So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader? He's an identikit posh twat who looks like Boris with cancer but you never know. Anything is possible in the end times.
Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner but he knew it wouldn't last.
So what does this chap think should happen, we give into the EU completely, or we just ignore the referendum result. Its so easy to say the Brexit process is going badly , its much harder to give solutions.
He is doing all he can do by pointing out the reality of where we are.
So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader? He's an identikit posh twat who looks like Boris with cancer but you never know. Anything is possible in the end times.
Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner but he knew it wouldn't last.
So what does this chap think should happen, we give into the EU completely, or we just ignore the referendum result. Its so easy to say the Brexit process is going badly , its much harder to give solutions.
He is doing all he can do by pointing out the reality of where we are.
Why is that all he can do? What are his solutions?
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader? He's an identikit posh twat who looks like Boris with cancer but you never know. Anything is possible in the end times.
Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner but he knew it wouldn't last.
So what does this chap think should happen, we give into the EU completely, or we just ignore the referendum result. Its so easy to say the Brexit process is going badly , its much harder to give solutions.
He is doing all he can do by pointing out the reality of where we are.
Why is that all he can do? What are his solutions?
He has no power to implement any solutions. But I understand why you find what he says disagreeable and that you’d prefer him not to say it.
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
It may be nonsense, but it is not in any way undemocratic
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
I would agree with you were it the case that Brexit was getting anywhere. As a Director of the company there comes a time when you have to say this project is a utter failure and we need to scrap it and start afresh. Brexit is one of those projects...
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader? He's an identikit posh twat who looks like Boris with cancer but you never know. Anything is possible in the end times.
Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner but he knew it wouldn't last.
"So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader?"
If I get the call, I would serve.
I wouldn't be any good, mind. But lack of ability doesn't seem to deter any of the other aspirants ...
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
It may be nonsense, but it is not in any way undemocratic
So when you have a referundum everyone one will know no matter what they vote for in less than 3 years there will be another vote on exactly the same thing, and you dont think thats undemocratic?
Better that and get the EU seeing No Deal is the way it is going - and save £15 bn on No Deal if they rethink.
The EU has the attitude of a wife that is preventing a divorce settlement because she is holding out for custody of his dog. Even though through the marriage, she hated that bloody dog....
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
I would agree with you were it the case that Brexit was getting anywhere. As a Director of the company there comes a time when you have to say this project is a utter failure and we need to scrap it and start afresh. Brexit is one of those projects...
Scrapping means ignoring a democratic vote, we live in a democracy, the people decided to leave, therefore it must happen. If Labour win the next General Election Corbyn will be Prime Minister, he wlll be an utter disaster, but if people vote for it then it must happen. Thats what yesterday was all about, preserving freedom and democracy.
So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader? He's an identikit posh twat who looks like Boris with cancer but you never know. Anything is possible in the end times.
Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner but he knew it wouldn't last.
Why is Jo Johnson called Jo and not Joe?
I wondered this too as "Jo" is normally a female name, short for Joseph turns out.
So when you have a referundum everyone one will know no matter what they vote for in less than 3 years there will be another vote on exactly the same thing, and you dont think thats undemocratic?
Voting is never undemocratic. By definition...
We had a general election. Less than 3 years later we had another vote on exactly the same thing.
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
It may be nonsense, but it is not in any way undemocratic
So when you have a referundum everyone one will know no matter what they vote for in less than 3 years there will be another vote on exactly the same thing, and you dont think thats undemocratic?
It's not undemocratic. Whether it's sensible is another question.
There wouldn't be calls for a fresh referendum if Leavers hadn't proven themselves to be so clueless about what they wanted and about the execution of the process and so unable to sketch out a vision of post-Brexit Britain that offers any reassurance to sceptics.
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
It may be nonsense, but it is not in any way undemocratic
So when you have a referundum everyone one will know no matter what they vote for in less than 3 years there will be another vote on exactly the same thing, and you dont think thats undemocratic?
It’s not exactly the same thing. We now have a much better idea of what Brexit actually entails and that the UK does not hold all the negotiating cards. Heck, Dominic Raab’s even found out Britain is an island near France.
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
So when you have a referundum everyone one will know no matter what they vote for in less than 3 years there will be another vote on exactly the same thing, and you dont think thats undemocratic?
Voting is never undemocratic. By definition...
We had a general election. Less than 3 years later we had another vote on exactly the same thing.
I do not think that was undemocratic.
General Elections are totally different to single issue referundem votes.
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
It may be nonsense, but it is not in any way undemocratic
So when you have a referundum everyone one will know no matter what they vote for in less than 3 years there will be another vote on exactly the same thing, and you dont think thats undemocratic?
No. If you were big on direct democracy the *ideal* way to do it would be to plan, from the start, to have a referendum to negotiate exit, then another referendum to sign off on it. That wouldn't have worked here because the Article 50 process expects "we will leave" not "we might, " but if people were told they'd get something but you couldn't deliver it, as looks likely here, then it's definitely more democratic to let them vote not to do it after all. If they still want to do it, they'll vote that they still want to do it.
