All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums now have a strong established place in our democratic traditions - at least on basic constitutional matters. And that is absolutely right. So it is only right that we do impose some basic rules about how they are conducted and enacted. There have been 12 referendums on constitutional issues since 1973 and dozens if not hundreds at local levels dating right back to before WW1. Under certain circumstances like increasing local taxation above a level set by central Government they are mandatory.
You may not like them but trying to claim they have no place in our democratic tradition just shows your ignorance.
For my 2,500th post can I query the process that allows HMG to publicly hand out gongs in exchange for votes? In what way is this remotely allowable by convention?
Agreed. It is a ridiculous situation. I am in favour of gongs/awards etc for service to the country in many different forms but it should be entirely independent of Government or even Parliament.
Yet another issue which Brexit could provide an opportunity to address as part of a "National reboot." And yet another which Brexit supporters rarely, if ever, raise.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Some good may come of it. If the two centrist wings of the duopoly came together to override the extremes that might not be a bad thing.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
How do you justify advocating a 'no deal' referendum then? It's even more reckless than Cameron's original gambit. However slim the possibility, just imagine the repercussions from a majority vote that could be interpreted as a mandate for going on a war footing.
I just saw Barnesian's comment that "They need a new leader."
My first assumption was they meant the Tories. Or maybe Labour.
Then I clicked to expand the quotes, turns out it's the LDs.
The world we live in, eh.
I'm a Corbynista now (except for Corbyn's position on the EU). But my mission locally is to defeat Zac and the Tories and the only way is through the LibDems. For that the LibDems need a new leader.
Actually I suspect the LibDems can defeat Zac anyway. Maybe I should help in a Tory/Labour marginal when the GE comes.
Used to be quite a few round your way. Not anymore. Bit of a trek, but Uxbridge would be my suggestion.
There's Putney, of course, but Justine is quite sound on Brexit these days.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
you should have added "supposed" in front of democracy there
Whose lawn are you planning on parking your tiger tank on Mr G?
LOL, Just getting prepared, going to be a few torrid years ahead. PS: it is TIKI and I bought a custom painted RC model of this particular tank for my grandson, really smart model.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
I just saw Barnesian's comment that "They need a new leader."
My first assumption was they meant the Tories. Or maybe Labour.
Then I clicked to expand the quotes, turns out it's the LDs.
The world we live in, eh.
I'm a Corbynista now (except for Corbyn's position on the EU). But my mission locally is to defeat Zac and the Tories and the only way is through the LibDems. For that the LibDems need a new leader.
Actually I suspect the LibDems can defeat Zac anyway. Maybe I should help in a Tory/Labour marginal when the GE comes.
Used to be quite a few round your way. Not anymore. Bit of a trek, but Uxbridge would be my suggestion.
There's Putney, of course, but Justine is quite sound on Brexit these days.
Any chance of United Remain in Uxbridge S? I’d love to see Johnson lose.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
I just saw Barnesian's comment that "They need a new leader."
My first assumption was they meant the Tories. Or maybe Labour.
Then I clicked to expand the quotes, turns out it's the LDs.
The world we live in, eh.
I'm a Corbynista now (except for Corbyn's position on the EU). But my mission locally is to defeat Zac and the Tories and the only way is through the LibDems. For that the LibDems need a new leader.
Actually I suspect the LibDems can defeat Zac anyway. Maybe I should help in a Tory/Labour marginal when the GE comes.
Used to be quite a few round your way. Not anymore. Bit of a trek, but Uxbridge would be my suggestion.
There's Putney, of course, but Justine is quite sound on Brexit these days.
Any chance of United Remain in Uxbridge S? I’d love to see Johnson lose.
Whatever else happens that night, that would be the moment for uncorking the krug!
at what point does the case for a referendum on Northern Ireland's status become hard to challenge? If Catholics outnumber Protestants at the 2021 census is that the trigger?
Or will it be driven by a succession of opinion polls saying there is a majority in favour?
I don't know. But a referendum is an obligation under the GFA when there is a possibility it could win. We aren't there quite yet.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
"Their ends" being to intimidate people into supporting their project because they couldn't convince them at the ballot box?
For my 2,500th post can I query the process that allows HMG to publicly hand out gongs in exchange for votes? In what way is this remotely allowable by convention?
If you want to see the honours system made a mockery, wait until May gives Olly Robins his kighthood for fucking up Brexit.....
What exactly is the shared objective of the Tory deal saboteurs (assuming they have one)? Is it no-deal utopia or 'silly old Theresa messed it up; let one of the cunning, ruthless Brexit men do it'? (Or are they proclaiming the latter but intending the former?)
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
Since the exit from the EU would be happening literally like a few weeks after the referendum, I'm not really seeing how they get "again and again".
What exactly is the shared objective of the Tory deal saboteurs (assuming they have one)? Is it no-deal utopia or 'silly old Theresa messed it up; let one of the cunning, ruthless Brexit men do it'? (Or are they proclaiming the latter but intending the former?)
I think the PB approved answer to that question is 'unicorns'.
The lesser of two evils, Corbyn is a bumbling deluded fool, May is pure evil.
He is bumbling, and deluded, and a fool.
But he's also an unabashed supporter of and at times paid apologist for Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Hamas, the IRA and John McDonnell.
