How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
Their last ad was one of the most patronising things I've ever seen. They've learnt nothing from the last campaign.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I was at a retirement do the other day and god knows why a remainer brought the subject up - but they did
Not one who expressed an opinion had changed their minds.
Most of us were 50's upwards and all city professionals.
Leavers outnumbered remainers 2 to 1 in that little group.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
What are we then if, paralysed by fear, we meekly give up? How do we look our grandparents and parents in the eye given the sacrifices they made? The anger of many will destroy our society if we do. We will not go back to how we were - the genie of the extremes will be unleashed and there will be blood. Can you not sense the edge of violence stirring? I fear it. Deeply.
On topic, I still think a deal will be done, and it will pass both parliaments, with a lot of grumbling. Both sides will try and save face and move on, from sheer emotional and political exhaustion, if nothing else.
The 2nd referendum chat really hasn't helped her. It's got a lot of influential people in the EU (who only talk to people who already agree with them, remember) very belligerent on Brexit, including those like Guy Verhofstadht, who smell blood.
I'd say No Deal is still as high a chance as 45%.
That could happen for a number of reasons:
1. Mrs May and M. Barnier are unable to reach an agreement. 2. The UK parliament will not agree to the agreement. 3. The EU parliament ditto.
I would discount 3, as it seems pretty unlikely. But which of 1 and 2 do you think the most likely to create No Deal? (Even better, give me probabilities!)
My personal view is that 1 is actually quite unlikely, despite everything that is said in the press. But 2 is quite likely indeed.
Interesting that she was positioning today to blame Labour for voting a down a deal not because it was a bad deal, but to play politics.
If she gets a deal and Labour votes it down, Labour will own No Deal Brexit. Very, very unwise....which means they will probably do it.
I don't think Theresa May has the power to allocate the blame for a no deal Brexit onto Labour when she is PM with a majority coalition behind her.
No. I don't think so. I missed the whole speech and all of this afternoon/evening's coverage and social media frenzy.
Coming to it all cold and just watching BBC news at 10, the whole dance thing looked utterly inappropriate.
The country is just weeks away from the biggest peacetime constitutional crisis and economic panic point in decades, maybe over a hundred years, and May thinks twatting around on stage to Abba is the right thing to start her speech.
SCOTUS confirmation has just taken (another) interesting twist.
The Republican controlled Senate Judiciary twitter account said that the previous background investigation s on Kavanaugh had turned up absolutely nothing of concern with regards to sexual abuse or alcohol problems.
Democratic Senators have responded saying that is a lie.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use of "people's vote". It is a grotesque phrase, worthy of some cheap dictatorship claiming it is a "people's republic". What is a people's vote anyway? How does it differ from a 2nd referendum? Was the first one was an animals' vote? Did only voles and weasels get a say?
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots of people, I now anecodtally reckon a 2nd vote is a real possibility. Indeed maybe a probability.
I've heard Leavers and Remainers alike say Fuck it, we have to vote again.
The mood is slowly swinging. The fact that parliament will vote down any deal (unless TMay produces a miracle - highly unlikely) likewise means we are shit-creeked, politically.
A 2nd referendum is the backpaddle that will save the day. Unless it returns the same vote as before. Hah.
It clearly won't be exactly the same, since it won't be some generic leave, it may or may not have different leave options and may or maynot include remain. But while it may not solve the issue, it seems parliament cannot either at present, and it should be tried before another GE (which is no less likely to return something less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
Nah. Doesn't happen unless it's legislated for.
Precisely noone has explained how this happens with the Conservatives solidly in Government and with Leave being the bedrock of their members and voters.
ERG refuse to back a deal, as do Labour, but government and rest of Commons terrified of no deal, so a referendum is agreed by the non-ERG part of the commons to include optiosn deal, no deal and remain.
Implausible? Probably. But while I don't think the ERG are bluffing about not backing a deal the likes of which may be on the table (although that is suspect in itself), I do think many in government are bluffing about no deal, and could cave in on a referendum so long as its hypothetical deal and no deal were both on the table, selling it as the only way to get a type of Brexit through the Commons (notwithstanding that no deal wins in the absence of anything else). Labour's price would be for remain to be included, as they seem to be being bounced into keeping that option open for their own political reasons.
No Deal is not viable. Canada is not possible within the medium term - too much negotiation. We haven't been able to agree three things for a Withdrawal Agreement on majority voting after two years, where we supposedly already agreed on one of them already. Who thinks a comprehensive Super Canada requiring unanimity of 30 parliaments and likely a number of referendums is possible any time soon?
So that leaves three possible options: membership, vassal state or permanent transition.
Some would say none of them are viable
I know. We have no good choices. But we have choices and something has to give.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
If it happens my guess is they'll try and have a three-way:
Labour seem to be suggesting that ABBA are going to sue for using the song without permission
You mean they are all about the...money, money money?
Edit: In all seriousness I get why bands would so such a thing when politicians use their music, but I've never thought it matters politically - do people think less of Labour/Tories because they used a piece of music without asking?
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
I certainly feel and fear that they would have a good chance of winning. But I think that’s more my paranoia. What numbers we have point the other way; a mild cohort effect working against Leave, some switchers, and a highly motivated Remain. Most of all, no generic Leave. Generic Leave was very hard to campaign against. It no longer exists.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
Their last ad was one of the most patronising things I've ever seen. They've learnt nothing from the last campaign.
What are we then if, paralysed by fear, we meekly give up? How do we look our grandparents and parents in the eye given the sacrifices they made? The anger of many will destroy our society if we do. We will not go back to how we were - the genie of the extremes will be unleashed and there will be blood. Can you not sense the edge of violence stirring? I fear it. Deeply.
Ummm, that's the problem...
Our grandparents and parents who lived though the boom times have voted away the future of their kids and grandkids.
They are lucky the anger has not been expressed anywhere other than the ballot box so far
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
Nobody believes a word of it.
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron explicitly said he'd trigger A50 the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
Labour seem to be suggesting that ABBA are going to sue for using the song without permission
You mean they are all about the...money, money money?
Edit: In all seriousness I get why bands would so such a thing when politicians use their music, but I've never thought it matters politically - do people think less of Labour/Tories because they used a piece of music without asking?
BBC News doing a thorough "fact check" on May's claim that "the decade of austerity is over".
The 'decade of austerity' never even started.
That's not to say there haven't been cuts in some areas.
But there has also been profligacy in others.
Shall we make a list of those groups who have not experienced 'austerity' ?
To begin with:
Pensioners Most property owners especially in London etc House builders The Overseas Aid industry People connected to HS2 or HPC The executive oligarchy The super-rich
The 2nd referendum chat really hasn't helped her. It's got a lot of influential people in the EU (who only talk to people who already agree with them, remember) very belligerent on Brexit, including those like Guy Verhofstadht, who smell blood . ...