I really wonder what the theory of democracy is here that's making people think voting with more information is against it. It seems to be that rather than expressing the considered will of the people, a referendum is some kind of ceremonial sporting coin-flip.
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
I really wonder what the theory of democracy is here that's making people think voting with more information is against it. It seems to be that rather than exoressing the considered will of the people, a referendum is some kind of ceremonial sporting coin-flip.
"Undemocratic" in this context appears to simply be Brexiteer code for "I don't want it"
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
I would agree with you were it the case that Brexit was getting anywhere. As a Director of the company there comes a time when you have to say this project is a utter failure and we need to scrap it and start afresh. Brexit is one of those projects...
Scrapping means ignoring a democratic vote, we live in a democracy, the people decided to leave, therefore it must happen. If Labour win the next General Election Corbyn will be Prime Minister, he wlll be an utter disaster, but if people vote for it then it must happen. Thats what yesterday was all about, preserving freedom and democracy.
And that democratic vote was based on assumptions / promises that have proven to be false and unachievable (whether that is due to politics or reality it doesn't matter). Hence the best solution is reveal the reality to people and ask them again what they want to do...
Now the answer to that question may well be sod the lot of them but given that we are now at an impasse just about the only solution to this impasse is to go back to ask what do you want to do...
So what does this chap think should happen, we give into the EU completely, or we just ignore the referendum result. Its so easy to say the Brexit process is going badly , its much harder to give solutions.
It's not really up to him to solve the country's political problems, is it ?
And he is probably far from alone in thinking this: Sargeant, who is a lifelong Tory voter, said he will never vote for the Conservative party again, but cannot vote Labour either under Jeremy Corbyn....
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
Neither remain nor leave has moved the conversation on much since 2016. As a result, May is pushing at a centre that doesn't really exist.
The only movement is in Labour ranks as they search for their own internal compromise.
And he is probably far from alone in thinking this: Sargeant, who is a lifelong Tory voter, said he will never vote for the Conservative party again, but cannot vote Labour either under Jeremy Corbyn....
That is an interesting take on the "democracy" debate on this thread.
Brexit is a shitshow. If there is not another Brexit vote in some form or another, the likely outcome is some people will give up voting altogether.
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
It may be nonsense, but it is not in any way undemocratic
So when you have a referundum everyone one will know no matter what they vote for in less than 3 years there will be another vote on exactly the same thing, and you dont think thats undemocratic?
No. If you were big on direct democracy the *ideal* way to do it would be to plan, from the start, to have a referendum to negotiate exit, then another referendum to sign off on it. And if people were told they'd get something but you couldn't deliver it, as looks likely here, then it's definitely more democratic to let them vote not to do it after all.
I really wonder what the theory of democracy is here that's making people think voting with more information is against it. It seems to be that rather than exoressing the considered will of the people, a referendum is some kind of ceremonial sporting coin-flip.
The referendum was a coin flip, people knew that and they voted accordingly. I don't think Project Fear could have said more on the perils of Brexit, yet people still voted the way they did. Half the problem with Brexit is people trying to reverse the democratic vote. I am sure the EU has picked up on this which is why they are playing so hard ball
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
Neither remain nor leave has moved the conversation on much since 2016. As a result, May is pushing at a centre that doesn't really exist.
The only movement is in Labour ranks as they search for their own internal compromise.
It is for Leave to create the centre for the consensus that they now want to establish. They have woefully failed to do so.
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
So you go to court in a massive pensions case, the judge rules against you - and you still expect him to implement 48% of your contentions? Yeah, right....
So what does this chap think should happen, we give into the EU completely, or we just ignore the referendum result. Its so easy to say the Brexit process is going badly , its much harder to give solutions.
It's not really up to him to solve the country's political problems, is it ?
And he is probably far from alone in thinking this: Sargeant, who is a lifelong Tory voter, said he will never vote for the Conservative party again, but cannot vote Labour either under Jeremy Corbyn....
I accept that but how can you criticise when you have no idea how to put the situation right. May is negotiating with the EU who will not give ground whilst parliament will not approve a deal without the EU giving ground. She is in an impossible situation and people criticiing her from the sidelines without giving alternatives of what she should do is not helpful or clever.
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
So you go to court in a massive pensions case, the judge rules against you - and you still expect him to implement 48% of your contentions? Yeah, right....
Losers aren't choosers.
That is, even by your exceptionally low standards, possibly the dumbest and most misconceived analogy that you have ever come out with. Well done!
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
So you go to court in a massive pensions case, the judge rules against you - and you still expect him to implement 48% of your contentions? Yeah, right....
Losers aren't choosers.
It is precisely this moronic yah-boo attitude that is the root cause of the problems with Brexit.
Presumably, by your logic, Remainers would have been able to send us into the euro and spearhead the launch of a euro army, has we won 52-48?
