Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There will be no second referendum whether Labour backs it or

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » There will be no second referendum whether Labour backs it or not

Brexit is not unlike Hurricane Florence. A huge amount of energy is being expended, mostly to destructive effect, dumping a load of output which is flooding out a great deal else, while not going anywhere fast.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • It won't be Project Fear, it'd be a Project Grim Reality.
  • Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958
    At the moment, Therea May can argue she has made a proposal, and it is up to the EU to be sensible and work with it. If they won't, she get's the benefit of Us v Them.

    If there is a Further Referendum, the hideous battle over what form that takes is a purely internal UK matter, devoid of any blame on the EU. It becomes Us v Us.

    She is famously a Bloody Difficult Woman. She has said no to a Further Referendum. She would need to be removed to have that happen. And of the multiple reasons for calling a VONC, getting a new Conservatve leader who will deliver a Further Referendm is not one.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    edited September 2018
    Third the one with the hairy chest.

    Edit: too slow! Good morning everyone.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    Some of the "senior Number 10 officials" are bobbins.

    She can't half pick 'em.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    edited September 2018
    I think David Herdson is right that parliament can't force a referendum on the PM. Basically the conditions are:
    1) The PM has to want to do it.
    2) Their party has to let them do it without stringing them up from a lamp-post

    If those two conditions apply then the rest is doable: The PM would ask the other member states for an extension, which they'd almost definitely agree to. She'd also ask them and the Commission to agree that if the result was "remain" the UK could remain without joining the Euro or giving back Gibraltar or whatever, which they'd also almost definitely agree to.

    I think a referendum would almost definitely be Remain vs Leave (with the deal, if there is one): After what happened to Cameron, no PM is going to voluntarily ask the voters if they want to do something the PM thinks is a terrible idea. The only reason they might hold one now is to undo the damage that was done last time a PM tried this.
  • Good morning, everyone.

    The news last night included Thornberry's latest utterance. Apparently Labour is set to vote down any deal that doesn't include a free lapdance from Olivia Wilde for every voter, and they also oppose leaving with no deal.

    Once you eliminate the obvious, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth.

    No to any deal and no to no deal means that the only options remaining are, ahem, remaining and a referendum on such.
  • I think David Herdson is right that parliament can't force a referendum on the PM. Basically the conditions are:
    1) The PM has to want to do it.
    2) Their party has to let them do it without stringing them up from a lamp-post

    If those two conditions apply then the rest is doable: The PM would ask the other member states for an extension, which they'd almost definitely agree to. She'd also ask them and the Commission to agree that if the result was "remain" the UK could remain without joining the Euro or giving back Gibraltar or whatever, which they'd also almost definitely agree to.

    I think a referendum would almost definitely be Remain vs Leave (with the deal, if there is one): After what happened to Cameron, no PM is going to voluntarily ask the voters if they want to do something the PM thinks is a terrible idea. The only reason they might hold one now is to undo the damage that was done last time a PM tried this.

    If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Good morning, everyone.

    The news last night included Thornberry's latest utterance. Apparently Labour is set to vote down any deal that doesn't include a free lapdance from Olivia Wilde for every voter, and they also oppose leaving with no deal.

    Once you eliminate the obvious, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth.

    No to any deal and no to no deal means that the only options remaining are, ahem, remaining and a referendum on such.

    Or, No Deal because that is the defaut position if there is, ahem, no other agreed deal.

    Thornberry and Nandy seem to be at odds. I wonder, do they even talk?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited September 2018
    Agree entirely Mr Herdson - perhaps Posh People’s Vote would be a more honest description - but as Sir John pointed out, in polling what you ask and the way you ask it has measurable impact on the results you get.

    Minor edit point - is there a “Fear” missing after “Project” in “Remainers are still instinctively drawn to some form of Project rather than....” ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    Am I the only one who looks at that picture and sees Alan B'Stard?
  • Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    As they’ve got a direct quote from the “Senior aide” the Sun clearly knows who it is....how long before that leaks (and why not just name them now)?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    I expect that the next campaign will be 'Re-join’, on the grounds that, as the Brexiteers never tire of pointing out, we’ll be having to accept rules made by other people, and why can’t we help make them.

    Although Norway seems to get along fine with that. IIRC the last opinion poll there showed a small majority for their current arrangement, or at least no strong desire to join.

    So maybe, when all the dust has settled, we’ll be happy with the same position. For a while at least.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Good morning, everyone.

    The news last night included Thornberry's latest utterance. Apparently Labour is set to vote down any deal that doesn't include a free lapdance from Olivia Wilde for every voter, and they also oppose leaving with no deal.

    Once you eliminate the obvious, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth.

    No to any deal and no to no deal means that the only options remaining are, ahem, remaining and a referendum on such.

    Oh, and somebody should tell Labour that women voters also exist. And they want a free visit from a Chippendales troupe featuring Aidan Turner, Tom Hiddleston and Richard Madden.

  • If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.

    The people you're talking about are going to denounce any possible deal as a traitorous undemocratic betrayal no matter what happens. There's no way to satisfy them short of exploding the economy, so there's no point in trying.

    But you do point to the dilemma for the Leave side if the PM comes out with a referendum on Remain vs Deal. If they denounce the deal as a traitorous betrayal, and the referendum as illegitimate, they risk their own side boycotting the thing, in which case they lose.

    This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    I expect that the next campaign will be 'Re-join’, on the grounds that, as the Brexiteers never tire of pointing out, we’ll be having to accept rules made by other people, and why can’t we help make them.

    Although Norway seems to get along fine with that. IIRC the last opinion poll there showed a small majority for their current arrangement, or at least no strong desire to join.

    So maybe, when all the dust has settled, we’ll be happy with the same position. For a while at least.