Sure, but that helps with getting the ERG-tendency on board.
Theresa May needs both Scylla and Charybdis to validate her policy of lashing herself to the mast and sailing through the middle.
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
Nobody believes a word of it.
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron said he's trigger A50 after the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
Problem is many do believe it
Brexiteers push too hard and as TM said brexit could be lost.
There is a possibility of a second referendum and it will gain more support if we become deadlocked.
Having said that I believe it would raise more questions than answers
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
If it happens my guess is they'll try and have a three-way:
Remain TM's Deal (or another) No Deal (WTO)
No Deal will win...
Remain would win a 3-way vote by a country mile, Brexiteers' votes would be split between the other 2 options.
1. Mrs May's Deal (whatever that is) 2. No Deal (because the deal leaves us too close to the EU) 3. No Deal (because I'd rather we stayed in, thank you)
The only two outcomes are Deal, or No Deal, but at least it lets people vent.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use of "people's vote". It is a grotesque phrase, worthy of some cheap dictatorship claiming it is a "people's republic". What is a people's vote anyway? How does it differ from a 2nd referendum? Was the first one was an animals' vote? Did only voles and weasels get a say?
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots of people, I now anecodtally reckon a 2nd vote is a real possibility. Indeed maybe a probability.
I've heard Leavers and Remainers alike say Fuck it, we have to vote again.
The mood is slowly swinging. The fact that parliament will vote down any deal (unless TMay produces a miracle - highly unlikely) likewise means we are shit-creeked, politically.
A 2nd referendum is the backpaddle that will save the day. Unless it returns the same vote as before. Hah.
It clearly won't be exactly the same, since it won't be some generic leave, it may or may not have different leave options and may or maynot include remain. But while it may not solve the issue, it seems parliament cannot either at present, and it should be tried before another GE (which is no less likely to return something less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
It is rather like the £350 million bus slogan, something that even opponents talk about.
I didn't support it until the summer protest march, but that changed my mind. Whether it happens or not, it is altering political discourse, and a refusal to have one will help build anti-Brexit resentment.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
If it happens my guess is they'll try and have a three-way:
Remain TM's Deal (or another) No Deal (WTO)
No Deal will win...
Remain would win a 3-way vote by a country mile, Brexiteers' votes would be split between the other 2 options.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
As opposed to if you voted Leave, when you'd go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown out your worries about the falling value of your Primrose Hill flat.
I voted Remain and would do so again. I have seen nothing from any Leavers to convince me I was wrong. The EU was not among my top 10 issues before the referendum. However, I deeply and sincerely hope I don't get the chance. There is a significant section of Leavers who simply refuse to accept there are ANY drawbacks or difficulties involved. Therefore it would be better if we crash out with No Deal of any kind. Either they will be proved right and all will be rainbows and unicorns, or they won't. Any other route and all problems will be blamed on us not Brexiting hard enough. It is the only way to satisfy them and purge our political system. A second referendum would raise all the problems @ExiledinScotland so eloquently, if somewhat melodramatically, outlines.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
If it happens my guess is they'll try and have a three-way:
Remain TM's Deal (or another) No Deal (WTO)
No Deal will win...
All the polls show Remain would comfortably beat No Deal by at least 10%.
TM's Deal will simply be a customs union until a technical solution is agreed on the Irish border to get a transition period and withdrawal agreement, the final deal will then be up for further negotiation in the transition period, negotiations which potentially could go on for years
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
Nobody believes a word of it.
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron explicitly said he'd trigger A50 the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
I agree with you that the dire warnings are not generally believed. But if they turn out to be accurate the sense of shock and crisis will be all the more serious.
And I think if we get to a no deal the EU, and France in particular, will make sure that reality is as close to the warnings as they can make it.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use of "people's vote". It is a grotesque phrase, worthy of some cheap dictatorship claiming it is a "people's republic". What is a people's vote anyway? How does it differ from a 2nd referendum? Was the first one was an animals' vote? Did only voles and weasels get a say?
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots of people, I now anecodtally reckon a 2nd vote is a real possibility. Indeed maybe a probability.
I've heard Leavers and Remainers alike say Fuck it, we have to vote again.
The mood is slowly swinging. The fact that parliament will vote down any deal (unless TMay produces a miracle - highly unlikely) likewise means we are shit-creeked, politically.
A 2nd referendum is the backpaddle that will save the day. Unless it returns the same vote as before. Hah.
It clearly won't be exactly the same, since it won't be some generic leave, it may or may not have different leave options and may or maynot include remain. But while it may not solve the issue, it seems parliament cannot either at present, and it should be tried before another GE (which is no less likely to return something less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
.
What a weak, weak defence of that silly, nonsensical and insulting branding.
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
Nobody believes a word of it.
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron explicitly said he'd trigger A50 the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
I agree with you that the dire warnings are not generally believed. But if they turn out to be accurate the sense of shock and crisis will be all the more serious.
And I think if we get to a no deal the EU, and France in particular, will make sure that reality is as close to the warnings as they can make it.
How are the French going to manage that without devastating their tourist, aerospace, car manufacturing, wine, and agricultural industries?
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
It might well be. I can easily believe it is supported by most leavers now. But most is not all, and it was close last time, and while getting to a second referendum is difficult to say the least, some are spooked by no deal and that has an effect.
Precisely noone has explained how this happens with the Conservatives solidly in Government and with Leave being the bedrock of their members and voters.
Ahem. I did ask on this very parish a few months ago about whether the PM, using orders-in-council and the normal discretionary spending allowed to Cabinet, could authorise a vote off her own bat without involving Parliament at all. Although to bring your heartbeat back down again, I think that's a thought experiment not an actual plan
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
If it happens my guess is they'll try and have a three-way:
Remain TM's Deal (or another) No Deal (WTO)
No Deal will win...
All the polls show Remain would comfortably beat No Deal by at least 10%.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use of "people's vote". It is a grotesque phrase, worthy of some cheap dictatorship claiming it is a "people's republic". What is a people's vote anyway? How does it differ from a 2nd referendum? Was the first one was an animals' vote? Did only voles and weasels get a say?
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots of people, I now anecodtally reckon a 2nd vote is a real possibility. Indeed maybe a probability.
I've heard Leavers and Remainers alike say Fuck it, we have to vote again.
The mood is slowly swinging. The fact that parliament will vote down any deal (unless TMay produces a miracle - highly unlikely) likewise means we are shit-creeked, politically.
A 2nd referendum is the backpaddle that will save the day. Unless it returns the same vote as before. Hah.
It clearly won't be exactly the same, since it won't be some generic leave, it may or may not have different leave options and may or maynot include remain. But while it may not solve the issue, it seems parliament cannot either at present, and it should be tried before another GE (which is no less likely to return something less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
.
What a weak, weak defence of that silly, nonsensical and insulting branding.
