Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Take two – how would a fresh referendum play out?

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Take two – how would a fresh referendum play out?

A spectre is haunting Parliament – the spectre of a new referendum.  On Tuesday, Parliament voted to allow itself to amend any back-up plan that the government brought forward in the event that its own deal was defeated in the meaningful vote next week. As things stand, defeat in that vote looks inevitable at present. The odds on a #peoplesvote or fresh referendum or re-ferendum or whatever you want to call it have risen sharply as a result.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    I think the last 2 paragraphs really set it out. Leavers have done a poor job dealing with concerns, it's one reason why so many remainers are still against (yes, some always were going to be) and might win now, but this is not certain or easy, and yet there's already triumphalism that the country has changed its mind, that it will therefore vote the right way this time, and that of course that will be the end of it all.

    Some of those might be likely, others are possible, but it is far from easy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,093
    I doubt leave will need to focus on immigration in a second referendum. The sheer anger of "didn't you hear us the first time?" will be enough.

    A second referendum will be the powerful against the people. A big old F.U. to the hoi polloi. Or at least that is how the leave campaign will present it.

    It isn't about immigration. It is about being heard. It is about decades of people saying "we voted for one thing and you delivered another". Whether that is immigration or NHS services or whatever.

    It is about people who feel, fairly or unfairly, that they are not being listened to. When you realise that it is obvious what a second referendum leave campaign would look like.

    "They're still not listening."
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited December 5
    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,951
    I've just an Newsletter from Priti Patel, the salient part of which is:

    Not only is the proposed deal undemocratic because it does not respect the Referendum result, it allows the EU to continue to make laws and rules that impact on our country which we will have no say in. It also threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom by treating Northern Ireland differently, allows the EU Court to impose judgements on us for many years to come and prevents us from making new trade deals with the rest of the world. Instead of being a global power in our own right, the deal lets the EU pull our strings for many more years and perhaps indefinitely.

    I have issued a statement on the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration and have commented on the damage they would cause to our country. I have also challenged the Government over the impact on our fisheries and questioned the Prime Minister over the future control that the EU Court will exert on our country.'

    She also gives notice of a demonstration in favour of her position, with a contact, but doesn't where it's going to be!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,321
    edited December 5
    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    It will hang on whether Labours huge and youthful activist base - which came out in force in '17 but not in '16 - gets out and drags older more traditional Labour voters out for Remain. A precondition for which is the party itself actually doing so.

    Up against them (Labour and the LibDem party machine) would be whom? UKIP is a busted flush and becoming untouchable, the Tories are too riven and their membership old and declining, Banks would have to be very careful, Farage is homeless.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 422
    I don't know how many times I've posted on this site that reducing EU immigration is easy, but it is. The problem is that Labour, ideologically want free movement and the Tories paymasters require it.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 940
    The Leave Campaign will also hit the remain campaign with "The people wanted you to make the laws, if you are refusing you are unfit to be an MP."
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,093
    edited December 5
    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.

    Don't forget that in most people's minds the very people now standing in the way of their vote to leave are the same people who were spunking *their* money on duck houses and moats and pay per view frankie vaughn a few short years ago. And they still hold them in the same contempt.

    The political class do not seem to understand in how much contempt the ordinary man holds them in. That was what Leave was all about. A second referendum will be a second chance to deliver the message.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited December 5
    After all, why bother voting leave? The MPs say they'll do it, but they didn't mean it before, even after triggering A50. It's true that remain's arguments are basically the same as they have been for two years, as Mr Meeks notes, and therefore remain are essentially betting on the circumstances being enough to see them win, while making the same point (yes, they talked about the chaos and risk last time, sorry dishonestname campaign), and that is far riskier than they are pretending, but looking at this shambles of a government and the death throws of the various leave supporting tribes, I think it will be enough, even if it does not lead to all sunshine and roses at the end.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 26,087
    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,221
    The biggest risk of a second referendum is that is throws up a “plague on all your houses” result (I.e, no deal). People do not generally like to be told to go to the ballot box unnecessarily. GE2017 showed that. The risk for remain is that if they are seen to have precipitated another vote, there is a backlash against them for forcing the public to vote again.

    Leave will have stronger cards and a stronger narrative in any 2019 vote than they did in 2016. I still subscribe to the school of ‘be careful what you wish for.’
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited December 5
    kyf_100 said:


    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.
    I don't mean some leavers won't be fired up, I mean as a whole they will not. I know this to be true because I voted leave and I'm not going to be fired up by a second referendum, I'm going to be annoyed and depressed at all the wasted time and effort and the pointlessness of it all.

    There will be some very fired up leavers. But not all leavers want the deal, or no deal, depending on what would be on offer in the question. That dims enthusiasm for a start. Then the sheer ineptitude that got us to this point depresses the vote a little bit more. People thinking it is all pointless as MPs won't follow through anyway.

    It adds up. If it is about getting the same people out as last time, leavers will find some harder to get out than remain will.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 23,582

    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.

    That would mean only around 12 million votes for Remain. There's no chance it will be that low.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 3,317

    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.

    That would mean only around 12 million votes for Remain. There's no chance it will be that low.
    Could easily if it becomes obvious that the outcome is a foregone conclusion
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 23,582
    alex. said:

    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.

    That would mean only around 12 million votes for Remain. There's no chance it will be that low.
    Could easily if it becomes obvious that the outcome is a foregone conclusion
    I really doubt it. Something that's dominated politics for over two years can't be compared with the AV referendum. Turnout would be high again and people wouldn't leave it to chance.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,321
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635
    If the choice is between May's deal and Remain, turnout will be very low I think.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited December 5
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    Very convenient. It would be a dramatic change because it would require the government to revoke A50 and pass legislation to prevent the default outcome of no deal - if we 'leave things as they are' we are leaving in 3 months, that is what our law says right now. It isn't leaving things as they are if we need to change the law to do what is asked.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 815
    FPT, but relevant to Antifrank's (excellent) new header:

    AndyJS said:

    "Leave 'very likely' won EU referendum due to illegal overspending, says Oxford professor's evidence to High Court

    Exclusive: Analysis finds adverts reached 'tens of millions of people' in crucial days after spending limit breached – enough to change the outcome"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-leave-referendum-overspending-high-court-brexit-legal-challenge-void-oxford-professor-a8668771.html

    Isn't its strange how money spent by Leave apparently had far more influence on the result than almost twice the money spent on Remain.
    Not really that strange.

    Leave ran a better campaign. A smarter, better, more effective campaign. Whether it was a legal campaign is another matter, but it was without doubt more effective.

    Throw £500,000 at Vote Leave and £1m at Britain Stronger In Europe, and VL would have put it into efficient targeting while BSIE would have pissed it up the wall.

    So in the event of a second referendum, BSIE2 needs to match VL's savvy. They can do that by appealing to people's better instincts or their baser instincts. The lesson of the original referendum might suggest that baser instincts will win, and there's a fairly obvious dog-whistle on immigration that BSIE2 could try if they were feeling unprincipled.

    My gut feeling is that EUref2 will be won by heavily targeted, predominantly local, digital campaigning rather than by national headlines, and VL were better at that first time. But then as Tim Shipman's 'Fall Out' describes, GE2017 was an attempt to "get the crew back together" from the previous election and history didn't exactly repeat itself...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    As things stand, right now we're leaving without a deal on March 29th. This threshold business is a nonsense for either side.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,321
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    Very convenient. It would be a dramatic change because it would require the government to revoke A50 and pass legislation to prevent the default outcome of no deal - if we 'leave things as they are' we are leaving in 3 months, that is what our law says right now. It isn't leaving things as they are if we need to change the law to do what is asked.
    Lol
  • eekeek Posts: 2,409
    Pulpstar said:

    If the choice is between May's deal and Remain, turnout will be very low I think.

