Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Once again the money’s going on TMay not making it to the end

135

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    Xenon said:

    If they have any sense of democracy then yes.

    Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?

    Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.

    May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.

    You are arguing by what you think opposition MPs should do. I'm arguing by what they will do (and say they will do).
    So you seriously think having an referendum between remain which we've already decided a majority don't want and the deal which no one at all wants is a good democratic solution?

    My question is why bother with a referendum?

    And you can't pin this idea completely on the opposition as they can't decide to have this on their own.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
    It is no gamble at all for Remainers. We are "out" anyway. There is nothing to lose.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    So...it's

    1. May's Deal
    2. A. N. Other's Deal
    3. No Deal
    4. No Brexit

    All without asking the voters again.

    Well, at least we'll know by 29th March....
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Sean_F said:

    Xenon said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
    No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
    And it was explicit in the referendum process that it would be parliament who decided what the viable Leave option would be. If they decide that Theresa's deal is the only show in town, or failing that Remain, then who are we to argue?
    I think that a lot of people would argue.

    And, they'd go out and vote in the next round of EU elections.
    And in the local and national UK elections. Now personally I don't care one jot about the Tory party but Richard N's clever little wheeze makes it certain it will cease to exist in its current form, if at all.
    "No deal" will ensure that too. The Tory MPs rejecting May's deal won't be feeling too smart in a year's time.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,547


    We're in a bus heading directly towards a cliff. It's not undemocratic for the driver to ask the passengers to choose whether to swerve left or right and deny them the option of continuing straight ahead.
    Exactly. Parliament should not allow the country to choose national suicide. The duty of leaders is to lead, a concept almost unknown In today's Conservative Party.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Has anybody picked up on the Manafort-Assange story?

    Apparently there were half a dozen meetings between the two in the Ecuadorian Embassy .

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,074

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
    I think it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.

    If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.

    30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
    So you think Labour, the SNP and the LibDems, or a large chunk of them, would support a referendum with No Deal? Really?
    If they have any sense of democracy then yes.

    Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?

    Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.

    May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.
    We're in a bus heading directly towards a cliff. It's not undemocratic for the driver to ask the passengers to choose whether to swerve left or right and deny them the option of continuing straight ahead.
    The problem with this is that a significant number of people don't believe what you're saying. 30% in fact.

    They think no deal won't be as bad as everyone says because they heard similar scare stories about not joining the Euro, the ERM or the vote to leave itself. Or even if they do then they think it is worth it in the long run to be free. So they want to take the chance.

    You can't discount their views just because you disagree with them.
  • Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Remains of the May?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941



    We're in a bus heading directly towards a cliff. It's not undemocratic for the driver to ask the passengers to choose whether to swerve left or right and deny them the option of continuing straight ahead.
    Exactly. Parliament should not allow the country to choose national suicide. The duty of leaders is to lead, a concept almost unknown In today's Conservative Party.

    Yet by refusing to vote for it, they risk exactly that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,074

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
    It is no gamble at all for Remainers. We are "out" anyway. There is nothing to lose.
    A #PeoplesVote is a one way bet for Remainers. No downside from the present, only upside. The opposite applies for most Leavers of course.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited November 2018
    I note that very remainery politicians outside the HoC (Picardo, SDLP, Sinn Fein) are, short of the payroll, the most in favour of the deal.
    There is clearly a real risk for remainers in rejecting the deal particularly with regards to Northern Ireland, but David Lammy must simply know better.
  • Mrs C, things can always get worse.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Sean_F said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Has anybody picked up on the Manafort-Assange story?

    Apparently there were half a dozen meetings between the two in the Ecuadorian Embassy .

    No wonder he's staying in the embassy. Certainly more comfortable than a supermax.
    None of Assange's options seem to be good ones
    Clearly the embassy is a better option than a US Supermax though. I think he'd have walked before now if the only consequence was say three years at HMP (I have no idea what the likely punishment would be for his bail skipping)
    Assuming the case was heard in Crown Court, the starting point would be 14 days custody with the sentencing range being medium community order to 40 weeks custody. Given the length of Assange's failure to surrender the sentence would definitely be above the starting point.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789



    We're in a bus heading directly towards a cliff. It's not undemocratic for the driver to ask the passengers to choose whether to swerve left or right and deny them the option of continuing straight ahead.
    Exactly. Parliament should not allow the country to choose national suicide. The duty of leaders is to lead, a concept almost unknown In today's Conservative Party.

    It's quite a good analogy because at the beginning of the journey we could have taken all sorts of different routes. For example we could have started with a constitutional convention to work through the impact of Brexit on all parts of the union before invoking Article 50.

    May chose to aim for the cliff, and I don't think it's outrageous to suggest she knew it was bound to end up in a binary choice between the deal and aborting Brexit.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited November 2018
    Off Topic

    2 years ago we decided to have our grocery order delivered weekly and as a consequence we cancelled our 50 years of the daily delivery of our pint of milk.

    12 months ago we moved to Daily Mail on line, which is of course is an exact copy of the paper, available at 11.00 pm nightly and cancelled our daily delivery of over 50 years

    We have just completed the purchase of the family xmas presents entirely on line and all delivered to our home, most of which with free delivery. We did not look in any shops at all.

