That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government hav already managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
That’s also a view, rather than a fact. Given that a number of those who helped lead the Brexit campaign have expressed a preference for remaining over the deal, it is an open question. The personal outrage of various individuals doesn’t settle it one way or the other.
My own preference would be for parliament to approve the imperfect deal. Should it fail to do so there is no settled legal, constitutional or democratic position for what should happen next - and whatever does will seriously annoy large numbers of people.
They only make that claim because they seek to force the decision towards no deal and they know that this Deal makes that more unlikely.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government havdcalreafy managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
You can say it's been settled until you're blue in the face but if people do not regard it as settled then it isn't settled.
No the fact that some people do not accept it doesnt make them right. There will always be the malcontents and misanthropes unwilling to accept a decision. I am sure you will we some from the ultra Leave side if the deal is passed. That doesn't mean we should listen to their gibbering. For the good of the country it is important that we do not.
In the latest YouGov opinion poll, 50% of women think Brexit was the wrong decision and only 35% think it was right. Numbers like that must make you question the long-term viability of your project.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government hav already managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
That’s also a view, rather than a fact. Given that a number of those who helped lead the Brexit campaign have expressed a preference for remaining over the deal, it is an open question. The personal outrage of various individuals doesn’t settle it one way or the other.
My own preference would be for parliament to approve the imperfect deal. Should it fail to do so there is no settled legal, constitutional or democratic position for what should happen next - and whatever does will seriously annoy large numbers of people.
They only make that claim because they seek to force the decision towards no deal and they know that this Deal makes that more unlikely.
As I said, you’re entitled to your views. It doesn’t make them settled facts.
The Opposition can move a VONC at any time whether the Deal is rejected or approved. Thatcher did so on a regular basis to the Callaghan Government in the late 1970s.
Theresa's deal is surely doomed - the Leavers eviscerated it with the same speed and ruthlessness as they did with Dave's before it. The wretched thing never stood a chance. I can only foresee two outcomes now:
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
The EU would not give a Leaver PM any different a Deal to May.
The economic consequences of No Deal would be so damaging they would probably take decades to recover from, especially if they are followed by Corbyn as PM as would be more likely in the event of Crash Out Brexit
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
It would however be a "Brexit election", in which voters might expect Labour to actually have a settled position on the matter. One that is a little more thought through than the current "exact same unicorn" policy.
But it would not be a Brexit election however much political anoraks and the commentariat might like to think otherwise. Most people are far more interested in other issues and would be very receptive to them being raised in the campaign.
Thinking on it further, would a second referendum really be between the Deal and Remain? Why would the Labour leadership eliminate the one option from the ballot that would let them totally reshape the country? Their backbenchers could opt for No Deal over Deal on the basis that they’ve already rejected the Deal as being unacceptable. The ERG will clearly agree.
Thinking on it further, would a second referendum really be between the Deal and Remain? Why would the Labour leadership eliminate the one option from the ballot that would let them totally reshape the country? Their backbenchers could opt for No Deal over Deal on the basis that they’ve already rejected the Deal as being unacceptable. The ERG will clearly agree.
Perhaps it will be Remain vs No Deal.
Yes, I think that's what Labour would want, if we can't get an election.
Theresa's deal is surely doomed - the Leavers eviscerated it with the same speed and ruthlessness as they did with Dave's before it. The wretched thing never stood a chance. I can only foresee two outcomes now:
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
The EU would not give a Leaver PM any different a Deal to May.
The economic consequences of No Deal would be so damaging they would probably take decades to recover from, especially if they are followed by Corbyn as PM as would be more likely in the event of Crash Out Brexit
Quite right. But the only way No Deal can be avoided now is to go through the pretence of a renegotiation under an untainted Leave PM. Of course, he'll just return with Theresa's deal (at best) but the saboteurs are so stupid/cynical/shameless that they're probably go along with it this time.
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys also showed that the desireless than where the voters are. How many Labour gains in 2017 were in Remain voting areas?
Corbyn is not talking to centrists like us because he doesn’t need to. Enough of us will break for him as the lesser of two evils. Many did last time having sworn they never would. When you get into a campaign with Tories dog whistling their core it will happen again.
That’s a fair point. May’s dogwhistles are a very powerful anti-Tory motivator. Her anti-immigrant rhetoric and talk of queue jumping is appalling, as well as almost entirely destructive. That’s why I see the Tories winning most seats next time, but not a majority.
If the Tories drop below 310 seats ,they are likely to lose office even if they remain the largest party.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it only seems to apply to the decision to leave the EU.
We have been having new information about the EU for 40 years since the original referendum eg. Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, ever closer union etc. and never been asked to confirm this decision democratically.
But when we vote to leave then that decision suddenly doesn't count with each new piece of information apparently. It's a bad argument.
No. It’s a perfectly valid argument. There is a ton of new information. We can make an informed choice.
While I'm sure he's right about Hayes' motivation, the language and tone of this letter is everything one's come to expect from the ERG... rude, bullying, highly personal, unprofessional - on Commons paper addressed to a colleague, and allowed to leak out. Keep it for the pub.
If Frankie Boyle had made those comments about someone on TV, a lot of the people who are guffawing him on would be outraged.
How does Labour place a Referendum Bill before parliament and guide it through the legislative steps so that the vote can be held before March 29?
It can't. But if the Government has no viable options and a motion is carried instructing them to go for a referendum, do they really refuse and opt for chaos, or ask the EU for time to do it? For the reasons I suggested, the EU would agree, in the hope of a Remain outcome.
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
It would however be a "Brexit election", in which voters might expect Labour to actually have a settled position on the matter. One that is a little more thought through than the current "exact same unicorn" policy.
But it would not be a Brexit election however much political anoraks and the commentariat might like to think otherwise. Most people are far more interested in other issues and would be very receptive to them being raised in the campaign.
Other issues would be largely irrelevant if we face economic crash out Brexit which would see higher unemployment and less money for public services and higher taxes and shortages of supplies and likely riots and rising crime, albeit with lower immigration, all other issues would flow from Brexit
Theresa's deal is surely doomed - the Leavers eviscerated it with the same speed and ruthlessness as they did with Dave's before it. The wretched thing never stood a chance. I can only foresee two outcomes now:
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
Whatever now happens there will be change, and people don't like change. In either scenario above, Remainers will look to blame Leavers, but do not assume that will become the dominant story. History shows that societies find it easier to blame others - so expect that the guilty men tag will end up hung on the EU, civil service negotiators, the media, etc. Of course history also shows this is fertile ground for populist leaders so we have to be on our guard against those.