    I doubt it - May's deal is a complete horlicks of a mess.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 48,598
    edited December 5
    At the moment according to commentators like Laura Kuenssberg there is no Commons majority for another deeply divisive EUref2 but probably a Commons majority for Single Market + Customs Union so this is all very interesting but merely hypothetical and the most likely result if May's Deal goes down is the Commons votes for BINO instead
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635

    alex. said:

    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.

    That would mean only around 12 million votes for Remain. There's no chance it will be that low.
    Could easily if it becomes obvious that the outcome is a foregone conclusion
    I really doubt it. Something that's dominated politics for over two years can't be compared with the AV referendum. Turnout would be high again and people wouldn't leave it to chance.
    I think I'd go for AV if that one was rerun :)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 26,087

    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.

    That would mean only around 12 million votes for Remain. There's no chance it will be that low.
    I think many Remainers wouldn’t bother either.

    Many of the 48% weren’t ideologically committed fans of the EU then, and still aren’t now.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,093
    edited December 5
    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.
    I don't mean some leavers won't be fired up, I mean as a whole they will not. I know this to be true because I voted leave and I'm not going to be fired up by a second referendum, I'm going to be annoyed and depressed at all the wasted time and effort and the pointlessness of it all.

    There will be some very fired up leavers. But not all leavers want the deal, or no deal, depending on what would be on offer in the question. That dims enthusiasm for a start. Then the sheer ineptitude that got us to this point depresses the vote a little bit more. People thinking it is all pointless as MPs won't follow through anyway.

    It adds up. If it is about getting the same people out as last time, leavers will find some harder to get out than remain will.
    We talk a lot about the remainers who didn't turn up in 2016. How if last year's "youthquake" for Corbyn had turned out a year earlier for remain, there might have been a different result.

    What we don't take into account is how many people who didn't vote leave in the first referendum can be persuaded to vote for it this time around.

    I actually believe that leaverism and corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse, they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen.

    It's my guess that if leave focuses on a "Westminster sent you a message - up yours! Send them an up yours right back" (to paraphrase, rather crudely!), they can "do a Corbyn" and get even more of the people we see as traditionally disenfranchised out to vote.

    Remainers have (somewhat tastelessly) focused on how in two years, the elderly who voted for Brexit died off, etc. But it's also been two more years of below inflation pay rises, crap jobs, creaky trains, expensive season tickets, longer queues to get in to see a doctor on the National Health. All of these are factors in a protest vote. It's not just about immgration. Even if it was, the first time around - a second referendum can and should be phrased as a protest against a political class that *never bloody listens*.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973
    edited December 5


    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited December 5
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    Very convenient. It would be a dramatic change because it would require the government to revoke A50 and pass legislation to prevent the default outcome of no deal - if we 'leave things as they are' we are leaving in 3 months, that is what our law says right now. It isn't leaving things as they are if we need to change the law to do what is asked.
    Lol
    If you want to leave things as they are you must be a no deal supporter, the idea a remain vote does not require a huge change in direction and, crucially, existing law, is self evidently designed to allow one side to have it easier than the other. That's fairness is it? LOL
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 1,903
    edited December 5



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    That would be sensational. Even I'd have to applaud that from Corbyn.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,321
    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the ts from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    Very convenient. It would be a dramatic change because it would require the government to revoke A50 and pass legislation to prevent the default outcome of no deal - if we 'leave things as they are' we are leaving in 3 months, that is what our law says right now. It isn't leaving things as they are if we need to change the law to do what is asked.
    Lol
    If you want to leave things as they are you must be a no deal supporter, the idea a remain vote does not require a huge change in direction and law is self evidently designed to allow one side to have it easier than the other.
    I think you are trying just a little too hard here?

    In any event after the last referendum it isn't practicable to introduce new rules now - not least because a vote that went one way but didn't meet a threshold would be an even worse f*** up than the current one.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,221



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    If Labour really do blink at the last minute it would be a very embarrassing climbdown. I could see Starmer resigning for one. Not exactly optimum conditions to go and fight a GE.

    At the moment labour MPs can get behind the decision to vote against for various reasons - those that hate the deal, those that are just doing so for partisan advantage, those that want another referendum, those that want a GE... take that away from them and it could cause issues for Corbyn.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 23,582
    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.
    I don't mean some leavers won't be fired up, I mean as a whole they will not. I know this to be true because I voted leave and I'm not going to be fired up by a second referendum, I'm going to be annoyed and depressed at all the wasted time and effort and the pointlessness of it all.

    There will be some very fired up leavers. But not all leavers want the deal, or no deal, depending on what would be on offer in the question. That dims enthusiasm for a start. Then the sheer ineptitude that got us to this point depresses the vote a little bit more. People thinking it is all pointless as MPs won't follow through anyway.

    It adds up. If it is about getting the same people out as last time, leavers will find some harder to get out than remain will.
    We talk a lot about the remainers who didn't turn up in 2016. How if last year's "youthquake" for Corbyn had turned out a year earlier for remain, there might have been a different result.

    What we don't take into account is how many people who didn't vote leave in the first referendum can be persuaded to vote for it this time around.

    I actually believe that leaverism and corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse, they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen.

    It's my guess that if leave focuses on a "Westminster sent you a message - up yours! Send them an up yours right back" (to paraphrase, rather crudely!), they can "do a Corbyn" and get even more of the people we see as traditionally disenfranchised out to vote.

    Remainers have (somewhat tastelessly) focused on how in two years, the elderly who voted for Brexit died off, etc. But it's also been two more years of below inflation pay rises, crap jobs, creaky trains, expensive season tickets, longer queues to get in to see a doctor on the National Health. All of these are factors in a protest vote. It's not just about immgration. Even if it was, the first time around - a second referendum can and should be phrased as a protest against a political class that *never bloody listens*.
    In a choice between a Brexit deal and Remain, which option do you vote for in order to send a message to the establishment?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited December 5



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    It is in their interests to guarantee a GE, but it isn't necessary as very little chance the government gets back on track after...something happens on Brexit anyway, so one is very probable anyway. Letting Brexit go through when they need to be able to pretend to their supporters all options are on the table if they back Labour is not going to work, it is the same as endorsing May's deal.

    There is a 1 in a 100 chance May's deal passes, and that's an overestimate. Arent't the no votes still going up every day? There's just not enough incentive for Lab MPs, most of whom want to remain, to allow it through, and the leadership which has been deliberately vague has little incentive to suddenly become definitive.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 12,321
    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.
    I don't mean some leavers won't be fired up, I mean as a whole they will not. I know this to be true because I voted leave and I'm not going to be fired up by a second referendum, I'm going to be annoyed and depressed at all the wasted time and effort and the pointlessness of it all.

    There will be some very fired up leavers. But not all leavers want the deal, or no deal, depending on what would be on offer in the question. That dims enthusiasm for a start. Then the sheer ineptitude that got us to this point depresses the vote a little bit more. People thinking it is all pointless as MPs won't follow through anyway.

    It adds up. If it is about getting the same people out as last time, leavers will find some harder to get out than remain will.
    We talk a lot about the remainers who didn't turn up in 2016. How if last year's "youthquake" for Corbyn had turned out a year earlier for remain, there might have been a different result.