    We have decided in some cases to give cash rather than store vouchers involving a trip to an atm

    We did go into the local children charity shop to buy our bi-lingual cards and of course to the post office, but only for stamps.

    Not a good look for the high street but to be honest to us pair of oldies it is just so easy

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
    It is no gamble at all for Remainers. We are "out" anyway. There is nothing to lose.
    There is that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
    It is no gamble at all for Remainers. We are "out" anyway. There is nothing to lose.
    A #PeoplesVote is a one way bet for Remainers. No downside from the present, only upside. The opposite applies for most Leavers of course.
    Good God, it simply isn't true. Why have the SDLP and Sinn Fein come out in favour of the deal.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
    I think it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.

    If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.

    30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
    So you think Labour, the SNP and the LibDems, or a large chunk of them, would support a referendum with No Deal? Really?
    If they have any sense of democracy then yes.

    Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?

    Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.

    May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.
    We're in a bus heading directly towards a cliff. It's not undemocratic for the driver to ask the passengers to choose whether to swerve left or right and deny them the option of continuing straight ahead.
    The problem with this is that a significant number of people don't believe what you're saying. 30% in fact.

    They think no deal won't be as bad as everyone says because they heard similar scare stories about not joining the Euro, the ERM or the vote to leave itself. Or even if they do then they think it is worth it in the long run to be free. So they want to take the chance.

    You can't discount their views just because you disagree with them.
    I don't discount their views. They are the key swing voters because they will decide whether Brexit goes ahead or whether Remain wins a landslide.
  • TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The UK can be in such a position because Ireland and the EU are being completely inflexible and refusing to compromise. Plus because Ireland cancelled the joint working groups that were trying to solve it.

    If they want a deal they can come to us. Why should we go to them? If they don't want a deal so be it, lets see them erect this mythical hard border and then we talk.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774
    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
    It is no gamble at all for Remainers. We are "out" anyway. There is nothing to lose.
    A #PeoplesVote is a one way bet for Remainers. No downside from the present, only upside. The opposite applies for most Leavers of course.
    Good God, it simply isn't true. Why have the SDLP and Sinn Fein come out in favour of the deal.
    They have different incentives (as do the SNP). If you want to break up the UK, turning it into a vassal state is the ideal starting point.
  • Sean_F said:

    Xenon said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
    No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
    And it was explicit in the referendum process that it would be parliament who decided what the viable Leave option would be. If they decide that Theresa's deal is the only show in town, or failing that Remain, then who are we to argue?
    I think that a lot of people would argue.

    And, they'd go out and vote in the next round of EU elections.
    Come on. Is anyone really worried about the arcane technicalities of the Withdrawal Agreement? I doubt whether 90% of MPs truly understand it. Just keep things simply: Remain or Optimal Leave (in our elected government's opinion). Other fringe positions - No Deal etc. - will only serve to confuse matters.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,074

    Mrs C, things can always get worse.

    As Mrs May is busy demonstrating...

    https://youtu.be/9AFf0ysgNiM
  • Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
    It is no gamble at all for Remainers. We are "out" anyway. There is nothing to lose.
    A #PeoplesVote is a one way bet for Remainers. No downside from the present, only upside. The opposite applies for most Leavers of course.
    For a Doctor that is incredibly naive. Be careful what you wish for.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    No Deal was a possible outcome from invoking Article 50. It wasn't a possible outcome from holding an advisory referendum.
  • Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    It was and following the actions of Varadkar in this process I now couldn't care less about Ireland. He's not trying to avoid the border so why should we? If they want to play chicken with the GFA then so be it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    But never a realistic one.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    Don't disagree but here we are.
  • XenonXenon Posts: 471

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
    .
    So you think Labour, the SNP and the LibDems, or a large chunk of them, would support a referendum with No Deal? Really?
    If they have any sense of democracy then yes.

    Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?

    Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.

    May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.
    We're in a bus heading directly towards a cliff. It's not undemocratic for the driver to ask the passengers to choose whether to swerve left or right and deny them the option of continuing straight ahead.
    The problem with this is that a significant number of people don't believe what you're saying. 30% in fact.

    They think no deal won't be as bad as everyone says because they heard similar scare stories about not joining the Euro, the ERM or the vote to leave itself. Or even if they do then they think it is worth it in the long run to be free. So they want to take the chance.

    You can't discount their views just because you disagree with them.
    I don't discount their views. They are the key swing voters because they will decide whether Brexit goes ahead or whether Remain wins a landslide.
    Er...by not having their preferred option on the ballot of course you're discounting their views.

    People will literally argue anything in order to stay in the EU by the backdoor it seems.
  • Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    It was and following the actions of Varadkar in this process I now couldn't care less about Ireland. He's not trying to avoid the border so why should we? If they want to play chicken with the GFA then so be it.
    But some of us do care about Ireland and peace. Amazing how you want to throw Ireland under your bus
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774

    Sean_F said:

    Xenon said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote for it.
    No I'm not. If it was up to we wouldn't be starting from here, and if it were up to me and we were starting from here I'd implement the PM's deal. However, it's not up to me - I'm considering what might happen, given the realities of the EU's position and the parliamentary arithmetic. I see no way in which a referendum with No Deal on the table could be passed by MPs. Do you? If so, who do you think will vote for it?
    And it was explicit in the referendum process that it would be parliament who decided what the viable Leave option would be. If they decide that Theresa's deal is the only show in town, or failing that Remain, then who are we to argue?
    I think that a lot of people would argue.

