Just seen the later Standard headline about the Norway + Coup. I must have picked up an earlier edition on my way home because it wasn’t carrying that story.
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.
The sensible thing to do would be to just accept the deal as it stands - without faffing about with an ‘endorsement from the people of NI’ - I mean, WTF is this?
Progress is built on compromise, and this is a compromise. People should get over it.
If not, then EEA+CU is a decent fallback. A second referendum would usher in yet another racist xenophobic divisive nightmare.
The backstop could be ended by a unification vote with the republic
A majority, probably, of Northern Irish support the backstop, if Brexit must happen. (I haven't seen polling). The DUP hate it however, and they can bring down the government.
Labours plan was to hope the deal scraped through and then the Tories could own the whole sorry mess!
Unfortunately for them they’re going to have to do something , inaction is now not possible .
Yes, quite probably - it would be funny were it not so serious.
Interesting to see your strength of feeling on this, but I don't think there's much chance Labour do not switch to backing a vote - sure he will push for a GE but if that does not happen, and it is harder, they will go for a GE, and even the Tories might back that.
Er... once more in English?
nico67 was very angry at Corbyn's fence sitting and felt Starmer would quit if they don't switch to backing a referenndum. I meant to say there was not much chance they won't do that, but I accidentally wrote GE twice when I meant referendum the second time.
The Unite general secretary, Len McCluskey, has privately told Labour MPs the party should have severe reservations about backing a fresh Brexit referendum, saying voters could see it as a betrayal.
And just think how much less talent we could get in it if we really tried! A lack of talent is not confined to the Tories, let us share some real duffers from everyone in this.
My thanks to all the PBers who have written thread headers recently.
Indeed, some good stuff
Leaving my own stuff out of account (because self-praise is no praise) it is my view that pb is at least as good as it has ever been - the variety of voices helps hugely - and I’m very pleased to be associated with it.
Despite @Alanbrooke not being a fan of this piece, I hope he in particular writes more.
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.
Yes, that is how I see it.
I tend to agree - and three option AV referendum would give us the opportunity to express that.
And just think how much less talent we could get in it if we really tried! A lack of talent is not confined to the Tories, let us share some real duffers from everyone in this.
My heart sinks when politicians like Sajid Javid say, "We will be bringing a complete end to freedom." (his words). I'm not the target audience for anti-immigrant rhetoric. Nevertheless, I don't see any mileage in Remainers coming up with simplistic solutions to perceived immigration problems, to counter those of Leavers.
The big Remainer mistake IMO is to present a second referendum as a choice, rather than as the only sensible and democratically valid way to extricate ourselves from a mess..
If that is the case and it is how it would be presented then parliament very much should just do it, without involving the people again. If it is the only way to extricate ourselves from a mess there is no justification for risking the people being stubborn and doing something else.
Yes there would be tremendous backlash, but if it is indeed not a choice, don't bloody bother to offer one.
Labours plan was to hope the deal scraped through and then the Tories could own the whole sorry mess!
Unfortunately for them they’re going to have to do something , inaction is now not possible .
Yes, quite probably - it would be funny were it not so serious.
Interesting to see your strength of feeling on this, but I don't think there's much chance Labour do not switch to backing a vote - sure he will push for a GE but if that does not happen, and it is harder, they will go for a GE, and even the Tories might back that.
Er... once more in English?
nico67 was very angry at Corbyn's fence sitting and felt Starmer would quit if they don't switch to backing a referenndum. I meant to say there was not much chance they won't do that, but I accidentally wrote GE twice when I meant referendum the second time.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
"DUP expected to 'back Tories' in Brexit confidence vote" ...unless TMay wins MV!
Nigel Dodds pretty much said this on R5L yesterday. However, he also hinted that co-operation on any other matters would be "difficult". With the requisite amount of menace one would expect from an Ulster politician scorned.
And spending £9m on that bloody government endorsed remain pamphlet (more than the £7m vote leave spent in total during the campaign) failed to win the vote for Remain.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
If we remain I think a Corbyn government is just as likely as if we leave - deal goes through or remain, the Tories are so divided they will struggle to last out the term in a functioning way and he would be well placed in any GE.
That's not a lifeline for her, it's a lifeline to those pushing for something other than her deal as it would give time to try them at least. If they won't renegotiate the deal substantively, it has no purpose - if parliament cannot decide what to do staring down the barrel of the gun now, why would they if given more time?