Starmer's tweet is a bit odd - a second ref is only happening if Labour wins a GE I think.
If Labour backs a referendum there may well be enough Tories willing to do the same to get it through Parliament. But it’s not going to happen. The last thing the Labour leadership wants is for Brexit to be delayed. They see huge opportunities in it happening.
Apart from the greater opportunities for state intervention, nationalisation etc there is an electorally significant slice of floating leave voters backing the Tories and previously UKIP who could be enticed back to Labour once Brexit is achieved , electorally significant because this potential vote switch could break the current opinion poll deadlock going forward.
But if Corbyn backs Brexit they will be matched by Labour Remainers moving to the LDs
Hence why in public they are facing two ways hoping that the thing is sorted for them by the Tories asap.
In the unlikely event of a 2nd ref Leave have a rather big trump card in they campaign to tell voters not to bother and that democracy is a sham. Leave then lose 80-20 on a 40% turnout and the entire referendum looks a farce. It would be very hard in those circumstances for any government to implement such a result.
Link to a bit about Legal advice / Backstop. No idea of the agenda (if they have one) of lawyersforbritain.org
Edit: We represent a cross-section of Leave-Remain opinion. We initially came together before the referendum to campaign to Leave. Since the vote we have been joined by many lawyers who supported Remain. We are united in the wish to work constructively for the exit process to be carried out in the best interests of the United Kingdom
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
Neither remain nor leave has moved the conversation on much since 2016. As a result, May is pushing at a centre that doesn't really exist.
The only movement is in Labour ranks as they search for their own internal compromise.
Yes, that's it. May wants a deal for the median voter in a bimodal distribution.
Other than another referendum which would be completely undemocratic
Still not immediately obvious why more voting is undemocratic...
Beacuse Remian lost, its undemocratic to keep voting until you get the result you want
While I have sympathy for the view that it's wrong to just keep rerunning and rerunning and rerunning the same vote again and again, with no attempt to action the "wrong" result, until you get the answer you wanted, I'm struggling to see the current situation like that.
If that had happened, we'd have seen Referendum 2 by the end of 2016, Referendum 3 (should Leave have won again) by mid-2017, and so on. We'd be on the run-up to Referendum 6 by now.
Instead, we've seen what looks like genuine and well-intentioned movement towards actioning the result, including invocation of Article 50 and a shed-load of negotiations. While we may disagree with how well it's been done, we can't disagree with the fact that it's been a legitimate and sustained attempt.
If there's a referendum on the Deal (with Leave-with-Deal or Remain-after-all) as the options, it's certainly not an incarnation of the "rerun and rerun and rerun and rerun until you get the 'right' answer" concept. If "Leave-with-Deal" wins, there is no and can be no further referendum with "Remain" as an option. We Leave at that point.
We can no more "Remain" after a win for "Leave-with-Deal" than can the US, or China, or any other third party. We'd be outside the EU. We'd have left.
The fear of "rerun and rerun and rerun" breaks down when there is literally no way to rerun a further time (unless Remain wins, of course).
So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader? He's an identikit posh twat who looks like Boris with cancer but you never know. Anything is possible in the end times.
Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner but he knew it wouldn't last.
Why is Jo Johnson called Jo and not Joe?
I wondered this too as "Jo" is normally a female name, short for Joseph turns out.
Joe (masculine) is normally short for Joseph and Jo (feminine) short for Joanne or Joanna. Normally Jo (masculine) is only used for non-English people (eg Johann). Jo as a contraction for an Englishman is rare.
So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader? He's an identikit posh twat who looks like Boris with cancer but you never know. Anything is possible in the end times.
Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner but he knew it wouldn't last.
"So is JJ the new fav to be next tory leader?"
If I get the call, I would serve.
I wouldn't be any good, mind. But lack of ability doesn't seem to deter any of the other aspirants ...
You would no doubt be superior to the assortment of clowns, jokers, wasters and loons that are currently jockeying for position.
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
So you go to court in a massive pensions case, the judge rules against you - and you still expect him to implement 48% of your contentions? Yeah, right....
Losers aren't choosers.
That's a very foolish way of carrying on when you don't just need to win on a given day but retain that support for years in order to make the policy stick. The 'losers' get another go each time there's a new election, not to mention - to quite a large extent - in parliament.
How is a referendum the same as a General Election?
It's a vote.
Voting is not undemocratic, no matter how many times you do it.
So Im sure that if Remain had won 52-48 you would be in full support of another vote within 3 years. Lets just keep having referendums on the same subject every 3 years. What nonsense.
It may be nonsense, but it is not in any way undemocratic
So when you have a referundum everyone one will know no matter what they vote for in less than 3 years there will be another vote on exactly the same thing, and you dont think thats undemocratic?
It's bonkers but it's not undemocratic. It will then perhaps force a law (analagous to the FPTA) which would stipulate a minimum time period between referendums. Not at all in any way undemocratic. Democracy at its finest, if I may say.