    What we don't take into account is how many people who didn't vote leave in the first referendum can be persuaded to vote for it this time around.

    I actually believe that leaverism and corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse, they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen.

    It's my guess that if leave focuses on a "Westminster sent you a message - up yours! Send them an up yours right back" (to paraphrase, rather crudely!), they can "do a Corbyn" and get even more of the people we see as traditionally disenfranchised out to vote.

    Remainers have (somewhat tastelessly) focused on how in two years, the elderly who voted for Brexit died off, etc. But it's also been two more years of below inflation pay rises, crap jobs, creaky trains, expensive season tickets, longer queues to get in to see a doctor on the National Health. All of these are factors in a protest vote. It's not just about immgration. Even if it was, the first time around - a second referendum can and should be phrased as a protest against a political class that *never bloody listens*.
    Just a shame that Brexit would make most of those worse, eh?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.
    I don't mean some leavers won't be fired up, I mean as a whole they will not. I know this to be true because I voted leave and I'm not going to be fired up by a second referendum, I'm going to be annoyed and depressed at all the wasted time and effort and the pointlessness of it all.

    There will be some very fired up leavers. But not all leavers want the deal, or no deal, depending on what would be on offer in the question. That dims enthusiasm for a start. Then the sheer ineptitude that got us to this point depresses the vote a little bit more. People thinking it is all pointless as MPs won't follow through anyway.

    It adds up. If it is about getting the same people out as last time, leavers will find some harder to get out than remain will.
    We talk a lot about th

    I actually believe that leaverism and corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse, they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen.

    It's my guess that if leave focuses on a "Westminster sent you a message - up yours! Send them an up yours right back" (to paraphrase, rather crudely!), they can "do a Corbyn" and get even more of the people we see as traditionally disenfranchised out to vote.

    Remainers have (somewhat tastelessly) focused on how in two years, the elderly who voted for Brexit died off, etc. But it's also been two more years of below inflation pay rises, crap jobs, creaky trains, expensive season tickets, longer queues to get in to see a doctor on the National Health. All of these are factors in a protest vote. It's not just about immgration. Even if it was, the first time around - a second referendum can and should be phrased as a protest against a political class that *never bloody listens*.
    In a choice between a Brexit deal and Remain, which option do you vote for in order to send a message to the establishment?
    Ha, good point.

    You stay at home presumably, and get very pissed off.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the ts from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    Very convenient. It would be a dramatic change because it would require the government to revoke A50 and pass legislation to prevent the default outcome of no deal - if we 'leave things as they are' we are leaving in 3 months, that is what our law says right now. It isn't leaving things as they are if we need to change the law to do what is asked.
    Lol
    If you want to leave things as they are you must be a no deal supporter, the idea a remain vote does not require a huge change in direction and law is self evidently designed to allow one side to have it easier than the other.
    I think you are trying just a little too hard here?
    A little perhaps. I agree new rules are not acceptable here vs last time. But given the nature of the dishonestname campaign in openly caring not that the people decide, but that the people decide the right way, it is impossible not to suspect many other so called objections to the last vote are contingent on the outcome achieved.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    Depends how badly Labour want a GE.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,093
    edited December 5



    In a choice between a Brexit deal and Remain, which option do you vote for in order to send a message to the establishment?

    Mr Meeks excellent article was about the choice between no deal and remain. As he says above, there would be a different dynamic but certain similarities.

    The obvious answer would be for the leave campaign to push for "deal now, then vote the bastards out later". All they have to do is paint remain as the establishment choice, the tin-eared one that tells the electorate that the opinion of the little people doesn't really count.

    Not the hardest task in the world.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 10,610
    Dear Santa

    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Santa I have been a good boy

    Regards

    HYUFD
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 5,750
    IanB2 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.
    I don't mean some leavers won't be fired up, I mean as a whole they will not. I know this to be true because I voted leave and I'm not going to be fired up by a second referendum, I'm going to be annoyed and depressed at all the wasted time and effort and the pointlessness of it all.

    There will be some very fired up leavers. But not all leavers want the deal, or no deal, depending on what would be on offer in the question. That dims enthusiasm for a start. Then the sheer ineptitude that got us to this point depresses the vote a little bit more. People thinking it is all pointless as MPs won't follow through anyway.

    It adds up. If it is about getting the same people out as last time, leavers will find some harder to get out than remain will.
    We talk a lot about the remainers who didn't turn up in 2016. How if last year's "youthquake" for Corbyn had turned out a year earlier for remain, there might have been a different result.

    What we don't take into account is how many people who didn't vote leave in the first referendum can be persuaded to vote for it this time around.

    I actually believe that leaverism and corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse, they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen.

    It's my guess that if leave focuses on a "Westminster sent you a message - up yours! Send them an up yours right back" (to paraphrase, rather crudely!), they can "do a Corbyn" and get even more of the people we see as traditionally disenfranchised out to vote.

    Remainers have (.
    Just a shame that Brexit would make most of those worse, eh?
    Yes, there is a pretty good correlation between Leave voting areas and areas most likely to suffer from Brexit. It is going to be a lesson in tough love.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,093
    IanB2 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.
    I don't mean some leavers won't be fired up, I mean as a whole they will not. I know this to be true because I voted leave and I'm not going to be fired up by a second referendum, I'm going to be annoyed and depressed at all the wasted time and effort and the pointlessness of it all.

    There will be some very fired up leavers. But not all leavers want the deal, or no deal, depending on what would be on offer in the question. That dims enthusiasm for a start. Then the sheer ineptitude that got us to this point depresses the vote a little bit more. People thinking it is all pointless as MPs won't follow through anyway.

    It adds up. If it is about getting the same people out as last time, leavers will find some harder to get out than remain will.
    We talk a lot about the remainers who didn't turn up in 2016. How if last year's "youthquake" for Corbyn had turned out a year earlier for remain, there might have been a different result.

    What we don't take into account is how many people who didn't vote leave in the first referendum can be persuaded to vote for it this time around.

    I actually believe that leaverism and corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse, they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen.

    It's my guess that if leave focuses on a "Westminster sent you a message - up yours! Send them an up yours right back" (to paraphrase, rather crudely!), they can "do a Corbyn" and get even more of the people we see as traditionally disenfranchised out to vote.

    Remainers have (somewhat tastelessly) focused on how in two years, the elderly who voted for Brexit died off, etc. But it's also been two more years of below inflation pay rises, crap jobs, creaky trains, expensive season tickets, longer queues to get in to see a doctor on the National Health. All of these are factors in a protest vote. It's not just about immgration. Even if it was, the first time around - a second referendum can and should be phrased as a protest against a political class that *never bloody listens*.
    Just a shame that Brexit would make most of those worse, eh?
    Remain has hardly made any of them better.
  • kyf_100 said:



    In a choice between a Brexit deal and Remain, which option do you vote for in order to send a message to the establishment?

    Mr Meeks excellent article was about the choice between no deal and remain. As he says above, there would be a different dynamic but certain similarities.

    The obvious answer would be for the leave campaign to push for "deal now, then vote the bastards out later". All they have to do is paint remain as the establishment choice, the tin-eared one that tells the electorate that the opinion of the little people doesn't really count.

