I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.
There are three possible outcomes today. All three should be put to the people.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
A flat list is simpler and achieves the same thing.
So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.
If an option can't get through parliament, it can't get through parliament. Reality trumps indignation, even in cases where the indignation is justified.
Politics is after all the art of the not impossible.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
I agree with you, except there are no options for a multi-stage vote that will be acceptable to all factions, and the results will be disputed forever.
So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.
If an option can't get through parliament, it can't get through parliament. Reality trumps indignation, even in cases where the indignation is justified.
"No deal" currently has fact it is currently the option we are heading toward if something is not actively done by Parliament.
It's less of a unicorn , more a horseman of the apocalypse currently en route...
So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.
If an option can't get through parliament, it can't get through parliament. Reality trumps indignation, even in cases where the indignation is justified.
I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.
There are three possible outcomes today. All three should be put to the people.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
The whole justification for having a Remain question is you want to vote on whether to Brexit or not once you know what it actually means, so it would be a bit mad to go to all the trouble of having a two-question vote, but to contrive to force people to decide on Brexiting or not without knowing which of two vastly different Brexits they've voting for.
A two stage referendum. Deal or no deal If no deal wins the second referendum is remain or leave.
The PM would have to be nuts to go for that because it encourages Remain enthusiasts to vote No Deal to get their referendum. There's no need to get clever with conditionals and things, just do two rounds.
A two stage referendum. Deal or no deal If no deal wins the second referendum is remain or leave.
The PM would have to be nuts to go for that because it encourages Remain enthusiasts to vote No Deal to get their referendum. There's no need to get clever with conditionals and things, just do two rounds.
Alternative Vote, step forward my son, this is your moment to shine.
This two week fakey-election campaign is going about as well for May as the real one went.
The thing is, May has spent two years painting herself into a corner using landmines, and now she has to come out of the corner. And the landmines are going off, one by one, and she's running out of limbs.
It's not even lunchtime, and today she's stepped on Sir Michael Fallon, Donald Trump, Gavin Barwell's pathetic pleading to a half-empty audience of Labour MPs, and trying and failing to pull a bait and switch on the Attorney General's legal advice.
The danger is that ridiculing the deal has now achieved critical mass. Once that happens, everything becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, every event gets construed in terms of how it confirms the narrative.
Even worse, countervailing narratives can no longer get a foothold. MPs who were minded to support or abstain on the deal, now feel they can or must join in the pile-on or be ridiculed/left out of the fun.
Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history, and Parliament seems to be about to award May an absolutely momentous shellacking of unparalleled historical brutality.
For comparison, Neville Chamberlain lost a VONC in the house by 83 votes, which as the time was considered an unparalleled political failure and abject humiliation.
May is on course to nearly double that record. She's going to massively outstrip the mauling of a Prime Minister whose crime was to appease Hitler.
Correction: Chamberlain won his quasi-VONC by 81 votes but that wasn't considered good enough as a quarter of his own MPs had gone against (by either abstaining or voting with the opposition).
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
That's it. There is no other outcome.
The problem then is what happens if the vote is for no deal?
We're no closer to fixing that issue and have even less time to sort that out. At the very least they should be preparing for that now regardless of what happens.
So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.
If an option can't get through parliament, it can't get through parliament. Reality trumps indignation, even in cases where the indignation is justified.
"No deal" currently has fact it is currently the option we are heading toward if something is not actively done by Parliament.
It's less of a unicorn , more a horseman of the apocalypse currently en route...
Love the analogy. Something must actively be done by Parliament.
This two week fakey-election campaign is going about as well for May as the real one went.
The thing is, May has spent two years painting herself into a corner using landmines, and now she has to come out of the corner. And the landmines are going off, one by one, and she's running out of limbs.
It's not even lunchtime, and today she's stepped on Sir Michael Fallon, Donald Trump, Gavin Barwell's pathetic pleading to a half-empty audience of Labour MPs, and trying and failing to pull a bait and switch on the Attorney General's legal advice.
The danger is that ridiculing the deal has now achieved critical mass. Once that happens, everything becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, every event gets construed in terms of how it confirms the narrative.
Even worse, countervailing narratives can no longer get a foothold. MPs who were minded to support or abstain on the deal, now feel they can or must join in the pile-on or be ridiculed/left out of the fun.
Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history, and Parliament seems to be about to award May an absolutely momentous shellacking of unparalleled historical brutality.
For comparison, Neville Chamberlain lost a VONC in the house by 83 votes, which as the time was considered an unparalleled political failure and abject humiliation.
May is on course to nearly double that record. She's going to massively outstrip the mauling of a Prime Minister whose crime was to appease Hitler.
Correction: Chamberlain won his quasi-VONC by 81 votes but that wasn't considered good enough as a quarter of his own MPs had gone against (by either abstaining or voting with the opposition).
