Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not only will there not be an EURef2, there can’t be
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not only will there not be an EURef2, there can’t be
It’s the Remainer dream that won’t go away. Indeed, it’s as if they’ve never woken up to the strong coffee the electorate served on the fateful night in June 2016. They want to believe that the fight is still on and continue to make the case that they should have made better before EURef1. It isn’t still on and the dream is just that: an hallucination in the dark.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thanks, David.
Even as someone who voted to leave, I have a lot of time for those who say that democracy requires that we voters should be able to change our minds. But on something as fundamental as this, it must surely be the case that there needs to be a fundamental change of circumstances if a vote is sensibly to be re-run within such a short period. Otherwise, the whole concept and purpose of referenda risks being brought into disrepute (although I rather suspect it has already suffered that fate already) and risks the backlash to which many other posters have alluded on previous threads passim.
Such a fundamental change of circumstances could include a statement by HM Government to the effect that:
"We have in all good faith attempted to implement the result of the referendum but, upon exploring the practical realities in more detail and given the approach of our interlocutors regarding the inviolability of the Four Freedoms, including free movement of people, during the course of our negotiations, this has simply proven to be impossible to achieve in a manner that is in the UK's interests. HM Government, therefore, advocates a second referendum and will campaign for a vote to remain".
I'm not sure that much less would suffice. But no Conservative government (or, at least, no such government led by Mrs May) would survive the making of such a statement by more than 24 hours, even if the sentiment were supported by a majority in the polls or in Parliament. It would be interesting, however, to put Mr Corbyn upon the spot to see if he would lead a Labour Government upon the basis of such a policy...
Another (practical as opposed to principled) reason (as David suggests) is that there is clearly no consensus as to the terms of a second vote. Is it simply a re-run? Is it a multi-answer question? Is it a vote to give the electorate's imprimatur to whatever deal Mrs May negotiates (and, if in the negative, what are the implications thereof). Without agreement on that (a) there will be insufficient momentum behind the call for such a referendum; and (b) the risk that we find ourselves back in a similar position of confusion regardless of its outcome.
The practicalities of a second referendum (even leaving aside David's valid points on timing) simply do not stand up to any scrutiny.
It's not going to happen.
And when it comes to voting age, I struggle to see how it could be justified. It's not comparable to jury service or the like, you can vote by mail after barely any thought. And sone want it to be as simple as clicking a button and doing it online. Unless we say all old people are incapable, as we do with children (though there is disagreement as to when that should stop) why shouldn't they get to vote?
Says a 31 year old.
It's like the initial exodus from the LDs on 2010. Near half the vote left upon coalition, so it wasn't indicative of how that choice and that government became a shit show, as those people didn't wait to see if it would, they just decided it would be (or wasn't worth it). That they stayed low and got worse indicated they didn't change their mind and more came to think they were right, but the first rush was not actually indicative, even if it was predictive.
As with Brexit. The discussion came up immediately so is not due to the shit show. At best if it has become more popular it woukd be due to the shit show.
I typed a lot more than this because your comment made me feel so enraged... but I'm going to stay polite... so I thought better and deleted the rest of it.
And when it comes to voting age, I struggle to see how it could be justified. It's not comparable to jury service or the like, you can vote by mail after barely any thought. And sone want it to be as simple as clicking a button and doing it online. Unless we say all old people are incapable, as we do with children (though there is disagreement as to when that should stop) why shouldn't they get to vote?
Says a 31 year old.
Who should be allowed to vote ? Now there's another question.
It is sort of self-evident that 6 year olds should be denied the vote. But there comes a point when some voters lose the capacity to think required so much that they are less capable of giving a considered opinion that 6 yos. Ususally their family helps them fill out a postal vote.
Why then should family not be allowed to help a 6 yo ?
Voting is generally taken to require independent consideration of the facts, without influence. That rules out 6yos and as they are effectively creatures controlled by the state 16 yos. By that analysis it is difficult to justify anyone still at university being allowed to vote.
It was widely expected that when the voting age was reduced to 18 there would eventually be an attempt to reduce it to 16. Why not 14, people used to leave school at 14, or 13, or 12 ?
There is no rational answer.
MEANWHILE: Am I the only one who wants to hit the telly when they say women first got the vote in 1918 ?
We all know a very small number of women, in certain narrow circumstances had been able to vote in parochial and borough elections since the reign of Mary I. Such women were always expected to serve the parish officers, or pay for a substitute !
The company I worked for told me at the age of 59 that they were making me redundant because "I was blocking the promotion path for younger people" (I was an engineer). Clearly a 75 year old MP is doing likewise and is beyond their "shelf life".