    Not the hardest task in the world.
    Except the establishment i.e. the government will be the ones spending £6 m promoting the WA.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 26,087

    kyf_100 said:

    kle4 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    kle4 said:

    For what it is worth I do think Remain would win. Too many leavers would be appalled at either the deal or no deal depending on what remain was up against, or just tired and frustrated by it all, while remainers have had a shot in the arm and are more fired up than ever.

    If you think leavers won't be fired up by the crowing triumphalism of remainers who are already salivating at the mere thought of a second referendum, I have a Neil Kinnock on the eve of the 1992 election sized bridge to sell you.
    I don't mean some leavers won't be fired up, I mean as a whole they will not. I know this to be true because I voted leave and I'm not going to be fired up by a second referendum, I'm going to be annoyed and depressed at all the wasted time and effort and the pointlessness of it all.

    There will be some very fired up leavers. But not all leavers want the deal, or no deal, depending on what would be on offer in the question. That dims enthusiasm for a start. Then the sheer ineptitude that got us to this point depresses the vote a little bit more. People thinking it is all pointless as MPs won't follow through anyway.

    It adds up. If it is about getting the same people out as last time, leavers will find some harder to get out than remain will.
    We talk a lot about the remainers who didn't turn up in 2016. How if last year's "youthquake" for Corbyn had turned out a year earlier for remain, there might have been a different result.

    What we don't take into account is how many people who didn't vote leave in the first referendum can be persuaded to vote for it this time around.

    I actually believe that leaverism and corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse, they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen.

    It's my guess that if leave focuses on a "Westminster sent you a message - up yours! Send them an up yours right back" (to paraphrase, rather crudely!), they can "do a Corbyn" and get even more of the people we see as traditionally disenfranchised out to vote.

    Remainers have (somewhat tastelessly) focused on how in two years, the elderly who voted for Brexit died off, etc. But it's also been two more years of below inflation pay rises, crap jobs, creaky trains, expensive season tickets, longer queues to get in to see a doctor on the National Health. All of these are factors in a protest vote. It's not just about immgration. Even if it was, the first time around - a second referendum can and should be phrased as a protest against a political class that *never bloody listens*.
    In a choice between a Brexit deal and Remain, which option do you vote for in order to send a message to the establishment?
    The Brexit deal.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    Depends how badly Labour want a GE.
    The problem is that it immediately puts them into a weak position heading into a GE campaign. The Tories would really behind May whilst Labour activist base would see that they've simply allowed the Tories to exit us from the EU on Tory terms. That's why it probably won't happen.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,885
    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    No. It would be anathema to many Labour MPs and cause outrage in the wider party.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,281
    Excellent piece, thanks Alastair.

    "Far too many Remain supporters are cavorting as if the mere act of holding a referendum will result in Britain remaining in the EU. There is first the small matter of persuading the voters of that course of action."

    Yep. One of the more disgusting things about the new referendum campaigns is that they're not trying to persuade the GBP of why we should be in the EU. Hence they're not even trying to fix the thing they did wrong last time. Thinking you have the moral high ground and obvious righteousness on your side is not enough. At least the Europhobes played to win.

    " If you were appalled at the anti-immigration message last time round, expect the Leave campaign to be worse; much worse."

    There is one factor that is different: two -three years ago the papers and media were filled with images of (thousands of tragic and desperate refugees / hordes of would-be rapists and terrorists) (*) flooding into Europe. That is not, at the moment at least, happening - (because it is genuinely not happening / because the media have got bored of reporting it). (*)

    It'll be interesting to see what future historians make of Reem Sahwil's inadvertent role in Brexit. The butterfly effect in action ...

    (*) Delete as applicable.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    Depends how badly Labour want a GE.
    Not that badly. It undermines what they would campaign on, not least the remain vote. And with a government in its death throws why undermine yourself for a 100% chance of a GE when there's already, say, a 90% of one?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    Depends how badly Labour want a GE.
    The problem is that it immediately puts them into a weak position heading into a GE campaign. The Tories would really behind May whilst Labour activist base would see that they've simply allowed the Tories to exit us from the EU on Tory terms. That's why it probably won't happen.
    Fair enough. But how does Labour get its GE?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,347
    edited December 5
    "Remain advocates should be thinking right now what they would do to meet the concerns of Leavers,"

    what sanctimonoious crap

    Remain have been in the chair for the best part of forty years and in that time they have comprehensively ignored all aspirations but their own,

    No consultation as powers are handed over, treaties signed behind closed doors, immigration concerns slured as racist and now desperately trying to reverse a democratic vote.

    There simply is nothing Remain can do
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,093

    kyf_100 said:



    In a choice between a Brexit deal and Remain, which option do you vote for in order to send a message to the establishment?

    Mr Meeks excellent article was about the choice between no deal and remain. As he says above, there would be a different dynamic but certain similarities.

    The obvious answer would be for the leave campaign to push for "deal now, then vote the bastards out later". All they have to do is paint remain as the establishment choice, the tin-eared one that tells the electorate that the opinion of the little people doesn't really count.

    Not the hardest task in the world.
    Except the establishment i.e. the government will be the ones spending £6 m promoting the WA.
    Elections are always between one establishment candidate and the other. Trump. Cough. Hillary. Cough.

    But they are often won by the candidate / position of who can appear to be kicking the establishment the hardest up the arse.

    I believe that's what makes leave a shoo-in in a second referendum, whether it's no deal (as per Mr Meeks' article) or May's deal.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,281

    In a choice between a Brexit deal and Remain, which option do you vote for in order to send a message to the establishment?

    The Brexit deal.
    I think that's right - although the concept of 'establishment' rather depends on your viewpoint.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 48,635

    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    Depends how badly Labour want a GE.
    The problem is that it immediately puts them into a weak position heading into a GE campaign. The Tories would really behind May whilst Labour activist base would see that they've simply allowed the Tories to exit us from the EU on Tory terms. That's why it probably won't happen.
    Fair enough. But how does Labour get its GE?
    Oh if that was all that mattered then they should whip an abstention. But as another_Nick points out it is anathema to the wider party.
  • It depends upon the question asked. If it’s a choice between May’s deal and Remain, Leave voters have been disenfranchised. If Norway is there as an option, it depends entirely to answers no one yet knows the answer to - paying for trade and if so, how much; immigration; whether we have a say in trading regs; passporting rights for financial services; fisheries; how long will we be in it etc. If no deal is an option, then what are the alternatives.

    I’d take no deal over Remain or May’s deal but maybe not against Norway, depending on the answers to the questions.

    Foolishly, I believed that when I voted Leave, my vote would be respected. I didn’t think I’d be told to think again and come up with the right answer by an arrogant parliament who have no respect for anyone’s views except their own.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    Depends how badly Labour want a GE.
    The problem is that it immediately puts them into a weak position heading into a GE campaign. The Tories would really behind May whilst Labour activist base would see that they've simply allowed the Tories to exit us from the EU on Tory terms. That's why it probably won't happen.
    Fair enough. But how does Labour get its GE?
    Despite what they might be saying now, the DUP will not have a hunky dory relationship with the Tories from hereon out whoever is leader - they've made it clear they will push back if they feel it warranted, and given the uncertainties ahead for negotiations even if some other deal is approved, the DUP won't be reliable for the Tories. If any deal is approved there will be a dozen to several dozen no dealers, new dealers or remainers who will be beyond furious at the betrayal or loss of their beloved EU, and will take every opportunity to rebel, since their career prospects will be zero depending on which side wins. The government will be paralyzed, unable to function, and at some point that will prove problematic enough that enough in parliament will support a GE. Not it is still not easy given the numbers needed. But if government cannot function, something will need to break that deadlock.