In the unlikely event of a 2nd ref Leave have a rather big trump card in they campaign to tell voters not to bother and that democracy is a sham. Leave then lose 80-20 on a 40% turnout and the entire referendum looks a farce. It would be very hard in those circumstances for any government to implement such a result.
No.
Votes only count if you turn up.
The last referendum did not have an absolute majority of eligible voters, so by your standards it was a farce...
Other than another referendum which would be completely undemocratic
Still not immediately obvious why more voting is undemocratic...
Beacuse Remian lost, its undemocratic to keep voting until you get the result you want
While I have sympathy for the view that it's wrong to just keep rerunning and rerunning and rerunning the same vote again and again, with no attempt to action the "wrong" result, until you get the answer you wanted, I'm struggling to see the current situation like that.
If that had happened, we'd have seen Referendum 2 by the end of 2016, Referendum 3 (should Leave have won again) by mid-2017, and so on. We'd be on the run-up to Referendum 6 by now.
Instead, we've seen what looks like genuine and well-intentioned movement towards actioning the result, including invocation of Article 50 and a shed-load of negotiations. While we may disagree with how well it's been done, we can't disagree with the fact that it's been a legitimate and sustained attempt.
If there's a referendum on the Deal (with Leave-with-Deal or Remain-after-all) as the options, it's certainly not an incarnation of the "rerun and rerun and rerun and rerun until you get the 'right' answer" concept. If "Leave-with-Deal" wins, there is no and can be no further referendum with "Remain" as an option. We Leave at that point.
We can no more "Remain" after a win for "Leave-with-Deal" than can the US, or China, or any other third party. We'd be outside the EU. We'd have left.
The fear of "rerun and rerun and rerun" breaks down when there is literally no way to rerun a further time (unless Remain wins, of course).
As long as there are a majority of remain MPs then there could be endless re-runs despite leave victories. It does seem peculiar that Leave needed UKIP winning a European election, UKIP by-election wins, a 2015 GE victory for a party proposing a referendum, a majority of MPs voting for a referendum, leave winning a referendum and then a majority of MPs voting to enact Article 50.
In contrast all remain apparently need is to win a 2nd ref and apparently Brexit ends that day. It does somwhat devalue Britain as a democracy.
Other than another referendum which would be completely undemocratic
Still not immediately obvious why more voting is undemocratic...
Beacuse Remian lost, its undemocratic to keep voting until you get the result you want
While I have sympathy for the view that it's wrong to just keep rerunning and rerunning and rerunning the same vote again and again, with no attempt to action the "wrong" result, until you get the answer you wanted, I'm struggling to see the current situation like that.
If that had happened, we'd have seen Referendum 2 by the end of 2016, Referendum 3 (should Leave have won again) by mid-2017, and so on. We'd be on the run-up to Referendum 6 by now.
Instead, we've seen what looks like genuine and well-intentioned movement towards actioning the result, including invocation of Article 50 and a shed-load of negotiations. While we may disagree with how well it's been done, we can't disagree with the fact that it's been a legitimate and sustained attempt.
If there's a referendum on the Deal (with Leave-with-Deal or Remain-after-all) as the options, it's certainly not an incarnation of the "rerun and rerun and rerun and rerun until you get the 'right' answer" concept. If "Leave-with-Deal" wins, there is no and can be no further referendum with "Remain" as an option. We Leave at that point.
We can no more "Remain" after a win for "Leave-with-Deal" than can the US, or China, or any other third party. We'd be outside the EU. We'd have left.
The fear of "rerun and rerun and rerun" breaks down when there is literally no way to rerun a further time (unless Remain wins, of course).
As long as there are a majority of remain MPs then there could be endless re-runs despite leave victories. It does seem peculiar that Leave needed UKIP winning a European election, UKIP by-election wins, a 2015 GE victory for a party proposing a referendum, a majority of MPs voting for a referendum, leave winning a referendum and then a majority of MPs voting to enact Article 50.
In contrast all remain apparently need is to win a 2nd ref and apparently Brexit ends that day. It does somwhat devalue Britain as a democracy.
In the unlikely event of a 2nd ref Leave have a rather big trump card in they campaign to tell voters not to bother and that democracy is a sham. Leave then lose 80-20 on a 40% turnout and the entire referendum looks a farce. It would be very hard in those circumstances for any government to implement such a result.
No.
Votes only count if you turn up.
The last referendum did not have an absolute majority of eligible voters, so by your standards it was a farce...
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
Other than another referendum which would be completely undemocratic
Still not immediately obvious why more voting is undemocratic...
Beacuse Remian lost, its undemocratic to keep voting until you get the result you want
While I have sympathy for the view that it's wrong to just keep rerunning and rerunning and rerunning the same vote again and again, with no attempt to action the "wrong" result, until you get the answer you wanted, I'm struggling to see the current situation like that.