    If the campaign had been to be part of the EEA rather than to leave entirely (for all Hannan's bluster) I think it would almost certainly have won by a large margin. That would have given us all the economic benefits and - and this is the crucial point - as it's very easy to ignore EU rules you don't like (even within the EU) we could just have skipped all the rubbish that comes from Brussels and Strasbourg. We're doing it right now over votes for prisoners. The French did it over BSE. Germany are doing it over car manufacturing standards. But in the EEA we wouldn't even have needed to pretend to be trying to conform.

    But I cannot see any campaign to rejoin the EU as a whole prospering while third rate authoritarian imbeciles like Juncker and Selmayr have political standing within it, or while the possibility of membership of the Euro is open. It's going to be mighty difficulty even to rejoin the EEA once we'be left it in this fashion.
  • King Cole, let's get influence by surrendering monetary policy would be an interesting argument. One that Chris Huhne used to make.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958


    This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?

    To do that, she still has to be PM. If she tried to get her way based solely on the support of other parties, then dozens of letters would go in. So she would also have to survive a VONC in your scenario.

    And I don't think that she would. Whenever it gets called, it will be the starting pistol for a new leader.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789


    If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.

    The people you're talking about are going to denounce any possible deal as a traitorous undemocratic betrayal no matter what happens. There's no way to satisfy them short of exploding the economy, so there's no point in trying.

    But you do point to the dilemma for the Leave side if the PM comes out with a referendum on Remain vs Deal. If they denounce the deal as a traitorous betrayal, and the referendum as illegitimate, they risk their own side boycotting the thing, in which case they lose.

    This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?
    The important point there is should one say “traitorous” or “treacherous”? You’ve gone with the former but is that right?

    The rantings of the Nigel-devotee from Glenelg-south are less interesting.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069
    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.
  • Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    "The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."

    You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Foxy said:


    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    You'd have to remove Corbyn too, but in many ways that's an even more worthwhile objective.

    However, even if all your other points were true - and if it didn't have the considerable negative of further driving Leavers away from Remain by (rightly or wrongly) confirming them in their view that these people are anti-democratic and selfish - the fact that as David notes there simply isn't time for another referendum totally undermines its credibility.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    matt said:


    If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.

    The people you're talking about are going to denounce any possible deal as a traitorous undemocratic betrayal no matter what happens. There's no way to satisfy them short of exploding the economy, so there's no point in trying.

    But you do point to the dilemma for the Leave side if the PM comes out with a referendum on Remain vs Deal. If they denounce the deal as a traitorous betrayal, and the referendum as illegitimate, they risk their own side boycotting the thing, in which case they lose.

    This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?
    The important point there is should one say “traitorous” or “treacherous”? You’ve gone with the former but is that right?

    The rantings of the Nigel-devotee from Glenelg-south are less interesting.
    'Traitorous' is correct, because 'treacherous' means you can't trust them while 'traitorous' means they have betrayed you.

  • This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?

    To do that, she still has to be PM. If she tried to get her way based solely on the support of other parties, then dozens of letters would go in. So she would also have to survive a VONC in your scenario.

    And I don't think that she would. Whenever it gets called, it will be the starting pistol for a new leader.
    That's a possibility, assuming they haven't already shot their bolt at that point.

    But it seems like a highly risky move for the rest of the MPs, doesn't it? A lot of the same things that apply now would apply then, but even worse: They don't know who they'll get instead, the person they get may well be a bit mad, and until it's decided the voters are sitting there watching a leaderless Conservative Party arguing with itself, while businesses panic and the financial markets crash and fall off. Meanwhile the DUP could pull the plug at any moment, producing a new general election where they'll have to fight for their jobs under these not entirely auspicious circumstances.

    By this point I think we're pretty deep into "TMay Or The Country Burns" territory.
  • matt said:


    The important point there is should one say “traitorous” or “treacherous”? You’ve gone with the former but is that right?

    “Treacherous” doesn't have the impact it once did, it's been devalued by people using it to talk about road conditions on the A12 or whatever.
    matt said:

    The rantings of the Nigel-devotee from Glenelg-south are less interesting.

    I think the rantings of everybody here are interesting; The boycott issue is a serious political consideration.
  • I think David Herdson is right that parliament can't force a referendum on the PM. Basically the conditions are:
    1) The PM has to want to do it.
    2) Their party has to let them do it without stringing them up from a lamp-post

    If those two conditions apply then the rest is doable: The PM would ask the other member states for an extension, which they'd almost definitely agree to. She'd also ask them and the Commission to agree that if the result was "remain" the UK could remain without joining the Euro or giving back Gibraltar or whatever, which they'd also almost definitely agree to.

    I think a referendum would almost definitely be Remain vs Leave (with the deal, if there is one): After what happened to Cameron, no PM is going to voluntarily ask the voters if they want to do something the PM thinks is a terrible idea. The only reason they might hold one now is to undo the damage that was done last time a PM tried this.

    If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.
    Edmund is correct. However the PM may well want to have another referendum if she can't get her party to agree her plan (presumably Chequers). How else could things be resolved?
    If some leavers want to boycott a new referendum then it is up to them, but it is unknowable how many of those that voted Leave in 2016 wanted EFTA, Canada +, Chequers, WTO or any of the other myriad possibilities - or simply wanted to kick Cameron.
    Many 2016 Leavers may have seen the problems ranging from the drop in the value of the pound and the UK's worsening economic performance to companies planning to relocate and simply changed their minds.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Great article as usual by DH, but I think PB needs a Brexit free day occasionally.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    edited September 2018
    Mr. Root, good news! There'll be plenty of F1 discussion soon :D

    Edited extra bit: on that note, Ladbrokes has Ricciardo 6 for pole and 4.5 for the win. Not sure I buy that divergence, given the difficulty of overtaking and the atrocious reliability he's had recently. Over the course of the season (and it's been worse than the average recently) he's had 6 DNFs from 14 races.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    "The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."