    Or there is a referendum agreed, and if we remain the Tories split and a GE occurs as plenty will no longer care what happens.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,057
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    The status quo is we are leaving

    Remain would be a screeching U turn

    That’s definitely a dramatic change
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973
    edited December 5
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    Depends how badly Labour want a GE.
    The problem is that it immediately puts them into a weak position heading into a GE campaign. The Tories would really behind May whilst Labour activist base would see that they've simply allowed the Tories to exit us from the EU on Tory terms. That's why it probably won't happen.
    Fair enough. But how does Labour get its GE?
    Oh if that was all that mattered then they should whip an abstention. But as another_Nick points out it is anathema to the wider party.
    Brexit is anathema to the wider party, but it hasn't stopped Labour leadership supporting it.

    You can see from today's PMQs that Corbyn doesn't really give a shit about Brexit - all he want's to do is get into power to address poverty, public services etc.

    I think you underestimate how badly Labour leadership want a GE.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 31
    There isn't going to be a second referendum because the risks and difficulties are too great.

    The attempt to get one might fail; having got one leave may win; and if remain won it may be by the same sort of narrow margin which would resolve nothing. That leaves only a slender chance of a decisive and unifying second referendum. Folly upon folly solves nothing.

    Since nothing can 'resolve' the matter at the moment the line of least resistance and maximum opportunity is for the present flawed deal to be passed by the House of Commons second time around, after a bit of cosmetic tweaking, on the back of Labour abstentions, with ERG and remainers reluctant support on the basis that all the alternatives are worse. Now that ERG know that the HoC can in practice block no deal, the present deal is their best chance. They just need a decent fig leaf to cover themselves with.

    This then allows a great deal more diversity of possible futures (including Norway + and Norway for Now and Canada +) and has the advantage that the 600 pages of WA are already written. Backstop? Hold your nose and hope.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:



    In a choice between a Brexit deal and Remain, which option do you vote for in order to send a message to the establishment?

    Mr Meeks excellent article was about the choice between no deal and remain. As he says above, there would be a different dynamic but certain similarities.

    The obvious answer would be for the leave campaign to push for "deal now, then vote the bastards out later". All they have to do is paint remain as the establishment choice, the tin-eared one that tells the electorate that the opinion of the little people doesn't really count.

    Not the hardest task in the world.
    Except the establishment i.e. the government will be the ones spending £6 m promoting the WA.
    Elections are always between one establishment candidate and the other. Trump. Cough. Hillary. Cough.

    But they are often won by the candidate / position of who can appear to be kicking the establishment the hardest up the arse.

    I believe that's what makes leave a shoo-in in a second referendum, whether it's no deal (as per Mr Meeks' article) or May's deal.
    I'm not so sure with May's deal - while the people trashing it are definitely establishment (Johnson and co, the LOTO, etc) there's no escaping the government just prior to the vote in this scenario were the one's pushing it. While parliament as a whole is clearly now working toward remain in any way they can, it's hard to see the more emotive, visceral appeals of no dealers or remainers being seen as more establishment than the presumably handful of current or former government figures pushing the deal.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973
    algarkirk said:

    There isn't going to be a second referendum because the risks and difficulties are too great.

    The attempt to get one might fail; having got one leave may win; and if remain won it may be by the same sort of narrow margin which would resolve nothing. That leaves only a slender chance of a decisive and unifying second referendum. Folly upon folly solves nothing.

    Since nothing can 'resolve' the matter at the moment the line of least resistance and maximum opportunity is for the present flawed deal to be passed by the House of Commons second time around, after a bit of cosmetic tweaking, on the back of Labour abstentions, with ERG and remainers reluctant support on the basis that all the alternatives are worse. Now that ERG know that the HoC can in practice block no deal, the present deal is their best chance. They just need a decent fig leaf to cover themselves with.

    This then allows a great deal more diversity of possible futures (including Norway + and Norway for Now and Canada +) and has the advantage that the 600 pages of WA are already written. Backstop? Hold your nose and hope.

    +1 All very sensible points.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 22,281
    kyf_100 said:

    We talk a lot about the remainers who didn't turn up in 2016. How if last year's "youthquake" for Corbyn had turned out a year earlier for remain, there might have been a different result.

    What we don't take into account is how many people who didn't vote leave in the first referendum can be persuaded to vote for it this time around.

    I actually believe that leaverism and corbynism are two cheeks of the same arse, they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen.

    It's my guess that if leave focuses on a "Westminster sent you a message - up yours! Send them an up yours right back" (to paraphrase, rather crudely!), they can "do a Corbyn" and get even more of the people we see as traditionally disenfranchised out to vote.

    Remainers have (somewhat tastelessly) focused on how in two years, the elderly who voted for Brexit died off, etc. But it's also been two more years of below inflation pay rises, crap jobs, creaky trains, expensive season tickets, longer queues to get in to see a doctor on the National Health. All of these are factors in a protest vote. It's not just about immgration. Even if it was, the first time around - a second referendum can and should be phrased as a protest against a political class that *never bloody listens*.

    "they're protest votes against an establishment that doesn't bloody listen. "

    Just because they don't respond in the way you want them to, doesn't mean they're not listening. Or even that they're not taking note of your views.

    The problem is that the GBP 'tell' the establishment (what/ whoever the fuck that is meant to be) contradictory things. "We want cheap housing!" screeches one lot, whilst another shouts: "We want higher house prices!" and yet more: "No new houses in my area, let the other lot have them!"

    They have to listen to all of these contradictory desires and made a decision. Many people will feel aggrieved and scream about how they were not listened to. Perhaps they were not, or perhaps the officials were incompetent Or perhaps the 'establishment' tried their damnedest to weight up all the contradictory wishes and came up with what they thought was the best solution.

    In fact, ideologues such as Corbyn and McDonnell will be even worse at listening, as they know very well what needs doing, and any contrary bleatings can be routinely ignored.

    TL;DR: you can't please everyone.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 40,500

    "Remain advocates should be thinking right now what they would do to meet the concerns of Leavers,"

    Here is a (very long) list of the Brexiteers who told you this list of lies before the last vote, all of whom quit when they found out just how much hard work it would actually be.

    Do you want to reward them for their failure with another shot at screwing it up, or do you want to listen to some experts this time?

  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    algarkirk said:


    Since nothing can 'resolve' the matter at the moment the line of least resistance and maximum opportunity is for the present flawed deal to be passed by the House of Commons second time around.

    We regret to inform you that the voting-a-second-time fox you seek has been taken out back and shot by Dominic Grieve.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 1,903
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    The status quo is we are leaving

    Remain would be a screeching U turn

    And a national humiliation.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 40,500

    And a national humiliation.

    Not nearly as humiliating as Brexit.

    At least if we Remained we wouldn't have to beg the French for essential medical supplies.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 1,093
    Scott_P said:

    "Remain advocates should be thinking right now what they would do to meet the concerns of Leavers,"

    Here is a (very long) list of the Brexiteers who told you this list of lies before the last vote, all of whom quit when they found out just how much hard work it would actually be.

    Do you want to reward them for their failure with another shot at screwing it up, or do you want to listen to some experts this time?

    Here is a (very long) list of remainers who told you that when you voted last time, your vote would be final.

    Do you want to reward them for their lies and allow them to rule over you like feudal lords, or do you want to do the proper British thing and throw a handful of muck in their eye?
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    Scott_P said:

    "Remain advocates should be thinking right now what they would do to meet the concerns of Leavers,"

    Here is a (very long) list of the Brexiteers who told you this list of lies before the last vote, all of whom quit when they found out just how much hard work it would actually be.