Thanks for the considered response. Two things I have an issue with:
1) At this stage, is it even guaranteed that "Remain" is a live option, practically? Also it would be difficult to get any Brexiteer MPs to support a referendum with Remain as an option, so the parliamentary arithmetic would require support across the spectrum to make up for this.
2) In principle the "surviving options" could include "the Deal"? MPs might not feel able to vote through the Deal themselves, but might be content to let the electorate grubby their hands by doing it for them? Essentially, any situation in which an MP agrees to a referendum means presenting at least one option that the MP doesn't like. Couldn't the Deal be one of them?
Re 1): yes, would need a cross-Parliament move. Labour would vote pretty solidly in favour in that situation, and if the Deal had been rejected, enough Conservatives probably would too. But ultimately it would need the Government to agree to proceed, possibly under threat of VONC if they refused.
Re 2) Maybe. But this does run into the objection that it asks people to assess a 500-page document already rejected by Parliament. The "worse than either Remain or Hard Brexit" view is pretty widespread. One can reasonably have a referendum on two clear concepts, but not on fiddly detail.
Are there any guarantees? Hell no. We are trying to escape in one piece, not steering towards a guaranteed safe solution.
Theresa's deal is surely doomed - the Leavers eviscerated it with the same speed and ruthlessness as they did with Dave's before it. The wretched thing never stood a chance. I can only foresee two outcomes now:
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
The EU would not give a Leaver PM any different a Deal to May.
The economic consequences of No Deal would be so damaging they would probably take decades to recover from, especially if they are followed by Corbyn as PM as would be more likely in the event of Crash Out Brexit
Quite right. But the only way No Deal can be avoided now is to go through the pretence of a renegotiation under an untainted Leave PM. Of course, he'll just return with Theresa's deal (at best) but the saboteurs are so stupid/cynical/shameless that they're probably go along with it this time.
There could be a planned "WTO* Brexit" undera new regime, and there is something to be said for preparing for these things, but it would need A50 extension.
* Even "No Deal" requires mini-Deals over a number of issues.
In reality the ERG will be paper tigers, meekly cave in to allow May's Deal to pass.
Thinking on it further, would a second referendum really be between the Deal and Remain? Why would the Labour leadership eliminate the one option from the ballot that would let them totally reshape the country? Their backbenchers could opt for No Deal over Deal on the basis that they’ve already rejected the Deal as being unacceptable. The ERG will clearly agree.
Perhaps it will be Remain vs No Deal.
If May calls a referendum it will likely be Deal v No Deal, 75% of Tory voters oppose a Deal v Remain referendum compared to 73% who oppose a Deal v No Deal referendum with Tory voters split 35% for the Deal, 35% for No Deal. The ERG would demand a No Deal option and the majority of Tory MPs would back the Deal.
If Corbyn called a referendum it would likely be Remain v Deal (ie permanent customs union which would be his Deal), 56% of Labour voters want a Remain v Deal referendum compared to only 50% who want a Deal v No Deal referendum. Labour voters also prefer the Deal over No Deal 35% to 24%. The majority of Labour MPs would demand a Remain option with Corbynistas backing Corbyn's Deal.
Theresa's deal is surely doomed - the Leavers eviscerated it with the same speed and ruthlessness as they did with Dave's before it. The wretched thing never stood a chance. I can only foresee two outcomes now:
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
The EU would not give a Leaver PM any different a Deal to May.
The economic consequences of No Deal would be so damaging they would probably take decades to recover from, especially if they are followed by Corbyn as PM as would be more likely in the event of Crash Out Brexit
Quite right. But the only way No Deal can be avoided now is to go through the pretence of a renegotiation under an untainted Leave PM. Of course, he'll just return with Theresa's deal (at best) but the saboteurs are so stupid/cynical/shameless that they're probably go along with it this time.
They won't, for the ERG out of the EU, the Customs Union and the Single Market is non negotiable and the EU will not agree that for the UK and NI, only GB
Theresa's deal is surely doomed - the Leavers eviscerated it with the same speed and ruthlessness as they did with Dave's before it. The wretched thing never stood a chance. I can only foresee two outcomes now:
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
The EU would not give a Leaver PM any different a Deal to May.
The economic consequences of No Deal would be so damaging they would probably take decades to recover from, especially if they are followed by Corbyn as PM as would be more likely in the event of Crash Out Brexit
Quite right. But the only way No Deal can be avoided now is to go through the pretence of a renegotiation under an untainted Leave PM. Of course, he'll just return with Theresa's deal (at best) but the saboteurs are so stupid/cynical/shameless that they're probably go along with it this time.
They won't, for the ERG out of the EU, the Customs Union and the Single Market is non negotiable and the EU will not agree that for the UK and NI, only GB
The EU don't have a choice if we insist upon it. In 125 days NI leaves them both automatically. Tic toc.
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys also showed that the desireless than where the voters are. How many Labour gains in 2017 were in Remain voting areas?
Corbyn is not talking to centrists like us because he doesn’t need to. Enough of us will break for him as the lesser of two evils. Many did last time having sworn they never would. When you get into a campaign with Tories dog whistling their core it will happen again.
That’s a fair point. May’s dogwhie, but not a majority.
If the Tories drop below 310 seats ,they are likely to lose office even if they remain the largest party.
Fine, let Corbyn deal with Brexit then.
On 300-309 seats the Tories will also likely have a majority in England and be the strongest and most powerful opposition in postwar British History and Corbyn with the weakest support in Parliament of any postwar PM.
How does Labour place a Referendum Bill before parliament and guide it through the legislative steps so that the vote can be held before March 29?
It can't. But if the Government has no viable options and a motion is carried instructing them to go for a referendum, do they really refuse and opt for chaos, or ask the EU for time to do it? For the reasons I suggested, the EU would agree, in the hope of a Remain outcome.
I think if May's deal is rejected by a substantial majority then many Tories, perhaps including May herself, will switch to supporting a second referendum. There are no other options - bringing back the deal with cosmetic changes is not a runner if it has been defeated by a 3 figure majority the first time. And no deal is also inconceivable for reasons that have been discussed here ad infinitum.
And I think that many MPs, probably including the DUP and some ministers, would secretly like to junk Brexit but are too invested in the idea to say so publicly yet.
I said illegitimate not illegal. Your comprehension skills are slipping this morning.
Illegitimate means illicit or outside the law. Illegal is a synonym. Look in a dictionary.
You've never seen someone use the word illegitimate non-literally? People, and politicians, do it all the time.
I don't regard a second vote with remain as an option to be illegitimate, but come on, to pretend people don't also use illegitimate in a broader sense than the literal is weak as all hell.
Of course they do. They say it's illegitimate when it's not actually illegal when they've run out of arguments. I was calling Richard out on that.