Thank ye, correction noted.
Does anyone know what the actual biggest defeat in the house for a sitting PM is? I strongly suspect that May is on course to set a new record by a huge margin, but it'd be good to know what the previous record is.
"Among the mysteries of our time is why some of those in Britain who’ve fought hardest to see the nation freed from the shackles of the European Union are in the forefront of the campaign to kill of Theresa May’s hard-won Brexit deal."
So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.
If an option can't get through parliament, it can't get through parliament. Reality trumps indignation, even in cases where the indignation is justified.
"No deal" currently has fact it is currently the option we are heading toward if something is not actively done to alter it's path on it's side.
It's less of a unicorn , more a horseman of the apocalypse currently en route...
Yes, and to be clear I'm not not arguing that it won't happen, it is a significant risk. What I was putting forward was what I think Theresa May will have to do if and when the deal is voted down. It is not guaranteed to work, for all the reasons discussed.
This two week fakey-election campaign is going about as well for May as the real one went.
The thing is, May has spent two years painting herself into a corner using landmines, and now she has to come out of the corner. And the landmines are going off, one by one, and she's running out of limbs.
It's not even lunchtime, and today she's stepped on Sir Michael Fallon, Donald Trump, Gavin Barwell's pathetic pleading to a half-empty audience of Labour MPs, and trying and failing to pull a bait and switch on the Attorney General's legal advice.
The danger is that ridiculing the deal has now achieved critical mass. Once that happens, everything becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, every event gets construed in terms of how it confirms the narrative.
Even worse, countervailing narratives can no longer get a foothold. MPs who were minded to support or abstain on the deal, now feel they can or must join in the pile-on or be ridiculed/left out of the fun.
Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history, and Parliament seems to be about to award May an absolutely momentous shellacking of unparalleled historical brutality.
For comparison, Neville Chamberlain lost a VONC in the house by 83 votes, which as the time was considered an unparalleled political failure and abject humiliation.
May is on course to nearly double that record. She's going to massively outstrip the mauling of a Prime Minister whose crime was to appease Hitler.
You need to check your history - Neville Chamberlain won the VONC but not by enough to continue to command the support of his party and the leaders of it and the opposition.
The VONC should have been won by 200 or so votes and instead it was 81 with 38 voting against their own party and 2-25 abstaining. The numbers don't add up as other MPs were fighting in the war.
I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.
There are three possible outcomes today. All three should be put to the people.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
The whole justification for having a Remain question is you want to vote on whether to Brexit or not once you know what it actually means, so it would be a bit mad to go to all the trouble of having a two-question vote, but to contrive to force people to decide on Brexiting or not without knowing which of two vastly different Brexits they've voting for.
On the other hand, if the question is wanting to Remain in the EU or not, then it's logical to ask that question first. In fact, you could argue that question needs to be re-asked first, as that IS the original referendum, and that referendum question needs to be done first for it to be legitimate to overturn it.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
That's it. There is no other outcome.
The problem then is what happens if the vote is for no deal?
We're no closer to fixing that issue and have even less time to sort that out. At the very least they should be preparing for that now regardless of what happens.
Then we leave without this deal. It may well be brutal. But that will be the people's choice.
How the govt executes that is unclear today and will be for sometime. But we have no choice, there is no plan B and will be no plan B agreed and ready to put to the people.
So what you get with (2) is a mandate for the govt to find the best scenario outside May's deal and Remain (including No Deal). It's what the ERG wants.
Leaving with a different deal can get through Parliament.
That one definitely can't happen.
Why not? If it addresses Parliament's concerns it can get through.
Can get through Parliament, which has no bearing on the EU accepting it.
We don't know if the EU will accept it as asking following a rejection hasn't happened yet.
Form on this matter though suggests the EU will react. Danish Maastricht, Irish Nice and Lisbon etc were all rejected initially, the EU reacted to the rejection by fixing one concern, then the vote happened again and it got authorised. Following the deal being rejected by the UK, the EU faces a stark choice - see 2 years of hard fought negotiations go up in smoke, or bend on one issue (most likely Irish backstop) and save the rest of the deal. History suggests they'll do that.
So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.
If an option can't get through parliament, it can't get through parliament. Reality trumps indignation, even in cases where the indignation is justified.
"No deal" currently has fact it is currently the option we are heading toward if something is not actively done by Parliament.
It's less of a unicorn , more a horseman of the apocalypse currently en route...
Love the analogy. Something must actively be done by Parliament.
Good luck with that, as a dozen different groups run around demanding their own version of "Something"......
Whilst the thirteenth group, who want No Deal and WTO terms, look on with relish.
It's this Backstop isn't it. That is the intractable problem and it's a rum situation if you think about it. We cannot leave the EU because then the Irish might start killing each other again. Thank god I'm not a brexiteer because if I was I would be spitting feathers.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
No Deal is so horrendous that our leaders should rule it out. Nobody wants it.