It is possible he's evil as well.
Ydoethur , May's pals make that lot look like pussy cats.
Without wishing to be an apologist for the House of Saud -
That remark is simply wrong.
The Tories have been chums with the nastiest of the nasty throughout the years , they are no better than Corbyn, just nastier.
Thatcher sent British forces to train the Khmer Rouge!
Exactly , but the morons on here think they are whiter than white.
Some six or seven years ago, when I was in that unfortunate country, her doing so was held against us.
It is the hypocrisy that gets me, all this flannel about whiter than white UK when they are up to their neck in despots and dictator's doings. Unbelievable that so many fools believe it as well.
at what point does the case for a referendum on Northern Ireland's status become hard to challenge? If Catholics outnumber Protestants at the 2021 census is that the trigger?
Or will it be driven by a succession of opinion polls saying there is a majority in favour?
I don't know. But a referendum is an obligation under the GFA when there is a possibility it could win. We aren't there quite yet.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
you should have added "supposed" in front of democracy there
Whose lawn are you planning on parking your tiger tank on Mr G?
LOL, Just getting prepared, going to be a few torrid years ahead. PS: it is TIKI and I bought a custom painted RC model of this particular tank for my grandson, really smart model.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
STUG is very nice, another favourite, I also like the Jagdpanther. We did Tiger day at Bovington recently and plans for going to Deutsche Panzermuseum, Munster in the spring. Grandson would also love to go to Kubinka in Moscow as they are supposed to have superb collections.
The Lib Dems only known policy is to stop Brexit. Vince Cable is a disaster for their cause.
It is interesting as the heat and intensity on brexit increases and for another referendum they are not cutting through at all and seem marooned
While I am not a Corbyn supporter labour have so far been able to face both ways at once on brexit while the Lib Dems are in a straightjacket of their own making
It is also becoming more obvious as we approach the hiatus that those who support a second referendum seem to have no plausable path to one, but as important seem to want the wording slanted to their side and do not seem to have come to terms that they could lose
at what point does the case for a referendum on Northern Ireland's status become hard to challenge? If Catholics outnumber Protestants at the 2021 census is that the trigger?
Or will it be driven by a succession of opinion polls saying there is a majority in favour?
I don't know. But a referendum is an obligation under the GFA when there is a possibility it could win. We aren't there quite yet.
thanks. I wasn't aware of that obligation.
Correction to that. When the majority of NI and the Republic want to unite, the govt is obliged to comply. Technically, a referendum is not necessary, but it would be difficult to see a way without one.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
you should have added "supposed" in front of democracy there
Whose lawn are you planning on parking your tiger tank on Mr G?
LOL, Just getting prepared, going to be a few torrid years ahead. PS: it is TIKI and I bought a custom painted RC model of this particular tank for my grandson, really smart model.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
STUG is very nice, another favourite, I also like the Jagdpanther. We did Tiger day at Bovington recently and plans for going to Deutsche Panzermuseum, Munster in the spring. Grandson would also love to go to Kubinka in Moscow as they are supposed to have superb collections.
you sound like an awesome grandad. I took my 5yo son to the royal armouries in leeds last month. he chose a pack of replica bullets from the gift shop. took them to school for show and tell and they got confiscated and given to the police. the teacher was "sure they were live" and berated us for encouraging his interest in such things.
The Lib Dems only known policy is to stop Brexit. Vince Cable is a disaster for their cause.
It is interesting as the heat and intensity on brexit increases and for another referendum they are not cutting through at all and seem marooned
While I am not a Corbyn supporter labour have so far been able to face both ways at once on brexit while the Lib Dems are in a straightjacket of their own making
It is also becoming more obvious as we approach the hiatus that those who support a second referendum seem to have no plausable path to one, but as important seem to want the wording slanted to their side and do not seem to have come to terms that they could lose
To be fair to Vince, though, he has managed to reduce their known policies from 2 at the election down to one. Just Brexit now. Confusion about gay sex has been ditched. A significant advance there.
It is not clear that in a referendum there would be a Condorcet winner. Which is of more than academic interest when the option that gets eliminated in Round 1 would have won a Yes/No vote.
If there is a Yes/No vote on one option to begin with and then a conditional question on the same ballot which only comes into play in the case of a Yes (say) result, we will still get a large part of the electorate who feel cheated, because there is no unbiased way to choose what the first question will ask. Should it be Remain/Leave? Or Yes/No to May's deal? There is no "objective" answer to that.
Vernon Bogdanor's proposal of two referendums would be sensible if the electorate were a club and we were talking about two votes at an EGM or even two EGMs. What makes it crazy or distractedly sweet is that the electorate isn't a club.
Showing that a referendum could cause big problems doesn't show that not having one won't cause bigger ones. There is no way that any government is going to ignore parliamentary backing for a referendum. They have lost enough legitimacy as it is.
If the Commons backs "May's deal", there won't be a referendum.
If they don't back it, there will have to be. There is ample time for one. Greece managed it in 10 days in 2015. Are British officials a bunch of snowflakes? Renegotiation won't happen, so in this scenario the only alternative to a referendum would be No Deal. Which probably wouldn't get past the Commons either. Oh f***ing dear. And then a GE wouldn't help much.