    And, they'd go out and vote in the next round of EU elections.
    Come on. Is anyone really worried about the arcane technicalities of the Withdrawal Agreement? I doubt whether 90% of MPs truly understand it. Just keep things simply: Remain or Optimal Leave (in our elected government's opinion). Other fringe positions - No Deal etc. - will only serve to confuse matters.
    I'm not in favour of leaving without a deal. I support May's deal. But, people who are in favour of leaving without a deal seem both passionate about it and numerous, and would regard a referendum between an option that had already been rejected by the public, and an option that had already been rejected by Parliament, as a gerrymander - and they would be correct to do so.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The UK can be in such a position because Ireland and the EU are being completely inflexible and refusing to compromise. Plus because Ireland cancelled the joint working groups that were trying to solve it.

    If they want a deal they can come to us. Why should we go to them? If they don't want a deal so be it, lets see them erect this mythical hard border and then we talk.
    The UK values what peace and harmony we have now in Northern Ireland over any diminution in sovereignty. It believes (rightly IMO) that there is no price too high to pay to ensure that there is no resumption of The Troubles on the scale that pre-dated the GFA.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,074
    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    Indeed it is the *default* outcome, which is why we are headed there.

    Though I think the ERG will chicken out and vote the May Deal through.

  • TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    That is simply not true. There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland. That just the way the EU and May have tried to limit the discussion. If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)
  • Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    It was and following the actions of Varadkar in this process I now couldn't care less about Ireland. He's not trying to avoid the border so why should we? If they want to play chicken with the GFA then so be it.
    But some of us do care about Ireland and peace. Amazing how you want to throw Ireland under your bus
    No I don't want to throw Ireland under the bus. I want to talk and negotiate with them but Varadkar has chosen to step into the middle of the road and tried to stop us departing. Every way we turn our vehicle he jumps in front of us.

    If he wants to negotiate fine. If he wants to play chicken and gets ran over as we move on, well so be it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    IanB2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    But never a realistic one.
    No Deal was always a bluff. That anyone is surprised is surprising.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    Xenon said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    You're trying to get democratic legitimacy for a decision and then removing one of the options in case people vote .
    I think it's more likely to pass with that option than without it.

    If you're not going to have it on there, then there is not really any point in having a referendum at all and just end up remaining.

    30% of the electorate favour no deal over the other two options, even if you think it's completely mad and everyone is insane not to take May's dreadful deal, it's not up to you, enough people disagree to mean it has to be an option.
    So you think Labour, the SNP and the LibDems, or a large chunk of them, would support a referendum with No Deal? Really?
    If they have any sense of democracy then yes.

    Do you think May will survive not putting it on there?

    Even if you're correct, there's absolutely no point in doing it without the choice favoured by 30% of the population. You're basically ruling out a referendum completely without realising it.

    May's deal is not going to pass, it's garbage. So by your own logic the only choice left is to remain as you think no acceptable referendum will pass the HoC.
    We're in a bus heading directly towards a cliff. It's not undemocratic for the driver to ask the passengers to choose whether to swerve left or right and deny them the option of continuing straight ahead.
    The problem with this is that a significant number of people don't believe what you're saying. 30% in fact.

    They think no deal won't be as bad as everyone says because they heard similar scare stories about not joining the Euro, the ERM or the vote to leave itself. Or even if they do then they think it is worth it in the long run to be free. So they want to take the chance.

    You can't discount their views just because you disagree with them.
    Very many of them are pensioners on secure incomes, who aren't worried about gambling with other people's jobs and livelihoods. And some extremely wealthy politicians and businessmen. Plus, if this forum is anything to go by, a healthy dose of expats (and we still don't know where all of Leave.EU's money came from)
  • Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
    It is no gamble at all for Remainers. We are "out" anyway. There is nothing to lose.
    A #PeoplesVote is a one way bet for Remainers. No downside from the present, only upside. The opposite applies for most Leavers of course.
    If you are really dumb enough to believe that I think I know a Nigerian Prince who would like your bank details so he can send you a couple of million dollars.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    TOPPING said:



    No Deal was always a bluff. That anyone is surprised is surprising.

    It was supposed to be a bluff, but some cleverbois started to get high on their own supply.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years :) ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    There can't be a referendum. Unless there is one.

    It can't have some options on ballot. Unless it does.

    We can't crash out without a deal. Unless we do.

    We are in a World of equally unlikely alternatives. Something must happen.

    In an ideal World on this site we would assign probabilities and place wagers, but betting seems to be out of fashion at the moment
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    For the Leavers, "Remain" cannot be on the ballot paper because they are terrified that people will choose it and thus kill Brexit off.
    It's a hell of a gamble for Remainers.
    It is no gamble at all for Remainers. We are "out" anyway. There is nothing to lose.
    A #PeoplesVote is a one way bet for Remainers. No downside from the present, only upside. The opposite applies for most Leavers of course.
    If you are really dumb enough to believe that I think I know a Nigerian Prince who would like your bank details so he can send you a couple of million dollars.
    Are you sticking by your prediction of a minimum of 16 million leave voters in a second referendum?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    But never a realistic one.
    No Deal was always a bluff. That anyone is surprised is surprising.
    Once the government had promised big business, shortly after the vote, that there would absolutely be a deal, it wasn't even that.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    The Commons should have thought about that before legislating for a referendum in the first place.