It can be imposed on us by EU, so what good is ruling it out?
The more we argue with ourselves, show that we don't have a settled and majority view, the more we will be seen as a recalcitrant nuisance, as more trouble than the 39 billion we are worth.
At some point the EU is likely to say, and would be justified in saying, 'OK, off you go'
On the other hand, if the question is wanting to Remain in the EU or not, then it's logical to ask that question first. In fact, you could argue that question needs to be re-asked first, as that IS the original referendum, and that referendum question needs to be done first for it to be legitimate to overturn it.
A interesting debate....
So the fact that people are having to make up some make up some amazing new principle of democratic logic instead of just making it easier for the voters to say what they want suggests to me that it's actually quite simple, and people who don't want a referendum are having to work quite hard to make it sound complicated.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
That's it. There is no other outcome.
The problem then is what happens if the vote is for no deal?
We're no closer to fixing that issue and have even less time to sort that out. At the very least they should be preparing for that now regardless of what happens.
The die would be cast, they would just have to get on with it.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
That's it. There is no other outcome.
The problem then is what happens if the vote is for no deal?
We're no closer to fixing that issue and have even less time to sort that out. At the very least they should be preparing for that now regardless of what happens.
Then we leave without this deal. It may well be brutal. But that will be the people's choice.
How the govt executes that is unclear today and will be for sometime. But we have no choice, there is no plan B and will be no plan B agreed and ready to put to the people.
So what you get with (2) is a mandate for the govt to find the best scenario outside May's deal and Remain (including No Deal). It's what the ERG wants.
Thinking about it they should be sorting that out right now. The deal is dead and people have already voted against remaining.
Even if no deal won the referendum then the same arguments against it will still apply...people didn't know what they were voting for, they are all loon/racists/evil, it will be total chaos, remain is a better option etc.
Leaving with a different deal can get through Parliament.
That one definitely can't happen.
Why not? If it addresses Parliament's concerns it can get through.
Can get through Parliament, which has no bearing on the EU accepting it.
Amazing how often those who tell us what an over-controlling beast the EU is, conveniently assume the same EU will just lie down and agree to any new fictitious deal they might like to dream up.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.
If an option can't get through parliament, it can't get through parliament. Reality trumps indignation, even in cases where the indignation is justified.
"No deal" currently has fact it is currently the option we are heading toward if something is not actively done to alter it's path on it's side.
It's less of a unicorn , more a horseman of the apocalypse currently en route...
Yes, and to be clear I'm not not arguing that it won't happen, it is a significant risk. What I was putting forward was what I think Theresa May will have to do if and when the deal is voted down. It is not guaranteed to work, for all the reasons discussed.
Obviously "No deal" was a possibility accepted by every MP that trouped through the lobby in favour of enacting Art. 50.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
That's it. There is no other outcome.
The problem then is what happens if the vote is for no deal?
We're no closer to fixing that issue and have even less time to sort that out. At the very least they should be preparing for that now regardless of what happens.
Then we leave without this deal. It may well be brutal. But that will be the people's choice.
How the govt executes that is unclear today and will be for sometime. But we have no choice, there is no plan B and will be no plan B agreed and ready to put to the people.
So what you get with (2) is a mandate for the govt to find the best scenario outside May's deal and Remain (including No Deal). It's what the ERG wants.
Thinking about it they should be sorting that out right now. The deal is dead and people have already voted against remaining.
Even if no deal won the referendum then the same arguments against it will still apply...people didn't know what they were voting for, they are all loon/racists/evil, it will be total chaos, remain is a better option etc.
The vote solves nothing.
You can warp it round to your way of thinking as much as you like - but nobody voted for No Deal.
"Among the mysteries of our time is why some of those in Britain who’ve fought hardest to see the nation freed from the shackles of the European Union are in the forefront of the campaign to kill of Theresa May’s hard-won Brexit deal."
Edit: how, you ask! Well of course I have absolutely no idea but when you have ruled out two impossible things before breakfast...
Because it won't be May fronting it by then? It will be Boris's Deal or Hunt's Deal - the same as May's deal because the EU won't budge, but with a new badge. Maybe?
On the other hand, if the question is wanting to Remain in the EU or not, then it's logical to ask that question first. In fact, you could argue that question needs to be re-asked first, as that IS the original referendum, and that referendum question needs to be done first for it to be legitimate to overturn it.
A interesting debate....
So the fact that people are having to make up some make up some amazing new principle of democratic logic instead of just making it easier for the voters to say what they want suggests to me that it's actually quite simple, and people who don't want a referendum are having to work quite hard to make it sound complicated.
The voters already have said what they want. In 2016. That they wanted to leave the EU.