If May's deal doesn't get past the Commons then the politicians will have screwed up, so hand the issue back to the people. That's not ideal, but there's no workable alternative. This is the basis on which I support a simple Leave/Remain referendum with it being made clear that "Leave" means WTO, hard Brexit, No Deal, however one wants to bill it.
In game show terms you get two options: Remain or No Deal.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
Fair point, although entirely contrary to your previous one. But at least in this case there had already been a referendum. Some people won't tolerate it but in terms of the consequences, that's a lesser consideration than what granting one would do - so it won't happen.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
Fair point, although entirely contrary to your previous one. But at least in this case there had already been a referendum. Some people won't tolerate it but in terms of the consequences, that's a lesser consideration than what granting one would do - so it won't happen.
The number of Conservative pundits desperately thrashing around looking for an alternative to a second referendum suggests it's very likely to happen.
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
you should have added "supposed" in front of democracy there
Whose lawn are you planning on parking your tiger tank on Mr G?
LOL, Just getting prepared, going to be a few torrid years ahead. PS: it is TIKI and I bought a custom painted RC model of this particular tank for my grandson, really smart model.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
STUG is very nice, another favourite, I also like the Jagdpanther. We did Tiger day at Bovington recently and plans for going to Deutsche Panzermuseum, Munster in the spring. Grandson would also love to go to Kubinka in Moscow as they are supposed to have superb collections.
you sound like an awesome grandad. I took my 5yo son to the royal armouries in leeds last month. he chose a pack of replica bullets from the gift shop. took them to school for show and tell and they got confiscated and given to the police. the teacher was "sure they were live" and berated us for encouraging his interest in such things.
Unbelievable, I would have ripped the idiot a new one.
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
They don't appear to regard that as a choice at all. Yes, negotiating stances and all that, but there seems little doubt which one they would choose.
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
Afternoon Big_G, regardless you can never trust a liar , she has to go and it cannot be soon enough.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
How do you justify advocating a 'no deal' referendum then? It's even more reckless than Cameron's original gambit. However slim the possibility, just imagine the repercussions from a majority vote that could be interpreted as a mandate for going on a war footing.
If there is another referendum, the government money will be supporting Deal this time; so I suppose it comes down to how much money Remain and No Deal can muster and which side the supporters will place it, which depends on what the question is.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
What exactly is the shared objective of the Tory deal saboteurs (assuming they have one)? Is it no-deal utopia or 'silly old Theresa messed it up; let one of the cunning, ruthless Brexit men do it'? (Or are they proclaiming the latter but intending the former?)
There isn't a shared objective I think, but the largest group appears to be that that May messed it up and otherwise it would be fine. We've seen this with some of the ridiculous commentary that this deal, even though officially backed by Cabinet, is hers and hers alone. Yes she is the primary architect, but those who vote for it and back it in Cabinet cannot escape any fallout from that. I was at an event recently with Stewart Jackson and he is very much pushing the line that it was all completely fine but then May mucked it up. He did also state May had cost him 2 jobs in 18 months, so he's not holding a grudge.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
How do you justify advocating a 'no deal' referendum then? It's even more reckless than Cameron's original gambit. However slim the possibility, just imagine the repercussions from a majority vote that could be interpreted as a mandate for going on a war footing.
Because people are entitled to make bad choices.
What choice would the people of Ireland have in this process?
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
How do you justify advocating a 'no deal' referendum then? It's even more reckless than Cameron's original gambit. However slim the possibility, just imagine the repercussions from a majority vote that could be interpreted as a mandate for going on a war footing.
Because people are entitled to make bad choices.
Very much against the spirit of the times for some.
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
you can never trust a liar , she has to go and it cannot be soon enough.
For my 2,500th post can I query the process that allows HMG to publicly hand out gongs in exchange for votes? In what way is this remotely allowable by convention?
If you want to see the honours system made a mockery, wait until May gives Olly Robins his kighthood for fucking up Brexit.....
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous resrnado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
How do you justify advocating a 'no deal' referendum then? It's even more reckless than Cameron's original gambit. However slim the possibility, just imagine the repercussions from a majority vote that could be interpreted as a mandate for going on a war footing.
Because people are entitled to make bad choices.
What choice would the people of Ireland have in this process?
Can they not lobby the EU to pursue various options, which would have an impact on whatever options the UK has before it? A complaint from some has been Ireland has had too much influence all of this.
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
Afternoon Big_G, regardless you can never trust a liar , she has to go and it cannot be soon enough.
Good morning Malc. As you know I do not accuse people of being liars as it could be applied to all politicians. However, I do believe this has shown how the political class have collectively failed. Enjoy your day
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
As discussed yesterday, she has form for changing her mind over going to the country!
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
you can never trust a liar , she has to go and it cannot be soon enough.
You like to recycle. Did you miss the news this week that the Clair fields are now online , those same ones that Tories/Unionists said did not exist in 2014, turns out SNP were right and it has billions of barrels and will run 40 years. UK will squander that as well if allowed.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government hav already managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government havdcalreafy managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
You can say it's been settled until you're blue in the face but if people do not regard it as settled then it isn't settled.
For my 2,500th post can I query the process that allows HMG to publicly hand out gongs in exchange for votes? In what way is this remotely allowable by convention?