Utterly wrong as usual. I have never claimed it would be illegal and clearly did not in this case. You are just squirming because you have no other response. I choose my words carefully. You should try to do the same.
Which I do, more carefully than you, as I've demonstrated. But you're going to have the last word as usual because I'm about to get on a plane to Shannon.
May's Deal if passed still leaves the EU and ends free movement and protects the economy and no EUref2 would therefore be required. In the event of her Deal being rejected twice or more by the Commons and we face the devastation of a No Deal scenario and the loss of manufacturing jobs and the exodus of factories and city forms abroad and shortage of food and potentially of medicines and riots in our cities and Scotland voting for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland then EUref2 has to be on the cards and May knows that too hence she rightly now talks of 'no Brexit at all' if her Deal is rejected. Leave scraped a 52% win promising 'the easiest Deal in history' with the EU not the disaster of No Deal.
The evidence on the whole is also both Remain and May's Deal would beat No Deal.
Labour voters prefer the Deal to No Deal by 35% to 24%, LDs prefer the Deal to No Deal by a huge 54% to 11% margin and even Tory voters are equally split 35% for May's Deal and 35% for No Deal
Some polls had Remain winning by 10%.
Polls can be wrong.
The thing is, people never Czech them out properly.
Edit - apart from @Dura_Ace of course, whose remarks about the Polish prostitute and the Yorkshire terrier continue to haunt me.
Except when they are Russing to judgement.
In my Estonation that’s a Latt of bad humour. Bulgar me, it leaves me Hungary for more
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
Surveys also showed that the desire to stop Labour was a big motivator of the Tory vote. Once Brexit has happened, there is no Brexit-related reason for any Remainer to vote Labour. Under FPTP, the numbers matter much less than where the voters are. How many Labour gains in 2017 were in Remain voting areas?
Indeed, Tories got a 10% swing from Labour in the Bush Hill Park by election in Remain voting Enfield on Thursday after May got her Deal. In 2017 Enfield swung to Labour to try and stop hard Brexit with Labour gaining Enfield Southgate from the Tories and increasing its majority in Enfield North and Edmonton
Apparently that by election was dominated by very local issues - such as unpopoular plans for cycle lanes.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it only seems to apply to the decision to leave the EU.
We have been having new information about the EU for 40 years since the original referendum eg. Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, ever closer union etc. and never been asked to confirm this decision democratically.
But when we vote to leave then that decision suddenly doesn't count with each new piece of information apparently. It's a bad argument.
No. It’s a perfectly valid argument. There is a ton of new information. We can make an informed choice.
So if we were to have a vote to remain, you'd be happy for a new referendum afterwards about remaining or leaving every time new information appears? Which would be very often as the EU changes all the time.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
The issue then is that the messaging is
1. The voters told us to leave 2. MPs, who supported remain on the whole, discarded the deal that would let us leave in reasonably good order 3. Then asked the people to leave in disarray or change their mind
That’s an appalling message to send to democrats the world over
There are no good routes out of this now !
Pass the deal, sort out an FTA and improve it over time
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
The issue then is that the messaging is
1. The voters told us to leave 2. MPs, who supported remain on the whole, discarded the deal that would let us leave in reasonably good order 3. Then asked the people to leave in disarray or change their mind
That’s an appalling message to send to democrats the world over
There are no good routes out of this now !
Pass the deal, sort out an FTA and improve it over time
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
It would however be a "Brexit election", in which voters might expect Labour to actually have a settled position on the matter. One that is a little more thought through than the current "exact same unicorn" policy.
But it would not be a Brexit election however much political anoraks and the commentariat might like to think otherwise. Most people are far more interested in other issues and would be very receptive to them being raised in the campaign.
Other issues would be largely irrelevant if we face economic crash out Brexit which would see higher unemployment and less money for public services and higher taxes and shortages of supplies and likely riots and rising crime, albeit with lower immigration, all other issues would flow from Brexit
You and others might think that - as you doubtless did in 2017 - but the electorate would be very happy to discuss other issues to which they can relate much better than the technicalities of Brexit.
Thanks for the considered response. Two things I have an issue with:
1) At this stage, is it even guaranteed that "Remain" is a live option, practically? Also it would be difficult to get any Brexiteer MPs to support a referendum with Remain as an option, so the parliamentary arithmetic would require support across the spectrum to make up for this.
2) In principle the "surviving options" could include "the Deal"? MPs might not feel able to vote through the Deal themselves, but might be content to let the electorate grubby their hands by doing it for them? Essentially, any situation in which an MP agrees to a referendum means presenting at least one option that the MP doesn't like. Couldn't the Deal be one of them?
Re 1): yes, would need a cross-Parliament move. Labour would vote pretty solidly in favour in that situation, and if the Deal had been rejected, enough Conservatives probably would too. But ultimately it would need the Government to agree to proceed, possibly under threat of VONC if they refused.
Re 2) Maybe. But this does run into the objection that it asks people to assess a 500-page document already rejected by Parliament. The "worse than either Remain or Hard Brexit" view is pretty widespread. One can reasonably have a referendum on two clear concepts, but not on fiddly detail.
Are there any guarantees? Hell no. We are trying to escape in one piece, not steering towards a guaranteed safe solution.
Yes I also think 2) involves some stretching of the imagination, but it doesn't seem completely implausible. There are certainly some MPs who would find a Deal vs No Deal referendum preferable.
As for 1), what has to happen for "Remain" even to be a plausible ballot option? Do we need the EU27 to come together and make a solemn declaration beforehand that the UK can remain and retain all its opt-outs etc? (I can imagine that for internal political reasons, Spain in particular might want to stick some conditions on.)
Re DUP. Govt might as well take them at their word about “no divergence” and introduce votes on the floor of the HoC over abortion and the education system.
It's quite hard for a VoNC to pass the HoC, even with the DUP playing silly buggers.
It needs 323 MPS, not 326, as Sinn Fein don't take their seats. The Tories have 317 MPs plus the speaker.
Assuming all Tory MPs turn up and play ball, which they should, those last five or six MPs could be very interesting, particularly since there are several independent MPs right now, none of whom are fans of Corbyn and don't take a whip.
Despite what @HYUFD believes no sitting Tory MO will vote against the government, or abstain, in a VoNC
If May were toppled in a coup and replaced by a No Dealer (even if unlikely) I would not put it past Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Lee and Morgan to no confidence that hardline Brexiteer
Clarke potentially too.
In no way will Ken vote down a Tory government and risk a Bennite being elected
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it only seems to apply to the decision to leave the EU
But when we vote to leave then that decision suddenly doesn't count with each new piece of information apparently. It's a bad argument.
No. It’s a perfectly valid argument. There is a ton of new information. We can make an informed choice.