This “reaching out” nonsense is code for “watering down the result” and Remainers still think the rest of us are too thick to notice. As Mr Herdson observes it’s almost certainly too late, but at least some on the Remain side have twigged that repeating the same argument and expecting a different result isn’t going to work:
https://leftfootforward.org/2018/02/as-remainers-we-cant-win-the-brexit-debate-solely-on-economics/
On the logistics, I think the most plausible way to do it is to agree an extension as part of the final deal. So if you already have a two-year transition period of 2 years when Britain is basically in but formally out, you change the first 6 months of that to "still formally in" and use that to organize the vote. Obviously this has the complication of needing unanimous agreement from the other member states, but you'd want that anyhow, because otherwise the Leave side would argue that the bridges were already burned and there was no way back in without joining the Euro and sending Prince Harry to perform menial tasks in Emmanuel Macron's kitchen.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5490232/cabinet-explodes-in-a-fresh-row-days-before-key-meetings-on-brexit-trade-deal/
If a 2nd referendum votes leave again nobody will have grounds to complain.If a 2 nd referendum votes remain then maybe we will head towards a 3rd referendum but that would still be better than the current situation where the govt are pushing through the biggest change in many decades on the basis 52-48 vote and where most experts are downcast about the future after Brexit
Tories should see a 2nd referendum as an insurance policy against Brexit going wrong
You won.
SUCK IT UP!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/tories-are-lying-to-the-voters-and-themselves-over-brexit-r7nc79cw5
Good to know
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-countries-democracy-brexit-vote-article-50-second-referendum-a7629636.html
There is no capability test for MPs, and it was left up to the voters, who re-elected him but with one of the more significant swings against the Tories in the country. He'd still be there now, had the 2017 election not given Tories a second opportunity to get him to stand down.
Personally, I would favour the Rejoin referendum be in about a decade. Voters would then know what the actual Brexit package was and what it meant to them, and also the future direction of the E27.
Good article, Mr. Herdson.
I think it's not impossible, however. Unlike Wales beating Scotland at the rugby, which will surely not happen.
Indeed in some towns - the potwalloper boroughs spring to mind - women could vote for Parliamentary elections too at one time.
1832, by standardising the franchise and adding the word 'male', took that possibility away.
Not the xenophobic, hypocritical, mean spirited speak out of both sides of their mouth Leave campaign. Oh no.
But we'll probably decide a bad deal is better than no deal.
I agree entirely David.
I think that may be one reason why Cameron and Osborne were forced to fall back on Project Fear and campaign solely on negatives. It wasn't ultimately a stupid idea - after all, it came within a whisker of winning, which given the latent euroscepticism of the last 30 years (which Cameron didn't know about because he never met the right people, I.e. non-political people) was quite an achievement. But it did tend to underline (a) that his negotiations had not been a success and (b) that the EU was a necessary evil not a positive good.
And the further problem is that Project Fear's claims not having been realised that line of attack is out, while the 50 flavours issue aforesaid has not by any means gone away. That in itself makes a second referendum rather pointless.
BoZo and chums promised us a newer, much brighter light.
What we will get is a single candle flame, guttering in the winds of International trade and diplomacy.
And you want us to say Thankyou?
No.
Gove advocated EFTA
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-36074853
Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.
So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....
Stop me if I’m getting too technical here, but this is now a government where economists explaining that a “trade barrier” is a “barrier to trade” are accused of sabotage.
Today, it is impossible to escape the judgment that the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, IDS and now Baker only know what they believe, whatever the facts and figures say.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/02/theresa-may-brexit-future-disappointment-fact-free?CMP=share_btn_tw
Any evidence for this assertion?
@PolhomeEditor: Jacob Rees-Mogg doubles down on his accusations against Treasury officials on Brexit: "I do think they're fiddling the figures." #r4today
Oh...
Would a referendum bill even be strictly necessary?
So we'll re-consider in 2056 or so. Fair enough?
https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/posts/10155543823947217
Britain, however, should have the decency not to inflict itself on the EU again until it has firmly settled on a decision to stay in the EU. It is for that reason I would not support a second referendum unless there was good evidence that the public had collectively changed its mind. So far that evidence doesn’t exist.
What Leavers are remarkably incurious about are the implications of Britain leaving the EU when they no longer command majority support for their project and they have completely failed to convince sceptics that it’s a good idea. Why they think a divided country with a large part deeply angry at them is going to prosper beats me.
Personally I would have thought revoking article 50 would be the one certain way to ensure rock hard Brexit possibly even violence. But I am though I say it myself somewhat more intelligent than the likes of Juncker and Verhofstadt. I genuinely think that their fanaticism and dogmatism would blind them to the very real dangers of Britain remaining in the EU after this.
It can only have been a publicity stunt.
It may of course be housetraining by civil servants at the FO or Treasury or he may have genuinely changed his mind (it is allowed after all). But I would not describe him as a fanatical Remainer.
Another thing that bemuses me is the way the polling on a potential, future referendum alongside views on the last referendum is being read. We are talking minute movement as you acknowledge and I would hazard a guess that had we voted to remain in 2016 the polling now would have the exact opposite figures i.e. remain 'regret' and a surge of leave voters. Why? Because Leave voters would have the energy of defeat behind them and would feel aggrieved. The 'winning' sides voters inevitably feel less concerned and just get back to their day-to-day lives.
The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
Her insistence from the start on the very hardest of Brexits - something that was not the view of at least Gove and Boris - has made negotiations almost impossible. She lacks both the conviction and the ability to try and make the project work.