If that had happened, we'd have seen Referendum 2 by the end of 2016, Referendum 3 (should Leave have won again) by mid-2017, and so on. We'd be on the run-up to Referendum 6 by now.
Instead, we've seen what looks like genuine and well-intentioned movement towards actioning the result, including invocation of Article 50 and a shed-load of negotiations. While we may disagree with how well it's been done, we can't disagree with the fact that it's been a legitimate and sustained attempt.
If there's a referendum on the Deal (with Leave-with-Deal or Remain-after-all) as the options, it's certainly not an incarnation of the "rerun and rerun and rerun and rerun until you get the 'right' answer" concept. If "Leave-with-Deal" wins, there is no and can be no further referendum with "Remain" as an option. We Leave at that point.
We can no more "Remain" after a win for "Leave-with-Deal" than can the US, or China, or any other third party. We'd be outside the EU. We'd have left.
The fear of "rerun and rerun and rerun" breaks down when there is literally no way to rerun a further time (unless Remain wins, of course).
As long as there are a majority of remain MPs then there could be endless re-runs despite leave victories. It does seem peculiar that Leave needed UKIP winning a European election, UKIP by-election wins, a 2015 GE victory for a party proposing a referendum, a majority of MPs voting for a referendum, leave winning a referendum and then a majority of MPs voting to enact Article 50.
In contrast all remain apparently need is to win a 2nd ref and apparently Brexit ends that day. It does somwhat devalue Britain as a democracy.
Step 1 - There is a referendum on the Deal-vs-Remain. The Deal wins Step 2 - We leave the EU immediately. At this point, we cease being one of the countries in the EU. Step 3 - There is no step three. How does a country that's not in the EU vote to remain in the EU?
As I said, if MPs had avoided trying to do anything like invoke A 50 and there had been endless re-runs, there would be a point to that stance. They didn't, there weren't, so there's not.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
Unlikely. Without the referendum promise, there's a good chance that Cameron would have failed to win enough MPs in 2015 to form a government, Miliband would have become PM at the head of a very weak minority government with C&S support from both Lib Dems and SNP, and Boris would have become LotO.
With Boris doing opposition well - no difficult details and a flair for a breezy and upbeat assertion, mixed with easy put-downs - the Tories would be cruising towards a win in 2020. Meanwhile, public opinion would be continuing to move against the EU.
We'd probably be looking at more-or-less the same scenario but delayed by five years, with a government less capable of delivering a deal, and a Labour Party still susceptible to be captured by the hard left but by someone other than Corbyn, who would be too old to stand for the leadership in 2022.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
Out of battles to fight over getting a bit more money from Bookies when the other side can show continual suicides due to those machines isn't the greatest idea.
Mind you it does change the topic from Brexit for 30 seconds...
Mr. Pointer, and an even smaller minority voted to Remain.
Correct (of course) but the point is those who cannot be bothered to vote do not get their voices heard. If either side decided to boycott any second referendum they would simply lose, not invalidate that referendum.
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
Unlikely. Without the referendum promise, there's a good chance that Cameron would have failed to win enough MPs in 2015 to form a government, Miliband would have become PM at the head of a very weak minority government with C&S support from both Lib Dems and SNP, and Boris would have become LotO.
With Boris doing opposition well - no difficult details and a flair for a breezy and upbeat assertion, mixed with easy put-downs - the Tories would be cruising towards a win in 2020. Meanwhile, public opinion would be continuing to move against the EU.
We'd probably be looking at more-or-less the same scenario but delayed by five years, with a government less capable of delivering a deal, and a Labour Party still susceptible to be captured by the hard left but by someone other than Corbyn, who would be too old to stand for the leadership in 2022.
I was with you until you said "...with a government less capable of delivering a deal...".
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
I see we are doing the "both sides have failed to reach out" thing again.
A play in two acts. Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please" PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
It also misses the point that Brexit is Leavers' party. They have to decide whether they send an invitation to Remain supporters. So far, it has been lost in the post.
Remain have said they will only come if it is Abba-themed. With a vegan buffet.
Talk to me about how you think Leavers have made any effort to address Remainers' concerns, with especial reference to "traitors", "saboteurs", "enemies of the people" and "citizens of nowhere".
So you go to court in a massive pensions case, the judge rules against you - and you still expect him to implement 48% of your contentions? Yeah, right....
Losers aren't choosers.
That is, even by your exceptionally low standards, possibly the dumbest and most misconceived analogy that you have ever come out with. Well done!
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
34.7% IIRC. Under the terms of the referendum Leave won, no doubt.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
The last ref had a big turnout and both sides gunning to win. If one side sits out a referendum then it ceases to be an actual debate and would be very hard to sell to either remain or leave voters that the result has any worth.
You don't to sell the result to those that can't be arsed to turn up. That's the way it works.
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
...and also the fact that only a minority (37.5%) of the electorate felt strongly enough about leaving to vote for Brexit.
So what percentage felt strongly enough about remaining to vote???
