The only reason to have a new referendum is if it is going to settle the matter decisively either way. As of right now, there is no reason to expect that: quite the reverse.
If the polls were to move either way decisively in the short term, I'd then change my mind.
But as things stand Britain is heading for a shit Brexit on shit terms that everyone will hate. And that is, unfortunately, the least bad outcome.
Things will get worse thereafter.
Certainly there is no good outcome to the Brexit fiasco, but the least damaging is a #peoplesvote to remain.
It may go the other way of course, but then we are no worse off than we are already.
A 52:48 vote for Remain would merely replace a majoritarian Leave dynamic for a majoritarian Remain dynamic. I don't see the slightest evidence that anyone campaigning for a fresh referendum has any interest in thinking about the concerns of those who voted Leave after they have the referendum victory that they have quite unjustifiably mentally banked.
A reversed outcome could lead to a properly negotiated settlement to remain in the EU but on reformed terms. Potentially a better outcome than ‘the deal’.
Because we are all so confident about how reasonable or even rational the EU would be in negotiations aren’t we?
I'd start with how confident we can be about how reasonable or even rational we would be in negotiations before putting the cart in front of Dobbin.
The evidence would suggest that is indeed a valid consideration.
David
Yes, it’s not clear to me why we fetishise WWI as “the war to end all wars”. WWII was six times more deadly, worldwide, and is more recent. The centenary of the end of WWII tomorrow is of course and important time for reflection. But rampant poppyism is a problem for this country. We would be better moving on from it.
The EU referendum should not have been held. The public are not capable of coming to a well informed and intelligent decision on complex and important matters such as that. Nevertheless it was held and Leave won by a narrow but decisive margin. The obvious unwritten PS on the ballot paper next to Leave was 'leave the EU under the terms of whatever exit deal can in practice be negotiated by the UK government'. Such a deal is about to be finalized and therefore the democratic logic is that it should be implemented. If Parliament votes it down it will be blatantly disrespecting the referendum result. This would be very dangerous and will surely not happen. My prediction is that after a great deal of fabulous and highly watchable fuss and drama the deal will go through and we will leave as planned on 29 March 2019 with a softish brexit and TM still firmly in the saddle.
I agree with you that the 2% GDP target is a crude and proxy measure.
But, it broadly links a base level of military and security spending to a nation’s economic performance.
It should be ‘a’ measure but very far from the only measure.
% of GDP is useless. Turkey spend less than 2% GDP and, in absolute terms, about a fifth of the UK defence budget but they have an army of 300,000 and the same again in reserves. And those fuckers can fight...
How much do they pay their soldiers, with what are they equipped, what welfare do they provide, and in what conditions do they live?
I agree that the UK wastes a lot on procurement and management- a shocking amount - but we are two very different countries.
UK is all generals and admirals with vast wine cellars and f**k all to do, along with willie waving nuclear missiles
Comments
For all the claims about how hard Versailles was it was nothing compared to what Germany lost after 1945.
Yes, it’s not clear to me why we fetishise WWI as “the war to end all wars”. WWII was six times more deadly, worldwide, and is more recent. The centenary of the end of WWII tomorrow is of course and important time for reflection. But rampant poppyism is a problem for this country. We would be better moving on from it.