So if we were to have a vote to remain, you'd be happy for a new referendum afterwards about remaining or leaving every time new information appears? Which would be very often as the EU changes all the time.
The answer is of course no.
If there is as substantial development as we have seen this past two years then absolutely yes. Just because people made mistakes in the past doesn’t mean that we have to repeat them.
Additionally whatever the outcome of this current crisis we should see this reviewed in 5/10 years. Are we still happy out/in?
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys also showed that the desireless than where the voters are. How many Labour gains in 2017 were in Remain voting areas?
Corbyn is not talking to centrists like us because he doesn’t need to. Enough of us will break for him as the lesser of two evils. Many did last time having sworn they never would. When you get into a campaign with Tories dog whistling their core it will happen again.
That’s a fair point. May’s dogwhie, but not a majority.
If the Tories drop below 310 seats ,they are likely to lose office even if they remain the largest party.
Fine, let Corbyn deal with Brexit then.
On 300-309 seats the Tories will also likely have a majority in England and be the strongest and most powerful opposition in postwar British History and Corbyn with the weakest support in Parliament of any postwar PM.
If there were GE then there would be a Tory bloodbath. How could there be a manifesto over Brexit, when Brexit has just collapsed the government?
Yup. Intelligent. Articulate. Assertive. Exactly what we’re lacking.
Great communicator too, and concerned with real issues rather than abstract debates.
She is one of those increasingly rare politicians that can change minds and reframe a question. Hopefully the coming storm will allow such talent to come through. We’ll need it.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
Even if it votes for No Deal - as it well might?
That will also be disastrous. But no one can claim it was a disaster inflicted without a mandate.
Thanks for the considered response. Two things I have an issue with:
1) At this stage, is it even guaranteed that "Remain" is a live option, practically? Also it would be difficult to get any Brexiteer MPs to support a referendum with Remain as an option, so the parliamentary arithmetic would require support across the spectrum to make up for this.
2) In principle the "surviving options" could include "the Deal"? MPs might not feel able to vote through the Deal themselves, but might be content to let the electorate grubby their hands by doing it for them? Essentially, any situation in which an MP agrees to a referendum means presenting at least one option that the MP doesn't like. Couldn't the Deal be one of them?
Re 1): yes, would need a cross-Parliament move. Labour would vote pretty solidly in favour in that situation, and if the Deal had been rejected, enough Conservatives probably would too. But ultimately it would need the Government to agree to proceed, possibly under threat of VONC if they refused.
Re 2) Maybe. But this does run into the objection that it asks people to assess a 500-page document already rejected by Parliament. The "worse than either Remain or Hard Brexit" view is pretty widespread. One can reasonably have a referendum on two clear concepts, but not on fiddly detail.
Are there any guarantees? Hell no. We are trying to escape in one piece, not steering towards a guaranteed safe solution.
Yes I also think 2) involves some stretching of the imagination, but it doesn't seem completely implausible. There are certainly some MPs who would find a Deal vs No Deal referendum preferable.
As for 1), what has to happen for "Remain" even to be a plausible ballot option? Do we need the EU27 to come together and make a solemn declaration beforehand that the UK can remain and retain all its opt-outs etc? (I can imagine that for internal political reasons, Spain in particular might want to stick some conditions on.)
I don't think a binary Deal/No Deal referendum would get through Parliament, with out Remain being added as an option.
If there is a #peoplesvote, Remain will be included.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Yes. I assess a fresh referendum to be the least damaging of the options. But I’m under no illusion that it’s a good option. It has long been my view that the Brexit vote as secured is a complete disaster.
Even if it votes for No Deal - as it well might?
That will also be disastrous. But no one can claim it was a disaster inflicted without a mandate.
Yes they can. The people outside the UK who will be impacted by it as well as the people within the UK without a vote.
No Deal leaves one word engraved on May's political tombstone: "Backstop".
And on Barnier's.
Surely ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ is her legacy.
She is about to discover that No Deal is a consequence of her Bad Deal......
Turn up to the signing. Strike through the Backstop provisions. Initial the change. Sign the deal. Get back on the plane with "Over to you, guys. It's all I can get approved...."
She'd be a legend.
A thought I had would be what if there was an amendment to the meaningful vote to the effect that they were rejecting it but that they would have accepted it if the backstop was struck out.
Would put Labour in an interesting spot. If they didn't back the amendment because their "better deal" was not about the backstop - then what was it? What suddenly changes May's Deal to make it OK to sign?
Was also thinking it gives May ammunition to take to Brussels
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
.
They have had a vote. What you want is to have them keep voting again and again until they give you the answer you want. A typical EU trick we have seen plenty of times before.
There has never been a campaign for a referendum with as much support as the people's vote movement. Like it or not you have to deal with reality.
I am dealing with reality. The reality is that you want to overturn a democratic decision before it has even been enacted. That is a sure fire way to destroy people's faith in the democratic system and once you do that they will look for alternative means to achieve their ends. That is what you are advocating.
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it only seems to apply to the decision to leave the EU.
We have been having new information about the EU for 40 years since the original referendum eg. Maastricht Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, ever closer union etc. and never been asked to confirm this decision democratically.
But when we vote to leave then that decision suddenly doesn't count with each new piece of information apparently. It's a bad argument.
No. It’s a perfectly valid argument. There is a ton of new information. We can make an informed choice.
So if we were to have a vote to remain, you'd be happy for a new referendum afterwards about remaining or leaving every time new information appears? Which would be very often as the EU changes all the time.
The answer is of course no.
We have a parliamentary democracy and it is always open to any political party to advocate leaving the EU, and doing so if they get a mandate. Indeed Labour proposed just such a policy in 1983. We've had two referendums on the subject and neither have settled the matter. Indeed the second one could have been comfortably ignored had the government that called it not also made a commitment to be bound by the result.
Thanks for the considered response. Two things I have an issue with:
1) At this stage, is it even guaranteed that "Remain" is a live option, practically? Also it would be difficult to get any Brexiteer MPs to support a referendum with Remain as an option, so the parliamentary arithmetic would require support across the spectrum to make up for this.
2) In principle the "surviving options" could include "the Deal"? MPs might not feel able to vote through the Deal themselves, but might be content to let the electorate grubby their hands by doing it for them? Essentially, any situation in which an MP agrees to a referendum means presenting at least one option that the MP doesn't like. Couldn't the Deal be one of them?
Re 1): yes, would need a cross-Parliament move. Labour would vote pretty solidly in favour in that situation, and if the Deal had been rejected, enough Conservatives probably would too. But ultimately it would need the Government to agree to proceed, possibly under threat of VONC if they refused.