If you want to see the honours system made a mockery, wait until May gives Olly Robins his kighthood for fucking up Brexit.....
If, against all odds, a deal does end up being agreed, then he will probably deserve one - getting even a bad deal through would be a tremendous effort.
But this continued attempt to put it all one the shoulders of one person doesn't ring true and comes across as a rather lame tactic from those against it. It isn't necessary anymore, we are past the phase where people were trying to attack May by pretending it was really that evil official - everyone can now be open that the problem is May.
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
They don't appear to regard that as a choice at all. Yes, negotiating stances and all that, but there seems little doubt which one they would choose.
I think the EU will be in a panic as will the markets. Now is the time for someone to make the case on a managed brexit. Just saying WTO and not paying 39 billion is as silly as the 350 million on the bus
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government hav already managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
Clearly the question is getting reopened. That is problematic, but when the deal gets rejected there is an argument that why do the people need to be asked about it, since parliament has already declared that that deal is unacceptable, in which case some other option would best be presented.
I'd put the chances of Brexit happening as no better than 50/50 now.
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
They don't appear to regard that as a choice at all. Yes, negotiating stances and all that, but there seems little doubt which one they would choose.
I think the EU will be in a panic as will the markets. Now is the time for someone to make the case on a managed brexit. Just saying WTO and not paying 39 billion is as silly as the 350 million on the bus
That it is silly won't prevent it happening. The EU's flaw in all this has been to just assume we will have to do certain things because the alternative cannot be countenanced, when the politics are such that it might still happen. The EU has politics to manage as much as anyone else, and are unwilling to do certain things even if it might seem more beneficial, because of that politics. They're little different to us in that respect.
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
you can never trust a liar , she has to go and it cannot be soon enough.
You like to recycle. Did you miss the news this week that the Clair fields are now online , those same ones that Tories/Unionists said did not exist in 2014, turns out SNP were right and it has billions of barrels and will run 40 years. UK will squander that as well if allowed.
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
I don't see what prevents her from being no confidenced at that point. Remain-leaning Tories would have no reason to keep her in place
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government havdcalreafy managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
You can say it's been settled until you're blue in the face but if people do not regard it as settled then it isn't settled.
No the fact that some people do not accept it doesnt make them right. There will always be the malcontents and misanthropes unwilling to accept a decision. I am sure you will we some from the ultra Leave side if the deal is passed. That doesn't mean we should listen to their gibbering. For the good of the country it is important that we do not.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government havdcalreafy managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
You can say it's been settled until you're blue in the face but if people do not regard it as settled then it isn't settled.
No the fact that some people do not accept it doesnt make them right. There will always be the malcontents and misanthropes unwilling to accept a decision. I am sure you will we some from the ultra Leave side if the deal is passed. That doesn't mean we should listen to their gibbering. For the good of the country it is important that we do not.
In the latest YouGov opinion poll, 50% of women think Brexit was the wrong decision and only 35% think it was right. Numbers like that must make you question the long-term viability of your project.
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
I don't see what prevents her from being no confidenced at that point. Remain-leaning Tories would have to reason to keep her in place
You mean remain conservative mps would vnoc her. The ERG have failed to get 48, remain are maybe 20 or so
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government havdcalreafy managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
You can say it's been settled until you're blue in the face but if people do not regard it as settled then it isn't settled.
No the fact that some people do not accept it doesnt make them right. There will always be the malcontents and misanthropes unwilling to accept a decision. I am sure you will we some from the ultra Leave side if the deal is passed. That doesn't mean we should listen to their gibbering. For the good of the country it is important that we do not.
But surely if it's such a marginal group then you have nothing to fear from Remain being on another referendum, and in fact having it defeated would be an extremely effective way of bringing people around to support May's deal
I said illegitimate not illegal. Your comprehension skills are slipping this morning.
Illegitimate means illicit or outside the law. Illegal is a synonym. Look in a dictionary.
You've never seen someone use the word illegitimate non-literally? People, and politicians, do it all the time.
I don't regard a second vote with remain as an option to be illegitimate, but come on, to pretend people don't also use illegitimate in a broader sense than the literal is weak as all hell.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government havdcalreafy managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
You can say it's been settled until you're blue in the face but if people do not regard it as settled then it isn't settled.
No the fact that some people do not accept it doesnt make them right. There will always be the malcontents and misanthropes unwilling to accept a decision. I am sure you will we some from the ultra Leave side if the deal is passed. That doesn't mean we should listen to their gibbering. For the good of the country it is important that we do not.
But surely if it's such a marginal group then you have nothing to fear from Remain being on another referendum, and in fact having it defeated would be an extremely effective way of bringing people around to support May's deal
I am becoming less confident a referendum happens but if it does it has to be remain - deal - no deal as that reflects the division in the country
I said illegitimate not illegal. Your comprehension skills are slipping this morning.
Illegitimate means illicit or outside the law. Illegal is a synonym. Look in a dictionary.
You've never seen someone use the word illegitimate non-literally? People, and politicians, do it all the time.
I don't regard a second vote with remain as an option to be illegitimate, but come on, to pretend people don't also use illegitimate in a broader sense than the literal is weak as all hell.
The definition top on google says "not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules" - Richard clearly meant the latter.