Sounds like given more time for remain to build up steam.
I noticed the BBC said "He loaned £8m to the Leave.EU campaign before the 2016 EU referendum." I thought after the cash for peerages scandal the political parties had addressed this device and tightened up the legislation related to political campaigning and loans.
And spending £9m on that bloody government endorsed remain pamphlet (more than the £7m vote leave spent in total during the campaign) failed to win the vote for Remain.
So what?
Do you think the word 'illegal' is, just perhaps, important ?
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
"DUP expected to 'back Tories' in Brexit confidence vote" ...unless TMay wins MV!
Nigel Dodds pretty much said this on R5L yesterday. However, he also hinted that co-operation on any other matters would be "difficult". With the requisite amount of menace one would expect from an Ulster politician scorned.
Which is why the government is dead whoever leads it. Once May is gone next week the DUP might save it from going down immediately, but they are clearly going to whatever they want knowing the Tories are so reliant on them for survival.
Election or referendum, I guess. Otherwise there is none
And May apparently doesn't want either so thanks but no thanks.
She may not be the one who is to ask. Asking for an extension may be the only thing the entire house can agree on right away, and if she won't ask someone will be found who will.
Election or referendum, I guess. Otherwise there is none
And May apparently doesn't want either so thanks but no thanks.
She may not be the one who is to ask. Asking for an extension may be the only thing the entire house can agree on right away, and if she won't ask someone will be found who will.
As long as she is PM she is the one that has to do the asking whether the Commons asks her too or not. Her removal might be another reason to ask for an extension of course.
Interesting that Desmond Swayne said today that “the game’s up” and there’s now a majority in the House of Commons for Remain.
There always was, if circumstance would allow it. The issue is not that there is a majority for remain, it's how they put that into practice when enough of them still worry about democratic mandate for that choice.
Just love the way they had to slip 'humiliating' into that URL.
I may be reading too much into some recent EU statements but I get the impression that they are doing what they can to keep Britain within the EU, and that they are doing so because they genuinely want us to remain.
And not just to set an example etc or for our money but because, at some level, they realise that both the EU and Britain are, for all the difficulties in the relationship, weaker without each other.
Maybe it’s the romantic in me. I do wish we could get some fresh thinking about the relationship.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
A Corbyn government would be more constrained within the EU.
On the other hand a minority Corbyn government outside the Corbyn would likely be more constrained than a majority Corbyn government inside the EU.
And while a Corbyn government is far from a certainty if the Conservatives hold together and act competently its pretty much a certainty IMO if the Conservatives rip themselves apart and fail all their millions of Leave voters.
And spending £9m on that bloody government endorsed remain pamphlet (more than the £7m vote leave spent in total during the campaign) failed to win the vote for Remain.
So what?
Do you think the word 'illegal' is, just perhaps, important ?
Not particularly. The £9m bung to shove that letter in the hands of every man woman and child in the land a day or two before the purdah period was, in my view, a far more egregious attempt to gain an unfair advantage than a few targeted facebook posts.
What do you think the average man on the street thinks is a far bigger two fingers up to society? The tradesman who takes £500 a month cash in hand, or the Philip Greens of the world who live on their yachts without ever breaking a letter of the law?
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
If it helps to prevent an unplanned, disorderly no deal caused by running out of time it seems very sensible and helpful.
Perhaps, but unless there is a referendum to settle it there's not much reason to assume our MPs will be any closer to an option if given more time - the ticking clock should have focused their minds but has not, since most of them expected to be given an extension. The EU might be more helpful if they didn't offer an extension, so that we had to make a choice.
Interesting that Desmond Swayne said today that “the game’s up” and there’s now a majority in the House of Commons for Remain.
There has always been a majority in the House of Commons for remain.
The issue is that they represent a country that voted to leave, and were supposedly implementing that decision.
You know, if they’d had the guts to come out and block Article 50 2 years ago, it would have been an outrage, but at least we would have avoided 2 years of uncertainty and the grinding to a halt of the domestic political agenda.
If they conspire to remain now, they have not just wasted everyone’s time, but they’ve played the country, the electorate, and the economy. It is dispicable. And I say that, again, as someone who voted remain.
Election or referendum, I guess. Otherwise there is none
And May apparently doesn't want either so thanks but no thanks.
She may not be the one who is to ask. Asking for an extension may be the only thing the entire house can agree on right away, and if she won't ask someone will be found who will.