Surely the first question should be, are you still happy with that decision? Isn't that the point of 'if we knew now what we knew then....' yadda tadda yadda.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
Who in the upper levels of the Conservatives has such skills?
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
That's it. There is no other outcome.
The problem then is what happens if the vote is for no deal?
We're no closer to fixing that issue and have even less time to sort that out. At the very least they should be preparing for that now regardless of what happens.
Then we leave without this deal. It may well be brutal. But that will be the people's choice.
How the govt executes that is unclear today and will be for sometime. But we have no choice, there is no plan B and will be no plan B agreed and ready to put to the people.
So what you get with (2) is a mandate for the govt to find the best scenario outside May's deal and Remain (including No Deal). It's what the ERG wants.
Thinking about it they should be sorting that out right now. The deal is dead and people have already voted against remaining.
Even if no deal won the referendum then the same arguments against it will still apply...people didn't know what they were voting for, they are all loon/racists/evil, it will be total chaos, remain is a better option etc.
The vote solves nothing.
You can warp it round to your way of thinking as much as you like - but nobody voted for No Deal.
Some people did, found a few votes in favour of it yesterday !
This would involve the whole past 3 years having been a bad dream, and Prime Minister David Miliband emerging from the shower...
Still it's more likely to come about than May's deal at least!
Well, if we have another referendum and Remain narrowly wins we will effectively be back to 2015. I am not sure that that's an entirely good thing though.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
....4) Remain and join the Euro/Schengen.
Multi-choice referendums have all sorts of theoretical problems in terms of legitimacy, but at bare minimum you need to balance up the sides a bit.
ps anyone who mentions Condorcet will be sentenced to a lifetime diet of pizza+pineapples.
We are not going into the Euro by April 2019. But by then we will have left with the deal, left on other terms or remained. There are three possible scenarios for April. We need to pick one now.
This would involve the whole past 3 years having been a bad dream, and Prime Minister David Miliband emerging from the shower...
Still it's more likely to come about than May's deal at least!
The other night I dreamed I was walking somewhere with a group of people and one of them was Theresa May, and she was kind of walking on her own because nobody wanted to talk to her, and I went up and joined her because I felt sorry for her, and we had a very stilted, uncomfortable conversation
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
Who in the upper levels of the Conservatives has such skills?
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
Who in the upper levels of the Conservatives has such skills?
And who is the EU is prepared to discuss it? They have reached the deal, agreed it, passed it and the process is done. We either accept it or crash out.
If we are very lucky they will let us cancel the whole expensive shambles which, ironically, seems to be costing us nearly £350m a week.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
I sort of think that's possible... but only if a lot of the current Deal refusniks in the HoC are looking for a face-saving way out. I suspect any fudge will be so flimsy as to be mere sugar-icing.
This would involve the whole past 3 years having been a bad dream, and Prime Minister David Miliband emerging from the shower...
Still it's more likely to come about than May's deal at least!
The other night I dreamed I was walking somewhere with a group of people and one of them was Theresa May, and she was kind of walking on her own because nobody wanted to talk to her, and I went up and joined her because I felt sorry for her, and we had a very stilted, uncomfortable conversation
Dreaming of mrs May...I think you should seek professional help immediately.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
No Deal is so horrendous that our leaders should rule it out. Nobody wants it.
It can be imposed on us by EU, so what good is ruling it out?
The more we argue with ourselves, show that we don't have a settled and majority view, the more we will be seen as a recalcitrant nuisance, as more trouble than the 39 billion we are worth.
At some point the EU is likely to say, and would be justified in saying, 'OK, off you go'
I would hope that a logical rather than emotional decision would be made on both sides, but you could be right, However, if there is to be a 2nd referendum and the vast majority of MPs know that No Deal would be extremely bad for the UK, it would be folly to put it on the ballot paper.
Is this second referendum everyone seems so keen on advisory or post legislative ? If the former it could just be a rerun of the first and solve nothing. If the later then we need to nail down water tight legal definitions of the options which makes having one before 29/3/19 even more for the birds than before.
That gives May's deal a head start as it's undeniably a fully drafted internal treaty which the other side has agreed on. But even then only the WA bit. You can't have a post legislative referendum on the PD as it's non binding.
How do you legally guarentee a No Deal ? No deal ever ? On anything ? Even if international courts later found we owed the £19bn liabilities ?
Remain is the easiest to draft as it just means revoking A50. But even there we would need to niwcwaut for the CJEU filling and see what if any conditions EUCO attached.
I think we will have another referendum on Europe sooner rather than later. But I'm still unconvinced a referendum on which of the blocked exits from our burning building we should try will help.
The primary issue is the exits are all blocked and the building is burning.
Obviously "No deal" was a possibility accepted by every MP that trouped through the lobby in favour of enacting Art. 50.
Maybe they were naive enough to believe that the EU would show good faith in following Article 50.