And yet you are talking about it.
That is how advertising works, and the #peoplesvote has been working. We all recognise it.
Had a very sobering - but interesting - conversation with one of my German friends this evening, who works for the German government, and who runs a network to help people repatriate back to the EU ahead of Brexit.
She says the feeling in the EU now is to do a deal ahead of March (and to offer TMay some wins to make it happen, albeit at the 11th hour after highly publicised brinkmanship), but with a transition period until Dec 31, 2020 (the day before the new EU budget is adopted).
The feeling is that EU wants the UK out as soon as possible, but they don't want a catastrophic collapse in supply chains, no medicines, etc. leading to anti-EU sentiment, with the risk that a humbled nation won't rejoin 10 or 20 years down the line (which is what I'm betting on).
At first glance this looks another classic EU 'kicking the can' job, but actually it gives companies who need to be manufacturing within the EU (to have the 'origin' label to comply with global trade laws) another 18 months to transfer as much manufacturing out of the UK as possible.
On the plus side, it's likely we'll wake up on March 30, and the world won't have ended. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Life will carry on, anti-EU sentiment is kept to a minimum. However, there will then be a Groundhog Day countdown to the end of 2020.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
If it happens my guess is they'll try and have a three-way:
Remain TM's Deal (or another) No Deal (WTO)
No Deal will win...
All the polls show Remain would comfortably beat No Deal by at least 10%.
LOL Not polls again!
Do you ever learn?
At least HYUFD's not reporting the results of focus groups any more
@SeanT I'd vote to remain probably (As I did the first time). Having said that, the EU simply haven't been able to help themselves in these negotiations. If we were outside the EU at the moment, there is no way on God's green earth they'd be taking such a belligerent attitude with ourselves - see Canada, South Korea etc. Obviously this is pour encourager les autres, former remain backer Hunt noted it in his speech. I think the way the Northern Ireland border has been used by the EU in the negotiations too has shown them to not entirely to be acting in good faith, if we were to in the end remain then that would be a huge victory for Varadkar. Having said that lot, I honestly think fundamentally we're better off in the EU than outside it given the complex interweaving our businesses have built up whilst being a member. One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that. So I'd vote with my head most likely for remain, but wouldn't be particularly happy about it.
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
Nobody believes a word of it.
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron explicitly said he'd trigger A50 the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
I agree with you that the dire warnings are not generally believed. But if they turn out to be accurate the sense of shock and crisis will be all the more serious.
And I think if we get to a no deal the EU, and France in particular, will make sure that reality is as close to the warnings as they can make it.
How are the French going to manage that without devastating their tourist, aerospace, car manufacturing, wine, and agricultural industries?
They will accept some loss to themselves because they know the loss to the UK will be much greater. And they calculate that a no deal scenario will bring the Uk to its knees and leave France and Germany as the undisputed leading nations of Europe.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use of "people's vote". It is a grotesque phrase, worthy of some cheap dictatorship claiming it is a "people's republic". What is a people's vote anyway? How does it differ from a 2nd referendum? Was the first one was an animals' vote? Did only voles and weasels get a say?
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots of people, I now anecodtally reckon a 2nd vote is a real possibility. Indeed maybe a probability.
I've heard Leavers and Remainers alike say Fuck it, we have to vote again.
The mood is slowly swinging. The fact that parliament will vote down any deal (unless TMay produces a miracle - highly unlikely) likewise means we are shit-creeked, politically.
A 2nd referendum is the backpaddle that will save the day. Unless it returns the same vote as before. Hah.
It clething less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
.
What a weak, weak defence of that silly, nonsensical and insulting branding.
And yet you are talking about it.
That is how advertising works, and the #peoplesvote has been working. We all recognise it.
I am glad you confirm you do not care that the branding is insulting and nonsensical, and only care about expanding the circulation of the message. Ruthless and unprincipled of you, but it is at least honest. It also, however, speaks to an attitude that if replicated by remain once more will see it lose.
Moreover, if the branding had been #second referendum we'd all have recognised it too, so that's another stupid defence of it. What it is is seen as more palatable to sell, which once again if you don't care about how silly acting as though other votes are not people's votes is, is ok as long as the reasoning is made clear. Tony Blair is more honest on this matter.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
Possibly. It took a lot to go leave in the first place, and it is not appetizing to row back from that, but while EU intransigence has been worse than I feared and that bodes ill for remaining, fact is we have also done a piss poor job of preparation and it does not fill me with confidence either that the costs of Brexit will be mitigated or that the opportunities will be seized.
But if the hinge it on more people's vote bollocks it might push me to another leave vote out of spite. It's so pathetic and transparent in its intentions, insulting regarding all other votes we have ever taken, that I cannot respect it.
The people's vote crowd are so pompous and arrogant they could lose by a bigger margin than last time.
If it happens my guess is they'll try and have a three-way:
Remain TM's Deal (or another) No Deal (WTO)
No Deal will win...
All the polls show Remain would comfortably beat No Deal by at least 10%.
LOL Not polls again!
Do you ever learn?
Not even the most favourable final EU referendum polls gave Remain the 10% lead most polls give Remain v No Deal, there has yet to be one poll putting Leave with No Deal ahead of Remain, there were numerous polls which had Leave ahead in the referendum campaign even if most of the final polls had Remain narrowly ahead.
As I have said before No Deal is not a sustainable Brexit and one which the voters will accept with all the damage to the economy and the Union, the only long term sustainable Brexit is a Norway or Canada style one
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I put down my thoughts on the weekend after the 2016 referendum and I haven't changed my mind since.
* A second Remain/Leave referendum requires a second deal, otherwise there's no point * A second deal requires the UK government to seek one, and the EU to offer one. * The UK government has not sought a second deal to Remain and the EU has not offered one. * So no second deal to Remain * So no point in a second Remain/Leave referendum.
Should one be held I'd vote the same as last time, but with no expectations of winning.
However there is merit in a Deal or No Deal ref, since it would cut thru the Parliamentary logjam. Should that be held, I'd vote "Deal".
Second vote Remain wins Who governs? Who is leader of the opposition?
Corbyn governs in a minority government controlled by the LDs and SNP, Boris takes over as Leader of the Opposition on a platform of a third referendum
Item: No deal means that no regulatory framework for UK-manufactured aerospace parts. That's bad. But no doubt the bosses of Airbus SE might rapidly draw to the attention of European politicians that the corollary of that is that Airbus can no longer produce any planes other than A320s - at least, not planes with wings - since the wings are made in the UK.
And in case you are wondering - it would take several years to move production.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If it all comes crashing down it won't matter a jot that she struck too jolly a pose at conference.
To be honest, the more I see her dancing in all the front pages and journos twitter feeds, the more angry I become.
Totally, utterly inappropriate at this grave time for our country.
Maybe I am alone? Even Bastani seems to be impressed.