Out of battles to fight over getting a bit more money from Bookies when the other side can show continual suicides due to those machines isn't the greatest idea.
Mind you it does change the topic from Brexit for 30 seconds...
It was a silly, silly move from a tin-earred Treasury.
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
Haha. As if the Tories haven't been playing party politics with the future of the country since 2015!
I can safely say Labour won't be voting for any deal that May comes up with. The Tories have shown zero good will - in fact nothing but treachery for short-sighted immediate political gain - when it comes to working with other parties in recent years. I can easily see an extension to A50 being pleaded for by a once-again humiliated May. Corbyn does not want Brexit. Labour are remaining wisely in a Schrodingers state on Brexit until the moment to strike arises.
The EU will be happy to extend A50 indefinitely - they can run out the clock until the next election if necessary, by which time hundreds of thousands more leavers will have died and a similar number of remainers will have entered the electorate.
I can safely say Labour won't be voting for any deal that May comes up with. The Tories have shown zero good will - in fact nothing but treachery for short-sighted immediate political gain - when it comes to working with other parties in recent years. I can easily see an extension to A50 being pleaded for by a once-again humiliated May. Corbyn does not want Brexit. Labour are remaining wisely in a Schrodingers state on Brexit until the moment to strike arises.
On the "if we have a referendum on the Deal and Remain lose again we'll just have another and another and another" argument, could advocates help me out here? I'm having difficulty seeing how it's even possible.
In practice, if we were to have a vote on the Deal, it'd go something like this:
(earliest possible dates for each): Nov 2018: HoC/Government decide on a referendum. Nov 2018: Pass legislation for referendum and also request EU for brief extension to A50 period to allow for referendum May/Jun 2019: Referendum on the Deal
If "Deal" wins, we're already in extra time on A50. The agreement and endorsement of the Deal would meet the A50 requirements and we would be out at that point under the Deal.
There would be no option to remain in, as you have to be in an institution in order to have a possibility of remaining in it (it's a bit strange to write, but it's kind of an essential attribute).
At this point, how can there be another further referendum on remaining? Remaining in what, exactly?
(I accept that there could, theoretically, be a referendum on Rejoining, but all Leavers have said again and again that a referendum on Rejoining after we leave is certainly acceptable - is it now not acceptable?)
Out of battles to fight over getting a bit more money from Bookies when the other side can show continual suicides due to those machines isn't the greatest idea.
Mind you it does change the topic from Brexit for 30 seconds...
It was a silly, silly move from a tin-earred Treasury.
It needs to be changed. Good on Crouch.
The thing is that it's an easy thing for an MP to rebel against - even under a 3 line whip. I can't vote for that in memory of "insert name of former constituent"
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
Unlikely. Without the referendum promise, there's a good chance that Cameron would have failed to win enough MPs in 2015 to form a government, Miliband would have become PM at the head of a very weak minority government with C&S support from both Lib Dems and SNP, and Boris would have become LotO.
With Boris doing opposition well - no difficult details and a flair for a breezy and upbeat assertion, mixed with easy put-downs - the Tories would be cruising towards a win in 2020. Meanwhile, public opinion would be continuing to move against the EU.
We'd probably be looking at more-or-less the same scenario but delayed by five years, with a government less capable of delivering a deal, and a Labour Party still susceptible to be captured by the hard left but by someone other than Corbyn, who would be too old to stand for the leadership in 2022.
I was with you until you said "...with a government less capable of delivering a deal...".
Is that possible?!
Given the way the world currently is - I suspect the answer is yes - but I really don't want to test the theory...
I can safely say Labour won't be voting for any deal that May comes up with. The Tories have shown zero good will - in fact nothing but treachery for short-sighted immediate political gain - when it comes to working with other parties in recent years. I can easily see an extension to A50 being pleaded for by a once-again humiliated May. Corbyn does not want Brexit. Labour are remaining wisely in a Schrodingers state on Brexit until the moment to strike arises.
Yes. The idea that Lab will row behind the Cons to support the government is not only fanciful, but would be a dereliction of their opposition duty. As Starmer's ST article yesterday made clear, their view is that the Cons have negotiated a bad deal (whatever the negotiate, but fair enough, Lab is the opposition) and that to be compelled to vote it through makes a mockery of our political system (he called it a "political hoax").
And as to @Richard_Nabavi's contention that Lab would be voting with the ERG, that is absurd. Lab is the opposition; it would be the ERG that would be voting with the Opposition.
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
Unlikely. Without the referendum promise, there's a good chance that Cameron would have failed to win enough MPs in 2015 to form a government, Miliband would have become PM at the head of a very weak minority government with C&S support from both Lib Dems and SNP, and Boris would have become LotO.
With Boris doing opposition well - no difficult details and a flair for a breezy and upbeat assertion, mixed with easy put-downs - the Tories would be cruising towards a win in 2020. Meanwhile, public opinion would be continuing to move against the EU.