Re 2) Maybe. But this does run into the objection that it asks people to assess a 500-page document already rejected by Parliament. The "worse than either Remain or Hard Brexit" view is pretty widespread. One can reasonably have a referendum on two clear concepts, but not on fiddly detail.
Are there any guarantees? Hell no. We are trying to escape in one piece, not steering towards a guaranteed safe solution.
Yes I also think 2) involves some stretching of the imagination, but it doesn't seem completely implausible. There are certainly some MPs who would find a Deal vs No Deal referendum preferable.
As for 1), what has to happen for "Remain" even to be a plausible ballot option? Do we need the EU27 to come together and make a solemn declaration beforehand that the UK can remain and retain all its opt-outs etc? (I can imagine that for internal political reasons, Spain in particular might want to stick some conditions on.)
I don't think a binary Deal/No Deal referendum would get through Parliament, with out Remain being added as an option.
If there is a #peoplesvote, Remain will be included.
Deal v No Deal would just about I think get through Parliament, almost all Tory MPs would vote for it bar Soubry, Wollaston and Grieve and Lee and Jo Johnson, a few Labour Leavers like Hoey, Field and Stringer along with Labour MPs who want a Deal like Flint and Snell would back it and probably Stephen Lloyd from the LDs too. The DUP could also back it as they prefer No Deal to the Deal and it gives the option to reject the Deal while still leaving the EU and the DUP backed Leave in 2016
It is not clear that in a referendum there would be a Condorcet winner. Which is of more than academic interest when the option that gets eliminated in Round 1 would have won a Yes/No vote.
If there is a Yes/No vote on one option to begin with and then a conditional question on the same ballot which only comes into play in the case of a Yes (say) result, we will still get a large part of the electorate who feel cheated, because there is no unbiased way to choose what the first question will ask. Should it be Remain/Leave? Or Yes/No to May's deal? There is no "objective" answer to that.
Vernon Bogdanor's proposal of two referendums would be sensible if the electorate were a club and we were talking about two votes at an EGM or even two EGMs. What makes it crazy or distractedly sweet is that the electorate isn't a club.
Showing that a referendum could cause big problems doesn't show that not having one won't cause bigger ones. There is no way that any government is going to ignore parliamentary backing for a referendum. They have lost enough legitimacy as it is.
If the Commons backs "May's deal", there won't be a referendum.
If they don't back it, there will have to be. There is ample time for one. Greece managed it in 10 days in 2015. Are British officials a bunch of snowflakes? Renegotiation won't happen, so in this scenario the only alternative to a referendum would be No Deal. Which probably wouldn't get past the Commons either. Oh f***ing dear. And then a GE wouldn't help much.
If May's deal doesn't get past the Commons then the politicians will have screwed up, so hand the issue back to the people. That's not ideal, but there's no workable alternative. This is the basis on which I support a simple Leave/Remain referendum with it being made clear that "Leave" means WTO, hard Brexit, No Deal, however one wants to bill it.
In game show terms you get two options: Remain or No Deal.
May could quite easily call a Deal v No Deal referendum if she cannot get her Deal through the Commons which would get enough of the ERG on board and potentially the DUP to get through Parliament and still adhere to her commitment that we will Brexit next March.
According to Ashcroft's poll yesterday Deal would narrowly win it
She can't realistically tell the Commons they're wrong and then ask them to back her in telling them so. Once they've finished celebrating the defeat of the Deal in the Commons, why would the DUP support this? Her Deal loses and she's out. (She may then flip to Remain, on the grounds that it's better than No Deal.)
Aside from what the question should be, and how the voters would respond to different combinations of questions, has anybody set out a serious analysis of what the route to choosing a referendum question would actually involve? What are the political dynamics, and the most likely choice to be put to voters?
As David said, it's difficult enough to see how a referendum gets through Parliament in time. But I am unsure how any particular question would get approved, since each variant clearly favours a certain side (and therefore hits the same problem that no side controls the Commons), some questions seem purely hypothetical (e.g. if there is no defined route for the UK to stay in the EU, can "Remain" even be a referendum option?) and other questions risk being completely overtaken by events (David notes that the referendum campaign would result in a negotiations freeze but that doesn't mean the whole world freezes - presumably various No Deal prep for example will still be going on behind the scenes, and it's conceivable that options for the UK could either be put on or taken off the table e.g. by joint declaration of EU27 leaders).
About 15 years I negotiated the breakup of a joint venture
There was a 90 day clock.
On day 87, by mutual agreement, we suspended the clock
It took 400 days of discussion before we were ready to restart it so we could complete the negotiation in the 90 day window allowed in the contract
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the numer.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
It would however be a "Brexit election", in which voters might expect Labour to actually have a settled position on the matter. One that is a little more thought through than the current "exact same unicorn" policy.
But it would not be a Brexit election howevermpaign.
Other issues would be largely irrelevant if we face economic crash out Brexit which would see higher unemployment and less money for public services and higher taxes and shortages of supplies and likely riots and rising crime, albeit with lower immigration, all other issues would flow from Brexit
You and others might think that - as you doubtless did in 2017 - but the electorate would be very happy to discuss other issues to which they can relate much better than the technicalities of Brexit.
2017 is irrelevant as we were still in the EU, single market and customs union then, not crashing out of all of them without a trade deal. Plus even in 2017 many even a majority voted mainly on Brexit.
All other issues flow from the question of a Crash Out Brexit
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
Surveys also showed that the ter much less than where the voters are. How many Labour gains in 2017 were in Remain voting areas?
Indeed, Tories got a 10% swing from Labour in the Bush Hill Park by election in Remain voting Enfield on Thursday after May got her Deal. In 2017 Enfield swung to Labour to try and stop hard Brexit with Labour gaining Enfield Southgate from the Tories and increasing its majority in Enfield North and Edmonton
Apparently that by election was dominated by very local issues - such as unpopoular plans for cycle lanes.
And bins but still the swing was so big it clearly shows some Remain areas moving back to the Tories
That’s not true. It is perfectly reasonable and democratic to confirm a decision in the light of new information.
Not when that new information is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion.
"The government didn't manage to agree a deal" wouldn't be an opinion.
The Government hav already managed to reach a deal. If you want a referendum then the only legitimate choice should be between accepting or rejecting the Deal. Rejecting Brexit should not be an option as that question had already been settled.
I meant to type "the government didn't manage to get their deal through the Commons".
What do you think should happen in that scenario? Straight to WTO?
Theresa's deal is surely doomed - the Leavers eviscerated it with the same speed and ruthlessness as they did with Dave's before it. The wretched thing never stood a chance. I can only foresee two outcomes now:
1) If the EU is prepared to indulge us, we could go through the farce of Theresa's replacement (DD or whoever) 'renegotiating' something else. It will be crap, of course, but the Leavers are more likely to back it simply because one of their own has his name on it.