As long as she is PM she is the one that has to do the asking whether the Commons asks her too or not. Her removal might be another reason to ask for an extension of course.
I thought her being removed as PM was implicit in the scenario I laid out.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
Or sane. Here is how car making can collapse - from 17,000 to 220.
Let us remember this is a country Corbyn expressed great admiration for and whose government he refuses to condemn for their violence, murder of rivals, establishment of a dictatorship or their embezzlement of the country's oil wealth for their private gain.
Not particularly. The £9m bung to shove that letter in the hands of every man woman and child in the land a day or two before the purdah period was, in my view, a far more egregious attempt to gain an unfair advantage than a few targeted facebook posts.
Quantify "a few"
Was it not also in the millions?
And of course the point is that spam (the same message flooded to everybody) doesn't work, but individually tailored marketing absolutely does, which is why is costs so much money
Is it worth pointing out that Britain does not have a ‘powerful elite’? I know everyone wants to pretend it does, and no one ever admits to being a member of it, but you need only ask what a ruling class worthy of the name would do about Brexit, to see it does not exist. A true elite would not take the risk of a second referendum. It would stop Brexit, now, and take the political consequences on the chin. (‘You always want to play the victim and feel put upon,’ it might say to leave supporters. ‘So let’s give you something to really moan about’.)
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
If it helps to prevent an unplanned, disorderly no deal caused by running out of time it seems very sensible and helpful.
It just extends the uncertainty and puts off the choice. Politicians need to decide what they want. They have had enough time already. They just need to grow up a bit.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
Or sane. Here is how car making can collapse - from 17,000 to 220.
Interesting that Desmond Swayne said today that “the game’s up” and there’s now a majority in the House of Commons for Remain.
There has always been a majority in the House of Commons for remain.
The issue is that they represent a country that voted to leave, and were supposedly implementing that decision.
You know, if they’d had the guts to come out and block Article 50 2 years ago, it would have been an outrage, but at least we would have avoided 2 years of uncertainty and the grinding to a halt of the domestic political agenda.
If they conspire to remain now, they have not just wasted everyone’s time, but they’ve played the country, the electorate, and the economy. It is dispicable. And I say that, again, as someone who voted remain.
Or you could argue that the last two years have shown how unfeasible Brexiteers’ promises are.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
Election or referendum, I guess. Otherwise there is none
And May apparently doesn't want either so thanks but no thanks.
She may not be the one who is to ask. Asking for an extension may be the only thing the entire house can agree on right away, and if she won't ask someone will be found who will.
As long as she is PM she is the one that has to do the asking whether the Commons asks her too or not. Her removal might be another reason to ask for an extension of course.
I thought her being removed as PM was implicit in the scenario I laid out.
If so I apologise. I thought you might be thinking of a scenario where the Commons directs the government to ask for an extension which is possible although the effect is uncertain.
My heart sinks when politicians like Sajid Javid say, "We will be bringing a complete end to freedom." (his words). I'm not the target audience for anti-immigrant rhetoric. Nevertheless, I don't see any mileage in Remainers coming up with simplistic solutions to perceived immigration problems, to counter those of Leavers.
The big Remainer mistake IMO is to present a second referendum as a choice, rather than as the only sensible and democratically valid way to extricate ourselves from a mess..
If that is the case and it is how it would be presented then parliament very much should just do it, without involving the people again. If it is the only way to extricate ourselves from a mess there is no justification for risking the people being stubborn and doing something else.
Yes there would be tremendous backlash, but if it is indeed not a choice, don't bloody bother to offer one.
Yes. I'm not particularly keen on a second referendum. Its only purpose in my view is to endorse a consensus that a mistake was made. Which suggests cancelling Brexit is a better line for Remainers than offering a second chance to answer the same question. If today's YouGov figures hold, there may for the first time be enough of a consensus to go for cancellation.
If they don't hold and we remain at 50/50, I really don't know what happens. Something has I give. Since the first referendum I have expected a "vassal state" outcome as the easy negotiation compromise, while being under no illusions that it is a good compromise. The only point of Brexit is to be masters of our own ship. Why would we want rule taking with no say and almost no influence? The big question to me was would Leavers accept vassalage? On the whole, not, it seems.
If it helps to prevent an unplanned, disorderly no deal caused by running out of time it seems very sensible and helpful.
It just extends the uncertainty and puts off the choice. Politicians need to decide what they want. They have had enough time already. They just need to grow up a bit.