We'd probably be looking at more-or-less the same scenario but delayed by five years, with a government less capable of delivering a deal, and a Labour Party still susceptible to be captured by the hard left but by someone other than Corbyn, who would be too old to stand for the leadership in 2022.
I was with you until you said "...with a government less capable of delivering a deal...".
Is that possible?!
Well, the current government is at least still engaging in negotiations (or pretending to). A less capable government might have chosen, or been forced, to walk away from negotiations (or their pretence).
I can safely say Labour won't be voting for any deal that May comes up with. The Tories have shown zero good will - in fact nothing but treachery for short-sighted immediate political gain - when it comes to working with other parties in recent years. I can easily see an extension to A50 being pleaded for by a once-again humiliated May. Corbyn does not want Brexit. Labour are remaining wisely in a Schrodingers state on Brexit until the moment to strike arises.
Welcome to PB!
Corbyn is a lifelong anti-EU person. He has voted against at every opportunity and nothing changes his mind.
And if we hadn't screwed up British Democracy by calling referendums we wouldn't be in this mess...
True.
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Without the referendum UKIP would be polling well over 30% now
Unlikely. Without the referendum promise, there's a good chance that Cameron would have failed to win enough MPs in 2015 to form a government, Miliband would have become PM at the head of a very weak minority government with C&S support from both Lib Dems and SNP, and Boris would have become LotO.
With Boris doing opposition well - no difficult details and a flair for a breezy and upbeat assertion, mixed with easy put-downs - the Tories would be cruising towards a win in 2020. Meanwhile, public opinion would be continuing to move against the EU.
We'd probably be looking at more-or-less the same scenario but delayed by five years, with a government less capable of delivering a deal, and a Labour Party still susceptible to be captured by the hard left but by someone other than Corbyn, who would be too old to stand for the leadership in 2022.
I was with you until you said "...with a government less capable of delivering a deal...".
Is that possible?!
Yes. May is still trying to do a deal on a very pragmatic basis. I'm not even sure if she has any views of her own as to what the deal should be; she's simply trying to agree something that is insufficiently intolerable to those groups with political vetoes as to be able to be signed off. It may be that no such compromise arrangement *is* possible - Chequers is good evidence on that point - but she's certainly tried.
By contrast, a Boris government, apart from being simply less capable on the details, would be chasing unicorns.
“Our views cannot be reconciled with Mr Gove’s. We are traditional Tories. We are just beginning to find our voice. We are the entrepreneurs of Britain, the wealth creators.
“Our party has left us, and like a jilted lover you Tories can be assured we will never ever come back to you again,” said Mr Hill.
“We will take our money, our intelligence, our energy, our dynamism, our organisational skills, our leadership skills and we will use them all against you. We are repulsed by your ideology and we reject everything you stand for.”
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
The whole Brexit project has been finely calibrated to indulge the febrile neuroses of the tory party. It's a bit late now for a clarion call to revere the future of the country.
"The suggestion is that Mrs May will put to the Commons the deal she gets at a late stage. Then MPs will be faced with agreeing the terms she manages to achieve or a no deal exit "
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
Comments
Jojo was a man who thought he was a loner but he knew it wouldn't last.
A play in two acts.
Me: "We have voted to leave the EU and we must do so. I would like soft Brexit please"
PB Leavers (chorus) : Traitor. Saboteur. Crush him. "
BTW: has the budget bill voting concluded?
If I get the call, I would serve.
I wouldn't be any good, mind. But lack of ability doesn't seem to deter any of the other aspirants ...
The EU has the attitude of a wife that is preventing a divorce settlement because she is holding out for custody of his dog. Even though through the marriage, she hated that bloody dog....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEJNTrJHPzo
We had a general election. Less than 3 years later we had another vote on exactly the same thing.
I do not think that was undemocratic.
There wouldn't be calls for a fresh referendum if Leavers hadn't proven themselves to be so clueless about what they wanted and about the execution of the process and so unable to sketch out a vision of post-Brexit Britain that offers any reassurance to sceptics.
I really wonder what the theory of democracy is here that's making people think voting with more information is against it. It seems to be that rather than expressing the considered will of the people, a referendum is some kind of ceremonial sporting coin-flip.
Democracy in action...
Now the answer to that question may well be sod the lot of them but given that we are now at an impasse just about the only solution to this impasse is to go back to ask what do you want to do...
And he is probably far from alone in thinking this:
Sargeant, who is a lifelong Tory voter, said he will never vote for the Conservative party again, but cannot vote Labour either under Jeremy Corbyn....
The only movement is in Labour ranks as they search for their own internal compromise.
Brexit is a shitshow. If there is not another Brexit vote in some form or another, the likely outcome is some people will give up voting altogether.
Now that really is undemocratic...
Cameron tried to use a referendum to solve an internal party dispute. That was not a good idea.
Losers aren't choosers.
Presumably, by your logic, Remainers would have been able to send us into the euro and spearhead the launch of a euro army, has we won 52-48?
