@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
You can do this kind of thing much faster if there's a genuine emergency. Greece did their bailout deal referendum on a weeks's notice.
Failing that, she could ask the other member states for an extension. They would grant this, because they generally think Brexit is retarded and would like to see it cancelled.
The practical problem isn't there, it's whether she could get it done before the Conservative Party string her up from a lamppost.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
So given the likelihood of no deal, at least according to this forum, at what point do I start stocking up on loo paper, non-perishable foods etc and turning the garden over to vegetable growing?
Seriously, if this becomes real doesn’t any responsible government have to ask for a suspension of Article 50 or a pause? Civil unrest is certainly not in our interest and I can’t imagine the EU would be best pleased either.
Why do you think the EU care? They’ve tolerated worse elsewhere in the EU.
The EU wants to ensure that the UK is seen to suffer through its decision to leave. Even more so given recent developments in Italy. They are not going to save us from the consequences of our own stupidity.
To the extent of having starving Britons or people dying from lack of medecines? Really?
Wanting to make clear that non-membership is less favourable than membership is one thing. Having a country which hosts the main financial centre in Europe descend into anarchy is quite another.
The level of delusion is incredible. Nobody argues that WTO Brexit at this stage will not cause disruption, but the meltdown of society? Are you really that naive that you believe this stuff?
Virtually every other country in the World manages its own borders, sets its own tariffs and manages imports and customs arrangements, most of it under WTO rules, including agricultural goods. Yet if the UK try to do it, the end of days will result.
Project Fear has morphed into Project Psychosis.
I am currently reading Michael Lewis's book "The Undoing Project" which I strongly recommend.
I had not understand how the human mind perceives utility and value - and how important regret is to the process of rationalising decision making and forecasting. It is clear that the Brexit result and ongoing process cannot be viewed objectively by many of us because of the interplay of our identity, financial concerns and view of history. For me the lesson of the book (so far) is that simple post-referendum rationalisation of what happened or is happening, who to blame for what elements we don't like and forecasting of future state is effectively pointless. We all have insufficient information, there is way too much uncertainty and we all need to realise that scaring each other with this is actually beneath all of us. Keep calm and carry on, people.
I would second the recommendation of The Undoing Project.
So given the likelihood of no deal, at least according to this forum, at what point do I start stocking up on loo paper, non-perishable foods etc and turning the garden over to vegetable growing?
Seriously, if this becomes real doesn’t any responsible government have to ask for a suspension of Article 50 or a pause? Civil unrest is certainly not in our interest and I can’t imagine the EU would be best pleased either.
No suspension/pause of Article 50, remember Farage will don his khaki and grab his rifle in that scenario.
I've already made plans to move to Canada if we get no deal.
Amusingly I'm getting ads asking me to move to France.
With a lot of prominent Leavers happy to use anti-Semitic tropes and/or defend Tommy Robinson as a paragon of free speech and justice for the first time in my life I feel like an outsider in my own country.
We all know if we get no deal they'll blame the rootless cosmopolitan and the Muslim rather than themselves for selling the public a pup.
I missed prominent Leavers defending Tommy Robinson. Who on earth has done that?
Gerard Batten (current leader of UKIP) and Lord Pearson to name but two.
The former is a fan of Tommy Robinson and hosted events with him.
Sadly Gerard Batten has yet to reply to me after I asked him why he was focussing on Sajid Javid and not David Gauke, the man responsible for the Justice and Prison system in the country.
there were 3 homicides last year, out of a jail population of circa 85,000
So given the likelihood of no deal, at least according to this forum, at what point do I start stocking up on loo paper, non-perishable foods etc and turning the garden over to vegetable growing?
Seriously, if this becomes real doesn’t any responsible government have to ask for a suspension of Article 50 or a pause? Civil unrest is certainly not in our interest and I can’t imagine the EU would be best pleased either.
No suspension/pause of Article 50, remember Farage will don his khaki and grab his rifle in that scenario.
I've already made plans to move to Canada if we get no deal.
Amusingly I'm getting ads asking me to move to France.
With a lot of prominent Leavers happy to use anti-Semitic tropes and/or defend Tommy Robinson as a paragon of free speech and justice for the first time in my life I feel like an outsider in my own country.