I don't see what the big deal is - is she never to be able to crack a smile, attempt an optimistic tone or even at her own party conference play to the crowd at all?
Judging May by her actions at leas tin the last 3-4 months she has genuinely tried to settle on a position which threads a line between her own party and the EU, and she has taken a lot of political heat for it but pressed on anyway. She has been unsuccessful, and seems lacking in a plan to resolve a position between the two - it may well be impossible - but she clearly has tried very hard and has compromised.
Everyone is welcome to their own reactions of course, but personally I think getting mad at her for a moment of self deprecating humour while making an inherently political speech is a waste of energy. Her actions in working hard for a deal, however much she is still missing the mark and should probably change direction or make someone else try it, speak more to her attitude at this critical time for the country than 5 seconds walking out to a speech.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If it all comes crashing down it won't matter a jot that she struck too jolly a pose at conference.
Disagree. If it turns bad, May’s ode to joy at conference will become dynamite in the hands of her enemies. It’s her attacks on Boris and Corbyn that will be forgotten, as they detonate that dynamite under her and her cabinet.
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
Nobody believes a word of it.
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron explicitly said he'd trigger A50 the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
Yes, but that's because people confuse "Orderly transition to WTO", and "Disorderly unprepared transition to WTO".
If we leave without an implementation period, we will not have meaningfully replicated any of the existing EU trading arrangements. And yes, that includes the US. We will not have dealt with the issues of withholding or double taxation.
Had a very sobering - but interesting - conversation with one of my German friends this evening, who works for the German government, and who runs a network to help people repatriate back to the EU ahead of Brexit.
She says the feeling in the EU now is to do a deal ahead of March (and to offer TMay some wins to make it happen, albeit at the 11th hour after highly publicised brinkmanship), but with a transition period until Dec 31, 2020 (the day before the new EU budget is adopted).
The feeling is that EU wants the UK out as soon as possible, but they don't want a catastrophic collapse in supply chains, no medicines, etc. leading to anti-EU sentiment, with the risk that a humbled nation won't rejoin 10 or 20 years down the line (which is what I'm betting on).
At first glance this looks another classic EU 'kicking the can' job, but actually it gives companies who need to be manufacturing within the EU (to have the 'origin' label to comply with global trade laws) another 18 months to transfer as much manufacturing out of the UK as possible.
On the plus side, it's likely we'll wake up on March 30, and the world won't have ended. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Life will carry on, anti-EU sentiment is kept to a minimum. However, there will then be a Groundhog Day countdown to the end of 2020.
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If Brexit is brutal, what does it matter?
The blame game matters, ask Eden or Chamberlain.
Indeed, but blame is not going to be allocated on the basis of a dance. The most likely winner would actually be Theresa May, ironically, since she's the one trying to steer a path through the mess.
Second vote Remain wins Who governs? Who is leader of the opposition?
Corbyn governs in a minority government controlled by the LDs and SNP, Boris takes over as Leader of the Opposition on a platform of a third referendum
So, then. The Prime Minister gave us a speech with a strategy. And also one with risk: by saying “we get it” over economic policy, she may have opened a Pandora’s Box on spending bids. With a weak Chancellor in place at the Treasury, what price an orderly spending review in the spring, assuming that this Government gets there? For what it’s worth, May was short on announcements, of which lifting the cap on local authority housing borrowing stood out, together with the capitulation to Robert Halfon on fuel duty. At any rate, we enjoyed her defence of markets. We liked the Tory stress on opportunity. We will even tolerate the dancing. Take a bow, Carr and company. But we’re haunted by the suspicion that it has all come too late in the day; and by the sense that a new leader is still required for the next election.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If it all comes crashing down it won't matter a jot that she struck too jolly a pose at conference.
Disagree. If it turns bad, May’s ode to joy at conference will become dynamite in the hands of her enemies. It’s her attacks on Boris and Corbyn that will be forgotten, as they detonate that dynamite under her and her cabinet.
My point was if it crashes down she is toast anyway, her enemies won't need to use that she danced out onto the stage at conference.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If Brexit is brutal, what does it matter?
The blame game matters, ask Eden or Chamberlain.
Indeed, but blame is not going to be allocated on the basis of a dance. The most likely winner would actually be Theresa May, ironically, since she's the one trying to steer a path through the mess.
People are not going to thank the person at least trying to steer them to safety if they still end up crashing onto the rocks.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If Brexit is brutal, what does it matter?
The blame game matters, ask Eden or Chamberlain.
Indeed, but blame is not going to be allocated on the basis of a dance. The most likely winner would actually be Theresa May, ironically, since she's the one trying to steer a path through the mess.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If Brexit is brutal, what does it matter?
The blame game matters, ask Eden or Chamberlain.
Indeed, but blame is not going to be allocated on the basis of a dance. The most likely winner would actually be Theresa May, ironically, since she's the one trying to steer a path through the mess.
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
Nobody believes a word of it.
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron explicitly said he'd trigger A50 the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
I agree with you that the dire warnings are not generally believed. But if they turn out to be accurate the sense of shock and crisis will be all the more serious.
And I think if we get to a no deal the EU, and France in particular, will make sure that reality is as close to the warnings as they can make it.
How are the French going to manage that without devastating their tourist, aerospace, car manufacturing, wine, and agricultural industries?
It’s good fun to speculate, but I think - as I have long said - that May will get a deal and history will remember her kindly for it. As you say upthread, her toying with the idea of No Brexit is clever as it should scare the Ergers. I think she’ll carry something like Chequers -CU through on the back of some Labour votes.
One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that.
There does seem to be a casual assumption among some Leavers that by having its own trade deals the UK will automatically be better off.
With the way British governments have functioned in recent years and the preference of posturing over proper preparation I really don't want trade treaties meddled with unless absolutely necessary.
Had a very sobering - but interesting - conversation with one of my German friends this evening, who works for the German government, and who runs a network to help people repatriate back to the EU ahead of Brexit.
She says the feeling in the EU now is to do a deal ahead of March (and to offer TMay some wins to make it happen, albeit at the 11th hour after highly publicised brinkmanship), but with a transition period until Dec 31, 2020 (the day before the new EU budget is adopted).
The feeling is that EU wants the UK out as soon as possible, but they don't want a catastrophic collapse in supply chains, no medicines, etc. leading to anti-EU sentiment, with the risk that a humbled nation won't rejoin 10 or 20 years down the line (which is what I'm betting on).
At first glance this looks another classic EU 'kicking the can' job, but actually it gives companies who need to be manufacturing within the EU (to have the 'origin' label to comply with global trade laws) another 18 months to transfer as much manufacturing out of the UK as possible.
On the plus side, it's likely we'll wake up on March 30, and the world won't have ended. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Life will carry on, anti-EU sentiment is kept to a minimum. However, there will then be a Groundhog Day countdown to the end of 2020.