While I'm sure he's right about Hayes' motivation, the language and tone of this letter is everything one's come to expect from the ERG... rude, bullying, highly personal, unprofessional - on Commons paper addressed to a colleague, and allowed to leak out. Keep it for the pub.
If Frankie Boyle had made those comments about someone on TV, a lot of the people who are guffawing him on would be outraged.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government havdcalreafy managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
You can say it's been settled until you're blue in the face but if people do not regard it as settled then it isn't settled.
No the fact that some people do not accept it doesnt make them right. There will always be the malcontents and misanthropes unwilling to accept a decision. I am sure you will we some from the ultra Leave side if the deal is passed. That doesn't mean we should listen to their gibbering. For the good of the country it is important that we do not.
In the latest YouGov opinion poll, 50% of women think Brexit was the wrong decision and only 35% think it was right. Numbers like that must make you question the long-term viability of your project.
Those are worrying figures for Remain when you consider the unabated flood of doom that the media has plastered No Deal with in the last six or eight weeks.
If this is peak fear and remain numbers are here I doubt Remain would have a significant win after a referendum campaign.
I cannot see the Labour leadership backing a referendum. A lot of Labour MPs might, but not enough to get it through the Commons. The most likely scenario from here is [not a referendum]
In present circumstances, 100% agreed.
(a) Could someone who thinks that there is going to be a referendum, or at least that it is feasible/plausible/likely, explain why they think SO and I are wrong?
(b) Even if SO and I are correct that the referendum is not a likely outcome from this point, we are indeed facing a set of implausible outcomes of which one must happen, so let's just say it turns out there is a referendum. What needs to change between now and then for this to occur? Given we are in the hypothetical world where a referendum takes place, what form of wording is most likely to get through the Commons? Who would conceivably back each set of question options? Because I'm having such a difficulty even imagining a referendum taking place at all, I don't feel I have any handle whatsoever on which variants of a referendum scenario are more likely than others.
Other alternatives have to fail first. TM's deal would need to be defeated, A Labour VONC would need to fail. TM would need to reject a new election. It would need to be generally agreed that this is no Parliamentary majority for any solution.
At that point, MPs may decide to pass the buck back to the electorate, with a straight choice of the surviving options: (1) Remain (2) WTO exit. (1) is embarrassing but not especially damaging economically - life goes on. But it can't reasonably be done without a fresh mandate. (2) is damaging but but if people really want it, so be it.
Why would the Labour leadership agree? Because Brexit's not an article of faith for them ether way. They have opinions like everyone else, but it's not die-in-the-ditch territory as it is for many Tories. If the alternative is hard Brexit plus Tories soldiering on, it starts to look quite good, especially if it leads to an election win thereafter.
I cannot see the Labour leadership backing a referendum. A lot of Labour MPs might, but not enough to get it through the Commons. The most likely scenario from here is [not a referendum]
In present circumstances, 100% agreed.
(a) Could someone who thinks that there is going to be a referendum, or at least that it is feasible/plausible/likely, explain why they think SO and I are wrong?
(b) Even if SO and I are correct that the referendum is not a likely outcome from this point, we are indeed facing a set of implausible outcomes of which one must happen, so let's just say it turns out there is a referendum. What needs to change between now and then for this to occur? Given we are in the hypothetical world where a referendum takes place, what form of wording is most likely to get through the Commons? Who would conceivably back each set of question options? Because I'm having such a difficulty even imagining a referendum taking place at all, I don't feel I have any handle whatsoever on which variants of a referendum scenario are more likely than others.
Other alternatives have to fail first. TM's deal would need to be defeated, A Labour VONC would need to fail. TM would need to reject a new election. It would need to be generally agreed that this is no Parliamentary majority for any solution.
At that point, MPs may decide to pass the buck back to the electorate, with a straight choice of the surviving options: (1) Remain (2) WTO exit. (1) is embarrassing but not especially damaging economically - life goes on. But it can't reasonably be done without a fresh mandate. (2) is damaging but but if people really want it, so be it.
Why would the Labour leadership agree? Because Brexit's not an article of faith for them ether way. They have opinions like everyone else, but it's not die-in-the-ditch territory as it is for many Tories. If the alternative is hard Brexit plus Tories soldiering on, it starts to look quite good, especially if it leads to an election win thereafter.
A 2nd vote happens when enough MPs conclude it is the only way out of a constitutional mess.
Seems to me at least possible that this will happen.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government hav already managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
That’s also a view, rather than a fact. Given that a number of those who helped lead the Brexit campaign have expressed a preference for remaining over the deal, it is an open question. The personal outrage of various individuals doesn’t settle it one way or the other.
My own preference would be for parliament to approve the imperfect deal. Should it fail to do so there is no settled legal, constitutional or democratic position for what should happen next - and whatever does will seriously annoy large numbers of people.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government hav already managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
That’s also a view, rather than a fact. Given that a number of those who helped lead the Brexit campaign have expressed a preference for remaining over the deal, it is an open question. The personal outrage of various individuals doesn’t settle it one way or the other.
My own preference would be for parliament to approve the imperfect deal. Should it fail to do so there is no settled legal, constitutional or democratic position for what should happen next - and whatever does will seriously annoy large numbers of people.