    You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
    I want neither as PM, and would vote against a coalition with either paty under their current leaders.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Reality breaks out in Ireland

    https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/government-puts-brexit-deal-ahead-of-bulletproof-guarantee-of-avoiding-hard-border-37318788.html

    "Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.

    “If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."

  • If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.

    The people you're talking about are going to denounce any possible deal as a traitorous undemocratic betrayal no matter what happens. There's no way to satisfy them short of exploding the economy, so there's no point in trying.

    But you do point to the dilemma for the Leave side if the PM comes out with a referendum on Remain vs Deal. If they denounce the deal as a traitorous betrayal, and the referendum as illegitimate, they risk their own side boycotting the thing, in which case they lose.

    This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?
    I just think this is missing the point - Parliament could end Brexit tomorrow if they wanted. They won’t because they want democratic cover. If Leave boycott, of course Remain will win. But it wouldn’t provide legitimacy so it doesn’t get Parliament anywhere.

    If they want to torpedo Brexit they will have to do so without our help and face the consequences. No reason for Leave to make it easier by participating in another referendum.
  • Reality breaks out in Ireland

    https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/government-puts-brexit-deal-ahead-of-bulletproof-guarantee-of-avoiding-hard-border-37318788.html

    "Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.

    “If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."

    Better late than never:

    Desperate efforts are being made by Brussels and Dublin to prevent the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal.

    https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/devastating-cliffedge-break-wouldnt-end-well-for-anyone-37318789.html

    Who's a clever boy now, Mr Varadkar? Pity you scrapped the work Enda Kenny put in place...

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0119/846135-enda-kenny-davos/
  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    "The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."

    You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
    I want neither as PM, and would vote against a coalition with either paty under their current leaders.
    Yet you think that collapsing a May government is a worthwhile objective. There are two ways that could occur: with a.n.other Conservative in her place (Boris?) or another GE that may well, in such a chaotic situation, see Corbyn into No. 10.

    Neither of these occurrences will aid the cause of remaining in the EU, as whomever replaces May will be more Europhobic, not less.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited September 2018

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    "The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."

    You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
    I want neither as PM, and would vote against a coalition with either paty under their current leaders.
    Yet you think that collapsing a May government is a worthwhile objective. There are two ways that could occur: with a.n.other Conservative in her place (Boris?) or another GE that may well, in such a chaotic situation, see Corbyn into No. 10.

    Neither of these occurrences will aid the cause of remaining in the EU, as whomever replaces May will be more Europhobic, not less.
    Whoever replaces May will be Hunt, Javid or Hammond. Pace Lord Hestletine, it will not be Boris. The corollary of this is that discerning whether Boris is a Remainer posing as a Leaver or a Leaver posing as a Remainer posing as a Leaver becomes moot.
  • Prospects of an EU-UK Brexit deal have grown in recent weeks, Irish EU Commissioner Phil Hogan has said.

    In his most upbeat assessment of negotiations scheduled to conclude at a leaders' summit on October 19, Mr Hogan said real fears that the UK would "crash out" without a deal, causing economic carnage, had receded...

    "A deal is coming into shape. It is still true that no Brexit deal will be as good for everyone as UK membership has been. But given all the circumstances, red lines and so on, what is emerging is, I think, reasonable."


    https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/prospects-of-a-deal-growing-as-fears-of-crashout-diminish-37318791.html
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.



    You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
    I want neither as PM, and would vote against a coalition with either paty under their current leaders.
    Yet you think that collapsing a May government is a worthwhile objective. There are two ways that could occur: with a.n.other Conservative in her place (Boris?) or another GE that may well, in such a chaotic situation, see Corbyn into No. 10.

    Neither of these occurrences will aid the cause of remaining in the EU, as whomever replaces May will be more Europhobic, not less.
    I have to start my ward round soon, so will be off, but you simply do not seem to recognise that voting Lib Dem, or Green, or SNP or whatever is a vote against both major parties in their current form. I am not interested in their internal difficulties in forming a government, apart from betting purposes.

    The country is split down the middle on this flagship issue of a culture war I am not interested in surrendering to a nativist narrative.
  • Superb, David. I agree wholeheartedly.
  • I think David Herdson is right that parliament can't force a referendum on the PM. Basically the conditions are:
    1) The PM has to want to do it.
    2) Their party has to let them do it without stringing them up from a lamp-post

    If those two conditions apply then the rest is doable: The PM would ask the other member states for an extension, which they'd almost definitely agree to. She'd also ask them and the Commission to agree that if the result was "remain" the UK could remain without joining the Euro or giving back Gibraltar or whatever, which they'd also almost definitely agree to.

    I think a referendum would almost definitely be Remain vs Leave (with the deal, if there is one): After what happened to Cameron, no PM is going to voluntarily ask the voters if they want to do something the PM thinks is a terrible idea. The only reason they might hold one now is to undo the damage that was done last time a PM tried this.

    Neither of those two conditions would pass, so the rest is moot.
  • Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    "The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right."

    You - as a so-called Lib Dem - would prefer a Labour anti-Semite as PM rather than May.
    Yes, Foxy has a personal and irrational dislike of this Conservative Government that supersedes all else.
  • Miss Vance, that correction could've come rather more promptly, given it was top story on the ten o'clock news.
  • Foxy said:

    I have to start my ward round soon, so will be off, but you simply do not seem to recognise that voting Lib Dem, or Green, or SNP or whatever is a vote against both major parties in their current form. I am not interested in their internal difficulties in forming a government, apart from betting purposes.