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If it all comes crashing down it won't matter a jot that she struck too jolly a pose at conference.
Disagree. If it turns bad, May’s ode to joy at conference will become dynamite in the hands of her enemies. It’s her attacks on Boris and Corbyn that will be forgotten, as they detonate that dynamite under her and her cabinet.
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If it all comes crashing down it won't matter a jot that she struck too jolly a pose at conference.
To be honest, the more I see her dancing in all the front pages and journos twitter feeds, the more angry I become.
Totally, utterly inappropriate at this grave time for our country.
Maybe I am alone? Even Bastani seems to be impressed.
I don't see what the big deal is - is she never to be able to crack a smile, attempt an optimistic tone or even at her own party conference play to the crowd at all?
Judging May by her actions at leas tin the last 3-4 months she has genuinely tried to settle on a position which threads a line between her own party and the EU, and she has taken a lot of political heat for it but pressed on anyway. She has been unsuccessful, and seems lacking in a plan to resolve a position between the two - it may well be impossible - but she clearly has tried very hard and has compromised.
Everyone is welcome to their own reactions of course, but personally I think getting mad at her for a moment of self deprecating humour while making an inherently political speech is a waste of energy. Her actions in working hard for a deal, however much she is still missing the mark and should probably change direction or make someone else try it, speak more to her attitude at this critical time for the country than 5 seconds walking out to a speech.
Had a very sobering - but interesting - conversation with one of my German friends this evening, who works for the German government, and who runs a network to help people repatriate back to the EU ahead of Brexit.
She says the feeling in the EU now is to do a deal ahead of March (and to offer TMay some wins to make it happen, albeit at the 11th hour after highly publicised brinkmanship), but with a transition period until Dec 31, 2020 (the day before the new EU budget is adopted).
The feeling is that EU wants the UK out as soon as possible, but they don't want a catastrophic collapse in supply chains, no medicines, etc. leading to anti-EU sentiment, with the risk that a humbled nation won't rejoin 10 or 20 years down the line (which is what I'm betting on).
At first glance this looks another classic EU 'kicking the can' job, but actually it gives companies who need to be manufacturing within the EU (to have the 'origin' label to comply with global trade laws) another 18 months to transfer as much manufacturing out of the UK as possible.
On the plus side, it's likely we'll wake up on March 30, and the world won't have ended. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Life will carry on, anti-EU sentiment is kept to a minimum. However, there will then be a Groundhog Day countdown to the end of 2020.
I think this is right. The EU and member states want us out with the least damage to them. But they want us out and therefore want a deal. They haven't given real thought to what they want long term from the relationship.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use of "people's vote". It is a grotesque phrase, worthy of some cheap dictatorship claiming it is a "people's republic". What is a people's vote anyway? How does it differ from a 2nd referendum? Was the first one was an animals' vote? Did only voles and weasels get a say?
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots
It clething less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
.
What a weak, weak defence of that silly, nonsensical and insulting branding.
And yet you are talking about it.
That is how advertising works, and the #peoplesvote has been working. We all recognise it.
I am glad you confirm you do not care that the branding is insulting and nonsensical, and only care about expanding the circulation of the message. Ruthless and unprincipled of you, but it is at least honest. It also, however, speaks to an attitude that if replicated by remain once more will see it lose.
Moreover, if the branding had been #second referendum we'd all have recognised it too, so that's another stupid defence of it. What it is is seen as more palatable to sell, which once again if you don't care about how silly acting as though other votes are not people's votes is, is ok as long as the reasoning is made clear. Tony Blair is more honest on this matter.
No one is saying that other votes were not peoples votes, just that we want another #peoplesvote.
That is what happens when you get government by referendum, in order to change the decision there needs to be another referendum. Rererendums begat each other and marginalise parliamentary democracy, but that ship sailed some time back.
Second vote Remain wins Who governs? Who is leader of the opposition?
Corbyn governs in a minority government controlled by the LDs and SNP, Boris takes over as Leader of the Opposition on a platform of a third referendum
And the madness never ends...
I think this is where a 'No Deal' Brexit starts to look attractive. Horrible in the short term, but the only way to cut through the Gordian knot of the referendum aftermath. Personally, I would then hope for a humbled nation rejoining in a 10-20 year timeframe and (to answer the question posed by Chris Patten's in 2004) Britain will finally "join" the EU, with no more looking over our shoulder at the exit door...
But equally we might be a proud and sovereign nation by then, in sunny economic uplands, tucking into our delicious chlorine-washed chicken, and happily tugging our forelocks at Lord Rees-Mogg.
But at least *we'd know* - and it's that certainty that everyone is becoming increasingly desperate for.
One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that.
There does seem to be a casual assumption among some Leavers that by having its own trade deals the UK will automatically be better off.
With the way British governments have functioned in recent years and the preference of posturing over proper preparation I really don't want trade treaties meddled with unless absolutely necessary.
There is zero chance that we'll be better off as a result of negotiating our own trade deals. In fact when (during the referendum campaign) Leavers first started going on about trade deals I assumed that it was a rather feeble attempt to cover up the fact that we're giving up the biggest set of trade deals on the planet in return for a chimera, which seemed fair enough if they were trying to mitigate one of the best arguments of the opposite side. I was gobsmacked to find that some of them actually seem to believe in the chimera.
So, then. The Prime Minister gave us a speech with a strategy. And also one with risk: by saying “we get it” over economic policy, she may have opened a Pandora’s Box on spending bids. With a weak Chancellor in place at the Treasury, what price an orderly spending review in the spring, assuming that this Government gets there? For what it’s worth, May was short on announcements, of which lifting the cap on local authority housing borrowing stood out, together with the capitulation to Robert Halfon on fuel duty. At any rate, we enjoyed her defence of markets. We liked the Tory stress on opportunity. We will even tolerate the dancing. Take a bow, Carr and company. But we’re haunted by the suspicion that it has all come too late in the day; and by the sense that a new leader is still required for the next election.
So, then. The Prime Minister gave us a speech with a strategy. And also one with risk: by saying “we get it” over economic policy, she may have opened a Pandora’s Box on spending bids. With a weak Chancellor in place at the Treasury, what price an orderly spending review in the spring, assuming that this Government gets there? For what it’s worth, May was short on announcements, of which lifting the cap on local authority housing borrowing stood out, together with the capitulation to Robert Halfon on fuel duty. At any rate, we enjoyed her defence of markets. We liked the Tory stress on opportunity. We will even tolerate the dancing. Take a bow, Carr and company. But we’re haunted by the suspicion that it has all come too late in the day; and by the sense that a new leader is still required for the next election.
Nice piece from Mr Meeks, except for his egregious use of "people's vote". It is a grotesque phrase, worthy of some cheap dictatorship claiming it is a "people's repu
Pff.
Nonetheless, I have to say that, following recent convos with lots
It clething less chaotic).