    Do you want to reward them for their failure with another shot at screwing it up, or do you want to listen to some experts this time?

    image
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,221
    algarkirk said:

    There isn't going to be a second referendum because the risks and difficulties are too great.

    The attempt to get one might fail; having got one leave may win; and if remain won it may be by the same sort of narrow margin which would resolve nothing. That leaves only a slender chance of a decisive and unifying second referendum. Folly upon folly solves nothing.

    Since nothing can 'resolve' the matter at the moment the line of least resistance and maximum opportunity is for the present flawed deal to be passed by the House of Commons second time around, after a bit of cosmetic tweaking, on the back of Labour abstentions, with ERG and remainers reluctant support on the basis that all the alternatives are worse. Now that ERG know that the HoC can in practice block no deal, the present deal is their best chance. They just need a decent fig leaf to cover themselves with.

    This then allows a great deal more diversity of possible futures (including Norway + and Norway for Now and Canada +) and has the advantage that the 600 pages of WA are already written. Backstop? Hold your nose and hope.

    I would normally agree with your last couple of paragraphs. Problem is the positions are so entrenched now and no-one appears to be backing down, I just can’t see it. But maybe you’re right. I hope, for sanity’s sake, you are.

    I know it’s crazy to say, but The Deal is probably the outcome that causes the least turmoil. Ok so no-one loves it but it a) keeps control of immigration policy, b) has the default that we’ll still be relatively close to the EU. It can legitimately be argued that it reflects, roughly, the referendum result of a narrow leave win. It’s leave with remainian characteristics, but not necessarily BINO.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 1,070
    Maybe Remain supporters should suggest investing in areas of high Eastern European immigration.Many of which haven't seen investment in transport infrastructure since the 90s, have some of the poorest funded education authorities in the country and have surgeries where you need a limb decapitated to be seen within 3 weeks.

    The perception in these areas, rightly or not, is that we've been shafted for 20 years while London and Londoners have had the best of everything and accused anyone who dared complain of racism.

    No surprising they don't see much of a downside to no deal, particularly if it drags the metropoles down a peg or two.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 23,582
    kyf_100 said:

    Scott_P said:

    "Remain advocates should be thinking right now what they would do to meet the concerns of Leavers,"

    Here is a (very long) list of the Brexiteers who told you this list of lies before the last vote, all of whom quit when they found out just how much hard work it would actually be.

    Do you want to reward them for their failure with another shot at screwing it up, or do you want to listen to some experts this time?

    Here is a (very long) list of remainers who told you that when you voted last time, your vote would be final.

    Do you want to reward them for their lies and allow them to rule over you like feudal lords, or do you want to do the proper British thing and throw a handful of muck in their eye?
    A vote to Remain in a second referendum would be about the biggest imaginable humiliation for Cameron.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 23,321
    Last time I was ambivalent, concerned about losing Cameron and Osborne and fairly sensible grown up government (other views are of course available). This time I might actually care enough to get off my well padded behind and campaign for leave.

    But what leave?

    I could live with May’s deal for all its deficiencies, I could live with Canada + or even Norway. No deal is trickier but with mini deals it would be ok. I just want out. And I don’t think I am alone.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    algarkirk said:

    There isn't going to be a second referendum because the risks and difficulties are too great.

    The attempt to get one might fail; having got one leave may win; and if remain won it may be by the same sort of narrow margin which would resolve nothing. That leaves only a slender chance of a decisive and unifying second referendum. Folly upon folly solves nothing.

    I agree with that. Is there any evidence MPs think the same though? Seemingly the opposite, they either don't believe in the risks or they are Brexit and Remainer ultras like Rees-Mogg and Grieve for whom no risk or price is too high.
    algarkirk said:


    Since nothing can 'resolve' the matter at the moment the line of least resistance and maximum opportunity is for the present flawed deal to be passed by the House of Commons second time around, after a bit of cosmetic tweaking, on the back of Labour abstentions, with ERG and remainers reluctant support on the basis that all the alternatives are worse. Now that ERG know that the HoC can in practice block no deal, the present deal is their best chance. They just need a decent fig leaf to cover themselves with.

    This then allows a great deal more diversity of possible futures (including Norway + and Norway for Now and Canada +) and has the advantage that the 600 pages of WA are already written. Backstop? Hold your nose and hope.

    That all might work...if the deal was not going to be voted down by 150+ as a reasonable, possibly even optimistic, estimate. It might even have been the plan.

    But with so many against tweaks are not going to convince 75 MPs to flip. Cosmetic won't cut it. Most remainers don't seem to think alternatives are worse, they think no deal is not happening so why not go for remain. ERGers to some degree might be amenable, but they've been so intensely against it it is beyond reason enough would change course.

    The backstop is the key. The DUP and enough Tories would then back it. But the idea May never said no hard enough is not plausible, so they really seem to mean it.

    It's a shame. The Commons coming to an agreement to leave would be splendid, and save us a lot of anguish, this side of Xmas at least.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Scott_P said:

    And a national humiliation.

    Not nearly as humiliating as Brexit.

    At least if we Remained we wouldn't have to beg the French for essential medical supplies.
    Nor would we with the deal.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 1,903

    algarkirk said:

    There isn't going to be a second referendum because the risks and difficulties are too great.

    The attempt to get one might fail; having got one leave may win; and if remain won it may be by the same sort of narrow margin which would resolve nothing. That leaves only a slender chance of a decisive and unifying second referendum. Folly upon folly solves nothing.

    Since nothing can 'resolve' the matter at the moment the line of least resistance and maximum opportunity is for the present flawed deal to be passed by the House of Commons second time around, after a bit of cosmetic tweaking, on the back of Labour abstentions, with ERG and remainers reluctant support on the basis that all the alternatives are worse. Now that ERG know that the HoC can in practice block no deal, the present deal is their best chance. They just need a decent fig leaf to cover themselves with.

    This then allows a great deal more diversity of possible futures (including Norway + and Norway for Now and Canada +) and has the advantage that the 600 pages of WA are already written. Backstop? Hold your nose and hope.

    I would normally agree with your last couple of paragraphs. Problem is the positions are so entrenched now and no-one appears to be backing down, I just can’t see it. But maybe you’re right. I hope, for sanity’s sake, you are.

    I know it’s crazy to say, but The Deal is probably the outcome that causes the least turmoil. Ok so no-one loves it but it a) keeps control of immigration policy, b) has the default that we’ll still be relatively close to the EU. It can legitimately be argued that it reflects, roughly, the referendum result of a narrow leave win. It’s leave with remainian characteristics, but not necessarily BINO.
    The Deal is the epitomy of compromise, so when everyone is bleating on about needing to find compromise, they should maybe just - vote for The Deal.

    I agree with algarkirk that May, despite everything, may eventually triumph simply for that fact.

  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,592

    It depends upon the question asked. If it’s a choice between May’s deal and Remain, Leave voters have been disenfranchised. If Norway is there as an option, it depends entirely to answers no one yet knows the answer to - paying for trade and if so, how much; immigration; whether we have a say in trading regs; passporting rights for financial services; fisheries; how long will we be in it etc. If no deal is an option, then what are the alternatives.

    I’d take no deal over Remain or May’s deal but maybe not against Norway, depending on the answers to the questions.