    The country is split down the middle on this flagship issue of a culture war I am not interested in surrendering to a nativist narrative.

    I do recognise that in some cases; in others it might be a positive vote for that party's policies, rather than a protest vote against both major parties. But it's also fairly irrelevant to the point I was making.

    Your last line is hilarious, and sounds like just the sort of bullshit that Corbyn and his fellow travellers would make.

  • If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.

    The people you're talking about are going to denounce any possible deal as a traitorous undemocratic betrayal no matter what happens. There's no way to satisfy them short of exploding the economy, so there's no point in trying.

    But you do point to the dilemma for the Leave side if the PM comes out with a referendum on Remain vs Deal. If they denounce the deal as a traitorous betrayal, and the referendum as illegitimate, they risk their own side boycotting the thing, in which case they lose.

    This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?
    Trying to get HMG to rat and Remain in the EU on the back of quick & dirty postal referendum that's boycotted by Leave, and consequently passes with about 85% Remain on a low turnout, would be an extremely foolhardy play.

    As usual, those that advocate this start from the conclusion they want and work out a path (any path) back from that to where we are today, without thinking of much else.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Very good article as usual Mr Herdson. Mostly, of course, because I agree with pretty much every word of it ;)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545

    Reality breaks out in Ireland

    https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/government-puts-brexit-deal-ahead-of-bulletproof-guarantee-of-avoiding-hard-border-37318788.html

    "Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.

    “If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."

    Possibly the Irish/EU are aiming for the requirement that the backstop would be part of any future arrangement with the UK. But the UK wouldn't have to commit to it now under every circumstance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Reality breaks out in Ireland

    https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/government-puts-brexit-deal-ahead-of-bulletproof-guarantee-of-avoiding-hard-border-37318788.html

    "Brexit sources say they recognise London won’t be able to sign off on the Border guarantee as it currently stands, and Ireland will face economic “catastrophe” if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.

    “If we carry on the way we’re going, we’ll have no transition, no deal, just economic catastrophe,” said one source."

    Better late than never:

    Desperate efforts are being made by Brussels and Dublin to prevent the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal.

    https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/devastating-cliffedge-break-wouldnt-end-well-for-anyone-37318789.html

    Who's a clever boy now, Mr Varadkar? Pity you scrapped the work Enda Kenny put in place...

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0119/846135-enda-kenny-davos/
    Varadkar and Junker have messed this one up completely, in trying to be too smart they’ve backed themselves into a corner and are finally realising that there’s no chance of any British PM signing up to the proposed ‘backstop’ plan.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    It really isn't. Giving false hope to the EU that if they are difficult enough and simply refuse to negotiate in any meaningful way there is a very good chance that we will change our minds is the by far the biggest risk of triggering a no deal departure. It has taken us more than 18 months to persuade the EU to actually negotiate on matters of substance. The absolute last thing we need if for the vacillation to start yet again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    i was getting really cross as I drove around the country yesterday that the BBC was repeatedly misrepresenting that. Even when one of their economic correspondents came on and explained exactly what you had said the headlines and reporting went on unchanged.

  • If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.

    The people you're talking about are going to denounce any possible deal as a traitorous undemocratic betrayal no matter what happens. There's no way to satisfy them short of exploding the economy, so there's no point in trying.

    But you do point to the dilemma for the Leave side if the PM comes out with a referendum on Remain vs Deal. If they denounce the deal as a traitorous betrayal, and the referendum as illegitimate, they risk their own side boycotting the thing, in which case they lose.

    This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?
    I just think this is missing the point - Parliament could end Brexit tomorrow if they wanted. They won’t because they want democratic cover. If Leave boycott, of course Remain will win. But it wouldn’t provide legitimacy so it doesn’t get Parliament anywhere.

    If they want to torpedo Brexit they will have to do so without our help and face the consequences. No reason for Leave to make it easier by participating in another referendum.
    Trying to boycot any vote would be pretty counterproductive. A lot of voters would ignore it and others would assume that you were sore losers trying to get your excuses in first: not a great look.

    A campaign based on “which part of Leave do you not understand?” would be much more effective at getting out those voters who just want the Government to get on with it and don’t understand why it’s taking so long.

  • I just think this is missing the point - Parliament could end Brexit tomorrow if they wanted. They won’t because they want democratic cover. If Leave boycott, of course Remain will win. But it wouldn’t provide legitimacy so it doesn’t get Parliament anywhere.

    If they want to torpedo Brexit they will have to do so without our help and face the consequences. No reason for Leave to make it easier by participating in another referendum.

    Most of the voters aren't going to agree with the view that it's outrageously undemocratic to have a vote on what you're going to do once you know what it is - even the ones who don't actually support having that vote. So the mere fact of some Leave enthusiasts boycotting a re-referendum doesn't prevent it giving parliament enough cover to stop Brexit. You're right that you want the process to widely be considered legitimate, but "widely" doesn't mean everyone; The current process is already considered illegitimate by some Remainers who think Leave cheated, and it will certainly be considered illegitimate by some Leave supporters if there's a deal.

    If you're talking about what Leave supporters *should* do given their goals, it depends on whether they think they'll win or not. The side that thinks it's losing will often boycott a referendum - it's better to boycott one to lose it. But in this case the outcome wouldn't be that clear, so what Remain would be hoping for would be a boycott by 10% or 15% of Leave voters, which would give them a nice healthy margin but still be a fairly high total turnout. I think it's hard to see all the pro-Brexit people calling for a boycott, and even if they did not all the Leave supporters would follow them.

  • If the referendum was Remain v Deal the leavers would simply boycott- in fact they are likely to boycott any second referendum and rightly so - what is the point if the Government is not going to carry out the results of the last one. Parliament could Remain now if they wanted. The purpose of a referendum is to get democratic legitimacy. If there is a boycott you can’t get that. So a second referendum will never happen as any such vote requires both sides to accept it as the correct method to resolve the dispute. Leave will not agree.