2) No Deal it is then. This might be salutary in the long term. Despite the economic damage of No Deal, exposing the Brexit ultras as charlatans, fantasists or nincompoops will surely amount to a kind of political cleansing. We can then peer into the future poorer but healthier.
The EU would not give a Leaver PM any different a Deal to May.
The economic consequences of No Deal would be so damaging they would probably take decades to recover from, especially if they are followed by Corbyn as PM as would be more likely in the event of Crash Out Brexit
Quite right. But the only way No Deal can be avoided now is to go through the pretence of a renegotiation under an untainted Leave PM. Of course, he'll just return with Theresa's deal (at best) but the saboteurs are so stupid/cynical/shameless that they're probably go along with it this time.
They won't, for the ERG out of the EU, the Customs Union and the Single Market is non negotiable and the EU will not agree that for the UK and NI, only GB
The EU don't have a choice if we insist upon it. In 125 days NI leaves them both automatically. Tic toc.
They do. They just say sod off, No Deal hammers your economy far more than ours.
If NI leaves the EU with a hard border the only Tic Toc will be to a United Ireland
I don't think a binary Deal/No Deal referendum would get through Parliament, with out Remain being added as an option.
If there is a #peoplesvote, Remain will be included.
To be clear, I view a Deal/No Deal referendum as very unlikely. But there are Brexiteers who would be content with that as the question, and it does offer a way out for the government - "we can't get it through parliament, where no option has majority support, so we're putting it to the people". On that basis I wouldn't rule it as impossible.
I wouldn't rule a Remain vs something referendum as impossible either. But who is going to be pushing one through parliament? And would Remain even be something that you can give to voters as an option, is it something within their control (particularly "remain on the old basis with no strings attached")?
It's quite difficult to compare the relative probabilities of two events when you view both as difficult or unlikely.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys also showed that the desireless than where the voters are. How many Labour gains in 2017 were in Remain voting areas?
Corbyn is not talking to centrists like us because he doesn’t need to. Enough of us will break for him as the lesser of two evils. Many did last time having sworn they never would. When you get into a campaign with Tories dog whistling their core it will happen again.
That’s a fair point. May’s dogwhie, but not a majority.
If the Tories drop below 310 seats ,they are likely to lose office even if they remain the largest party.
Fine, let Corbyn deal with Brexit then.
On 300-309 seats the Tories will also likely have a majority in England and be the strongest and most powerful opposition in postwar British History and Corbyn with the weakest support in Parliament of any postwar PM.
If there were GE then there would be a Tory bloodbath. How could there be a manifesto over Brexit, when Brexit has just collapsed the government?
The Tory vote is holding up well, the Tories still 3% ahead with YouGov.
It will be Labour which will have collapsed the Government over voting down May's Deal, most Tory MPs will have voted for the Deal
It is not clear that in a referendum there would be a Condorcet winner. Which is of more than academic interest when the option that gets eliminated in Round 1 would have won a Yes/No vote.
If there is a Yes/No vote on one option to begin with and then a conditional question on the same ballot which only comes into play in the case of a Yes (say) result, we will still get a large part of the electorate who feel cheated, because there is no unbiased way to choose what the first question will ask. Should it be Remain/Leave? Or Yes/No to May's deal? There is no "objective" answer to that.
Vernon Bogdanor's proposal of two referendums would be sensible if the electorate were a club and we were talking about two votes at an EGM or even two EGMs. What makes it crazy or distractedly sweet is that the electorate isn't a club.
Showing that a referendum could cause big problems doesn't show that not having one won't cause bigger ones. There is no way that any government is going to ignore parliamentary backing for a referendum. They have lost enough legitimacy as it is.
If the Commons backs "May's deal", there won't be a referendum.
If they don't back it, there will have xit, No Deal, however one wants to bill it.
In game show terms you get two options: Remain or No Deal.
May could quite easily call a Deal v No Deal referendum if she cannot get her Deal through the Commons which would get enough of the ERG on board and potentially the DUP to get through Parliament and still adhere to her commitment that we will Brexit next March.
According to Ashcroft's poll yesterday Deal would narrowly win it
She can't realistically tell the Commons they're wrong and then ask them to back her in telling them so. Once they've finished celebrating the defeat of the Deal in the Commons, why would the DUP support this? Her Deal loses and she's out. (She may then flip to Remain, on the grounds that it's better than No Deal.)
May knows her Premiership depends on her Deal getting through, if No Deal she will be ousted by a Brexiteer sooner rather than later.
At the end of the day only the PM can propose legislation and EUref2 and if she cannot get her Deal through even after a second vote a Deal v No Deal referendum would be a last resort. She also knows she cannot very easily switch to Remain and stay Tory leader but most Tory MPs still back her Deal
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys also showed that the ter much less than where the voters are. How many Labour gains in 2017 were in Remain voting areas?
Indeed, Tories got a 10% swing from Labour in the Bush Hill Park by election in Remain voting Enfield on Thursday after May got her Deal. In 2017 Enfield swung to Labour to try and stop hard Brexit with Labour gaining Enfield Southgate from the Tories and increasing its majority in Enfield North and Edmonton
Apparently that by election was dominated by very local issues - such as unpopoular plans for cycle lanes.
And bins but still the swing was so big it clearly shows some Remain areas moving back to the Tories
On a 27% turnout. Very little sign of that in Westminster, the Wirral or Datchet.
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the numer.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
It would however be a "Brexit election", in which voters might expect Labour to actually have a settled position on the matter. One that is a little more thought through than the current "exact same unicorn" policy.
But it would not be a Brexit election howevermpaign.
You and others might think that - as you doubtless did in 2017 - but the electorate would be very happy to discuss other issues to which they can relate much better than the technicalities of Brexit.
2017 is irrelevant as we were still in the EU, single market and customs union then, not crashing out of all of them without a trade deal. Plus even in 2017 many even a majority voted mainly on Brexit.
You may believe that but I doubt that many involved in the last month of the campaign are likely to agree. Attitudes to Corbyn were far more salient.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
It would however be a "Brexit election", in which voters might expect Labour to actually have a settled position on the matter. One that is a little more thought through than the current "exact same unicorn" policy.
But it would not be a Brexit election however much political anoraks and the commentariat might like to think otherwise. Most people are far more interested in other issues and would be very receptive to them being raised in the campaign.
Other issues would be largely irrelevant if we face economic crash out Brexit which would see higher unemployment and less money for public services and higher taxes and shortages of supplies and likely riots and rising crime, albeit with lower immigration, all other issues would flow from Brexit
You and others might think that - as you doubtless did in 2017 - but the electorate would be very happy to discuss other issues to which they can relate much better than the technicalities of Brexit.