We all know if we get no deal they'll blame the rootless cosmopolitan and the Muslim rather than themselves for selling the public a pup.
I missed prominent Leavers defending Tommy Robinson. Who on earth has done that?
Gerard Batten (current leader of UKIP) and Lord Pearson to name but two.
The former is a fan of Tommy Robinson and hosted events with him.
Sadly Gerard Batten has yet to reply to me after I asked him why he was focussing on Sajid Javid and not David Gauke, the man responsible for the Justice and Prison system in the country.
Thanks. I would not classify anyone from UKIP as “prominent” unless “arses” was the following word. Pretty disgraceful all the same.
I ran into some supporters of Tommy Robinson yesterday in Leeds, after the end of the cricket I went to Leeds City Centre and his supporters had been protesting outside Leeds Court.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
I don’t think MPs or ministers are paid nearly enough. While it’s true that being an MP does not need to be a full time job, you need to offer a decent package to get good quality people into Westminster who can then go on to be ministers.
I’m sure I read in Johnson’s biography of Churchill that his salary as PM would be the equivalent of about £500k today.
It's difficult to put a single figure on it - what do you use as comparison: prices, earnings, earnings of top executives?
However, Churchill was paid £10k pa as PM (which was the salary set in 1937 - double that of most other cabinet ministers, or of the LotO). I don't think that Johnson's estimate is unreasonable.
Looking towards the top rank of professions seems a reasonable place to start.
PM £500k
Cabinet ministers £250k
Other ministers £150k
MPs £100k
We certainly don’t need 650 MPs though, and the Cabinet is too large. If Churchill and Attlee could get by with less than 20 people around the table, so can the Britain of 2018.
Suspected British jihadis will be monitored more closely and convicted terrorists given longer prison sentences as part of a package of new counter-terrorism measures to be unveiled.
John McDonnell is facing accusations of hypocrisy as it emerged that he is president of a group that is campaigning in support of Labour figures accused of anti-Semitism and verbal abuse of an MP.
The shadow chancellor is president of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), which has posted a statement on its website declaring that Ken Livingstone, the former London Mayor, was the victim of a "witch hunt" and that the controversial comments over which he resigned, were "not remotely antisemitic."
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
If Brexit gets cancelled it will because politicians have calculated they can't make it work. They probably won't in that case call a prior referendum. They will sort it out with Brussels and likely call a general election with a manifesto of reinstating membership and where none of the major parties officially support continuation of Brexit. Not a very likely outcome for obvious reasons but not implausible either. More likely they will go for CU+SM+CAP. Leavers who want their project to go ahead need to embrace the vassal state.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
How does that follow? It's the right thing to do, and whatever the outcome us will have been endorsed by the people in a referendum. Not much electoral downside.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
Putting an option to the people that the government cannot necessarily implement would be an appalling breach of public trust. No-one knows whether A50 can be revoked, either multilaterally or unilaterally.
@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
If Brexit gets cancelled it will because politicians have calculated they can't make it work. They probably won't in that case call a prior referendum. They will sort it out with Brussels and likely call a general election with a manifesto of reinstating membership and where none of the major parties officially support continuation of Brexit. Not a very likely outcome for obvious reasons but not implausible either. More likely they will go for CU+SM+CAP. Leavers who want their project to go ahead need to embrace the vassal state.
In that case we could end up with PM Farage under FPTP if UKIP is the only party still supporting Brexit/leaving the CU+SM+CAP+ending FOM
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
Putting an option to the people that the government cannot necessarily implement would be an appalling breach of public trust. No-one knows whether A50 can be revoked, either multilaterally or unilaterally.
The only valid options would be Deal or No Deal.
But it doesn't matter: there won't be one.
May would obviously have cleared revocation with the Council before making her pitch. 'No deal' could never be put on a public ballot by any government with any sense of responsibility.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
Why? Corbyn's party would be equally split and it could equally see a revived UKIP and a UK version of En Marche
So given the likelihood of no deal, at least according to this forum, at what point do I start stocking up on loo paper, non-perishable foods etc and turning the garden over to vegetable growing?