    No Deal was always a *possible* outcome,
    Indeed it is the *default* outcome, which is why we are headed there.

    Though I think the ERG will chicken out and vote the May Deal through.

    It only happens if Parliament actually votes for it. Otherwise, before we reach the cliff, they will have to ask at least for more time.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited November 2018

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    That is simply not true. There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland. That just the way the EU and May have tried to limit the discussion. If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)
    That is mind-boggling naivety, Richard.

    1. "There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland."

    LOL

    2. "If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)"

    If we have no deal then it is possible that A N Other Country will bring a WTO MFN dispute against us because we would, in those (WTO) circumstances, be treating that A N Other Country unfairly if, say, we imposed a tax on their widgets but not on the widgets of the RoI/EU.
  • Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Scott_P said:

    There can't be a referendum. Unless there is one.

    It can't have some options on ballot. Unless it does.

    We can't crash out without a deal. Unless we do.

    We are in a World of equally unlikely alternatives. Something must happen.

    In an ideal World on this site we would assign probabilities and place wagers, but betting seems to be out of fashion at the moment

    There's simply too many possibilities, and too little hard information, to assign numbers with any degree of confidence to what's going to happen after May's deal falls.

    It's chaos in its purest form.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years :) ?

    Noticeably so and even more in the last six months
  • Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
    It aint necessarily so.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Scott_P said:

    There can't be a referendum. Unless there is one.

    It can't have some options on ballot. Unless it does.

    We can't crash out without a deal. Unless we do.

    We are in a World of equally unlikely alternatives. Something must happen.

    In an ideal World on this site we would assign probabilities and place wagers, but betting seems to be out of fashion at the moment

    If you know the answers, feel free to clean up on Betfair :)
  • Mr. Pulpstar, the wind that fills the sails of Boris is that of his ambition alone.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
    No, you had your chance in 2016 and blew it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited November 2018

    Scott_P said:

    There can't be a referendum. Unless there is one.

    It can't have some options on ballot. Unless it does.

    We can't crash out without a deal. Unless we do.

    We are in a World of equally unlikely alternatives. Something must happen.

    In an ideal World on this site we would assign probabilities and place wagers, but betting seems to be out of fashion at the moment

    There's simply too many possibilities, and too little hard information, to assign numbers with any degree of confidence to what's going to happen after May's deal falls.

    It's chaos in its purest form.
    It really is
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234

    Pulpstar said:

    Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years :) ?

    Noticeably so and even more in the last six months
    Until the moment, rapidly approaching, when he hops upon the People's Vote bandwagon and announces he's a zealous born-again remainer.
  • They may not get a choice. Both the EC and legal challenges may make their MP's views moot.

    On what conceivable basis?
    On the basis that either could insist that an option supported by at least 30% of the population - and more popular than one of the proposed options - is on the ballot paper. Anything else would be perverse.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    I wasn't suggesting a referendum with No Deal on the table - it would be Remain or Deal, as a way out for the government given that no other feasible option can pass parliament.
    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.
    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    That is simply not true. There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland. That just the way the EU and May have tried to limit the discussion. If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)
    That is mind-boggling naivety, Richard.

    1. "There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland."

    LOL

    2. "If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)"

    If we have no deal then it is possible that A N Other Country will bring a WTO MFN dispute against us because we would, in those (WTO) circumstances, be treating that A N Other Country unfairly if, say, we imposed a tax on their widgets but not on the widgets of the RoI/EU.
    Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.
  • Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
    No, you had your chance in 2016 and blew it.
    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.

    This amounts to saying "we should be able to dictate the terms". If you want to bank on might being right, it's best to be sure might is on your side first.
  • notme said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Cold, gloomy, wet. Where's this Mediterranean climate I was promised?

    In despairing news, my elastic band remains obscured, hidden in a subtle realm that no human eye can pierce.

    It's November Mr D. We're still going to have some traditional ones for a while.

    On BBC East yesterday there was a suggestion that Cambridge could become a seaside city as a rsult of global warming.
    I remember hearing that around 1990 when the whole scam... I mean theory began. ;)

    Dramatic sea level rise was one of the very first things we heard about... Nearly 30 years on and I've got to say not very much has happened?

    But this time they really really mean it. Unless we do X (where x is something I just happen to coindentally think is a good thing and would support it with or without climate change) in Y years
    (Where Y would be a very useful period of time for a funding grant to last).
    Hopefully the science teaching is better now than when you guys were at school.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
    No, you had your chance in 2016 and blew it.
    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.
    And yet it is. Funny thing, democracy.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,547
    edited November 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years :) ?

    I don't know, have you seriously tacked to the right in the last few years?😉

    Boris has always seriously tacked to whatever position seemed likely to boost his career prospects. And everything else, including the country, could go hang.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.

    They probably will agree a stellar free trade agreement. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the WA. The WA is designed to give, ok let's think of a good word for it, shall we say "backstop", just in case there are bumps in the road towards that stellar free trade agreement. Because if there are any bumps or delays, there cannot in the interim be the danger that events will lead to a hard border in NI.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234


    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.

    It is for Brexiteers that the phrase "winning the battle and losing the war" seems most apposite.