I reckon the chance of a 2nd ref must be about 50% now. We're at an impasse. I begin to see no other way out.
I wouldn't go that high. My guess would be maybe 10%, but we are heading for the crunch.
The Leavers best chance of avoiding it is Blind Brexit. After that a #peoplesvote cannot include Remain as an option.
Please call it a second referendum - it gives it more creditability
#peoplesvote is the hashtag, and the campaign has clearly been building in presence and probability over the year.
.
What a weak, weak defence of that silly, nonsensical and insulting branding.
And yet you are talking about it.
That is how advertising works, and the #peoplesvote has been working. We all recognise it.
I am glad you confirm you do not care that the branding is insulting and nonsensical, and only care about expanding the circulation of the message. Ruthless and unprincipled of you, but it is at least honest. It also, however, speaks to an attitude that if replicated by remain once more will see it lose.
Moreover, if the branding had been #second referendum we'd all have recognised it too, so that's another stupid defence of it. What it is is seen as more palatable to sell, which once again if you don't care about how silly acting as though other votes are not people's votes is, is ok as long as the reasoning is made clear. Tony Blair is more honest on this matter.
No one is saying that other votes were not peoples votes, just that we want another #peoplesvote.
If that was true then there would be not reason not to have just called it a referendum in the first place - indeed, it would remove a source of confusion and mockery over its intentions. So it is not likely to be true - it would indeed be less ambiguous what was wanted if it was about a referendum. It is a clear marketing ploy, as you yourself have said it is about advertising, and the reason for it is very clear as well. Having been so praiseworthy over its advertising appeal I don't know why you would deny the reason for the branding change.
What are we then if, paralysed by fear, we meekly give up? How do we look our grandparents and parents in the eye given the sacrifices they made? The anger of many will destroy our society if we do. We will not go back to how we were - the genie of the extremes will be unleashed and there will be blood. Can you not sense the edge of violence stirring? I fear it. Deeply.
Ummm, that's the problem...
Our grandparents and parents who lived though the boom times have voted away the future of their kids and grandkids.
They are lucky the anger has not been expressed anywhere other than the ballot box so far
Membership of the EU does not define the future of our country. We do.
The EU is unarguably a flawed political project. Many UK governments tried to reform it from within but failed. Cameron's negotiation showed that the core EU just don't care. They don't see a problem.
The EU has a level of decision making that you and I cannot change through elections. The clear lesson from history is that such a position never ends well for the people. Just look at Greece and the evil levels of unemployment and misery. The rules of the club are more important than people's lives. Eventually the EU will not be held together by love but by force. I truly fear it is Yugoslavia writ large, and the kindling is dry.
I don't know what the spark will be to light that fire, but it could be he demographic drag discussed in Robert Smithson's last video, plus the trend for increased illegal immigration to Europe from Africa as that continent gets richer. The richer countries of the north will not want to pay to support the poorer Mediterranean ones cope with these pressures, and that will trigger the break.
So it could be that we look back on Brexit and are grateful.
Had a very sobering - but interesting - conversation with one of my German friends this evening, who works for the German government, and who runs a network to help people repatriate back to the EU ahead of Brexit.
She says the feeling in the EU now is to do a deal ahead of March (and to offer TMay some wins to make it happen, albeit at the 11th hour after highly publicised brinkmanship), but with a transition period until Dec 31, 2020 (the day before the new EU budget is adopted).
The feeling is that EU wants the UK out as soon as possible, but they don't want a catastrophic collapse in supply chains, no medicines, etc. leading to anti-EU sentiment, with the risk that a humbled nation won't rejoin 10 or 20 years down the line (which is what I'm betting on).
At first glance this looks another classic EU 'kicking the can' job, but actually it gives companies who need to be manufacturing within the EU (to have the 'origin' label to comply with global trade laws) another 18 months to transfer as much manufacturing out of the UK as possible.
On the plus side, it's likely we'll wake up on March 30, and the world won't have ended. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Life will carry on, anti-EU sentiment is kept to a minimum. However, there will then be a Groundhog Day countdown to the end of 2020.
Do not forget that firms on the continent also need to move to the UK to manufacture for the same reasons as you quote. The real question is which will be the larger flow?
Well, I dispute Bookseller's premise, in that I think it is not in anyone's interests for supply chains to be broken up.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
You don't break the supply chains. You move the purchasing and investment. OEMs have a lot of power over their suppliers.
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Second vote Remain wins Who governs? Who is leader of the opposition?
Corbyn governs in a minority government controlled by the LDs and SNP, Boris takes over as Leader of the Opposition on a platform of a third referendum
Second vote Remain wins Who governs? Who is leader of the opposition?
Corbyn governs in a minority government controlled by the LDs and SNP, Boris takes over as Leader of the Opposition on a platform of a third referendum
And the madness never ends...
I think this is where a 'No Deal' Brexit starts to look attractive. Horrible in the short term, but the only way to cut through the Gordian knot of the referendum aftermath. Personally, I would then hope for a humbled nation rejoining in a 10-20 year timeframe and (to answer the question posed by Chris Patten's in 2004) Britain will finally "join" the EU, with no more looking over our shoulder at the exit door...
But equally we might be a proud and sovereign nation by then, in sunny economic uplands, tucking into our delicious chlorine-washed chicken, and happily tugging our forelocks at Lord Rees-Mogg.
But at least *we'd know* - and it's that certainty that everyone is becoming increasingly desperate for.
Except No Deal will not be accepted by the voters as the polling shows, would likely break up the UK and trash the economy.
As I said the only sustainable Brexit is a Norway or Canada style one
If Brexit is brutal, this dancing is going to look dangerously complacent. Fiddling whilst Rome burns, Peace in our time complacent.
If it all comes crashing down it won't matter a jot that she struck too jolly a pose at conference.
To be honest, the more I see her dancing in all the front pages and journos twitter feeds, the more angry I become.
Totally, utterly inappropriate at this grave time for our country.
Maybe I am alone? Even Bastani seems to be impressed.
It seems to have gone down well
We can be too serious and it was self deprecating
It also fired up the delegates and has provided lots of headlines while Boris cries in despair that he has been overshadowed
Dancing while Britain burns.
This will not age well at all.
People are being very silly about it I have to say. She was at her own conference and danced for a few seconds while walking out to make a speech intended to bolster the will of the party faithful, that hardly speaks as to how she is conducting anything regarding the negotiations or government generally.
Leavers who are convinced they would win with an increased majority also seem strangely adamant that to have such a vote would be the end of democracy...
How would PB-ers vote in a 2nd referendum? Would anyone change?
I confess I would be drawn to Remain. Reluctantly, and with a sad sense of leaving behind a vision of my country as a proud sovereign nation, with an unexampled history of invention, conquest, enterprise and bravery, but nonetheless a nation that in all true senses no longer exists. In retrospect, if we were going to Leave it needed to happen before we signed the EU Constitution and accepted Article 50. That was the key that turned the lock, and made leaving so painful it could never be successfully done - or done without horrific damage.