    Foolishly, I believed that when I voted Leave, my vote would be respected. I didn’t think I’d be told to think again and come up with the right answer by an arrogant parliament who have no respect for anyone’s views except their own.

    I thought you would respect parliamentary sovereignty ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    A Corbyn premiership with McDonnell as Chancellor would be farworse than a no deal Brexit but probably what Remainers deserve, particularly those who want a second referendum

    I suppose in your mind it is fine for No Deal Brexit to cause companies to collapse, people to be jobless and see their homes repossessed and relationships destroyed. But as soon as the consequences of the lunatic minority of Tories and their obsession with Europe might upset your life, you are worried. Actually, membership of the EU would mitigate the actions of Corbyn and co. but like many Brexiteers you do not understand the membership you are so opposed too. I remember doing GCSE's in the early 1990s and the teacher of one of my classes told me in detail how membership of EEC/EU prevented hard left governments from destroying the economy. Maybe you and other Brexit supporters should enlighten yourselves before wishing ill on millions of families...

    You tried Project Fear during the referendum and it didn’t work. I see you’ve learnt nothing.
    It only has to work a little better, or for a few more leavers to be too disillusioned to turn out. It could work, though is hardly assured.
    I could see a partial boycott.

    Remain could win 59:41 - or similar - on a turnout of, say, 45% or so, similar to the AV referendum.

    That’s be taken as a clear mandate by the powers that be, but would be very unhealthy.
    I bet all the 'there should have been a threshold' voices will suddenly find it is ok after all in that scenario.
    The threshold is for avoiding dramatic change unless it has a convincing majority, not for leaving things as they are.
    The status quo is we are leaving

    Remain would be a screeching U turn
    It would. I can hear the screeching right now, it sounds like 'This isn't my Brexit'.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,347
    Scott_P said:

    "Remain advocates should be thinking right now what they would do to meet the concerns of Leavers,"

    Here is a (very long) list of the Brexiteers who told you this list of lies before the last vote, all of whom quit when they found out just how much hard work it would actually be.

    Do you want to reward them for their failure with another shot at screwing it up, or do you want to listen to some experts this time?

    Theres a long list of iying bstards still telling me the world will end, JLR will stop making cars and we'll be eating grass foi decades.The experts arent that expert ; theyre simply guessers and since they cant forecast 12 months how the hell can they forecast 12 years ?

    The simple fact Remainers cant grasp is the the system might work for a privileged few but it doesnt work for the majority and until theres some sign that a change is needed gets in to their thick heads there is no way they will put the issue to bed.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 24,031
    Can I just go for "badly".

    My fear is that the loons on both sides are so sure that the people will go their way, that they will agree on a No Deal - Remain referendum.

    If we choose No Deal, then people will suddenly be shocked when it turns out that crashing out of the EU's existing relationships with other countries has an impact on the British economy. It will not be pretty.

    It we choose Remain, then a very substantial minority of the people will feel utterly betrayed, and if you think politics is poisoned now, just wait until after this,

    And, of course, the UK is due a recession. It might have nothing to do with whether we Remain or go No Deal. But it will come, and it will likely be nasty, and it will almost certainly be blamed on whatever choice we made.

    It's time to tell the EU that the backstop needs to be endorsed - or ended - by the people of Northern Ireland. They will be cocky enough to think that they will never reject the EU's embrace (and they may be right). And it introduces a healthy measure of democracy into the process.

    And then we need to accept the rest of Theresa May's Deal. It's not perfect, but it is better than the disaster that would be either Remain or No Deal.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    kle4 said:


    But with so many against tweaks are not going to convince 75 MPs to flip. Cosmetic won't cut it.

    It's worth remembering that May no longer has the power to make a few cosmetic tweaks and offer the house the opportunity to vote again.

    Thanks to the tireless parliamentary legerdemain of Dominic Grieve, whatever sordid little plan B May brings to the house now is going to be amended and salami sliced up the wazoo.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,347

    kyf_100 said:

    Scott_P said:

    "Remain advocates should be thinking right now what they would do to meet the concerns of Leavers,"

    Here is a (very long) list of the Brexiteers who told you this list of lies before the last vote, all of whom quit when they found out just how much hard work it would actually be.

    Do you want to reward them for their failure with another shot at screwing it up, or do you want to listen to some experts this time?

    Here is a (very long) list of remainers who told you that when you voted last time, your vote would be final.

    Do you want to reward them for their lies and allow them to rule over you like feudal lords, or do you want to do the proper British thing and throw a handful of muck in their eye?
    A vote to Remain in a second referendum would be about the biggest imaginable humiliation for Cameron.
    what even worse the screwing a pig ?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973

    algarkirk said:

    There isn't going to be a second referendum because the risks and difficulties are too great.

    The attempt to get one might fail; having got one leave may win; and if remain won it may be by the same sort of narrow margin which would resolve nothing. That leaves only a slender chance of a decisive and unifying second referendum. Folly upon folly solves nothing.

    Since nothing can 'resolve' the matter at the moment the line of least resistance and maximum opportunity is for the present flawed deal to be passed by the House of Commons second time around, after a bit of cosmetic tweaking, on the back of Labour abstentions, with ERG and remainers reluctant support on the basis that all the alternatives are worse. Now that ERG know that the HoC can in practice block no deal, the present deal is their best chance. They just need a decent fig leaf to cover themselves with.

    This then allows a great deal more diversity of possible futures (including Norway + and Norway for Now and Canada +) and has the advantage that the 600 pages of WA are already written. Backstop? Hold your nose and hope.

    I would normally agree with your last couple of paragraphs. Problem is the positions are so entrenched now and no-one appears to be backing down, I just can’t see it. But maybe you’re right. I hope, for sanity’s sake, you are.

    I know it’s crazy to say, but The Deal is probably the outcome that causes the least turmoil. Ok so no-one loves it but it a) keeps control of immigration policy, b) has the default that we’ll still be relatively close to the EU. It can legitimately be argued that it reflects, roughly, the referendum result of a narrow leave win. It’s leave with remainian characteristics, but not necessarily BINO.
    I think that's all fair and I find it really hard to understand why so many seem to hate the Deal so much. No one has really articulated to me what is so bad about it. Seems a reasonable mid-point between No Deal and Remain to me.

    Remainer though I am, I do not see a 2nd vote between No Deal and Remain ending happily. I would expect May's Deal to beat Remain and to beat No Deal is either of those choices were presented.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,951

    kyf_100 said:

    Scott_P said:

    "Remain advocates should be thinking right now what they would do to meet the concerns of Leavers,"

    Here is a (very long) list of the Brexiteers who told you this list of lies before the last vote, all of whom quit when they found out just how much hard work it would actually be.

    Do you want to reward them for their failure with another shot at screwing it up, or do you want to listen to some experts this time?

    Here is a (very long) list of remainers who told you that when you voted last time, your vote would be final.

    Do you want to reward them for their lies and allow them to rule over you like feudal lords, or do you want to do the proper British thing and throw a handful of muck in their eye?
    A vote to Remain in a second referendum would be about the biggest imaginable humiliation for Cameron.
    As a concern for most of us that would be up there with a speck of dust on a shoe!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,347
    DavidL said:

    Last time I was ambivalent, concerned about losing Cameron and Osborne and fairly sensible grown up government (other views are of course available). This time I might actually care enough to get off my well padded behind and campaign for leave.

    But what leave?