Agree. But if they can't it would be crazy to hit a brick wall. And, eventually, at some point, if the politicians are completely useless and incapable (which they possibly are) then the only other definitive option is a referendum (and I say that as someone who would be happy with the deal).
Jumping off the cliff edge before we can agree would just be stupid.
Just love the way they had to slip 'humiliating' into that URL.
I may be reading too much into some recent EU statements but I get the impression that they are doing what they can to keep Britain within the EU, and that they are doing so because they genuinely want us to remain.
And not just to set an example etc or for our money but because, at some level, they realise that both the EU and Britain are, for all the difficulties in the relationship, weaker without each other.
Maybe it’s the romantic in me. I do wish we could get some fresh thinking about the relationship.
I'd believe that more if they ever tried to accommodate a member state without then moaning about how they did too much and about those nasty populists, then ploughing ahead with things anyway. They want the money. It's not good for us to remain now, they already complained about us not wanting to integrate, and they want to do more and more of that which we would object to. Both sides would only get more bitter, particularly us as we resent that we tried to leave and could not manage it.
That rising bitterness is not good for the EU or for us. It's bitter now, but as neighbours that is more managable.
Interesting that Desmond Swayne said today that “the game’s up” and there’s now a majority in the House of Commons for Remain.
There has always been a majority in the House of Commons for remain.
The issue is that they represent a country that voted to leave, and were supposedly implementing that decision.
You know, if they’d had the guts to come out and block Article 50 2 years ago, it would have been an outrage, but at least we would have avoided 2 years of uncertainty and the grinding to a halt of the domestic political agenda.
If they conspire to remain now, they have not just wasted everyone’s time, but they’ve played the country, the electorate, and the economy. It is dispicable. And I say that, again, as someone who voted remain.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
As the only Conservative to oppose Art 50, Ken Clarke would be the logical leader of a further (third) referendum in favour of EU membership.
And yet he supports the deal apparently. A vocal, passionate remainer but not an extremist willing to risk it all even though he surely wants us to remain.
Interesting that Desmond Swayne said today that “the game’s up” and there’s now a majority in the House of Commons for Remain.
There has always been a majority in the House of Commons for remain.
The issue is that they represent a country that voted to leave, and were supposedly implementing that decision.
You know, if they’d had the guts to come out and block Article 50 2 years ago, it would have been an outrage, but at least we would have avoided 2 years of uncertainty and the grinding to a halt of the domestic political agenda.
If they conspire to remain now, they have not just wasted everyone’s time, but they’ve played the country, the electorate, and the economy. It is dispicable. And I say that, again, as someone who voted remain.
Or you could argue that the last two years have shown how unfeasible Brexiteers’ promises are.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m mad at the Brexiteers too.
But the time to point that out was in the aftermath of the vote. Nobody comes away with honour from the actions of 2016/2017. MPs voted to notify the EU we were leaving. We are looking at the prospect of a lost two years, if they suddenly decide that was a mistake. That is unforgivable.
If it helps to prevent an unplanned, disorderly no deal caused by running out of time it seems very sensible and helpful.
It just extends the uncertainty and puts off the choice. Politicians need to decide what they want. They have had enough time already. They just need to grow up a bit.
Agree. But if they can't it would be crazy to hit a brick wall. And, eventually, at some point, if the politicians are completely useless and incapable (which they possibly are) then the only other definitive option is a referendum (and I say that as someone who would be happy with the deal).
Jumping off the cliff edge before we can agree would just be stupid.
But an extension doesn't erase the cliff edge. What if they spend the entire time discussing more and more unrealistic options, then approach 3 months from the new date and, like now, don't agree what to do? Why would they be more likely to agree a referendum as a deal breaker in 6 months rather than now? The main reason it might not happen now is because Labour and most Tories think they can renegotiate despite what the EU.
Consarn and tarnation, have we been hornswoggled?No, we got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Not particularly. The £9m bung to shove that letter in the hands of every man woman and child in the land a day or two before the purdah period was, in my view, a far more egregious attempt to gain an unfair advantage than a few targeted facebook posts.
Quantify "a few"
Was it not also in the millions?
And of course the point is that spam (the same message flooded to everybody) doesn't work, but individually tailored marketing absolutely does, which is why is costs so much money
I will eat my hat if Vote Leave managed to spend an illegal extra £9m on Facebook ads. Even if they did, AFAIC an extra £9m would be evening out the playing field after the £9m government endorsed remain bung.