    The people you're talking about are going to denounce any possible deal as a traitorous undemocratic betrayal no matter what happens. There's no way to satisfy them short of exploding the economy, so there's no point in trying.

    But you do point to the dilemma for the Leave side if the PM comes out with a referendum on Remain vs Deal. If they denounce the deal as a traitorous betrayal, and the referendum as illegitimate, they risk their own side boycotting the thing, in which case they lose.

    This in turn makes it a useful device for the PM: If she makes a deal and gets a substantial faction of the Tory party threatening to vote against it, she can go and talk to the LibDems and/or the SNP and/or Labour Centrists Dads and ask for *their* support... but she'd have to offer them something in return, like a second referendum. Think the ERG are feeling lucky?
    Trying to get HMG to rat and Remain in the EU on the back of quick & dirty postal referendum that's boycotted by Leave, and consequently passes with about 85% Remain on a low turnout, would be an extremely foolhardy play.

    As usual, those that advocate this start from the conclusion they want and work out a path (any path) back from that to where we are today, without thinking of much else.
    I don't think it has to be *that* quick and it definitely doesn't need to be postal - like I say up-thread you may well need an Article 50 extension to give you time to do it.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 839
    The Government is in all probability seriously considering another Referendum. It does not take long to organise, it can be done within 6 weeks , the Act goes through Parlikament similar to the Emergency Powers provisions, this is an emergency is it not, and local auithorities can organise an election within 4 -5 weeks if told to do so, (February 1974 is a classic example). The campaign should be short and to the point, the last one dragged on far too long. All could be done by Christmas or February latest.
    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.
  • Mr. Theakes, the Government may be forced into such a vote by having a deal voted down, but I doubt they'd proactively seek one out.

    The problem of what the question and options should be remains (ahem), as well as Parliamentary arithmetic.
  • theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    I always thought the pressure on Labour for a 2nd referendum was misplaced, it required the Conservative position to shift or the Conservatives to stop governing. The second can't happen without an election. Although I'm not sure the first one is any more realistic either unless things go terribly wrong, in which case the election is back as a possibility as well. Muddling through seems more likely.
  • theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    Because it's far from clear what the first referendum meant? And that is the problem leavers have: they can't agree on what 'leave' means. Some are happy with delicious Chequers fudge, some want full-fat, baked Brexit with no continental trimmings.

    This is why the ERG cannot give a proper plan, why all Farage can say is rubbish like: "everyone knows what Brexit means", or May the equally ludicrous "Brexit means Brexit."

    And this is all down to the laziness of leavers; often the same ones who failed to achieve anything in two years in charge of departments. Idiots who cry about a plan, without being able to produce an alternative.
  • Mr. Jessop, I have some sympathy with that perspective but would add two points:
    1) Cameron could've insisted on an 'official' Leave perspective ahead of calling a referendum.
    2) May is ultimately responsible for the unholy cocktail of prevarication and capitulation that has characterised the negotiations to date. She undercut her [Leave] Brexit Secretary with a proposal that has drawn criticism from EU-sceptic Conservatives, pro-EU Conservatives, and the EU. That cannot be considered the fault of Leave generally or any Leave politician in particular.
  • Labour’s strategy is clearly based around an acknowledgement Brexit is going to happen. It will oppose the one the Tories deliver. Labour will get what it wants on this, but Corbyn will deliver the Tories one more general election win. After that, it will get interesting.
  • Where there’s a will there’s a way. There’s no absolute requirement for a referendum to be mandated by legislation. Australia had a non-statutory referendum on gay marriage recently which was deemed lawful. I expect the UK courts would take the same line. Time is not really the crucial point. In reality, the stick of a hypothetical non-statutory referendum would be used to beat recalcitrant MPs into supporting fast track legislation for a statutory referendum.

    The lack of will on the part of government, however, is, at least for now. That might conceivably change in the event of no deal (and the government might then not be in control of events anyway) but I’m expecting a deal.

    Finally, public opinion hasn’t yet changed all that much. There are signs that it is ebbing away slowly from Leave but not quickly enough to merit a third referendum yet. Another 52:48 result either way would solve nothing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    It really isn't. Giving false hope to the EU that if they are difficult enough and simply refuse to negotiate in any meaningful way there is a very good chance that we will change our minds is the by far the biggest risk of triggering a no deal departure. It has taken us more than 18 months to persuade the EU to actually negotiate on matters of substance. The absolute last thing we need if for the vacillation to start yet again.
    Indeed. A group of ‘elder statesmen’ turning up in Brussels has the same effect. If the EU continue to think we’ll happily roll over to a vassal state situation then we could well end up with no deal by accident.
  • Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    It really isn't. Giving false hope to the EU that if they are difficult enough and simply refuse to negotiate in any meaningful way there is a very good chance that we will change our minds is the by far the biggest risk of triggering a no deal departure. It has taken us more than 18 months to persuade the EU to actually negotiate on matters of substance. The absolute last thing we need if for the vacillation to start yet again.
    Indeed. A group of ‘elder statesmen’ turning up in Brussels has the same effect. If the EU continue to think we’ll happily roll over to a vassal state situation then we could well end up with no deal by accident.
    Every time someone says they don’t believe in Brexit a fairy dies.
  • JohnRussellJohnRussell Posts: 297
    edited September 2018

    theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief

    JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back and say, 'we've reconsidered lets have another referendum', if we vote to stay out, we are out and we'll have to get on with it"

    PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"

    NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpvkJaKJwY


  • theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief

    JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"

    PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"

    NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpvkJaKJwY


    Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
  • theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief

    JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"

    PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"

    NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpvkJaKJwY


    Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
    Yes of course. He would have had to campaign to get another referendum in the same way he did the the last one; via a manifesto commitment. I doubt he would have been demanding another referendum before we had implemented Cameron's deal, saying it wont be any good before it had been tried, and if he had he would have been roundly criticised.

  • Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    @DH expresses that common desire for the issue of Brexit to go away and die so we can get on with the rest of life and politics, rather than be consumed by the beast. It ain't going to do so.

    The #peoplesvote campaign has several obstacles to get a parliamentary mandate, not least changing Labour party policy, then collapsing the May government, but these are worthwhile objectives in their own right.

    The campaign has other value too, even if no further referendum takes place before Brexit:

    1) It applies pressure on the government towards a softer EEA style Brexit, and we have seen how successful campaigns have been on the coirse of that rudderless ship of state.

    2) It energises and gives focus to street level enthusiasm for European integration. Seeing several hundred thousand pro EU demonstrators on the streets of London is not something I have seen in my lifetime. There will be big demonstrations at the party conferences and in London on Oct 20th.

    3) In the likely circumstances of no #peoplesvote, it sets up a powerful narrative of the government not trusting the people, and forcing an unpopular form of Brexit on the country. Every adverse consequence, real or imagined, can then be hung around the neck of the Brexiteers in the Tory party. "This is not the Brexit that we voted for".

    4) Post Brexit, it gives a nucleus, membership and organising core for the Rejoin movement.

    I was opposed to the vote until I saw the pathetic Chequers plan, and the June demonstrations, but now a supporter. A campaign to undermine and sabotage Brexit as far as possible is in the interest of the country.

    It really isn't. Giving false hope to the EU that if they are difficult enough and simply refuse to negotiate in any meaningful way there is a very good chance that we will change our minds is the by far the biggest risk of triggering a no deal departure. It has taken us more than 18 months to persuade the EU to actually negotiate on matters of substance. The absolute last thing we need if for the vacillation to start yet again.
    Indeed. A group of ‘elder statesmen’ turning up in Brussels has the same effect. If the EU continue to think we’ll happily roll over to a vassal state situation then we could well end up with no deal by accident.

    I doubt we’ll do it happily, but our future was always going to be decided by others - the US, the EU, China and, perhaps, India. We’ll just be a bit more ignorable now. In any case, much of the time post-Brexit will be spent on managing the break-up of the UK and the fall-out from that.

  • Mr. Jessop, I have some sympathy with that perspective but would add two points:
    1) Cameron could've insisted on an 'official' Leave perspective ahead of calling a referendum.
    2) May is ultimately responsible for the unholy cocktail of prevarication and capitulation that has characterised the negotiations to date. She undercut her [Leave] Brexit Secretary with a proposal that has drawn criticism from EU-sceptic Conservatives, pro-EU Conservatives, and the EU. That cannot be considered the fault of Leave generally or any Leave politician in particular.

    On 1), that would have been manna form heaven for the leave campaigns, who for obvious reasons couldn't agree on a line even if they had wanted - which they didn't. Having a line 'forced' on them by a remain-campaigning government would have just led to yet more febrile complaints from leavers about betrayals - even if they agreed with that line. Because that was the way to win.

    Basically, you're saying Cameron should have done what leavers were too lazy to do, and something that would have actively helped leave.

    On 2), May is in a fairly impossible situation; *whatever* decision her government makes will upset large parts of her government, party and the wider country. It might have been good if the leave ministers who have flounced out had produced a credible plan, or in fact done any effing work, in their two years in position. As they didn't, my sympathy for them is about as high as Corbyn's is for Israelis.
  • theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief

    JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"

    PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"

    NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpvkJaKJwY


    Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
    Yes of course. He would have had to campaign to get another referendum in the same way he did the the last one; via a manifesto commitment. I doubt he would have been demanding another referendum before we had implemented Cameron's deal, saying it wont be any good before it had been tried, and if he had he would have been roundly criticised.
    I think you're giving Farage and the leavers a little too much credit there. Remember, many leavers wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even after Brown had signed the treaty.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited September 2018

    Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    LOL! They got rid of David Davis and thought Raab would be a push over.

    Good friend of Lord JohnO Of PB could be first in line to succeed Theresa when we're finally rid of her at this rate. :D
  • JohnRussellJohnRussell Posts: 297
    edited September 2018

    theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief

    JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"

    PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"

    NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpvkJaKJwY


    Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
    Yes of course. He would have had to campaign to get another referendum in the same way he did the the last one; via a manifesto commitment. I doubt he would have been demanding another referendum before we had implemented Cameron's deal, saying it wont be any good before it had been tried, and if he had he would have been roundly criticised.
    I think you're giving Farage and the leavers a little too much credit there. Remember, many leavers wanted a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty even after Brown had signed the treaty.
    I can only go on how they campaigned before the decision to hold a referendum was made by Cameron. I don't think when UKIP got defections/won seats/did well in polls, they said "Right we demand a referendum now", if memory serves they were campaigning for a referendum to be put in the major party's manifesto's

    What we have now from Major, Clegg etc is the equivalent of Farage & Boris going round saying "We still think the EU is as shit as it was before the last referendum, let's have another one", had Remain won
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    edited September 2018
    Thanks for the article David. Excellent as always. :)
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,695
    Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    AV vs FPTP? :D
  • Mr. Jessop, I have some sympathy with that perspective but would add two points:
    1) Cameron could've insisted on an 'official' Leave perspective ahead of calling a referendum.
    2) May is ultimately responsible for the unholy cocktail of prevarication and capitulation that has characterised the negotiations to date. She undercut her [Leave] Brexit Secretary with a proposal that has drawn criticism from EU-sceptic Conservatives, pro-EU Conservatives, and the EU. That cannot be considered the fault of Leave generally or any Leave politician in particular.