    I could live with May’s deal for all its deficiencies, I could live with Canada + or even Norway. No deal is trickier but with mini deals it would be ok. I just want out. And I don’t think I am alone.

    the next round will not be about economics it will be about do we wish to retain our bottom up democracy or accept top down dirigisme
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855

    kle4 said:


    But with so many against tweaks are not going to convince 75 MPs to flip. Cosmetic won't cut it.

    Thanks to the tireless parliamentary legerdemain of Dominic Grieve, whatever sordid little plan B May brings to the house now is going to be amended and salami sliced up the wazoo.
    Ah yes, that parliamentary procedure adapted from the italian legislature I believe.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,057

    Dear Santa

    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Santa I have been a good boy

    Regards

    HYUFD

    As always with @HYUFD the logic is there (superficially) but the thesis doesn’t survive contact with reality
  • AmpfieldAndyAmpfieldAndy Posts: 550
    edited December 5
    Yorkcity said:

    It depends upon the question asked. If it’s a choice between May’s deal and Remain, Leave voters have been disenfranchised. If Norway is there as an option, it depends entirely to answers no one yet knows the answer to - paying for trade and if so, how much; immigration; whether we have a say in trading regs; passporting rights for financial services; fisheries; how long will we be in it etc. If no deal is an option, then what are the alternatives.

    I’d take no deal over Remain or May’s deal but maybe not against Norway, depending on the answers to the questions.

    Foolishly, I believed that when I voted Leave, my vote would be respected. I didn’t think I’d be told to think again and come up with the right answer by an arrogant parliament who have no respect for anyone’s views except their own.

    I thought you would respect parliamentary sovereignty ?
    Why should I when they don’t respect my vote and don’t actually want to take back control but simply do what Brussels tells them like a bunch of lemmings.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 21,057

    kle4 said:

    Pulpstar said:



    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Imagine if the vote was defeated by a combo of the ERG, the DuP, Hoey and Labour ultraremainers defying the Labour abstention whip.
    Hypotheticals are fun. But let's think about it for one millisecond - "This deal is a terrible, terrible deal and I, Jeremy Corbyn, could negotiate a better one. So let's all not vote on the deal so it can pass, everyone".

    It will never arise.
    No. It would be anathema to many Labour MPs and cause outrage in the wider party.
    You only need 100 to abstain...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973


    Who is on the Privy Council? Ministers, shadow ministers, past ministers?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    rcs1000 said:


    It's time to tell the EU that the backstop needs to be endorsed - or ended - by the people of Northern Ireland. They will be cocky enough to think that they will never reject the EU's embrace (and they may be right). And it introduces a healthy measure of democracy into the process.

    And then we need to accept the rest of Theresa May's Deal. It's not perfect, but it is better than the disaster that would be either Remain or No Deal.

    Outside of here I've not seen the suggestion the backstop should beendorsed in that way. Could it possibly work? I know I'd make a terrible negotiator as I'm so desperate for some kind of decision right now I'd go for anything - I'd really prefer not to be asked all over again when being asked again won't ameliorate any bitterness or even guarantee a resolution (if the people give the 'wrong' answer again).
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 3,243
    edited December 5

    DavidL said:

    Last time I was ambivalent, concerned about losing Cameron and Osborne and fairly sensible grown up government (other views are of course available). This time I might actually care enough to get off my well padded behind and campaign for leave.

    But what leave?

    I could live with May’s deal for all its deficiencies, I could live with Canada + or even Norway. No deal is trickier but with mini deals it would be ok. I just want out. And I don’t think I am alone.

    the next round will not be about economics it will be about do we wish to retain our bottom up democracy or accept top down dirigisme
    On a point of order the UK does not have bottom-up democracy. We are a unitary state and constitutional monarchy. Power flows downwards from the crown. What power is vested in the devolved parliaments of the home nations is only by the good grace of Her Majesty.

    If we're lucky sometimes power makes it as far down as Parliament, but only in exceptional circumstances.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 36,855
    edited December 5



    Who is on the Privy Council? Ministers, shadow ministers, past ministers?

    All three, among others. It's huge, IIRC, so how it actually 'meets' in practice I do not know.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 1,221

    algarkirk said:

    There isn't going to be a second referendum because the risks and difficulties are too great.

    The attempt to get one might fail; having got one leave may win; and if remain won it may be by the same sort of narrow margin which would resolve nothing. That leaves only a slender chance of a decisive and unifying second referendum. Folly upon folly solves nothing.

    Since nothing can 'resolve' the matter at the moment the line of least resistance and maximum opportunity is for the present flawed deal to be passed by the House of Commons second time around, after a bit of cosmetic tweaking, on the back of Labour abstentions, with ERG and remainers reluctant support on the basis that all the alternatives are worse. Now that ERG know that the HoC can in practice block no deal, the present deal is their best chance. They just need a decent fig leaf to cover themselves with.

    This then allows a great deal more diversity of possible futures (including Norway + and Norway for Now and Canada +) and has the advantage that the 600 pages of WA are already written. Backstop? Hold your nose and hope.

    I would normally agree with your last couple of paragraphs. Problem is the positions are so entrenched now and no-one appears to be backing down, I just can’t see it. But maybe you’re right. I hope, for sanity’s sake, you are.

    I know it’s crazy to say, but The Deal is probably the outcome that causes the least turmoil. Ok so no-one loves it but it a) keeps control of immigration policy, b) has the default that we’ll still be relatively close to the EU. It can legitimately be argued that it reflects, roughly, the referendum result of a narrow leave win. It’s leave with remainian characteristics, but not necessarily BINO.
    The Deal is the epitomy of compromise, so when everyone is bleating on about needing to find compromise, they should maybe just - vote for The Deal.

    I agree with algarkirk that May, despite everything, may eventually triumph simply for that fact.

    I would very much like them to vote for The Deal. I and I am sure many others up and down the country, are utterly dismayed and exasperated by MPs on all sides of our parliament. They are all behaving like spoiled children. We are 3 months away from leaving the EU. Countless hours, days, weeks and months have been devoted to this sodding thing. We want certainty. Yet they play on as the risk of Britain burning just gets nearer and nearer.

    I have never in all my life been so utterly fed up with our politicians.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 5,973
    Charles said:

    Dear Santa

    The DUP have made is clear they will bring to government down if the May's Deal is carried.
    Labour leadership want a GE above all else.
    Labour leadership are ambivalent about Brexit.
    Therefore Labour will allow May's deal to pass.

    Expect them to abstain at the last minute.

    Santa I have been a good boy

    Regards

    HYUFD

    As always with @HYUFD the logic is there (superficially) but the thesis doesn’t survive contact with reality
    Tbf to @HYUFD, it was my theory, his. It has been roundly dismissed on PB though (so I will be obliged to crow if it turns out to be right :lol:)
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 18,347

    DavidL said:

    Last time I was ambivalent, concerned about losing Cameron and Osborne and fairly sensible grown up government (other views are of course available). This time I might actually care enough to get off my well padded behind and campaign for leave.

    But what leave?

    I could live with May’s deal for all its deficiencies, I could live with Canada + or even Norway. No deal is trickier but with mini deals it would be ok. I just want out. And I don’t think I am alone.

    the next round will not be about economics it will be about do we wish to retain our bottom up democracy or accept top down dirigisme
    On a point of order the UK does not have bottom-up democracy. We are a unitary state and constitutional monarchy. Power flows downwards from the crown. What power is vested in the devolved parliaments of the home nations is only by the good grace of Her Majesty.

    If we're lucky sometimes power makes it as far down as Parliament, but only in exceptional circumstances.
    zzz
This discussion has been closed.