Election or referendum, I guess. Otherwise there is none
And May apparently doesn't want either so thanks but no thanks.
She may not be the one who is to ask. Asking for an extension may be the only thing the entire house can agree on right away, and if she won't ask someone will be found who will.
As long as she is PM she is the one that has to do the asking whether the Commons asks her too or not. Her removal might be another reason to ask for an extension of course.
I thought her being removed as PM was implicit in the scenario I laid out.
If so I apologise. I thought you might be thinking of a scenario where the Commons directs the government to ask for an extension which is possible although the effect is uncertain.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
No, they really would not.
A Corbyn hard left government would make me very concerned.
> What is its plan to address the concerns of Leavers?
This may sound petty but symbolic things like blue passports don't cost much. Remain-inclined people think it's silly but don't really care either way. See how many traditional colours and shapes and emblems and things you can restore. Tourists love that stuff too. Make Britain Twee Again.
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
The sensible thing to do would be to just accept the deal as it stands - without faffing about with an ‘endorsement from the people of NI’ - I mean, WTF is this?
Progress is built on compromise, and this is a compromise. People should get over it.
If not, then EEA+CU is a decent fallback. A second referendum would usher in yet another racist xenophobic divisive nightmare.
The backstop could be ended by a unification vote with the republic
Isn't the problem with that logic the fact that the republic can't afford to take on Northern Ireland given how much the UK subsidises it.
There was a very good article in the FT t'other day explaining how unification could and would work:
As the only Conservative to oppose Art 50, Ken Clarke would be the logical leader of a further (third) referendum in favour of EU membership.
And yet he supports the deal apparently. A vocal, passionate remainer but not an extremist willing to risk it all even though he surely wants us to remain.
That’s true - but it might be quite different if and when TMs Deal bites the dust. He might then rise to the occasion!
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
I will eat my hat if Vote Leave managed to spend an illegal extra £9m on Facebook ads. Even if they did, AFAIC an extra £9m would be evening out the playing field after the £9m government endorsed remain bung.
It was not the monetary figure I was querying.
How many targeted Facebook ads were seen?
The question of cost is the second point. The targeted ads were effective, the blanket mailshot was not.
Spending £9m on longbows and £1m on machine guns does not give the archers an unfair advantage in a war.
> What is its plan to address the concerns of Leavers?
This may sound petty but symbolic things like blue passports don't cost much. Remain-inclined people think it's silly but don't really care either way. See how many traditional colours and shapes and emblems and things you can restore. Tourists love that stuff too. Make Britain Twee Again.
So Leavers would give Remainers continued economic access to the EU under May's deal, while Remainers would give Leavers... traditional colours.
And it's Leavers that aren't bringing the country together. Unbelievable.
We got ourselves into this mess. The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck. Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
Yes it is. "born and bred in a briar bush, br'er fox, born and bred in a briar bush."
That's one softer version, nice but not the original I believe.
It was in my book of stories as a kid. Having caught Br'er rabbit finally fox wants to do something truly horrible to him. He thinks up many bloodthirsty ideas all of which Br'er rabbit says yes to but please don't throw him in that briar bush. Fox does of course. He was about as smart as Liam.
Interesting that Desmond Swayne said today that “the game’s up” and there’s now a majority in the House of Commons for Remain.
There has always been a majority in the House of Commons for remain.
The issue is that they represent a country that voted to leave, and were supposedly implementing that decision.
You know, if they’d had the guts to come out and block Article 50 2 years ago, it would have been an outrage, but at least we would have avoided 2 years of uncertainty and the grinding to a halt of the domestic political agenda.
If they conspire to remain now, they have not just wasted everyone’s time, but they’ve played the country, the electorate, and the economy. It is dispicable. And I say that, again, as someone who voted remain.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
I pay less attention to the manifesto than to the character of those likely to be in government. The character - moral character / judgment / the default instincts - of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and others are deeply flawed and dangerous and I do not trust them with power. They have damaged Labour. I don’t want them to damage the country.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
I will eat my hat if Vote Leave managed to spend an illegal extra £9m on Facebook ads. Even if they did, AFAIC an extra £9m would be evening out the playing field after the £9m government endorsed remain bung.
It was not the monetary figure I was querying.
How many targeted Facebook ads were seen?
The question of cost is the second point. The targeted ads were effective, the blanket mailshot was not.