    On 1), that would have been manna form heaven for the leave campaigns, who for obvious reasons couldn't agree on a line even if they had wanted - which they didn't. Having a line 'forced' on them by a remain-campaigning government would have just led to yet more febrile complaints from leavers about betrayals - even if they agreed with that line. Because that was the way to win.

    Basically, you're saying Cameron should have done what leavers were too lazy to do, and something that would have actively helped leave.

    On 2), May is in a fairly impossible situation; *whatever* decision her government makes will upset large parts of her government, party and the wider country. It might have been good if the leave ministers who have flounced out had produced a credible plan, or in fact done any effing work, in their two years in position. As they didn't, my sympathy for them is about as high as Corbyn's is for Israelis.

    They had more than two years, they had decades. But it turns out the buccaneering Brexiteers couldn’t be arsed to do the hard work of learning about how the EU functions, about UK trade flows, about just in time supply chains, about the WTO, about how trade deals are done, about the Irish border and so on. They preferred to make speeches about liberty and tyranny, and to leave the difficult stuff to others certain in the knowledge that whatever happened they’d be fine.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Good article, but wrong. We’re in for some chaos. All of the barriers are technical and can be overcome. We do not know what will happen.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    Those halcyon days when we used to discuss Cameron buying fish in Morrisons, Ed's grave stone or the other Miliband holding a banana.

    We were all so innocent ... ;)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Mr Jessop,

    "Basically, you're saying Cameron should have done what leavers were too lazy to do, and something that would have actively helped leave."

    I think you're forgetting the practicalities of this. Leavers wanted a referendum on the EU in the manifesto. The Government were in charge of the timings and the actual question. Otherwise the question would have been "Do we leave and embrace freedom, or do we stay and fester as subservient nation?"

    The Government - basically the cabinet fronted by the PM - arranged things and stopped the civil service doing their job, that of producing options to consider. You have to face that fact. Then having lost, he did a 'Brave Sir Robin' and he bravely turned his tail and fled.

    To blame random leavers for not doing the Government's job is silly, and you're not generally silly. Should I, as a private citizen have taken it upon myself to produce a set of options because the Government not only failed but actively failed in its duty?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545

    Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    When a "fucking nightmare" meets a "bloody difficult woman".who wins ?
  • Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    1) Is Die Hard a Christmas film

    2) In pineapple an acceptable topping for pizza

    3) Is FPTP superior to AV

    4) Is Hannibal a superior general to Caesar

    The correct answer to all of the above is no.
  • theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief

    JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"

    PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"

    NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpvkJaKJwY


    Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
    Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.

    Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.

    But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    You're reading it all wrong.
    ‘A f***ing nightmare’ is just the male superlative version of ‘a bloody difficult woman’; it’s quite obviously a sincere compliment.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited September 2018
    CD13 said:

    I think you're forgetting the practicalities of this.

    I think you're forgetting the practicalities of this.

    If, for example, the civil service had produced a paper that laid out the practical effects of leaving Euratom, Brexiteers would have cried Project fear and treachery.

    It was not possible to produce a sensible plan for leaving then, or indeed now.
  • CD13 said:

    Mr Jessop,

    "Basically, you're saying Cameron should have done what leavers were too lazy to do, and something that would have actively helped leave."

    I think you're forgetting the practicalities of this. Leavers wanted a referendum on the EU in the manifesto. The Government were in charge of the timings and the actual question. Otherwise the question would have been "Do we leave and embrace freedom, or do we stay and fester as subservient nation?"

    The Government - basically the cabinet fronted by the PM - arranged things and stopped the civil service doing their job, that of producing options to consider. You have to face that fact. Then having lost, he did a 'Brave Sir Robin' and he bravely turned his tail and fled.

    To blame random leavers for not doing the Government's job is silly, and you're not generally silly. Should I, as a private citizen have taken it upon myself to produce a set of options because the Government not only failed but actively failed in its duty?

    This is true. However, the buccaneering Brexiteers who told us we held all the negotiating cards, and that we’d keep all the benefits of EU membership with none of the downsides, own their ignorance (or is it mendacity?) entirely.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    1) Is Die Hard a Christmas film

    2) In pineapple an acceptable topping for pizza

    3) Is FPTP superior to AV

    4) Is Hannibal a superior general to Caesar

    The correct answer to all of the above is no.
    I’m vacillating on 1).
    After all, the Catalonians have their defecating Christmas logs - there are some quite inexplicable Christmas traditions.

  • Nigelb said:

    Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    You're reading it all wrong.
    ‘A f***ing nightmare’ is just the male superlative version of ‘a bloody difficult woman’; it’s quite obviously a sincere compliment.

    It’s a funny world in which being compared to Theresa May is a compliment!

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    edited September 2018

    theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief

    JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"

    PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"

    NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpvkJaKJwY


    Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
    Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.

    Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.

    But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
    I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    1) Is Die Hard a Christmas film

    2) In pineapple an acceptable topping for pizza

    3) Is FPTP superior to AV

    4) Is Hannibal a superior general to Caesar

    The correct answer to all of the above is no.
    Die Hard IS a Christmas film ("Now I have a machine gun! Ho ho ho!")

    AV isn't proportional and was rejected by the UK voters in 2011.

    Sultanas in curries is infinitely worse than pineapple on pizza.

    Alexander ventured as far east as India, much further than either Hannibal or Caesar.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,574

    Nigelb said:

    Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    You're reading it all wrong.
    ‘A f***ing nightmare’ is just the male superlative version of ‘a bloody difficult woman’; it’s quite obviously a sincere compliment.

    It’s a funny world in which being compared to Theresa May is a compliment!