I think the EU has been a tough but ultimately fair negotiator. Tough though, very very tough indeed. Which gives a point in favour to ultimately remaining - we know trade deals with the EU are likely to be far more in our favour than any we might sign on our own. I think that's new information since the referendum as to just how tough a negotiator they actually are.
Edit: how, you ask! Well of course I have absolutely no idea but when you have ruled out two impossible things before breakfast...
Because it won't be May fronting it by then? It will be Boris's Deal or Hunt's Deal - the same as May's deal because the EU won't budge, but with a new badge. Maybe?
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
Who in the upper levels of the Conservatives has such skills?
And who is the EU is prepared to discuss it? They have reached the deal, agreed it, passed it and the process is done. We either accept it or crash out.
If we are very lucky they will let us cancel the whole expensive shambles which, ironically, seems to be costing us nearly £350m a week.
Just as Lisbon was done before the Irish rejected it, just as Maastricht was done before the Danish rejected it. Both times rejection was fixed by addressing some concerns in order to save the agreement.
It will be easier to address Parliament's issues in order to save 96% of the deal than to start from scratch.
I sort of think that's possible... but only if a lot of the current Deal refusniks in the HoC are looking for a face-saving way out. I suspect any fudge will be so flimsy as to be mere sugar-icing.
Yep, quite right, although the more the deal-trashing momentum continues the more implausible any such fudging becomes. I suspect it's already beyond fudgability.
"Among the mysteries of our time is why some of those in Britain who’ve fought hardest to see the nation freed from the shackles of the European Union are in the forefront of the campaign to kill of Theresa May’s hard-won Brexit deal."
This would involve the whole past 3 years having been a bad dream, and Prime Minister David Miliband emerging from the shower...
Still it's more likely to come about than May's deal at least!
Well, if we have another referendum and Remain narrowly wins we will effectively be back to 2015. I am not sure that that's an entirely good thing though.
I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.
This has to get through parliament, and the vast majority of MPs quite rightly view No Deal as unthinkable.
Not having an option that is supported by over 30% of the population as their first choice on the paper would be unacceptable. As would be asking the Remain question again.
MPs aren't going to vote against May's deal and then include it as an option in a referendum.
Parliament will soon have done its job. It will have come up with the best implementation of Leave it could come up with. Offer that to the electorate.
The question can be exactly the same as last time.
Make clear in a government statement that Leave means what Parliament has just decided it means (e.g. WTO), and specify accordingly in a Referendum Act. There's no need to write the definition on the ballot sheet.
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
Tick one of the following:
"Remain a member of the European Union" "Leave the European Union"
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
No Deal is so horrendous that our leaders should rule it out. Nobody wants it.
It can be imposed on us by EU, so what good is ruling it out?
The more we argue with ourselves, show that we don't have a settled and majority view, the more we will be seen as a recalcitrant nuisance, as more trouble than the 39 billion we are worth.
At some point the EU is likely to say, and would be justified in saying, 'OK, off you go'
I would hope that a logical rather than emotional decision would be made on both sides, but you could be right, However, if there is to be a 2nd referendum and the vast majority of MPs know that No Deal would be extremely bad for the UK, it would be folly to put it on the ballot paper.
The voters should be allowed to choose. And if the voters said "No Deal leave - make it as painless as possible, but that is our choice", then their duty would be to implement that.
If they feel that badly about it, stand down and leave politics
I sort of think that's possible... but only if a lot of the current Deal refusniks in the HoC are looking for a face-saving way out. I suspect any fudge will be so flimsy as to be mere sugar-icing.
Yep, quite right, although the more the deal-trashing momentum continues the more implausible any such fudging becomes. I suspect it's already beyond fudgability.
Address one issue and we have a passable deal. I haven't given up hope that the Irish and EU will be realistic and budge on one issue to save the rest.
I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.
This has to get through parliament, and the vast majority of MPs quite rightly view No Deal as unthinkable.
Not having an option that is supported by over 30% of the population as their first choice on the paper would be unacceptable. As would be asking the Remain question again.
No, adding Remain is perfectly fine. It is a possible outcome that should be put to the people.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
I sort of think that's possible... but only if a lot of the current Deal refusniks in the HoC are looking for a face-saving way out. I suspect any fudge will be so flimsy as to be mere sugar-icing.
It 100% has to be a Brexiteer fronting it for it to pass. Can't be Hunt, Hammond or Rudd.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
....4) Remain and join the Euro/Schengen.
Multi-choice referendums have all sorts of theoretical problems in terms of legitimacy, but at bare minimum you need to balance up the sides a bit.
ps anyone who mentions Condorcet will be sentenced to a lifetime diet of pizza+pineapples.
We are not going into the Euro by April 2019. But by then we will have left with the deal, left on other terms or remained. There are three possible scenarios for April. We need to pick one now.