Well, indeed. I for one would like to understand more what all this talk from Corbynista-types about land nationalisation and taking of all ex-council houses back into public ownership actually actually means, for instance.
On Brexit I very much hope that we avoid a No Deal outcome.
I have no idea whether we will get another referendum. But if we do at least my vote might mean something. At a GE not only is my vote meaningless but we have a choice between two appallingly inept and malicious (in their own special ways) parties. It is not a happy prospect.
Yup. Intelligent. Articulate. Assertive. Exactly what we’re lacking.
Great communicator too, and concerned with real issues rather than abstract debates.
She is one of those increasingly rare politicians that can change minds and reframe a question. Hopefully the coming storm will allow such talent to come through. We’ll need it.
Stella is very impressive.
The idea that any of Rayner, RBL, Nandy, Thornberry or Abbot are more likely to become leader baffles me...
How does Labour place a Referendum Bill before parliament and guide it through the legislative steps so that the vote can be held before March 29?
It can't. But if the Government has no viable options and a motion is carried instructing them to go for a referendum, do they really refuse and opt for chaos, or ask the EU for time to do it? For the reasons I suggested, the EU would agree, in the hope of a Remain outcome.
What I expect the government would (seek to) do is go back to Brussels and renegotiate the deal.
From May's point of view, there are few downsides to that.
- There's the remote possibility that she might actually get something more saleable; - If not, she can always return for a second vote in the Commons with some political declaration, which no doubt the EU would be happy to give as it wouldn't be binding and they really would like the Deal agreed as a minimum; - Further negotiations runs the clock down further, so making a referendum less viable.
At this rate it wouldn't surprise me if at some point Greece demands the Elgin Marbles back or they'll veto the future deal (which does require unanimity).
At this rate it wouldn't surprise me if at some point Greece demands the Elgin Marbles back or they'll veto the future deal (which does require unanimity).
At this rate it wouldn't surprise me if at some point Greece demands the Elgin Marbles back or they'll veto the future deal (which does require unanimity).
A report this week called for France to hand back much of the sub-saharan african art held in french museums.
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the numer.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
It would however be a "Brexit election", in which voters might expect Labour to actually have a settled position on the matter. One that is a little more thought through than the current "exact same unicorn" policy.
But it would not be a Brexit election howevermpaign.
You and others might think that - as you douies of Brexit.
2017 is irrelevant as we were still in the EU, single market and customs union then, not crashing out of all of them without a trade deal. Plus even in 2017 many even a majority voted mainly on Brexit.
You may believe that but I doubt that many involved in the last month of the campaign are likely to agree. Attitudes to Corbyn were far more salient.
And Corbyn of course lost.
Brexit is of course the defining issue of the age and will define our nation for decades even centuries either way. Corbyn is a here today gone tomorrow politician
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Labour needs two things: (1) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to switch; (2) people who voted SNP in Scotland to switch. I see no sign of either happening. I agree, the Tories - incompetent, divided and damaging - are doing their bit, but they have an impenetrable, bearded firewall.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the number of 2017 Tory stay-at-homes be greater than the number of 2017 Labour stay-at-homes? I’d say there is a good argument for saying the latter may be a larger number than the former.
Surveys also showed that the ter much less than where the voters are. How many Labour gains in 2017 were in Remain voting areas?
Indeed, Tories got a 10% swing from Labour in the Bush Hill Park by election in Remain voting Enfield on Thursday after May got her Deal. In 2017 Enfield swung to Labour to try and stop hard Brexit with Labour gaining Enfield Southgate from the Tories and increasing its majority in Enfield North and Edmonton
Apparently that by election was dominated by very local issues - such as unpopoular plans for cycle lanes.
And bins but still the swing was so big it clearly shows some Remain areas moving back to the Tories
On a 27% turnout. Very little sign of that in Westminster, the Wirral or Datchet.
The Tories held Westminster and Datchet comfortably, Labour only held Wirral.
Only Enfield district of the 4 contained a seat that was Tory in 2015 and went Labour in 2017
Given Gibraltar's unique status as part of the EU but not part of the CU, I'm surprised we've got this far. It suggests to me that the Commission have tried to keep Spain from making a fuss until now.
Yep, in his speech Sanchez was talking about creating a level playing field between Gibraltar and the region that surrounds it. He has played it very well indeed.
I came in half way through and I thought it was Caroline Lucas. Pleasant reasonable and bright. She went a little off piste towards the end with her sitting round the campfire while we reached a consensus but should appeal to the old hippy vote. Probably better suited to the Lib Dems now Labour have gone militant but you never know which way Labour will go after Corbyn
Today we have found out why 95% of Gibraltarians voted Remain.
Yes, and they must be rightly miffed that those currently blubbing most about Spain's antics are those who were most adamant that Leave was a flawless idea.
I came in half way through and I thought it was Caroline Lucas. Pleasant reasonable and bright. She went a little off piste towards the end with her sitting round the campfire while we reached a consensus but should appeal to the old hippy vote. Probably better suited to the Lib Dems now Labour have gone militant but you never know which way Labour will go after Corbyn
I think you can extrapolate the direction of Labour in the future by examining the changes to the internal power bases, changes to party structure and protocols and the membership profile. As these slowly change so will the future shape and direction of Labour.
I think this might change the calculation in the commons, slim hope just became no hope. There was no need for May to agree this, Spain never had any sort of veto over Brexit.
Yup. Intelligent. Articulate. Assertive. Exactly what we’re lacking.
Great communicator too, and concerned with real issues rather than abstract debates.
She is one of those increasingly rare politicians that can change minds and reframe a question. Hopefully the coming storm will allow such talent to come through. We’ll need it.
Stella is very impressive.
The idea that any of Rayner, RBL, Nandy, Thornberry or Abbot are more likely to become leader baffles me...
May does what she does best. Utter and abject capitulation.
Nope, nothing has been given away. The future trade deal needs unanimity, so Spain already had a veto.
The difference is that they have a Gibraltar-specific veto, which means they won't come under pressure from other member states to make compromises to avoid holding up the UK deal.
Yep. I expect the next general election to be the last one the Tories win for a very, very long time. As Bush observes, it’s an election that Labour should win. When it doesn’t the far left gerontocracy that currently controls the party will have nowhere to hide and that will mean big internal changes forced from the bottom up. Post-Brexit economic reality will do the rest.
To win these days, a party only has to be slightly less bad than its opponents. The Tories are doing everything they can for Labour.
Or 3) people in England who voted Tory in 2017 to stay at home.
Why would the numer.
