UK will stay exactly the same."
Except, of course, you don't win five straight terms of office in the richest and most powerful nation in Europe without being very good at politics.
*apologies if I remembered incorrectly.
I think we've marginalised ourselves in recent years - lots of little decisions (such as the Conservative withdrawal from the main EPP conservative parliamentary group) gradually made us seem semi-detached. When we suddenly took a keen interest, as in attempting to oppose Juncker, we were surprised to find that almost nobody was listening. There is a British belief which persists to this day that we can swing decisions by peeling off governments individually, but most EU governments don't really want to micromanage the EU and get into complex quarrels about it.
Hopeless negotiators can make deals - just not very good ones. But there is no good deal for the UK in leaving the EU. There are significant downsides to every single option. In the end. Corbyn does not care that much about the detail, so would leave it to others. And Labour would undoubtedly be able to unite around BRINO - and bring well over 50% of the country with it.
Sorry
German politicians are constantly negotiating. Coalitions, party groupings, Stag-Rat relations. It's all negotiation, negotiation, negotiation.
UK politics is confrontational, oppositional.
Which means German politicians are predisposed to be naturally suited to thriving in the EU. whereas UK politicians are hopelessly out of their depth. They try to throw their weight around in a way that would work in the UK, and then are stunned to find they're being ignored.
UK politics never learned to play The Game.
Never underestimate the importance of luck in politics, of course. But Corbyn is lucky, lucky, lucky.
The political class integrated us more and more and more, and are now shrieking it's difficult to leave. No shit, Sherlock. You threw away vetoes, entangled us in EU regulation, and refused to ask us for decades on end whether we wanted Maastricht, or Lisbon, even though the latter had been promised in the manifestos of the three major parties.
That very refusal to consult public opinion is one reason why people voted to leave. Because we thought we'd never get another chance.
A refusal to Lisbon would've been a great way of relieving the pressure, signalling the public's position on the EU without the nuclear option.
(*May is more pro-EU than Corbyn)
Matthew Goodwin"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/30/conservatives-drifting-away-voters-could-easily-put-labour/
Corbyn controls both; after the rulebook changes, the only way for continuity remainers to undermine him on policy will be via conference, once a year.
And conference's timetable is very easily nobbled by forces loyal to Corbyn.
This may come as a surprise to some, but one reason it has seemed relatively so hot is that July follows a May and June that were both the 18th warmest for their month, and April was 24th, so the consistency of the warm spell has coloured perceptions.
By way of comparison to the extremity of the winter, February 2018 was the 106th coldest February and March was the 141st.
However, this is all academic. There will be no election before next March, so the Tories will preside over Brexit and own its consequences entirely.
This has been the driest summer since 1961, and that has lots of unfortunate consequences.
Actually, one of the things that I've been ruminating on is the rallying cry 'Nobody voted to make themselves poorer'. I've often done things that have objectively made me poorer; left the private sector for the public, raised children, passed up promotions in favour of a better work-life balance and so forth. I'm not sure that we're as driven by filthy lucre as assumed. It's certainly a very shakey rationale for the Conservatives if they think that'll keep them in government.
When was the last time any major party was actually sceptical? Maybe Foot? Which was compromised by him also been far left (although a rather nicer far left than the lunacy of Corbyn).
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/how-popular-is-foreign-aid-spending-it-depends-how-you-ask-the-question-9972216.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/30/greater-manchester-65-of-people-victims-of-hateful-behaviour
The electorate can't be expected to understand complex and subtle things, much less know if it's in their best interests or not. Indeed, the whole Brexit saga has demonstrated that the electorate were largely oblivious to the realities of Brexit.
I mean, sure, so was the establishment but w/e.
Just a wild guess.
The people arguing for EURef 3 are doing so because they want to be able to say I TOLD YOU SO.
Part of the problem seems to be that you assume a commonality between 'Nationalists' and the Conservatives (which I would also link to your assumption that the 'Socialist'/'Community' group would be pro-immigration, rather than seeing it as a burden by 62%-16%). In fact, the Conservatives don't go nearly far enough in being hostile to foreigners to appeal to 'Our Britain' (which believes overwhelmingly, 68%- 20%, that 'being British means being born here'). There are plenty of 'bigoted old women', as Gordon Brown memorably put it, who still vote for Labour through tribal loyalty despite not agreeing with the metropolitian upper-middle-class skew of their policies. Oh, absolutely. However, given the political layout we see here, the end result of PR isn't a political system dominated by a wonderful and near-permanent left-wing rainbow coalition, who can promise the earth to the electorate and then drop it all in the backroom negotiations required to put together a workable government. The result seems most likely to be a political scene dominated by UKIP on steroids.
As I strongly suspect that isn't what the advocates of PR are hoping for, I feel obliged to point it out to them where I can. All credit to them if they both accept the evidence and maintain their principles in the light of it, of course.