If you follow that probability tree posted earlier, the chanced of another ref are around 35%, and remaining around 20%. That seems about right to me.
I said illegitimate not illegal. Your comprehension skills are slipping this morning.
Illegitimate means illicit or outside the law. Illegal is a synonym. Look in a dictionary.
You've never seen someone use the word illegitimate non-literally? People, and politicians, do it all the time.
I don't regard a second vote with remain as an option to be illegitimate, but come on, to pretend people don't also use illegitimate in a broader sense than the literal is weak as all hell.
Of course they do. They say it's illegitimate when it's not actually illegal when they've run out of arguments. I was calling Richard out on that.
I cannot see the Labour leadership backing a referendum. A lot of Labour MPs might, but not enough to get it through the Commons. The most likely scenario from here is [not a referendum]
In present circumstances, 100% agreed.
(a) Could someone who thinks that there is going to be a referendum, or at least that it is feasible/plausible/likely, explain why they think SO and I are wrong?
(b) Even if SO and I are correct that the referendum is not a likely outcome from this point, we are indeed facing a set of implausible outcomes of which one must happen, so let's just say it turns out there is a referendum. What needs to change between now and then for this to occur? Given we are in the hypothetical world where a referendum takes place, what form of wording is most likely to get through the Commons? Who would conceivably back each set of question options? Because I'm having such a difficulty even imagining a referendum taking place at all, I don't feel I have any handle whatsoever on which variants of a referendum scenario are more likely than others.
Other alternatives have to fail first. TM's deal would need to be defeated, A Labour VONC would need to fail. TM would need to reject a new election. It would need to be generally agreed that this is no Parliamentary majority for any solution.
At that point, MPs may decide to pass the buck back to the electorate, with a straight choice of the surviving options: (1) Remain (2) WTO exit. (1) is embarrassing but not especially damaging economically - life goes on. But it can't reasonably be done without a fresh mandate. (2) is damaging but but if people really want it, so be it.
Why would the Labour leadership agree? Because Brexit's not an article of faith for them ether way. They have opinions like everyone else, but it's not die-in-the-ditch territory as it is for many Tories. If the alternative is hard Brexit plus Tories soldiering on, it starts to look quite good, especially if it leads to an election win thereafter.
Thanks for the considered response. Two things I have an issue with:
1) At this stage, is it even guaranteed that "Remain" is a live option, practically? Also it would be difficult to get any Brexiteer MPs to support a referendum with Remain as an option, so the parliamentary arithmetic would require support across the spectrum to make up for this.
2) In principle the "surviving options" could include "the Deal"? MPs might not feel able to vote through the Deal themselves, but might be content to let the electorate grubby their hands by doing it for them? Essentially, any situation in which an MP agrees to a referendum means presenting at least one option that the MP doesn't like. Couldn't the Deal be one of them?
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government hav already managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
That’s also a view, rather than a fact. Given that a number of those who helped lead the Brexit campaign have expressed a preference for remaining over the deal, it is an open question. The personal outrage of various individuals doesn’t settle it one way or the other.
My own preference would be for parliament to approve the imperfect deal. Should it fail to do so there is no settled legal, constitutional or democratic position for what should happen next - and whatever does will seriously annoy large numbers of people.
If you follow that probability tree posted earlier, the chanced of another ref are around 35%, and remaining around 20%. That seems about right to me.
And if you lick you finger and stick it in the air, the wind direction is near impossible to discern at the moment....
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it only seems to apply to the decision to leave the EU.
We have been having new information about the EU for 40 years since the original referendum eg. Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, ever closer union etc. and never been asked to confirm this decision democratically.
But when we vote to leave then that decision suddenly doesn't count with each new piece of information apparently. It's a bad argument.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it only seems to apply to the decision to leave the EU.
We have been having new information about the EU for 40 years since the original referendum eg. Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, ever closer union etc. and never been asked to confirm this decision democratically.
But when we vote to leave then that decision suddenly doesn't count with each new piece of information apparently. It's a bad argument.
Theresa's deal is surely doomed - the Leavers eviscerated it with the same speed and ruthlessness as they did with Dave's before it. The wretched thing never stood a chance. I can only foresee two outcomes now:
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
I cannot see the Labour leadership backing a referendum. A lot of Labour MPs might, but not enough to get it through the Commons. The most likely scenario from here is [not a referendum]
In present circumstances, 100% agreed.
(a) Could someone who thinks that there is going to be a referendum, or at least that it is feasible/plausible/likely, explain why they think SO and I are wrong?
(b) Even if SO and I are correct that the referendum is not a likely outcome from this point, we are indeed facing a set of implausible outcomes of which one must happen, so let's just say it turns out there is a referendum. What needs to change between now and then for this to occur? Given we are in the hypothetical world where a referendum takes place, what form of wording is most likely to get through the Commons? Who would conceivably back each set of question options? Because I'm having such a difficulty even imagining a referendum taking place at all, I don't feel I have any handle whatsoever on which variants of a referendum scenario are more likely than others.
Other alternatives have to fail first. TM's deal would need to be defeated, A Labour VONC would need to fail. TM would need to reject a new election. It would need to be generally agreed that this is no Parliamentary majority for any solution.