Surveys showed Brexit was a motivator for far fewer Labour voters than Conservative voters. If both parties lost all voters motivated by Brexit one way or another Labour would be better off than the Conservatives.
Although Labour has less reason to lose its remainer voters than the Conservatives their leave voters.
It would however be a "Brexit election", in which voters might expect Labour to actually have a settled position on the matter. One that is a little more thought through than the current "exact same unicorn" policy.
But it would not be a Brexit election howevermpaign.
You and others might think that - as you douies of Brexit.
You may believe that but I doubt that many involved in the last month of the campaign are likely to agree. Attitudes to Corbyn were far more salient.
And Corbyn of course lost.
Brexit is of course the defining issue of the age and will define our nation for decades even centuries either way. Corbyn is a here today gone tomorrow politician
That is clearly your opinion, but from my personal experience it is not representative of the public at large - most of whom are sick to death of Brexit and far more interested in other issues.Too many here are confusing 'important' with 'salient.'
Comments
https://twitter.com/GeorgeDobell1/status/1066274042129334272
The economic consequences of No Deal would be so damaging they would probably take decades to recover from, especially if they are followed by Corbyn as PM as would be more likely in the event of Crash Out Brexit
Seems the "Saint's" love nothing more than a "Sinner"
Thinking on it further, would a second referendum really be between the Deal and Remain? Why would the Labour leadership eliminate the one option from the ballot that would let them totally reshape the country? Their backbenchers could opt for No Deal over Deal on the basis that they’ve already rejected the Deal as being unacceptable. The ERG will clearly agree.
Perhaps it will be Remain vs No Deal.
Edited for English
Other issues would be largely irrelevant if we face economic crash out Brexit which would see higher unemployment and less money for public services and higher taxes and shortages of supplies and likely riots and rising crime, albeit with lower immigration, all other issues would flow from Brexit
Re 2) Maybe. But this does run into the objection that it asks people to assess a 500-page document already rejected by Parliament. The "worse than either Remain or Hard Brexit" view is pretty widespread. One can reasonably have a referendum on two clear concepts, but not on fiddly detail.
Are there any guarantees? Hell no. We are trying to escape in one piece, not steering towards a guaranteed safe solution.
* Even "No Deal" requires mini-Deals over a number of issues.
In reality the ERG will be paper tigers, meekly cave in to allow May's Deal to pass.
If May calls a referendum it will likely be Deal v No Deal, 75% of Tory voters oppose a Deal v Remain referendum compared to 73% who oppose a Deal v No Deal referendum with Tory voters split 35% for the Deal, 35% for No Deal. The ERG would demand a No Deal option and the majority of Tory MPs would back the Deal.
If Corbyn called a referendum it would likely be Remain v Deal (ie permanent customs union which would be his Deal), 56% of Labour voters want a Remain v Deal referendum compared to only 50% who want a Deal v No Deal referendum. Labour voters also prefer the Deal over No Deal 35% to 24%. The majority of Labour MPs would demand a Remain option with Corbynistas backing Corbyn's Deal.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2018/11/my-new-brexit-poll-good-for-theresa-may-bad-for-her-deal/
On 300-309 seats the Tories will also likely have a majority in England and be the strongest and most powerful opposition in postwar British History and Corbyn with the weakest support in Parliament of any postwar PM.
I am a big fan, and quite green on her.
And I think that many MPs, probably including the DUP and some ministers, would secretly like to junk Brexit but are too invested in the idea to say so publicly yet.
The answer is of course no.
As for 1), what has to happen for "Remain" even to be a plausible ballot option? Do we need the EU27 to come together and make a solemn declaration beforehand that the UK can remain and retain all its opt-outs etc? (I can imagine that for internal political reasons, Spain in particular might want to stick some conditions on.)
Additionally whatever the outcome of this current crisis we should see this reviewed in 5/10 years. Are we still happy out/in?
If there is a #peoplesvote, Remain will be included.
There was a 90 day clock.
On day 87, by mutual agreement, we suspended the clock
It took 400 days of discussion before we were ready to restart it so we could complete the negotiation in the 90 day window allowed in the contract
All other issues flow from the question of a Crash Out Brexit
What do you think should happen in that scenario? Straight to WTO?
If NI leaves the EU with a hard border the only Tic Toc will be to a United Ireland
I wouldn't rule a Remain vs something referendum as impossible either. But who is going to be pushing one through parliament? And would Remain even be something that you can give to voters as an option, is it something within their control (particularly "remain on the old basis with no strings attached")?
It's quite difficult to compare the relative probabilities of two events when you view both as difficult or unlikely.
It will be Labour which will have collapsed the Government over voting down May's Deal, most Tory MPs will have voted for the Deal
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/negotiations-on-the-future-relationship-territorial-scope
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1066335501202935808
At the end of the day only the PM can propose legislation and EUref2 and if she cannot get her Deal through even after a second vote a Deal v No Deal referendum would be a last resort. She also knows she cannot very easily switch to Remain and stay Tory leader but most Tory MPs still back her Deal
Very little sign of that in Westminster, the Wirral or Datchet.
On Brexit I very much hope that we avoid a No Deal outcome.
I have no idea whether we will get another referendum. But if we do at least my vote might mean something. At a GE not only is my vote meaningless but we have a choice between two appallingly inept and malicious (in their own special ways) parties. It is not a happy prospect.
The idea that any of Rayner, RBL, Nandy, Thornberry or Abbot are more likely to become leader baffles me...
The reality is the WA never set any rules for how Gibraltar would be handled under the FP.
That was the UK's position well before today, along with the Commission's and most other member states.
So we've written it down for them.
From May's point of view, there are few downsides to that.
- There's the remote possibility that she might actually get something more saleable;
- If not, she can always return for a second vote in the Commons with some political declaration, which no doubt the EU would be happy to give as it wouldn't be binding and they really would like the Deal agreed as a minimum;
- Further negotiations runs the clock down further, so making a referendum less viable.
Also it isn't part of the VAT or Customs Union.
Also, no, it doesn't set any parameters for Surrey or Lancashire. Those are up for negotiation in the FP.
Brexit is of course the defining issue of the age and will define our nation for decades even centuries either way. Corbyn is a here today gone tomorrow politician
Only Enfield district of the 4 contained a seat that was Tory in 2015 and went Labour in 2017
The time for a challenge was Chequers.
https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-row-utter-ck-slur-as-eurosceptic-tory-mp-awarded-knighthood-11561993
"Opinion
How Loneliness Is Tearing America Apart
When people have a hole in their life, they often fill it with angry politics.
By Arthur C. Brooks
Mr. Brooks is the president of the American Enterprise Institute."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/opinion/loneliness-political-polarization.html