Of course we were promised a vote on that Constitution and Article 50, and we would have voted it down, and the crisis of Brexit would thus have been avoided with our pride intact (and the EU a better, more democratic place) but the political classes conspired to deny us this, and we are where are. Betrayed and jailed.
I would therefore vote quite selfishly and for London properly prices and for my own monetary gain: I would probably switch to Remain, and then go on a ten day Tanqueray bender to drown my utter shame and self loathing.
I would vote Remain, again, but with far more certainty than last time. Last time I didn't really care that much and was pretty sanguine when the Leave vote came through, which I'm definitely not now.
That said, I think Leave would win a second referendum by a bigger margin than the first.
Yes, paradoxically, and despite my personal betrayal of my country (in a putative 2nd vote) I reckon Leave would have a VERY good chance of winning again, and maybe even winning big.
You. Yes you, and all those like you thinking the same are the biggest threat to Brexit. 2nd Ref only happens if enough leavers get cocky they can win. The error you are making is to misunderstand the role of campaign and knowledge in direct democracy. The next campaign will be vastly different. Without a magic money tree painted on the side of a bus leaves economic argument is thrashed in the first week of the next campaign, swiftly followed by idea trade deals are easy and curbing immigration easy after Brexit. Even the notion what sovereignty is will be viewed differently by voters as they go into the ballot box next time.
Except....today, Theresa May pointed out that the NHS would be getting a weekly increase of MORE than the amount on the side of the bus. Who is going to tell the NHS they can't have their Brexit bonus?
One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that.
There does seem to be a casual assumption among some Leavers that by having its own trade deals the UK will automatically be better off.
With the way British governments have functioned in recent years and the preference of posturing over proper preparation I really don't want trade treaties meddled with unless absolutely necessary.
There is zero chance that we'll be better off as a result of negotiating our own trade deals. In fact when (during the referendum campaign) Leavers first started going on about trade deals I assumed that it was a rather feeble attempt to cover up the fact that we're giving up the biggest trade deal on the planet in return for a chimera, which seemed fair enough if they were trying to mitigate one of the best arguments of the opposite side. I was gobsmacked to find that some of them actually seem to believe in the chimera.
I think we could get better trade deals on the basis that I doubt the EU ever put UK trade interests anywhere near the top of its priority list.
But they would have to be negotiated patiently and very carefully by people with knowledge and experience and willingness to do detailed work.
And I really doubt such people exist in Westminster or Whitehall.
We'd be better off with a negotiating team of your good self, Richard Tyndall and RCS.
Comments
https://twitter.com/peoplesvote_uk/status/1042712447541501952
Not one who expressed an opinion had changed their minds.
Most of us were 50's upwards and all city professionals.
Leavers outnumbered remainers 2 to 1 in that little group.
Brexit is a flaming paper bag.
Stomping on it harder will not bring you happiness...
No. I don't think so. I missed the whole speech and all of this afternoon/evening's coverage and social media frenzy.
Coming to it all cold and just watching BBC news at 10, the whole dance thing looked utterly inappropriate.
The country is just weeks away from the biggest peacetime constitutional crisis and economic panic point in decades, maybe over a hundred years, and May thinks twatting around on stage to Abba is the right thing to start her speech.
Wrong.
The Republican controlled Senate Judiciary twitter account said that the previous background investigation s on Kavanaugh had turned up absolutely nothing of concern with regards to sexual abuse or alcohol problems.
Democratic Senators have responded saying that is a lie.
https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1047592548351574016?s=19
Implausible? Probably. But while I don't think the ERG are bluffing about not backing a deal the likes of which may be on the table (although that is suspect in itself), I do think many in government are bluffing about no deal, and could cave in on a referendum so long as its hypothetical deal and no deal were both on the table, selling it as the only way to get a type of Brexit through the Commons (notwithstanding that no deal wins in the absence of anything else). Labour's price would be for remain to be included, as they seem to be being bounced into keeping that option open for their own political reasons.
If it happens my guess is they'll try and have a three-way:
Remain
TM's Deal (or another)
No Deal (WTO)
No Deal will win...
That's not to say there haven't been cuts in some areas.
But there has also been profligacy in others.
Edit: In all seriousness I get why bands would so such a thing when politicians use their music, but I've never thought it matters politically - do people think less of Labour/Tories because they used a piece of music without asking?
No planes.
No medicine.
No food.
No chance.
(Remember, the Government "no deal" contingency planning explicitly assumes deals on all the above...)
How did that work out last time?
Our grandparents and parents who lived though the boom times have voted away the future of their kids and grandkids.
They are lucky the anger has not been expressed anywhere other than the ballot box so far
And remember, in the original campaign Cameron explicitly said he'd trigger A50 the very next morning after the leave vote - He said that thinking he'd put the fear of god into the population but actually most Leavers thought it sounded like a bloody good idea.
No Deal was always the assumed position for most of the Leave voters I know.
To begin with:
Pensioners
Most property owners especially in London etc
House builders
The Overseas Aid industry
People connected to HS2 or HPC
The executive oligarchy
The super-rich
Theresa May needs both Scylla and Charybdis to validate her policy of lashing herself to the mast and sailing through the middle.
Brexiteers push too hard and as TM said brexit could be lost.
There is a possibility of a second referendum and it will gain more support if we become deadlocked.
Having said that I believe it would raise more questions than answers
There will be three options:
1. Mrs May's Deal (whatever that is)
2. No Deal (because the deal leaves us too close to the EU)
3. No Deal (because I'd rather we stayed in, thank you)
The only two outcomes are Deal, or No Deal, but at least it lets people vent.
It is rather like the £350 million bus slogan, something that even opponents talk about.
I didn't support it until the summer protest march, but that changed my mind. Whether it happens or not, it is altering political discourse, and a refusal to have one will help build anti-Brexit resentment.
However, I deeply and sincerely hope I don't get the chance.
There is a significant section of Leavers who simply refuse to accept there are ANY drawbacks or difficulties involved.
Therefore it would be better if we crash out with No Deal of any kind. Either they will be proved right and all will be rainbows and unicorns, or they won't.
Any other route and all problems will be blamed on us not Brexiting hard enough.
It is the only way to satisfy them and purge our political system.
A second referendum would raise all the problems @ExiledinScotland so eloquently, if somewhat melodramatically, outlines.
TM's Deal will simply be a customs union until a technical solution is agreed on the Irish border to get a transition period and withdrawal agreement, the final deal will then be up for further negotiation in the transition period, negotiations which potentially could go on for years
And I think if we get to a no deal the EU, and France in particular, will make sure that reality is as close to the warnings as they can make it.
Remain wins
Who governs?
Who is leader of the opposition?