At that point, MPs may decide to pass the buck back to the electorate, with a straight choice of the surviving options: (1) Remain (2) WTO exit. (1) is embarrassing but not especially damaging economically - life goes on. But it can't reasonably be done without a fresh mandate. (2) is damaging but but if people really want it, so be it.
Why would the Labour leadership agree? Because Brexit's not an article of faith for them ether way. They have opinions like everyone else, but it's not die-in-the-ditch territory as it is for many Tories. If the alternative is hard Brexit plus Tories soldiering on, it starts to look quite good, especially if it leads to an election win thereafter.
How does Labour place a Referendum Bill before parliament and guide it through the legislative steps so that the vote can be held before March 29?
France in chaos. Calais blocked. Demands for Macron to resign
No deal scenario
No, it is happening at this moment
Macron is President and is highly unlikely to resign, there is no French Vice President who would take over and elections are fixed term and constitutionally in France the President is also very difficult to impeach
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
Fair point, although entirely contrary to your previous one. But at least in this case there had already been a referendum. Some people won't tolerate it but in terms of the consequences, that's a lesser consideration than what granting one would do - so it won't happen.
The number of Conservative pundits desperately thrashing around looking for an alternative to a second referendum suggests it's very likely to happen.
There are two perfectly obvious alternatives to a second referendum: a second vote in the Commons, and No Deal.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
I said illegitimate not illegal. Your comprehension skills are slipping this morning.
Illegitimate means illicit or outside the law. Illegal is a synonym. Look in a dictionary.
You've never seen someone use the word illegitimate non-literally? People, and politicians, do it all the time.
I don't regard a second vote with remain as an option to be illegitimate, but come on, to pretend people don't also use illegitimate in a broader sense than the literal is weak as all hell.
Of course they do. They say it's illegitimate when it's not actually illegal when they've run out of arguments. I was calling Richard out on that.
Utterly wrong as usual. I have never claimed it would be illegal and clearly did not in this case. You are just squirming because you have no other response. I choose my words carefully. You should try to do the same.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
Fair point, although entirely contrary to your previous one. But at least in this case there had already been a referendum. Some people won't tolerate it but in terms of the consequences, that's a lesser consideration than what granting one would do - so it won't happen.
The number of Conservative pundits desperately thrashing around looking for an alternative to a second referendum suggests it's very likely to happen.
There are two perfectly obvious alternatives to a second referendum: a second vote in the Commons, and No Deal.
It is not clear that in a referendum there would be a Condorcet winner. Which is of more than academic interest when the option that gets eliminated in Round 1 would have won a Yes/No vote.
If there is a Yes/No vote on one option to begin with and then a conditional question on the same ballot which only comes into play in the case of a Yes (say) result, we will still get a large part of the electorate who feel cheated, because there is no unbiased way to choose what the first question will ask. Should it be Remain/Leave? Or Yes/No to May's deal? There is no "objective" answer to that.
Vernon Bogdanor's proposal of two referendums would be sensible if the electorate were a club and we were talking about two votes at an EGM or even two EGMs. What makes it crazy or distractedly sweet is that the electorate isn't a club.
Showing that a referendum could cause big problems doesn't show that not having one won't cause bigger ones. There is no way that any government is going to ignore parliamentary backing for a referendum. They have lost enough legitimacy as it is.
If the Commons backs "May's deal", there won't be a referendum.
If they don't back it, there will have to be. There is ample time for one. Greece managed it in 10 days in 2015. Are British officials a bunch of snowflakes? Renegotiation won't happen, so in this scenario the only alternative to a referendum would be No Deal. Which probably wouldn't get past the Commons either. Oh f***ing dear. And then a GE wouldn't help much.
If May's deal doesn't get past the Commons then the politicians will have screwed up, so hand the issue back to the people. That's not ideal, but there's no workable alternative. This is the basis on which I support a simple Leave/Remain referendum with it being made clear that "Leave" means WTO, hard Brexit, No Deal, however one wants to bill it.
In game show terms you get two options: Remain or No Deal.
May could quite easily call a Deal v No Deal referendum if she cannot get her Deal through the Commons which would get enough of the ERG on board and potentially the DUP to get through Parliament and still adhere to her commitment that we will Brexit next March.
According to Ashcroft's poll yesterday Deal would narrowly win it
Comments
You may not like them but trying to claim they have no place in our democratic tradition just shows your ignorance.
Bemused by Raikkonen's long odds. He was 2nd quickest in third practice but remains 17 for pole. Hmm.
There's Putney, of course, but Justine is quite sound on Brexit these days.
Betting PostF1: pre-qualifying will be up shortly, but I've decided to tip Raikkonen each way for pole, at 17 (third the odds top 2), with a hedge at 3.
Are you in charge of the EUs hyperbole mountain?
"All futures are possible. But when politics seems stuck, it is wise to look for where momentum is building."
https://www.ft.com/content/1c490256-eda6-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/11/abu-dhabi-pre-qualifying-2018.html
It is interesting as the heat and intensity on brexit increases and for another referendum they are not cutting through at all and seem marooned
While I am not a Corbyn supporter labour have so far been able to face both ways at once on brexit while the Lib Dems are in a straightjacket of their own making
It is also becoming more obvious as we approach the hiatus that those who support a second referendum seem to have no plausable path to one, but as important seem to want the wording slanted to their side and do not seem to have come to terms that they could lose
If there is a Yes/No vote on one option to begin with and then a conditional question on the same ballot which only comes into play in the case of a Yes (say) result, we will still get a large part of the electorate who feel cheated, because there is no unbiased way to choose what the first question will ask. Should it be Remain/Leave? Or Yes/No to May's deal? There is no "objective" answer to that.