Or delay and prevaricate and have something imposed on us by our negotiating partner.
Although it isn't on offer if I had the choice I would go for: 1 Remain, fully in Euro / Schengen etc 2 Leave 3 Some other compromise arrangement, most likely a bad and unstable compromise.
The hybrid semi in out relationships are designed to create angst and resentment in the long term.
"Among the mysteries of our time is why some of those in Britain who’ve fought hardest to see the nation freed from the shackles of the European Union are in the forefront of the campaign to kill of Theresa May’s hard-won Brexit deal."
It is not really a mystery - it is the wrong kind of Brexit. That is all there is to it.
To jettison the package now, after so much blood, sweat and tears, would be an historic act of national stupidity.
It doesn't matter how much blood, sweat and tears there have been if the deal is utterly unacceptable.
But the fact there's been so much blood, sweat and tears is why its not impossible that the EU will be flexible on one issue to keep what they've spent their blood, sweat and tears on for all the other issues.
PS did you see my reply to you on the aces May threw away?
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
I sort of think that's possible... but only if a lot of the current Deal refusniks in the HoC are looking for a face-saving way out. I suspect any fudge will be so flimsy as to be mere sugar-icing.
It 100% has to be a Brexiteer fronting it for it to pass. Can't be Hunt, Hammond or Rudd.
Gove is clearly the man for this snake oil selling job
"Among the mysteries of our time is why some of those in Britain who’ve fought hardest to see the nation freed from the shackles of the European Union are in the forefront of the campaign to kill of Theresa May’s hard-won Brexit deal."
It is not really a mystery - it is the wrong kind of Brexit. That is all there is to it.
To jettison the package now, after so much blood, sweat and tears, would be an historic act of national stupidity.
It doesn't matter how much blood, sweat and tears there have been if the deal is utterly unacceptable.
But the fact there's been so much blood, sweat and tears is why its not impossible that the EU will be flexible on one issue to keep what they've spent their blood, sweat and tears on for all the other issues.
But the EU were flexible, they wanted NI in a customs territory of its own with the backstop originally !
If Remain is on the option for a second referendum then they better have a very good definition of what 'Remain' means in terms what we're re-signing to.
IE Euro or no Euro, Schlengen or no Schlengen etc...
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
There are three clear outcomes today, we need to focus on that.
1) Leave with this deal 2) Leave without this deal 3) Remain
....4) Remain and join the Euro/Schengen.
Multi-choice referendums have all sorts of theoretical problems in terms of legitimacy, but at bare minimum you need to balance up the sides a bit.
ps anyone who mentions Condorcet will be sentenced to a lifetime diet of pizza+pineapples.
We are not going into the Euro by April 2019. But by then we will have left with the deal, left on other terms or remained. There are three possible scenarios for April. We need to pick one now.
Or delay and prevaricate and have something imposed on us by our negotiating partner.
Although it isn't on offer if I had the choice I would go for: 1 Remain, fully in Euro / Schengen etc 2 Leave 3 Some other compromise arrangement, most likely a bad and unstable compromise.
The hybrid semi in out relationships are designed to create angst and resentment in the long term.
There is simply no point considering things that cannot happen in time for April. The options are
1. Remain 2. Leave with this deal 3. Leave, without this deal.
That's it. We have to pick one of those three for next year. Ruling anything out for personal political reasons to nudge the outcome is wrong, adding things that cannot happen is pointless.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.
We have multiple options, I can't see how a binary choice works here.
No Deal is so horrendous that our leaders should rule it out. Nobody wants it.
It can be imposed on us by EU, so what good is ruling it out?
The more we argue with ourselves, show that we don't have a settled and majority view, the more we will be seen as a recalcitrant nuisance, as more trouble than the 39 billion we are worth.
At some point the EU is likely to say, and would be justified in saying, 'OK, off you go'
I would hope that a logical rather than emotional decision would be made on both sides, but you could be right, However, if there is to be a 2nd referendum and the vast majority of MPs know that No Deal would be extremely bad for the UK, it would be folly to put it on the ballot paper.
The options should be No Deal / Deal / Remain. The Electoral Commission to decide upon the fairest simplest voting approach.
If after all that No Deal is chosen (I very much doubt it would be) no one can say it wasn't the people's choice, nor that we weren't warned.
Oh, one more thing. It needs to be done quickly - none of this 6+ months nonsense; if we can run a GE in a month, we should be able to run the 2nd referendum in a month too!
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
I think that's the better way of looking at this. What could happen that would give the Commons psychological permission to pass this deal ? May's resignation after the first loss followed by a fake renegotiation is one option. Or we could just crack on and sling her out now so the fake renegotiation is carried out before the first vote.