Do you ever learn?
That is how advertising works, and the #peoplesvote has been working. We all recognise it.
She says the feeling in the EU now is to do a deal ahead of March (and to offer TMay some wins to make it happen, albeit at the 11th hour after highly publicised brinkmanship), but with a transition period until Dec 31, 2020 (the day before the new EU budget is adopted).
The feeling is that EU wants the UK out as soon as possible, but they don't want a catastrophic collapse in supply chains, no medicines, etc. leading to anti-EU sentiment, with the risk that a humbled nation won't rejoin 10 or 20 years down the line (which is what I'm betting on).
At first glance this looks another classic EU 'kicking the can' job, but actually it gives companies who need to be manufacturing within the EU (to have the 'origin' label to comply with global trade laws) another 18 months to transfer as much manufacturing out of the UK as possible.
On the plus side, it's likely we'll wake up on March 30, and the world won't have ended. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief. Life will carry on, anti-EU sentiment is kept to a minimum. However, there will then be a Groundhog Day countdown to the end of 2020.
Having said that, the EU simply haven't been able to help themselves in these negotiations. If we were outside the EU at the moment, there is no way on God's green earth they'd be taking such a belligerent attitude with ourselves - see Canada, South Korea etc. Obviously this is pour encourager les autres, former remain backer Hunt noted it in his speech.
I think the way the Northern Ireland border has been used by the EU in the negotiations too has shown them to not entirely to be acting in good faith, if we were to in the end remain then that would be a huge victory for Varadkar.
Having said that lot, I honestly think fundamentally we're better off in the EU than outside it given the complex interweaving our businesses have built up whilst being a member. One of the Brexiteers weakest points is the whole "We'll be able to trade with the whole world", the EU never stopped us doing that.
So I'd vote with my head most likely for remain, but wouldn't be particularly happy about it.
Moreover, if the branding had been #second referendum we'd all have recognised it too, so that's another stupid defence of it. What it is is seen as more palatable to sell, which once again if you don't care about how silly acting as though other votes are not people's votes is, is ok as long as the reasoning is made clear. Tony Blair is more honest on this matter.
As I have said before No Deal is not a sustainable Brexit and one which the voters will accept with all the damage to the economy and the Union, the only long term sustainable Brexit is a Norway or Canada style one
Totally, utterly inappropriate at this grave time for our country.
Maybe I am alone? Even Bastani seems to be impressed.
* A second Remain/Leave referendum requires a second deal, otherwise there's no point
* A second deal requires the UK government to seek one, and the EU to offer one.
* The UK government has not sought a second deal to Remain and the EU has not offered one.
* So no second deal to Remain
* So no point in a second Remain/Leave referendum.
Should one be held I'd vote the same as last time, but with no expectations of winning.
However there is merit in a Deal or No Deal ref, since it would cut thru the Parliamentary logjam. Should that be held, I'd vote "Deal".
And in case you are wondering - it would take several years to move production.
Judging May by her actions at leas tin the last 3-4 months she has genuinely tried to settle on a position which threads a line between her own party and the EU, and she has taken a lot of political heat for it but pressed on anyway. She has been unsuccessful, and seems lacking in a plan to resolve a position between the two - it may well be impossible - but she clearly has tried very hard and has compromised.
Everyone is welcome to their own reactions of course, but personally I think getting mad at her for a moment of self deprecating humour while making an inherently political speech is a waste of energy. Her actions in working hard for a deal, however much she is still missing the mark and should probably change direction or make someone else try it, speak more to her attitude at this critical time for the country than 5 seconds walking out to a speech.
If we leave without an implementation period, we will not have meaningfully replicated any of the existing EU trading arrangements. And yes, that includes the US. We will not have dealt with the issues of withholding or double taxation.
These are not minor issues.
So, then. The Prime Minister gave us a speech with a strategy. And also one with risk: by saying “we get it” over economic policy, she may have opened a Pandora’s Box on spending bids. With a weak Chancellor in place at the Treasury, what price an orderly spending review in the spring, assuming that this Government gets there? For what it’s worth, May was short on announcements, of which lifting the cap on local authority housing borrowing stood out, together with the capitulation to Robert Halfon on fuel duty. At any rate, we enjoyed her defence of markets. We liked the Tory stress on opportunity. We will even tolerate the dancing. Take a bow, Carr and company. But we’re haunted by the suspicion that it has all come too late in the day; and by the sense that a new leader is still required for the next election.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/10/citizens-from-everywhere.html#idc-cover
We can be too serious and it was self deprecating
It also fired up the delegates and has provided lots of headlines while Boris cries in despair that he has been overshadowed
With the way British governments have functioned in recent years and the preference of posturing over proper preparation I really don't want trade treaties meddled with unless absolutely necessary.
However, if there was widespread repatriation of company supply chains it would work against us. Simply, in many sectors - such as automotive - we lack critical mass.
That is what happens when you get government by referendum, in order to change the decision there needs to be another referendum. Rererendums begat each other and marginalise parliamentary democracy, but that ship sailed some time back.
Have a great night's rest everyone
Good night folks
I think this is where a 'No Deal' Brexit starts to look attractive. Horrible in the short term, but the only way to cut through the Gordian knot of the referendum aftermath. Personally, I would then hope for a humbled nation rejoining in a 10-20 year timeframe and (to answer the question posed by Chris Patten's in 2004) Britain will finally "join" the EU, with no more looking over our shoulder at the exit door...
But equally we might be a proud and sovereign nation by then, in sunny economic uplands, tucking into our delicious chlorine-washed chicken, and happily tugging our forelocks at Lord Rees-Mogg.
But at least *we'd know* - and it's that certainty that everyone is becoming increasingly desperate for.
This will not age well at all.
The EU is unarguably a flawed political project. Many UK governments tried to reform it from within but failed. Cameron's negotiation showed that the core EU just don't care. They don't see a problem.
The EU has a level of decision making that you and I cannot change through elections. The clear lesson from history is that such a position never ends well for the people. Just look at Greece and the evil levels of unemployment and misery. The rules of the club are more important than people's lives. Eventually the EU will not be held together by love but by force. I truly fear it is Yugoslavia writ large, and the kindling is dry.
I don't know what the spark will be to light that fire, but it could be he demographic drag discussed in Robert Smithson's last video, plus the trend for increased illegal immigration to Europe from Africa as that continent gets richer. The richer countries of the north will not want to pay to support the poorer Mediterranean ones cope with these pressures, and that will trigger the break.
So it could be that we look back on Brexit and are grateful.
As I said the only sustainable Brexit is a Norway or Canada style one
Curious?
But they would have to be negotiated patiently and very carefully by people with knowledge and experience and willingness to do detailed work.
And I really doubt such people exist in Westminster or Whitehall.
We'd be better off with a negotiating team of your good self, Richard Tyndall and RCS.