    Not the world, just the cabinet office. And you have to laugh at that if only to stave off the despair.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    Those halcyon days when we used to discuss Cameron buying fish in Morrisons, Ed's grave stone or the other Miliband holding a banana.

    We were all so innocent ... ;)
    You've forgotten the bacon sandwich.
  • Dr. Prasannan, true, but Alexander has no place in a question about the superiority of generalship between Hannibal and Caesar.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751
    Scott_P said:
    That tweet is an absolute gift to Leavers. How many have replied saying that they never knew he disliked the EU so much?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    1) Is Die Hard a Christmas film

    2) In pineapple an acceptable topping for pizza

    3) Is FPTP superior to AV

    4) Is Hannibal a superior general to Caesar

    The correct answer to all of the above is no.
    Die Hard IS a Christmas film ("Now I have a machine gun! Ho ho ho!")

    AV isn't proportional and was rejected by the UK voters in 2011.

    Sultanas in curries is infinitely worse than pineapple on pizza.

    Alexander ventured as far east as India, much further than either Hannibal or Caesar.
    Alexander was of course the first Caesar.

    He saw Roxanne and he seized 'er.
  • theakes said:


    My guess is that the result will be decisive one way or another, much easier for those who lose to accept.The issue will then be decided one way or another, unlike the present mess.

    Why would people who won a “once in a lifetime” first vote accept a second that went against them?

    Why would people who refuse to accept the result of one referendum that went against them suddenly accept the result of a second referendum that went against them?
    During the campaign the Leave side predicted the Remainers would do this were Leave to win, whilst the Remainers were busy telling everyone there would be no second referendum no matter what. How can people like John Major, Paddy Ashdown, and Nick Clegg have such a low level of integrity that they would call for another vote? It is shameless beyond belief

    JM "If we come out, we are out, that's it. Its not politically credible to go back, we've reconsidered lets have another referendum"

    PA " I will forgive no one who does not accept the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is by 1% or 20%"

    NC "There will be some people who, like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting the last war because no one had told them it had ended, in some pacific island, who carry on arguing and arguing... the rest of us will just move on, carry on with the rest of our lives"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpvkJaKJwY


    Conversely Nigel Farage was gearing up for a fresh campaign on the referendum night when he thought Leave had lost.
    Which would have been the equivalent of a referendum to rejoin once we had left.

    Nobody is saying that people cannot campaign for that.

    But that's not what the second referendum supporters want is it.
    I see. So Leavers could run campaigns continuously till they won while Remain supporters had to shut up till Leave supporters determined they could speak again. I can see why that argument appeals to Leave supporters.
    If Remain had won then the result would have been applied.

    What the second referendum supporters want is for the result to be blocked..

    Which is totally different.
  • ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    1) Is Die Hard a Christmas film

    2) In pineapple an acceptable topping for pizza

    3) Is FPTP superior to AV

    4) Is Hannibal a superior general to Caesar

    The correct answer to all of the above is no.
    Die Hard IS a Christmas film ("Now I have a machine gun! Ho ho ho!")

    AV isn't proportional and was rejected by the UK voters in 2011.

    Sultanas in curries is infinitely worse than pineapple on pizza.

    Alexander ventured as far east as India, much further than either Hannibal or Caesar.
    Alexander was of course the first Caesar.

    He saw Roxanne and he seized 'er.
    That was very punny!
  • CD13 said:

    Mr Jessop,

    "Basically, you're saying Cameron should have done what leavers were too lazy to do, and something that would have actively helped leave."

    I think you're forgetting the practicalities of this. Leavers wanted a referendum on the EU in the manifesto. The Government were in charge of the timings and the actual question. Otherwise the question would have been "Do we leave and embrace freedom, or do we stay and fester as subservient nation?"

    The Government - basically the cabinet fronted by the PM - arranged things and stopped the civil service doing their job, that of producing options to consider. You have to face that fact. Then having lost, he did a 'Brave Sir Robin' and he bravely turned his tail and fled.

    To blame random leavers for not doing the Government's job is silly, and you're not generally silly. Should I, as a private citizen have taken it upon myself to produce a set of options because the Government not only failed but actively failed in its duty?

    You were not a leaver who was in a position of power (e.g. an MP) who had been screeching and screaming for a referendum for years, sometimes decades.

    It is perfectly reasonable to say that people who were in that position had spent that time thinking through not just what they wanted, but what that would be and how to get it.

    They didn't, and hadn't. Instead, they are Wile E Coyote the one time he caught Roadrunner: holding up a sign saying: "Now what do I do?"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soup_or_Sonic

    It also would have been rather impossible - and pointless IMO - for the civil service to produce alternatives, as the reaction from leavers would have rendered them utterly pointless as they would have been dismissed before the referendum, meaning they'd have no force afterwards. Just go back and read threads on here pre-referendum.
  • FF43 said:

    Nice to see Brexit going along swimmingly.

    https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1040709108008202242

    When a "fucking nightmare" meets a "bloody difficult woman".who wins ?
    Bloody nightmare children?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,751

    ydoethur said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I wonder what people argued about before Brexit.

    1) Is Die Hard a Christmas film

    2) In pineapple an acceptable topping for pizza

    3) Is FPTP superior to AV

    4) Is Hannibal a superior general to Caesar

    The correct answer to all of the above is no.
    Die Hard IS a Christmas film ("Now I have a machine gun! Ho ho ho!")

    AV isn't proportional and was rejected by the UK voters in 2011.

    Sultanas in curries is infinitely worse than pineapple on pizza.

    Alexander ventured as far east as India, much further than either Hannibal or Caesar.
    Alexander was of course the first Caesar.

    He saw Roxanne and he seized 'er.
    That was very punny!
    And your response was impressively quip.
This discussion has been closed.