Is this second referendum everyone seems so keen on advisory or post legislative ? If the former it could just be a rerun of the first and solve nothing. If the later then we need to nail down water tight legal definitions of the options which makes having one before 29/3/19 even more for the birds than before.
That gives May's deal a head start as it's undeniably a fully drafted internal treaty which the other side has agreed on. But even then only the WA bit. You can't have a post legislative referendum on the PD as it's non binding.
How do you legally guarentee a No Deal ? No deal ever ? On anything ? Even if international courts later found we owed the £19bn liabilities ?
Remain is the easiest to draft as it just means revoking A50. But even there we would need to niwcwaut for the CJEU filling and see what if any conditions EUCO attached.
I think we will have another referendum on Europe sooner rather than later. But I'm still unconvinced a referendum on which of the blocked exits from our burning building we should try will help.
The primary issue is the exits are all blocked and the building is burning.
If I was doing it I'd make the Deal and Remain options binding.
No Deal would be a mess though, I don't think you can really make the referendum mean "we will never sign another deal", so all it can really mean is "not *this* deal", but then the Leave side will argue that it means a renegotiation and quite possibly win on that basis, which then turns out not to be possible but now you're lumbered with Brexit Means Brexit Squared.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
All so easy then
Indeed! I suspect you may have spotted the teeny-weeny flaw in TGOHF's cunning plan.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
I think that's the better way of looking at this. What could happen that would give the Commons psychological permission to pass this deal ? May's resignation after the first loss followed by a fake renegotiation is one option. Or we could just crack on and sling her out now so the fake renegotiation is carried out before the first vote.
I think the deal, with May, needs to fail and be seen to fail first up.
If the deal is rejected by Parliament , then a new Con leader with some skill could return to Brussels with say a top 10 concerns, get 5-6 of them fudged and the deal could very well pass if the revisions were sold well.
I think that's the better way of looking at this. What could happen that would give the Commons psychological permission to pass this deal ? May's resignation after the first loss followed by a fake renegotiation is one option. Or we could just crack on and sling her out now so the fake renegotiation is carried out before the first vote.
What you are effectively saying though is that we are in danger of sacrificing the interest of the nation on the altar of MPs' inability to admit they may have got it wrong!
If Remain is on the option for a second referendum then they better have a very good definition of what 'Remain' means in terms what we're re-signing to.
IE Euro or no Euro, Schlengen or no Schlengen etc...
Will we have that?
Again you're trying to make up complications that don't exist. Nobody is interested in making Britain join the Euro or Schengen. The Eurozone have got enough problems as it is without adding unwilling members.
But the PM would be wise to get a public assurance to that effect from the Commission and/or other member states, since this is a story that anti-EU people are likely to tell.
"Among the mysteries of our time is why some of those in Britain who’ve fought hardest to see the nation freed from the shackles of the European Union are in the forefront of the campaign to kill of Theresa May’s hard-won Brexit deal."
It is not really a mystery - it is the wrong kind of Brexit. That is all there is to it.
To jettison the package now, after so much blood, sweat and tears, would be an historic act of national stupidity.
The "... historic act of national stupidity ..." was Cameron agreeing to have the referendum on such lax standards (50% + 1 vote) in the first place. Most countries set a level of 66% for constitutional stuff.
Comments
It's less of a unicorn , more a horseman of the apocalypse currently en route...
1) Leave with this deal
2) Leave without this deal
3) Remain
That's it. There is no other outcome.
*Eye of the Tiger plays*
We're no closer to fixing that issue and have even less time to sort that out. At the very least they should be preparing for that now regardless of what happens.
Something must actively be done by Parliament.
Does anyone know what the actual biggest defeat in the house for a sitting PM is? I strongly suspect that May is on course to set a new record by a huge margin, but it'd be good to know what the previous record is.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6432015/ALEX-BRUMMER-believe-vote-against-Mays-deal-act-national-stupidity.html
The VONC should have been won by 200 or so votes and instead it was 81 with 38 voting against their own party and 2-25 abstaining. The numbers don't add up as other MPs were fighting in the war.
A interesting debate....
How the govt executes that is unclear today and will be for sometime. But we have no choice, there is no plan B and will be no plan B agreed and ready to put to the people.
So what you get with (2) is a mandate for the govt to find the best scenario outside May's deal and Remain (including No Deal). It's what the ERG wants.
Form on this matter though suggests the EU will react. Danish Maastricht, Irish Nice and Lisbon etc were all rejected initially, the EU reacted to the rejection by fixing one concern, then the vote happened again and it got authorised. Following the deal being rejected by the UK, the EU faces a stark choice - see 2 years of hard fought negotiations go up in smoke, or bend on one issue (most likely Irish backstop) and save the rest of the deal. History suggests they'll do that.
Whilst the thirteenth group, who want No Deal and WTO terms, look on with relish.
If the ERG tried to run a war they would probably start by selling off the equipment and sending the army in the wrong direction...