Spending £9m on longbows and £1m on machine guns does not give the archers an unfair advantage in a war.
Targeted ads are effective because you don't have to pay for it reaching people you don't care about. It somewhat overcomes that benefit if you just blanket everyone with the ad and stick it on the taxpayer tab.
This may sound petty but symbolic things like blue passports don't cost much. Remain-inclined people think it's silly but don't really care either way. See how many traditional colours and shapes and emblems and things you can restore. Tourists love that stuff too. Make Britain Twee Again.
Having trashed all the important symbols of the Nation (rule of Law, the union) let's have Blue passports.
Interesting that Desmond Swayne said today that “the game’s up” and there’s now a majority in the House of Commons for Remain.
There has always been a majority in the House of Commons for remain.
The issue is that they represent a country that voted to leave, and were supposedly implementing that decision.
You know, if they’d had the guts to come out and block Article 50 2 years ago, it would have been an outrage, but at least we would have avoided 2 years of uncertainty and the grinding to a halt of the domestic political agenda.
If they conspire to remain now, they have not just wasted everyone’s time, but they’ve played the country, the electorate, and the economy. It is dispicable. And I say that, again, as someone who voted remain.
If we don't Leave then we'll get a Corbyn government.
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
A Corbyn government while still in the EU would be better than one outside the EU.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
They would be tempered by moderate Labour MPs.
Yeah - like those moderates have tempered them until now. They won’t. Marxists and Communists are not to be trusted with power.
I don't know. Some of the predictions, e.g. of mass deselections, have been wide of the mark. I am not a Labour member; I might vote for them, I might not. But I liked their last manifesto and I'd certainly prefer to give them a shot than endure 5 more years of this moribund government.
I pay less attention to the manifesto than to the character of those likely to be in government. The character - moral character / judgment / the default instincts - of Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne and others are deeply flawed and dangerous and I do not trust them with power. They have damaged Labour. I don’t want them to damage the country.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
Well, fair enough, I respect your view even though I disagree.
I just can't see them doing more damage to the country than the Tories have done since 2015.
Targeted ads are effective because you don't have to pay for it reaching people you don't care about. It somewhat overcomes that benefit if you just blanket everyone with the ad and stick it on the taxpayer tab.
No
Targeted ads work because people read them, and act on them.
Blanket marketing doesn't work because almost nobody reads them.
Comments
Interesting story.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46460194
That's is why I think a 2nd referendum can only work if it is a 3 way question via a two stage vote or AV, whichever is the fairest approach*.
(*I personally do not understand the pros and cons of differing aproaches - maybe we could have a thread header on AV options for Ref2?
Despite @Alanbrooke not being a fan of this piece, I hope he in particular writes more.
If so, my heart would do more than sink!
Yes there would be tremendous backlash, but if it is indeed not a choice, don't bloody bother to offer one.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/12/05/brexit-latest-news-theresa-may-battles-save-deal-humiliating/
After transfers: No deal 45%, Remain 55%
Yes, that would settle it.
I agree that a Remain campaign does need to address the concerns of Leavers. But will it? And who would lead it?
I fear a No Deal Brexit. The deal is a bit meh and could be lived with but seems to be dead. I would prefer to Remain at this point. I greatly fear a Corbyn government. So long as we avoid this last I could cope with the rest.
Frankly, either we have another referendum if Parliament cannot decide, with all the risks you outline.
Or Parliament does its job and makes a decision, even if that means revoking Article 50 (assuming the ECJ rules in the way suggested by the A-G) if there is no majority for No Deal or May’s deal. Let Parliament take back control and take back responsibility for explaining why the other options are not feasible.
So what?
The type of Leave probably doesn't matter.
Sounds like given more time for remain to build up steam.
I noticed the BBC said "He loaned £8m to the Leave.EU campaign before the 2016 EU referendum." I thought after the cash for peerages scandal the political parties had addressed this device and tightened up the legislation related to political campaigning and loans.
I do not think the instincts of either Corbyn or McDonnell or their advisors are fundamentally democratic or liberal.
http://www.deltapoll.co.uk/steve-fisher-condorcet
I may be reading too much into some recent EU statements but I get the impression that they are doing what they can to keep Britain within the EU, and that they are doing so because they genuinely want us to remain.
And not just to set an example etc or for our money but because, at some level, they realise that both the EU and Britain are, for all the difficulties in the relationship, weaker without each other.