Seriously, if this becomes real doesn’t any responsible government have to ask for a suspension of Article 50 or a pause? Civil unrest is certainly not in our interest and I can’t imagine the EU would be best pleased either.
No suspension/pause of Article 50, remember Farage will don his khaki and grab his rifle in that scenario.
I've already made plans to move to Canada if we get no deal.
Amusingly I'm getting ads asking me to move to France.
With a lot of prominent Leavers happy to use anti-Semitic tropes and/or defend Tommy Robinson as a paragon of free speech and justice for the first time in my life I feel like an outsider in my own country.
We all know if we get no deal they'll blame the rootless cosmopolitan and the Muslim rather than themselves for selling the public a pup.
I missed prominent Leavers defending Tommy Robinson. Who on earth has done that?
Gerard Batten (current leader of UKIP) and Lord Pearson to name but two.
The former is a fan of Tommy Robinson and hosted events with him.
Sadly Gerard Batten has yet to reply to me after I asked him why he was focussing on Sajid Javid and not David Gauke, the man responsible for the Justice and Prison system in the country.
Thanks. I would not classify anyone from UKIP as “prominent” unless “arses” was the following word. Pretty disgraceful all the same.
I ran into some supporters of Tommy Robinson yesterday in Leeds, after the end of the cricket I went to Leeds City Centre and his supporters had been protesting outside Leeds Court.
Charming people.
Were you comparing fashion tips?
Alas no.
They gave me a rousing rendition of 'I'd rather be dead than a Paki' they then chanted 'Brexit Brexit Brexit' at some Poles.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
Putting an option to the people that the government cannot necessarily implement would be an appalling breach of public trust. No-one knows whether A50 can be revoked, either multilaterally or unilaterally.
The only valid options would be Deal or No Deal.
But it doesn't matter: there won't be one.
May would obviously have cleared revocation with the Council before making her pitch. 'No deal' could never be put on a public ballot by any government with any sense of responsibility.
It's not the Council that decides on the interpretation of the Treaties, as well you know.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
How does that follow? It's the right thing to do, and whatever the outcome us will have been endorsed by the people in a referendum. Not much electoral downside.
It's not the right thing to do. It would be a clear case of a distorted electoral system where you cam go forty years without a referendum if the people for Brussels and asked twice in two years if they vote against. That is not a free and fair democracy. It is a stitch up and would be seen as such by 80% of the Tory membership who voted Leave last time and would do again a second time. Half of their voters would immediately jump ship to Mogg's new splinter party and Corbyn would win the next election by default.
@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
If Brexit gets cancelled it will because politicians have calculated they can't make it work. They probably won't in that case call a prior referendum. They will sort it out with Brussels and likely call a general election with a manifesto of reinstating membership and where none of the major parties officially support continuation of Brexit. Not a very likely outcome for obvious reasons but not implausible either. More likely they will go for CU+SM+CAP. Leavers who want their project to go ahead need to embrace the vassal state.
In that case we could end up with PM Farage under Farage if UKIP is the only party still supporting Brexit/leaving the SC+SM+CAP+ending FOM
Unlikely. Because of FPTP but more importantly because it will be in a context where Brexit is genuinely undeliverable. Currently they can deliver the vassal state, so that's probably what they will do.
I forgot to mention the Irish backstop will likely be in the agreement too.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
Putting an option to the people that the government cannot necessarily implement would be an appalling breach of public trust. No-one knows whether A50 can be revoked, either multilaterally or unilaterally.
The only valid options would be Deal or No Deal.
But it doesn't matter: there won't be one.
May would obviously have cleared revocation with the Council before making her pitch. 'No deal' could never be put on a public ballot by any government with any sense of responsibility.
It's not the Council that decides on the interpretation of the Treaties, as well you know.
It's academic. They have an explicit power in Article 50 to make Brexit not come into effect. Whether anything needed to be done legally to tidy up the fact of revocation isn't politically important.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
Why? Corbyn's party would be equally split and it could equally see a revived UKIP and a UK version of En Marche
Corbyn's far left faction has never been this close to power. They would stand by quietly as the Tory party tore itself apart.
So given the likelihood of no deal, at least according to this forum, at what point do I start stocking up on loo paper, non-perishable foods etc and turning the garden over to vegetable growing?