    If you're lucky, in the ensuing chaos from May's ceremonial obliteration, there will be just enough time to hop upon the Norway+ hype train before it gets too crowded.
  • TOPPING said:


    That is mind-boggling naivety, Richard.

    1. "There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland."

    LOL

    2. "If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)"

    If we have no deal then it is possible that A N Other Country will bring a WTO MFN dispute against us because we would, in those (WTO) circumstances, be treating that A N Other Country unfairly if, say, we imposed a tax on their widgets but not on the widgets of the RoI/EU.

    There is no naivety at all. Where in the GFA or any other legally binding document relating to Northern Ireland does it say there should be no Hard Border? You and I might say it is not desirable but that doesn't mean it is not possible. Nor does it have any impact on what questions can be on a possible referendum paper as you claimed.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years :) ?

    Are we talking about his hair cut to hide his recending hairline or his politics?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    EU Referendum 37%
    On time Brexit 53%
    May to survive till christmas 71%
    May to survive till Easter 39%.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,074

    Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
    The choice is for our Sovereign Parliament to decide. If they want a #peoplesvote with Remain as an option, then so shall it be.

  • And yet it is. Funny thing, democracy.

    Nope, funny thing power. Remain has nothing to do with democracy at all.
  • TOPPING said:

    The UK can be in such a position because Ireland and the EU are being completely inflexible and refusing to compromise. Plus because Ireland cancelled the joint working groups that were trying to solve it.

    If they want a deal they can come to us. Why should we go to them? If they don't want a deal so be it, lets see them erect this mythical hard border and then we talk.

    The UK values what peace and harmony we have now in Northern Ireland over any diminution in sovereignty. It believes (rightly IMO) that there is no price too high to pay to ensure that there is no resumption of The Troubles on the scale that pre-dated the GFA.
    It's a shame RoI doesn't feel the same and doesn't want to talk trade in order to prevent this. Oh well we can't legislate for them. My proposal after May's deal dies is to say to Varadkar the backstop is dead. We either agree the deal without the backstop and with a mere can kicking commitment that nobody wants a hard border ... or it's no deal and an immediate hard border. Varadkar's choice, let him live with the consequences.

    Nearly half their agricultural exports go to the UK and 80% of all exported goods goes through the UK land bridge. They can have an immediate agreement minus backstop or immediate hard border. Their choice.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    If you're lucky, in the ensuing chaos from May's ceremonial obliteration, there will be just enough time to hop upon the Norway+ hype train before it gets too crowded.

    Once again we return to the article written 2 days after the vote...

    And so I return to the questions we left hanging: how could such MPs vote against their consciences? Yet how dare they defy Thursday’s referendum result?

    There’s a way through. Thursday’s result was not a vote to leave the single market: this was never on the ballot paper. Except with a Ukip-Tory alliance, any foreseeable Commons would block a (forgive me) smexit. Britain can instead leave and seek a status such as Norway’s — with free movement of labour. Brexit plus “unrestricted immigration”! The call for a second referendum would soon gather force.

    Add to that the call for a second Scottish referendum, the splitting of the Conservative Party (and perhaps Labour too) and serious talk about the formation of a centre party . . . and yes, plenty of work ahead for comfortably-off columnists. Just a pity about the millions of poorer citizens whom the Pied Pipers of Brexit have deceived.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pity-voters-deceived-by-the-pied-pipers-of-brexit-vz3hpfm9x
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,774


    Scott_P said:

    There can't be a referendum. Unless there is one.

    It can't have some options on ballot. Unless it does.

    We can't crash out without a deal. Unless we do.

    We are in a World of equally unlikely alternatives. Something must happen.

    In an ideal World on this site we would assign probabilities and place wagers, but betting seems to be out of fashion at the moment

    There's simply too many possibilities, and too little hard information, to assign numbers with any degree of confidence to what's going to happen after May's deal falls.

    It's chaos in its purest form.
    It really is
    One thing that we should be agreed on. Ever since the EU Constitution was renamed the Treaty of Lisbon, the "cunning plans" of political leaders have a habit of running out of control.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years :) ?

    Are we talking about his hair cut to hide his recending hairline or his politics?
    Didn't Boris learn how to use a hairbrush at Eton?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years :) ?

    I don't know, have you seriously tacked to the right in the last few years?😉
    Depends how I feel when I get out of bed in the morning. I was very anti-EU when the Greek stuff was hitting the fan but I voted to remain and would probably hold my nose to do so again in a 2nd ref.
  • PB is like groundhog day on the Northern Ireland border.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited November 2018

    TOPPING said:


    That is mind-boggling naivety, Richard.

    1. "There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland."

    LOL

    2. "If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)"

    If we have no deal then it is possible that A N Other Country will bring a WTO MFN dispute against us because we would, in those (WTO) circumstances, be treating that A N Other Country unfairly if, say, we imposed a tax on their widgets but not on the widgets of the RoI/EU.

    There is no naivety at all. Where in the GFA or any other legally binding document relating to Northern Ireland does it say there should be no Hard Border? You and I might say it is not desirable but that doesn't mean it is not possible. Nor does it have any impact on what questions can be on a possible referendum paper as you claimed.
    Take a step back Richard and ask yourself if the matter of a hard border is simply that of what's on one document or another, or is a matter of being legally binding or not.

    This is not your usual analytical incisiveness. "Not desirable" jeez (or jaysus).