Otherwise it would be seen as a stitch up by the EU and 'remainers' (including May) to make a deal so bad we're forced to remain.
If it's so bad no one would vote for it, then there's no risk of it passing, so it shoudl be there.
....4) Remain and join the Euro/Schengen.
Multi-choice referendums have all sorts of theoretical problems in terms of legitimacy, but at bare minimum you need to balance up the sides a bit.
ps anyone who mentions Condorcet will be sentenced to a lifetime diet of pizza+pineapples.
The more we argue with ourselves, show that we don't have a settled and majority view, the more we will be seen as a recalcitrant nuisance, as more trouble than the 39 billion we are worth.
At some point the EU is likely to say, and would be justified in saying, 'OK, off you go'
Even if no deal won the referendum then the same arguments against it will still apply...people didn't know what they were voting for, they are all loon/racists/evil, it will be total chaos, remain is a better option etc.
The vote solves nothing.
This would involve the whole past 3 years having been a bad dream, and Prime Minister David Miliband emerging from the shower...
Still it's more likely to come about than May's deal at least!
Surely the first question should be, are you still happy with that decision? Isn't that the point of 'if we knew now what we knew then....' yadda tadda yadda.
If we are very lucky they will let us cancel the whole expensive shambles which, ironically, seems to be costing us nearly £350m a week.
I sort of think that's possible... but only if a lot of the current Deal refusniks in the HoC are looking for a face-saving way out. I suspect any fudge will be so flimsy as to be mere sugar-icing.
However, if there is to be a 2nd referendum and the vast majority of MPs know that No Deal would be extremely bad for the UK, it would be folly to put it on the ballot paper.
That gives May's deal a head start as it's undeniably a fully drafted internal treaty which the other side has agreed on. But even then only the WA bit. You can't have a post legislative referendum on the PD as it's non binding.
How do you legally guarentee a No Deal ? No deal ever ? On anything ? Even if international courts later found we owed the £19bn liabilities ?
Remain is the easiest to draft as it just means revoking A50. But even there we would need to niwcwaut for the CJEU filling and see what if any conditions EUCO attached.
I think we will have another referendum on Europe sooner rather than later. But I'm still unconvinced a referendum on which of the blocked exits from our burning building we should try will help.
The primary issue is the exits are all blocked and the building is burning.
Which gives a point in favour to ultimately remaining - we know trade deals with the EU are likely to be far more in our favour than any we might sign on our own. I think that's new information since the referendum as to just how tough a negotiator they actually are.
That's possible.
It will be easier to address Parliament's issues in order to save 96% of the deal than to start from scratch.
Parliament will soon have done its job. It will have come up with the best implementation of Leave it could come up with. Offer that to the electorate.
The question can be exactly the same as last time.
Make clear in a government statement that Leave means what Parliament has just decided it means (e.g. WTO), and specify accordingly in a Referendum Act. There's no need to write the definition on the ballot sheet.
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"
Tick one of the following:
"Remain a member of the European Union"
"Leave the European Union"
If they feel that badly about it, stand down and leave politics
I grew up thinking it was the party of Thatcher and Cameron.
If it really is the party of Bone and Cash then I can never vote for them again.
Although it isn't on offer if I had the choice I would go for:
1 Remain, fully in Euro / Schengen etc
2 Leave
3 Some other compromise arrangement, most likely a bad and unstable compromise.
The hybrid semi in out relationships are designed to create angst and resentment in the long term.
But the fact there's been so much blood, sweat and tears is why its not impossible that the EU will be flexible on one issue to keep what they've spent their blood, sweat and tears on for all the other issues.
PS did you see my reply to you on the aces May threw away?
IE Euro or no Euro, Schlengen or no Schlengen etc...
Will we have that?
1. Remain
2. Leave with this deal
3. Leave, without this deal.
That's it. We have to pick one of those three for next year. Ruling anything out for personal political reasons to nudge the outcome is wrong, adding things that cannot happen is pointless.
If after all that No Deal is chosen (I very much doubt it would be) no one can say it wasn't the people's choice, nor that we weren't warned.
Oh, one more thing. It needs to be done quickly - none of this 6+ months nonsense; if we can run a GE in a month, we should be able to run the 2nd referendum in a month too!
No Deal would be a mess though, I don't think you can really make the referendum mean "we will never sign another deal", so all it can really mean is "not *this* deal", but then the Leave side will argue that it means a renegotiation and quite possibly win on that basis, which then turns out not to be possible but now you're lumbered with Brexit Means Brexit Squared.
https://twitter.com/MehreenKhn/status/1067387177301086208
Oh BOY...
Sadly, I think you might be right.
Not.
Surreal.
But the PM would be wise to get a public assurance to that effect from the Commission and/or other member states, since this is a story that anti-EU people are likely to tell.