Seriously, if this becomes real doesn’t any responsible government have to ask for a suspension of Article 50 or a pause? Civil unrest is certainly not in our interest and I can’t imagine the EU would be best pleased either.
Why do you think the EU care? They’ve tolerated worse elsewhere in the EU.
The EU wants to ensure that the UK is seen to suffer through its decision to leave. Even more so given recent developments in Italy. They are not going to save us from the consequences of our own stupidity.
To the extent of having starving Britons or people dying from lack of medecines? Really?
Wanting to make clear that non-membership is less favourable than membership is one thing. Having a country which hosts the main financial centre in Europe descend into anarchy is quite another.
That is just absurd hyperbole, even on WTO terms we are not going to run completely out of food and medicine nor descend into anarchy even if we have to pay tariffs on Brie, Mercedes and Cabinet Sauvignon and in turn EU consumers have to pay tariffs on UK goods
We can still hunt muntjak deer, squirrels, and badgers to keep starvation at bay.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
Putting an option to the people that the government cannot necessarily implement would be an appalling breach of public trust. No-one knows whether A50 can be revoked, either multilaterally or unilaterally.
The only valid options would be Deal or No Deal.
But it doesn't matter: there won't be one.
A, lack of somewhat undeliverable alternatives didn't stop the Brexit referendum. If a second referendum happens it will be because the first was undeliverable. Although as I said earlier Becky is Moe likely to be cancelled without a second referendum, in the unlikely event it happens.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
How does that follow? It's the right thing to do, and whatever the outcome us will have been endorsed by the people in a referendum. Not much electoral downside.
It's not the right thing to do. It would be a clear case of a distorted electoral system where you cam go forty years without a referendum if the people for Brussels and asked twice in two years if they vote against. That is not a free and fair democracy. It is a stitch up and would be seen as such by 80% of the Tory membership who voted Leave last time and would do again a second time. Half of their voters would immediately jump ship to Mogg's new splinter party and Corbyn would win the next election by default.
You're a Labour supporter so I discount your view what would happen to the Tory party.
If all the leading Brexiteers parade out and say that it's the best deal we could get because of x, y and z, only the absolute fringe die-hards could say that such a vote would be illegitimate.
@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
If Brexit gets cancelled it will because politicians have calculated they can't make it work. They probably won't in that case call a prior referendum. They will sort it out with Brussels and likely call a general election with a manifesto of reinstating membership and where none of the major parties officially support continuation of Brexit. Not a very likely outcome for obvious reasons but not implausible either. More likely they will go for CU+SM+CAP. Leavers who want their project to go ahead need to embrace the vassal state.
The most Remainy plausible outcome at this stage is CU + shadowing single market (less FoM). No FoM, no CFP and no CAP is in the bag. All this "the EU can swallow a no deal" claim has been shown to be a nonsense by Italy being on the brink. A crunch due to a disruptive Brexit would tip them over the edge.
So given the likelihood of no deal, at least according to this forum, at what point do I start stocking up on loo paper, non-perishable foods etc and turning the garden over to vegetable growing?
Seriously, if this becomes real doesn’t any responsible government have to ask for a suspension of Article 50 or a pause? Civil unrest is certainly not in our interest and I can’t imagine the EU would be best pleased either.
Why do you think the EU care? They’ve tolerated worse elsewhere in the EU.
The EU wants to ensure that the UK is seen to suffer through its decision to leave. Even more so given recent developments in Italy. They are not going to save us from the consequences of our own stupidity.
To the extent of having starving Britons or people dying from lack of medecines? Really?
Wanting to make clear that non-membership is less favourable than membership is one thing. Having a country which hosts the main financial centre in Europe descend into anarchy is quite another.
That is just absurd hyperbole, even on WTO terms we are not going to run completely out of food and medicine nor descend into anarchy even if we have to pay tariffs on Brie, Mercedes and Cabinet Sauvignon and in turn EU consumers have to pay tariffs on UK goods
We can still hunt muntjak deer, squirrels, and badgers to keep starvation at bay.
Nope no deal means cannibalism.
This means because Leavers got us into this mess Remainers will be allowed to Leavers and Leavers will only have their blue passports to eat.