    You are misunderstanding (or are ignorant of) the last few hundred or so years of British history on a monumental level. Now, you might, Raab-like, have not really paid any attention to what has been happening since events before and since the GPO occupation, but you're going to have to trust me that it goes beyond what is legal or what is "desirable".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961


    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.

    And yet it is. Funny thing, democracy.
    That ain't democracy.....
  • TOPPING said:

    Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.

    They probably will agree a stellar free trade agreement. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the WA. The WA is designed to give, ok let's think of a good word for it, shall we say "backstop", just in case there are bumps in the road towards that stellar free trade agreement. Because if there are any bumps or delays, there cannot in the interim be the danger that events will lead to a hard border in NI.
    But the backstop is unacceptable and also not part of the status quo ante. The existing backstop is an immediate hard border as of 11pm 29th March. The status quo is there is a hard border in 4 months time. That's already the interim position today.

    Or they can sign a deal with no backstop. They're no worse off than they are now and get 2 more years guarantee of no hard border.

    I'm ok with either choice they make. I'm not ok with the backstop.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789


    And yet it is. Funny thing, democracy.

    Nope, funny thing power. Remain has nothing to do with democracy at all.
    That's what you believe.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088

    Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There .
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
    No, you had your chance in 2016 and blew it.
    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.
    It is rather childish talking about this as if it is some sort of game. The future of our country is at stake and, now that the implications are becoming hugely more clear than they were in 2016, it is entirely reasonable to ask people whether they really want to proceed on the proposed terms, before making the change.

  • And yet it is. Funny thing, democracy.

    Nope, funny thing power. Remain has nothing to do with democracy at all.
    That's what you believe.
    That is what millions of people will believe if you get your way.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.

    Leave won the referendum and the leading Leavers then failed to produce a coherent meaning for Brexit. It has been bicker, bicker, yammer, yammer and 40 shades of Brexit. The whole thing is a shambles.

    It seems clear that the country (or at least the politicians) need to pause and consider the whole thing.

    Brexit, as dreamt of, is no implementable, so it is not unreasonable to reconsider Remain and I know that shoots your fox and you are unhappy about that, but as a nation we need to consider it.
  • PB is like groundhog day on the Northern Ireland border.

    I thought groundhog day was in Punxsutawney?
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256

    Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
    Leave has had its chance. It blew it.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745
    Afternoon all :)

    I remain opposed to a second referendum as it stands. Back in 2016 I argued for a vote on any final deal but the problem then and the problem now is where would a rejection of that Deal lead? To a No Deal crash-out, to Remaining, to further negotiation? The lack of clarity around what a rejection would mean precludes, in my view, a meaningful second vote.

    The deeper concern is, put simply, what failing to leave would mean for our democracy. Yes, leaving the EU could be a mistake, a big serious tragic mistake but it's the will of the people and the people have a right to be wrong and an equal right to take responsibility for and bear the consequences of their actions.

    I see the Prime Minister going round trying to drum up support for her Deal and my assumption is she will be hoping people will lobby their MPs to get them to support the Deal but is that how our democracy works? To what extent has the Prime Minister already forfeited the confidence of her Party when she has to do this?

    It's possible I suppose we will need to walk right up to the cliff edge and stare into the abyss before we step back.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,722
    edited November 2018

    Off Topic

    2 years ago we decided to have our grocery order delivered weekly and as a consequence we cancelled our 50 years of the daily delivery of our pint of milk.

    12 months ago we moved to Daily Mail on line, which is of course is an exact copy of the paper, available at 11.00 pm nightly and cancelled our daily delivery of over 50 years

    We have just completed the purchase of the family xmas presents entirely on line and all delivered to our home, most of which with free delivery. We did not look in any shops at all.

    We have decided in some cases to give cash rather than store vouchers involving a trip to an atm

    We did go into the local children charity shop to buy our bi-lingual cards and of course to the post office, but only for stamps.

    Not a good look for the high street but to be honest to us pair of oldies it is just so easy

    I have some sympathy, being well past 3 score and 10. We (Mrs Cole!) still grocery shop, since she still hankers after going along the rows, finding something different, maybe a bargain. I'm the same at the local off-licence. We do buy parcels, but I use one which has samples for tasting!

    We still buy papers once a week, but largely because of the exercise involved in walking for a total of 20 minutes to buy them. Not the DM, you'll not be surprised to learn!

    There's something deep in Mrs Cole's psyche which impels her to hunt along the stalls at Christmas Fairs.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,785

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Pulpstar said:

    TOPPING said:



    That is simply not realistic. The only two options that should reasonably be on the table are Deal or No Deal. That is the only way to respect the result of the first referendum.

    No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper hence there will not be a 2nd referendum.
    Why not ?
    I'm beginning to bore myself here!!

    It can't be on the ballot paper because the UK can't be in a position whereby events might lead to a hard border in Northern Ireland. It is why there has been all this kerfuffle over May's deal and the backstop, in case you hadn't noticed. The whole 600-odd page WA really just boils down to the backstop plus some waffle here and there.

    NI is driving the whole of our Brexit process and no deal is an option which is intolerable for the UK and hence it can't be left to the people to decide.
    That is simply not true. There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland. That just the way the EU and May have tried to limit the discussion. If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)
    That is mind-boggling naivety, Richard.