Vernon Bogdanor's proposal of two referendums would be sensible if the electorate were a club and we were talking about two votes at an EGM or even two EGMs. What makes it crazy or distractedly sweet is that the electorate isn't a club.
Showing that a referendum could cause big problems doesn't show that not having one won't cause bigger ones. There is no way that any government is going to ignore parliamentary backing for a referendum. They have lost enough legitimacy as it is.
If the Commons backs "May's deal", there won't be a referendum.
If they don't back it, there will have to be. There is ample time for one. Greece managed it in 10 days in 2015. Are British officials a bunch of snowflakes? Renegotiation won't happen, so in this scenario the only alternative to a referendum would be No Deal. Which probably wouldn't get past the Commons either. Oh f***ing dear. And then a GE wouldn't help much.
If May's deal doesn't get past the Commons then the politicians will have screwed up, so hand the issue back to the people. That's not ideal, but there's no workable alternative. This is the basis on which I support a simple Leave/Remain referendum with it being made clear that "Leave" means WTO, hard Brexit, No Deal, however one wants to bill it.
In game show terms you get two options: Remain or No Deal.
She has fought since the election to achieve a brexit that honours the referendum but above all else minimises risk to business. In that respect she has achieved it
However, both extreme sides want their own way or else
I believe TM will continue her fight speaking over the heads of the mps but knows it is unlikely to go through. At that point I would expect her to go to Brussels and tell them it is no deal. She has ruled out a referendum and therefore the EU will be facing a crisis of their own.
They will have a choice of removing the backstop or entering a managed no deal exit
If she follows this she will not be challenged and the DUP will be onside
If she resigns and walks away real chaos will happen but hopefully, what we know of TM, is she will not do a David Cameron but she will fight on for brexit.
I could be very wrong and it may not happen, but it could
If there is another referendum, the government money will be supporting Deal this time; so I suppose it comes down to how much money Remain and No Deal can muster and which side the supporters will place it, which depends on what the question is.
Good afternoon, everybody.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/09/17/nicola-sturgeon-urged-apologise-30-billion-north-sea-oil-lie/
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-accused-lying-amid-11880343
But this continued attempt to put it all one the shoulders of one person doesn't ring true and comes across as a rather lame tactic from those against it. It isn't necessary anymore, we are past the phase where people were trying to attack May by pretending it was really that evil official - everyone can now be open that the problem is May.
I'd put the chances of Brexit happening as no better than 50/50 now.
I don't regard a second vote with remain as an option to be illegitimate, but come on, to pretend people don't also use illegitimate in a broader sense than the literal is weak as all hell.
If Frankie Boyle had made those comments about someone on TV, a lot of the people who are guffawing him on would be outraged.
https://www.iaindale.com/articles/tory-mps-go-to-war-over-john-hayes-utter-cock-knighthood
If this is peak fear and remain numbers are here I doubt Remain would have a significant win after a referendum campaign.
At that point, MPs may decide to pass the buck back to the electorate, with a straight choice of the surviving options: (1) Remain (2) WTO exit. (1) is embarrassing but not especially damaging economically - life goes on. But it can't reasonably be done without a fresh mandate. (2) is damaging but but if people really want it, so be it.
Why would the Labour leadership agree? Because Brexit's not an article of faith for them ether way. They have opinions like everyone else, but it's not die-in-the-ditch territory as it is for many Tories. If the alternative is hard Brexit plus Tories soldiering on, it starts to look quite good, especially if it leads to an election win thereafter.
Seems to me at least possible that this will happen.
Given that a number of those who helped lead the Brexit campaign have expressed a preference for remaining over the deal, it is an open question. The personal outrage of various individuals doesn’t settle it one way or the other.
My own preference would be for parliament to approve the imperfect deal. Should it fail to do so there is no settled legal, constitutional or democratic position for what should happen next - and whatever does will seriously annoy large numbers of people.
No deal scenario
No, it is happening at this moment
https://www.facebook.com/TheLondonEconomic/photos/a.405132716264884/1851455101632631/?type=3&theater&ifg=1
1) At this stage, is it even guaranteed that "Remain" is a live option, practically? Also it would be difficult to get any Brexiteer MPs to support a referendum with Remain as an option, so the parliamentary arithmetic would require support across the spectrum to make up for this.
2) In principle the "surviving options" could include "the Deal"? MPs might not feel able to vote through the Deal themselves, but might be content to let the electorate grubby their hands by doing it for them? Essentially, any situation in which an MP agrees to a referendum means presenting at least one option that the MP doesn't like. Couldn't the Deal be one of them?
We have been having new information about the EU for 40 years since the original referendum eg. Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, ever closer union etc. and never been asked to confirm this decision democratically.
But when we vote to leave then that decision suddenly doesn't count with each new piece of information apparently. It's a bad argument.
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
According to Ashcroft's poll yesterday Deal would narrowly win it