All this "the EU can swallow a no deal" claim has been shown to be a nonsense by Italy being on the brink. A crunch due to a disruptive Brexit would tip them over the edge.
If Brexit gets cancelled it will because politicians have calculated they can't make it work. They probably won't in that case call a prior referendum. They will sort it out with Brussels and likely call a general election with a manifesto of reinstating membership and where none of the major parties officially support continuation of Brexit. Not a very likely outcome for obvious reasons but not implausible either. More likely they will go for CU+SM+CAP. Leavers who want their project to go ahead need to embrace the vassal state.
The most Remainy plausible outcome at this stage is CU + shadowing single market (less FoM). No FoM, no CFP and no CAP is in the bag. All this "the EU can swallow a no deal" claim has been shown to be a nonsense by Italy being on the brink. A crunch due to a disruptive Brexit would tip them over the edge.
Shadowing the single market isn't a meaningful concept. What the EU wants is UK compliance with current and future EU regulation, subject to ECJ oversight. If we do that it keeps our borders soft, reduces costs for uk industry and opens access to markets.they keep the UK in the EU regulatory orbit, which is the only thing they really worry about, beyond maintaining the integrity of EU institutions. CAP is part of that. They might give a limited concession on FoM. That is a second priority for them.
We will be over the edge well before the EU will be. Not sensible for us to go there. Leavers need to embrace the vassal state if they want their project to succeed.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
Why? Corbyn's party would be equally split and it could equally see a revived UKIP and a UK version of En Marche
Corbyn's far left faction has never been this close to power. They would stand by quietly as the Tory party tore itself apart.
Labour is actually arguably more divided on Brexit than the Tories as most Labour seats voted Leave but most Labour voters voted Remain while most Tory voters and seats voted Leave. Corbyn and Umunna and John Mann could equally tear themselves apart
@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
If Brexit gets cancelled it will because politicians have calculated they can't make it work. They probably won't in that d to embrace the vassal state.
In that case we could end up with PM Farage under Farage if UKIP is the only party still supporting Brexit/leaving the SC+SM+CAP+ending FOM
Unlikely. Because of FPTP but more importantly because it will be in a context where Brexit is genuinely undeliverable. Currently they can deliver the vassal state, so that's probably what they will do.
I forgot to mention the Irish backstop will likely be in the agreement too.
FPTP makes it more likely, Labour in 2005 and the Tories in 2015 won a majority on just 35 to 40% and UKIP got 27% in the 2014 European elections so only 10% more would do it if enough Tory and Labour Leave voters felt their vote for Brexit was being betrayed.
The SNP in 2015 showed what an insurgent party could achieve if voters are in the mood to turn on the Establishment
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
The Brexiters could certainly say it's undemocratic to ask the people again, and also that May's deal was a traitrous betrayal, so a referendum choosing between that and Remain was a scam. But they'd have to be careful, because the natural response to that would be for Leave supporters to boycott it, in which case they'd lose.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
The Brexiters could certainly say it's undemocratic to ask the people again, and also that May's deal was a traitrous betrayal, so a referendum choosing between that and Remain was a scam. But they'd have to be careful, because the natural response to that would be for Leave supporters to boycott it, in which case they'd lose.
Though they might turn out for UKIP at the next general election if Remain or May's deal only won by a very narrow margin
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
The Brexiters could certainly say it's undemocratic to ask the people again, and also that May's deal was a traitrous betrayal, so a referendum choosing between that and Remain was a scam. But they'd have to be careful, because the natural response to that would be for Leave supporters to boycott it, in which case they'd lose.
Though they might turn out for UKIP at the next general election if Remain or May's deal only won by a very narrow margin
When you speak to them on the doorstep you'll just have to explain that UKIP are beyond the pale nationalists and not just a more anti-European version of the Tories.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
The Brexiters could certainly say it's undemocratic to ask the people again, and also that May's deal was a traitrous betrayal, so a referendum choosing between that and Remain was a scam. But they'd have to be careful, because the natural response to that would be for Leave supporters to boycott it, in which case they'd lose.
Though they might turn out for UKIP at the next general election if Remain or May's deal only won by a very narrow margin
This is of course true. But I'm not sure TMay can avoid this, as realistically anything she does is going to be treated as a traitrous betrayal.