Maybe it’s the romantic in me. I do wish we could get some fresh thinking about the relationship.
On the other hand a minority Corbyn government outside the Corbyn would likely be more constrained than a majority Corbyn government inside the EU.
And while a Corbyn government is far from a certainty if the Conservatives hold together and act competently its pretty much a certainty IMO if the Conservatives rip themselves apart and fail all their millions of Leave voters.
What do you think the average man on the street thinks is a far bigger two fingers up to society? The tradesman who takes £500 a month cash in hand, or the Philip Greens of the world who live on their yachts without ever breaking a letter of the law?
The issue is that they represent a country that voted to leave, and were supposedly implementing that decision.
You know, if they’d had the guts to come out and block Article 50 2 years ago, it would have been an outrage, but at least we would have avoided 2 years of uncertainty and the grinding to a halt of the domestic political agenda.
If they conspire to remain now, they have not just wasted everyone’s time, but they’ve played the country, the electorate, and the economy. It is dispicable. And I say that, again, as someone who voted remain.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-motor-venezuela/fords-venezuela-unit-offers-buyouts-as-output-dwindles-sources-idUSKBN1O42NY
Let us remember this is a country Corbyn expressed great admiration for and whose government he refuses to condemn for their violence, murder of rivals, establishment of a dictatorship or their embezzlement of the country's oil wealth for their private gain.
Was it not also in the millions?
And of course the point is that spam (the same message flooded to everybody) doesn't work, but individually tailored marketing absolutely does, which is why is costs so much money
It would use the advice of the EU’s advocate general that Britain can even now retain its rebate and exemptions from the Schengen agreement and euro, and stay in the EU as if nothing had happened. It would argue that Brexit, in whatever form it transpires, is a clear and present danger to the British economy, and our alliances, national security and standing in the world. There is more than enough evidence that the referendum was illegitimate, it would continue. If the Brexit referendum had been a Parliamentary election, the courts would have intervened long ago.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/the-betrayal-of-the-brexit-bunch/
If they don't hold and we remain at 50/50, I really don't know what happens. Something has I give. Since the first referendum I have expected a "vassal state" outcome as the easy negotiation compromise, while being under no illusions that it is a good compromise. The only point of Brexit is to be masters of our own ship. Why would we want rule taking with no say and almost no influence? The big question to me was would Leavers accept vassalage? On the whole, not, it seems.
https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/sen-klobuchar-is-considering-a-run-for-president-1388772419657
Jumping off the cliff edge before we can agree would just be stupid.
That rising bitterness is not good for the EU or for us. It's bitter now, but as neighbours that is more managable.
But the time to point that out was in the aftermath of the vote. Nobody comes away with honour from the actions of 2016/2017. MPs voted to notify the EU we were leaving. We are looking at the prospect of a lost two years, if they suddenly decide that was a mistake. That is unforgivable.
Consarn and tarnation, have we been hornswoggled?No,
we got ourselves into this mess.
The more Br'er Rabbit demanded civility from the tar baby the more he got stuck.
Did Br'er Fox eat Br'er Rabbit? That question is not answered in the Uncle Remus tale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiMw-8Ttu10
A Corbyn hard left government would make me very concerned.
This may sound petty but symbolic things like blue passports don't cost much. Remain-inclined people think it's silly but don't really care either way. See how many traditional colours and shapes and emblems and things you can restore. Tourists love that stuff too. Make Britain Twee Again.
Shockingly in this circumstance, I think Jeremy Corbyn would actually act with sense in such a scenario.
But what WOULD be an interesting question is if the deal passes, and Labour need the backing of the SNP to form a government..
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d
''Why the idea of a united Ireland is back in play'
I commend it to you.
Think of the potential prize ahead: Brexit, a united Ireland and an independent Scotland. What a time to be alive!
How many targeted Facebook ads were seen?
The question of cost is the second point. The targeted ads were effective, the blanket mailshot was not.
Spending £9m on longbows and £1m on machine guns does not give the archers an unfair advantage in a war.
And it's Leavers that aren't bringing the country together. Unbelievable.
And the so-called moderates couldn’t take the skin off a rice pudding so they will put up with anything for the faintest whiff of power.
Why not.
I just can't see them doing more damage to the country than the Tories have done since 2015.
Targeted ads work because people read them, and act on them.
Blanket marketing doesn't work because almost nobody reads them.
The relative cost is not a pertinent metric