    1. "There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland."

    LOL

    2. "If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)"

    If we have no deal then it is possible that A N Other Country will bring a WTO MFN dispute against us because we would, in those (WTO) circumstances, be treating that A N Other Country unfairly if, say, we imposed a tax on their widgets but not on the widgets of the RoI/EU.
    Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.
    A stellar free trade deal is exactly the outcome that London and Dublin were looking for when they cobbled together this Border / backstop conundrum imho. Because the requirements of that border were driven from this side of the Channel for sure. It is the driver for the deal we have, which combines the promise of low contributions, control over immigration and near customs free access - a combination I, for one, thought impossibly cakeist.

    If, by some miracle, the current deal passes, expect exactly the same in the trade partnership talks with Britain and Ireland hoping as at The Boyne, as at Dover.

    Now, I'm not sure the UK expected Varadkar to ride the horse quite as furiously as he has, but there have been definite advantages for us in his doing so.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    That is mind-boggling naivety, Richard.

    1. "There is nothing legally that prevents us having a hard border between Northern and Southern Ireland."

    LOL

    2. "If we have no deal there will be a hard border (if someone chooses to impose one)"

    If we have no deal then it is possible that A N Other Country will bring a WTO MFN dispute against us because we would, in those (WTO) circumstances, be treating that A N Other Country unfairly if, say, we imposed a tax on their widgets but not on the widgets of the RoI/EU.

    There is no naivety at all. Where in the GFA or any other legally binding document relating to Northern Ireland does it say there should be no Hard Border? You and I might say it is not desirable but that doesn't mean it is not possible. Nor does it have any impact on what questions can be on a possible referendum paper as you claimed.
    Take a step back Richard and ask yourself if the matter of a hard border is simply that of what's on one document or another, or is a matter of being legally binding or not.

    This is not your usual analytical incisiveness. "Not desirable" jeez (or jaysus).

    You are misunderstanding (or are ignorant of) the last few hundred or so years of British history on a monumental level. Now, you might, Raab-like, have not really paid any attention to what has been happening since events before and since the GPO occupation, but you're going to have to trust me that it goes beyond what is legal or what is "desirable".
    Given that I am one of the few on here who could choose to have an Irish Passport (from both father's and mother's sides) if I wanted I would hazard I know more about Irish history than most on here.

    I also know that there are far too many people including yourself using the fear of a return to the troubles as a means of trying o push your own personal agendas.

    For the record, unlike some self serving cowards, I would not take up the Irish passport under any circumstances. I consider myself English and would not abandon this country no matter what happens.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.

    Leave won the referendum and the leading Leavers then failed to produce a coherent meaning for Brexit. It has been bicker, bicker, yammer, yammer and 40 shades of Brexit. The whole thing is a shambles.

    It seems clear that the country (or at least the politicians) need to pause and consider the whole thing.

    Brexit, as dreamt of, is no implementable, so it is not unreasonable to reconsider Remain and I know that shoots your fox and you are unhappy about that, but as a nation we need to consider it.
    If only a Leaver had been leading it, then this criticism might be more accurate.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.

    They probably will agree a stellar free trade agreement. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the WA. The WA is designed to give, ok let's think of a good word for it, shall we say "backstop", just in case there are bumps in the road towards that stellar free trade agreement. Because if there are any bumps or delays, there cannot in the interim be the danger that events will lead to a hard border in NI.
    But the backstop is unacceptable and also not part of the status quo ante. The existing backstop is an immediate hard border as of 11pm 29th March. The status quo is there is a hard border in 4 months time. That's already the interim position today.

    Or they can sign a deal with no backstop. They're no worse off than they are now and get 2 more years guarantee of no hard border.

    I'm ok with either choice they make. I'm not ok with the backstop.
    Huh? There is a two year transition period before anything changes?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,088
    RobD said:

    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.

    Leave won the referendum and the leading Leavers then failed to produce a coherent meaning for Brexit. It has been bicker, bicker, yammer, yammer and 40 shades of Brexit. The whole thing is a shambles.

    It seems clear that the country (or at least the politicians) need to pause and consider the whole thing.

    Brexit, as dreamt of, is no implementable, so it is not unreasonable to reconsider Remain and I know that shoots your fox and you are unhappy about that, but as a nation we need to consider it.
    If only a Leaver had been leading it, then this criticism might be more accurate.
    Sadly they mostly ran away at the first sign of difficulty.
  • RobD said:

    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.

    Leave won the referendum and the leading Leavers then failed to produce a coherent meaning for Brexit. It has been bicker, bicker, yammer, yammer and 40 shades of Brexit. The whole thing is a shambles.

    It seems clear that the country (or at least the politicians) need to pause and consider the whole thing.

    Brexit, as dreamt of, is no implementable, so it is not unreasonable to reconsider Remain and I know that shoots your fox and you are unhappy about that, but as a nation we need to consider it.
    If only a Leaver had been leading it, then this criticism might be more accurate.
    I have never expected accuracy from Beverley.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    RobD said:

    We won. How is that blowing it? The question was should we Remain in or Leave the EU. Leave won. The form of leaving is what is now up for debate. Remaining should not be an option.

    Leave won the referendum and the leading Leavers then failed to produce a coherent meaning for Brexit. It has been bicker, bicker, yammer, yammer and 40 shades of Brexit. The whole thing is a shambles.