You keep telling us that Brexit was all about Immigration (and indeed the polling would back you up).....yet curiously the FT does not mention that in their question.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
Why? Corbyn's party would be equally split and it could equally see a revived UKIP and a UK version of En Marche
Corbyn's far left faction has never been this close to power. They would stand by quietly as the Tory party tore itself apart.
Labour is actually arguably more divided on Brexit than the Tories as most Labour seats voted Leave but most Labour voters voted Remain while most Tory voters and seats voted Leave. Corbyn and Umunna and John Mann could equally tear themselves apart
Corbyn seems essentially pragmatic on Brexit - if it came down to it, he'd back remain to keep the party together just like he did during the referendum, and without him there's no significant pro-Brexit faction in Labour.
A few weeks/months ago somebody pointed out (@AndyJS ?) that there was a house effect opening up for the US midterms, with one category of polls showing different results to another. Can anybody remember the article and/or has a link?
The Sun says there's a "global plot to destroy Brexit". It is "time for the Government, and all MPs, to defend our democracy", they say.
Apparently "Remainers still denounce the referendum (...) as 'unfair' or 'illegal'."
I was hoping for at least one mention of George Soros by name, but all I got was a photo of Michel Barnier making a gesture with his thumb and forefinger to suggest that something is small.
"A shadowy campaign financed by a hedge-fund billionaire wages all-out war on our decision".
According to the rabid writer, "even the more 'moderate' (Remainer politicians) pretend a 'Norway-style' deal is a reasonable compromise MPs can support." Clearly as far as the Sun is concerned a person cannot support a Norway option honestly. They must be a globalist liar who is probably working for George Soros - or why not even for Satan Hillary Clinton?
Got to see the funny side in this bilge.
The only person they quote to support their side is James Dyson, the billionaire who moved some of his production to the Far East because Britain didn't join the euro. What a person to choose as a champion of the British common people against the globalist elite.
They conclude, in bold type: "If this PM can’t bring her party with her and lead us fully out of the EU, with no deal if necessary, she must make way for someone who can."
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
Agreed but unfortunately "Only vote Remain if you want 10 Romanians living next door" will.
I will vote Remain any chance I get, but I still believe that if there's another Brexit referendum the Leave option will probably win.
If somehow the Remain side can persuade voters that the deal will mean more immigration than staying in...
The moment when the final text of the withdrawal agreement is revealed will be a big political event that is quite likely to lead to a backlash. The best way for the government to make the political weather would be simultaneously to announce that there will be a referendum. I think they can afford to take a punt on which way public opinion will go, and May will try to rise above the fray.
Does that mean you think she will announce that she will abstain, in other words that she will offer zero leadership on the issue?
Interesting.....different countries face differing job threats from automation - no surprise really, the more manufacturing focussed (Germany, Japan), the greater the 'threat':
I think complaining about a referendum campaign being divisive is a good working definition of stupidity.
This detracts from the underlying validity of her point.
Has Lawson bribed the French to get his residency? If not, I don't get what all the fuss is about.
He is using his wealth and status to secure for himself something that he campaigned to deny less well placed British citizens.
Have the French said post-Brexit they'll deny Brits residence?
Brits lived in France long before the EU......
There will certainly be to automatic right and obtaining a carte de sejour (if one is less rich and well connected than Nigel the Hutt) is not an easy or quick process. British retirees will also no longer get free French healthcare and will have to have private health insurance. Again, that's not a problem for Lawson but most other people are getting fucked.
Interesting.....different countries face differing job threats from automation - no surprise really, the more manufacturing focussed (Germany, Japan), the greater the 'threat':
But Germany is probably more advanced than any other country. Our warehouse previously employed about 150 people. Now only 25. Manufacturing moved to pick and place years ago.
She still needs legislation to make it happen, otherwise local authorities (who administer the elections and referendums, and pay for that administration), have no obligation to take part.
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
If May came out and said - here's the deal: we're going to have a referendum on this and if it's not approved by the public we will revoke Article 50 - who could oppose it? The Brexiteers can hardly say it's outrageous to trust the people. Those who secretly want Brexit to go away will not oppose it. Jeremy Corbyn can hardly oppose it when the rest of his party will be up for fighting the referendum. It would be unstoppable the moment the words passed May's lips.