She changed her view and supported Remain in the referendum.
Link to a bit about Legal advice / Backstop.
No idea of the agenda (if they have one) of lawyersforbritain.org
Edit: We represent a cross-section of Leave-Remain opinion. We initially came together before the referendum to campaign to Leave. Since the vote we have been joined by many lawyers who supported Remain.
We are united in the wish to work constructively for the exit process to be carried out in the best interests of the United Kingdom
If that had happened, we'd have seen Referendum 2 by the end of 2016, Referendum 3 (should Leave have won again) by mid-2017, and so on. We'd be on the run-up to Referendum 6 by now.
Instead, we've seen what looks like genuine and well-intentioned movement towards actioning the result, including invocation of Article 50 and a shed-load of negotiations. While we may disagree with how well it's been done, we can't disagree with the fact that it's been a legitimate and sustained attempt.
If there's a referendum on the Deal (with Leave-with-Deal or Remain-after-all) as the options, it's certainly not an incarnation of the "rerun and rerun and rerun and rerun until you get the 'right' answer" concept. If "Leave-with-Deal" wins, there is no and can be no further referendum with "Remain" as an option. We Leave at that point.
We can no more "Remain" after a win for "Leave-with-Deal" than can the US, or China, or any other third party. We'd be outside the EU. We'd have left.
The fear of "rerun and rerun and rerun" breaks down when there is literally no way to rerun a further time (unless Remain wins, of course).
You would no doubt be superior to the assortment of clowns, jokers, wasters and loons that are currently jockeying for position.
Votes only count if you turn up.
The last referendum did not have an absolute majority of eligible voters, so by your standards it was a farce...
In contrast all remain apparently need is to win a 2nd ref and apparently Brexit ends that day. It does somwhat devalue Britain as a democracy.
Post of the day
Of course if we want to have a debate about the worth of a result, let's talk about lies, cheating and mysterious offshore funding, shall we?
Step 2 - We leave the EU immediately. At this point, we cease being one of the countries in the EU.
Step 3 - There is no step three. How does a country that's not in the EU vote to remain in the EU?
As I said, if MPs had avoided trying to do anything like invoke A 50 and there had been endless re-runs, there would be a point to that stance. They didn't, there weren't, so there's not.
With Boris doing opposition well - no difficult details and a flair for a breezy and upbeat assertion, mixed with easy put-downs - the Tories would be cruising towards a win in 2020. Meanwhile, public opinion would be continuing to move against the EU.
We'd probably be looking at more-or-less the same scenario but delayed by five years, with a government less capable of delivering a deal, and a Labour Party still susceptible to be captured by the hard left but by someone other than Corbyn, who would be too old to stand for the leadership in 2022.
Mind you it does change the topic from Brexit for 30 seconds...
Is that possible?!
This would be playing party politics with the future of the country and would be totally unacceptable to the electorate and I would hope to most MPs regardless of party.
Given the way the country is struggling to come to terms with the outcome, however, I still maintain that constitutional changes like this should require an absolute majority of the electorate to vote for them, to be passed.
It needs to be changed. Good on Crouch.
The EU will be happy to extend A50 indefinitely - they can run out the clock until the next election if necessary, by which time hundreds of thousands more leavers will have died and a similar number of remainers will have entered the electorate.
In practice, if we were to have a vote on the Deal, it'd go something like this:
(earliest possible dates for each):
Nov 2018: HoC/Government decide on a referendum.
Nov 2018: Pass legislation for referendum and also request EU for brief extension to A50 period to allow for referendum
May/Jun 2019: Referendum on the Deal
If "Deal" wins, we're already in extra time on A50. The agreement and endorsement of the Deal would meet the A50 requirements and we would be out at that point under the Deal.
There would be no option to remain in, as you have to be in an institution in order to have a possibility of remaining in it (it's a bit strange to write, but it's kind of an essential attribute).
At this point, how can there be another further referendum on remaining? Remaining in what, exactly?
(I accept that there could, theoretically, be a referendum on Rejoining, but all Leavers have said again and again that a referendum on Rejoining after we leave is certainly acceptable - is it now not acceptable?)
And as to @Richard_Nabavi's contention that Lab would be voting with the ERG, that is absurd. Lab is the opposition; it would be the ERG that would be voting with the Opposition.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/11/pressure-theresa-may-reach-deal-eu27-real-battle-parliament
By contrast, a Boris government, apart from being simply less capable on the details, would be chasing unicorns.
“Our views cannot be reconciled with Mr Gove’s. We are traditional Tories. We are just beginning to find our voice. We are the entrepreneurs of Britain, the wealth creators.
“Our party has left us, and like a jilted lover you Tories can be assured we will never ever come back to you again,” said Mr Hill.
“We will take our money, our intelligence, our energy, our dynamism, our organisational skills, our leadership skills and we will use them all against you. We are repulsed by your ideology and we reject everything you stand for.”