    It seems clear that the country (or at least the politicians) need to pause and consider the whole thing.

    Brexit, as dreamt of, is no implementable, so it is not unreasonable to reconsider Remain and I know that shoots your fox and you are unhappy about that, but as a nation we need to consider it.
    If only a Leaver had been leading it, then this criticism might be more accurate.
    If only they hadn't bottled it in the leadership election after the referendum. You can't say Cameron didn't give them a chance.
  • Foxy said:

    philiph said:

    @david_herdson - Has Richard Nabavi's epiphany changed your view on the likelihood of a second referendum?

    No. There is certainly a possibility of it but I remain of the view that it's unlikely because it runs against both the country's and the government's interests, that it's in any case logistically difficult to arrange in the time remaining, and that there's a reasonable chance that No Deal might win, which would be an enormous risk for a government to run.
    His argument (and mine) is that the referendum will be Deal/Remain.
    That option will not fly and would not be accepted as democratically legitimate. If May put that forward, she certainly would face a vote of no confidence, and I expect would lose. Even if she didn't, opponents within the Commons could drag the legislation out for so long that it wasn't practical to implement.
    I don't see the legitimacy of putting the deal in a referendum if the HOC have defeated it by a significant majority, rejected it by belittling it, ridiculing it and telling us it is the worst deal ever.

    After that how can it be a choice for the referendum?
    It's the government's policy - and it's the government that would control the referendum legislation. It's also the only deal on the table. If you put the question to the people then you implicitly accept their greater legitimacy and, hence, their right to overrule parliament.

    I might add that these are all reasons why whatever people might think in principle, the practical politics of delivering a Referendum Bill mean it won't happen.
    So then, we stay deadlocked until we fall off the cliff? That is your answer?
    Taking Back Control seems a little problematic!

    It would be absurd to have a further referendum without Remain as an option. This is the most popular choice, and quite a few Leavers have expressed a preference for it over May's deal.
    Why should you get to have two bites of the cherry? You had your chance in 2016 and lost. The choice now is between leaving with May's Deal and Leaving with No Deal.
    Leave has had its chance. It blew it.
    Nope. Remain has led this country ever since the referendum.
  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Then if the RoI/EU want to prevent it they should agree a stellar free trade agreement with us. Otherwise, so be it. If they can't be arsed to give us what we need then the feeling is mutual.

    They probably will agree a stellar free trade agreement. But that is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the WA. The WA is designed to give, ok let's think of a good word for it, shall we say "backstop", just in case there are bumps in the road towards that stellar free trade agreement. Because if there are any bumps or delays, there cannot in the interim be the danger that events will lead to a hard border in NI.
    But the backstop is unacceptable and also not part of the status quo ante. The existing backstop is an immediate hard border as of 11pm 29th March. The status quo is there is a hard border in 4 months time. That's already the interim position today.

    Or they can sign a deal with no backstop. They're no worse off than they are now and get 2 more years guarantee of no hard border.

    I'm ok with either choice they make. I'm not ok with the backstop.
    Huh? There is a two year transition period before anything changes?
    Yes if they agree a deal it will postpone any risks of a hard border from 4 months from now until 25 months from now. That seems like a positive move to me for them but if they'd rather go immediately to the hard border in March so be it. That will be their choice.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,547
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Is it me or has Boris seriously tacked to the right in the last few years :) ?

    I don't know, have you seriously tacked to the right in the last few years?😉
    Depends how I feel when I get out of bed in the morning. I was very anti-EU when the Greek stuff was hitting the fan but I voted to remain and would probably hold my nose to do so again in a 2nd ref.
    I quite see where you are coming from. THe EU is far from perfect and the Greek horror was perhaps the worst example of the uncaring blunderbuss approach it can take. But the UK leaving will not change that, and we can expect to be on the receiving end when it comes to the negotiation of the ongoing trade relationship. Better I think to be more committed members and try to change it from within. After all, the UK was very successful in promoting both the single market and the expansion of the EU into Eastern Europe. We need to have the courage of our convictions and not just hide away in a corner in the naive belief that leaving will make all the problems go away. It will take many years to rebuild our standing with our European neighbours but the sooner we begin the better.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    stodge said:


    I see the Prime Minister going round trying to drum up support for her Deal and my assumption is she will be hoping people will lobby their MPs to get them to support the Deal but is that how our democracy works?

    It's certainly not how people work. So far, pretty much every single attempt to badger and barrack MPs into supporting her has simply steeled the opposition against her.

    But that's nothing as to how badly wasting vast amounts of cash on millions of pamphlets to go over their heads and lie to their constituents will go down.

    The absurdity of May's position, (going over the heads of Parliament to the people, but not actually asking the people because that is undemocratic) and her total failure to grasp how people who are not she think, is compounding opposition to the deal by the day.

    Perhaps the soundest advice Gavin Barwell could give May is "STOP DIGGING".
  • For what it's worth, I don't think that Leave's greatest failure after the referendum was failing to take charge of the negotiations. I think Leave's greatest failure was not to attempt to address the concerns of many Remain voters and seek to forge a consensus. You can't blame Theresa May for that because all the worst culprits were all the most prominent Leavers.

    What that means is that wherever Brexit goes from here, it will remain controversial and divide the nation for years to come.
This discussion has been closed.