It would also entail Theresa May destroying the Conservative party for a generation and ushering in a decade of Corbynite rule.
Why? Corbyn's party would be equally split and it could equally see a revived UKIP and a UK version of En Marche
Corbyn's far left faction has never been this close to power. They would stand by quietly as the Tory party tore itself apart.
Labour is actually arguably more divided on Brexit than the Tories as most Labour seats voted Leave but most Labour voters voted Remain while most Tory voters and seats voted Leave. Corbyn and Umunna and John Mann could equally tear themselves apart
Corbyn seems essentially pragmatic on Brexit - if it came down to it, he'd back remain to keep the party together just like he did during the referendum, and without him there's no significant pro-Brexit faction in Labour.
....and without him there's no significant pro-Brexit faction in Labour ****in the PLP****
Labour MP's were elected on a pro-brexit manifesto. If they want a referendum they can resign and ask their constituents to re-elect them on a remain basis.
Comments
If there was widespread consensus, then yes, it could be done quickly but such a consensus is unlikely. Even if there were a consensus (as there was in 2015), details matter. Leave won in no small part because of parliamentary battles that tipped the field away from Remain.
PM £500k
Cabinet ministers £250k
Other ministers £150k
MPs £100k
We certainly don’t need 650 MPs though, and the Cabinet is too large. If Churchill and Attlee could get by with less than 20 people around the table, so can the Britain of 2018.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/02/terror-suspects-monitored-closely-government-unveils-new-plans/
The shadow chancellor is president of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC), which has posted a statement on its website declaring that Ken Livingstone, the former London Mayor, was the victim of a "witch hunt" and that the controversial comments over which he resigned, were "not remotely antisemitic."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/02/john-mcdonnell-accused-hypocrisy-labour-anti-semitism/
The only valid options would be Deal or No Deal.
But it doesn't matter: there won't be one.
Why? Corbyn's party would be equally split and it could equally see a revived UKIP and a UK version of En Marche
They gave me a rousing rendition of 'I'd rather be dead than a Paki' they then chanted 'Brexit Brexit Brexit' at some Poles.
I forgot to mention the Irish backstop will likely be in the agreement too.
(Edited)
If all the leading Brexiteers parade out and say that it's the best deal we could get because of x, y and z, only the absolute fringe die-hards could say that such a vote would be illegitimate.
This means because Leavers got us into this mess Remainers will be allowed to Leavers and Leavers will only have their blue passports to eat.
We will be over the edge well before the EU will be. Not sensible for us to go there. Leavers need to embrace the vassal state if they want their project to succeed.
The SNP in 2015 showed what an insurgent party could achieve if voters are in the mood to turn on the Establishment
I wonder why?
Brits lived in France long before the EU......
Apparently "Remainers still denounce the referendum (...) as 'unfair' or 'illegal'."
I was hoping for at least one mention of George Soros by name, but all I got was a photo of Michel Barnier making a gesture with his thumb and forefinger to suggest that something is small.
"A shadowy campaign financed by a hedge-fund billionaire wages all-out war on our decision".
According to the rabid writer, "even the more 'moderate' (Remainer politicians) pretend a 'Norway-style' deal is a reasonable compromise MPs can support." Clearly as far as the Sun is concerned a person cannot support a Norway option honestly. They must be a globalist liar who is probably working for George Soros - or why not even for Satan Hillary Clinton?
Got to see the funny side in this bilge.
The only person they quote to support their side is James Dyson, the billionaire who moved some of his production to the Far East because Britain didn't join the euro. What a person to choose as a champion of the British common people against the globalist elite.
They conclude, in bold type: "If this PM can’t bring her party with her and lead us fully out of the EU, with no deal if necessary, she must make way for someone who can."
I will vote Remain any chance I get, but I still believe that if there's another Brexit referendum the Leave option will probably win.
If somehow the Remain side can persuade voters that the deal will mean more immigration than staying in... Does that mean you think she will announce that she will abstain, in other words that she will offer zero leadership on the issue?
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/04/24/a-study-finds-nearly-half-of-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-automation?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/
The words you omitted are the problem.