Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
Would have to be deal vs. remain, I suspect, for that very reason.
O/T I see President Macron's approval rating is now down to 18%.
Trump's rating is stellar by comparison (as is May's).
Melenchon got 19% in 2017 and Le Pen 21% in the first round, if Macron did get 18% it could be a Melenchon v Le Pen runoff. Though as Fillon got 20% could also be centre right v far right a la 2002
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
That's only because No Deal is so unpopular, but I expect you knew that.
Can I please ask a question for any leavers who believe the backstop is a price worth paying to ensure Brexit ... of whom there are a few here, Casino, Sean F and Richard T I believe ... would you say that still if instead of being for Northern Ireland it instead applied to England and Scotland?
If we were being told that upon exit England and Scotland would still in perpetuity be subjected to EU regulations, would in perpetuity be stuck in the customs area . . . And that we would have no MEPs etc to change that and we could never unilaterally end this arrangement, it would take EU permission to change anything and that might never come ...
... if the backstop applies to us would you still think it was a price worth paying?
It's always interesting to hear the views from the antipodes.
It has been abundantly clear that this deal was not going to pass for well over a week now. So why pull the vote now? Another week wasted. Reality hit number 10 smack in the face Tuesday. It should have done so the Tuesday before.
This pointless two week delay was placed here solely for May's ego, so she could have a fakey general election campaign to sell her deal to the people.
It's amazing, in hindsight, that her people can already have forgotten how well May's last election campaign went, since it was not even 18 months ago.
Even more amazing, it appears that they saw the problem which needed to be solved was with public opinion. That there might be a need to sell it to MPs has, seemingly, only just occurred. Hence meetings with backbenchers starting Tuesday. Still none with the opposition though. The tricky concept of minority government has not yet been grasped.
Rupert Murdoch asked Lord Rothermere at a recent lunch why he removed Paul Dacre from the Daily Mail. Rothermere replied it was because Dacre was "bad for business".
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
It's odd. I'm a no brainer remainer. I actually pricked my finger and marked the ballot in my own blood back in 2016. Silly really but that's how strongly I felt. I think leaving the EU is a very bad call and that it was deeply unwise to give the public the chance to make such a crazy decision. I believe the main drivers of the Leave vote were (i) ignorance (ii) xenophobia (iii) a soft-head hankering for the simpler days of yore. I am almost certain that Brexit will make us economically and culturally poorer and will render us less influential in the world. The only upsides that I can see are that we might if we're lucky get a property crash and a less bloated City of London. Even worse is the potential existential threat to the EU. Without us it is more likely to fracture over time into a collection of aggressively competing nationalist agendas. So, you know, Brexit, I'm not a fan. Yet the thought of it being reversed via the sordid fundamentally dishonest technique of another referendum which is indefensible in principle and will be farcical in practice dismays me to such an extent that if it were to god forbid take place I may well be voting Leave. Like I say, it's odd.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort
I know the apocalyptic "there will be riots" prediction is regularly rolled out by Leavers fearful that their hard-won victory will be reversed, but I also believe there would be civil unrest if a referendum were called without Remain on the ballot.
Rupert Murdoch asked Lord Rothermere at a recent lunch why he removed Paul Dacre from the Daily Mail. Rothermere replied it was because Dacre was "bad for business".
I mean he publishes a newspaper.
That's pretty much the definition of bad for business.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
Would have to be deal vs. remain, I suspect, for that very reason.
Deal v Remain was 50% 50% so would resolve nothing unlike the 62% Deal 38% No Deal figures
Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.
Once more for those at the back:
The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.
May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.
And may god have mercy on her soul.
Everything is up in the air even whether the vote will take place but while I accept TM may well resign, she will not resign offering a referendum.
The move in public opinion seems to be hardening against the EU and certainly another referendum does not seem at all certain
Maybe a taste of no deal but the UK and EU markets are tanking this afternoon
China v US
Correct but I bet ,Joe Public will simply assume it's due to the Brexit mess that we are in.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort
I know the apocalyptic "there will be riots" prediction is regularly rolled out by Leavers fearful that their hard-won victory will be reversed, but I also believe there would be civil unrest if a referendum were called without Remain on the ballot.
Remain had its chance in 2016 and lost.
Given the Yougov results were Remain 50% Deal 50%, Remain 52% No Deal 48% and Deal 62% No Deal 38% the only chance of a conclusive referendum result is Deal v No Deal
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
I find that very unlikely. You probably wouldn't even get the ERG to support it. For one thing they're very much on the record as saying a second referendum is undemocratic. Secondly, they think that no deal is imment anyway, they just have to hold their nerve, keep voting no, and we'll all crash out soon anyway.
The DUP won't support any referendum that has May's deal on it.
Rest of the parliamentary party won't support a deal that has just been roundly rejected by the house and would risk a No Deal.
I think a proposal for a May Deal/No Deal referendum would find about four votes in the whole house.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-06/brexit-a-test-for-humanity Paul Krugman opined recently that Brexit would likely cost the U.K. about 2 percent of GDP, a fair estimate in my view. But that is not the only thing at stake here. Humanity is on trial — more specifically, its collective decision-making capacity — and it is the U.K. standing in the dock...
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort
I know the apocalyptic "there will be riots" prediction is regularly rolled out by Leavers fearful that their hard-won victory will be reversed, but I also believe there would be civil unrest if a referendum were called without Remain on the ballot.
Remain had its chance in 2016 and lost.
That's irrelevant. If people are pissed off they will take to the streets. There are lots of young people who will be very pissed off if the second referendum they want is delivered... but without their option on it. What happened in 2016 or 1975 or 1066 will matter not a jot to them.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort
I know the apocalyptic "there will be riots" prediction is regularly rolled out by Leavers fearful that their hard-won victory will be reversed, but I also believe there would be civil unrest if a referendum were called without Remain on the ballot.
The three options should be on a ranked choice ballot. Nothing else is currently on offer.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort
I know the apocalyptic "there will be riots" prediction is regularly rolled out by Leavers fearful that their hard-won victory will be reversed, but I also believe there would be civil unrest if a referendum were called without Remain on the ballot.
I’m not sure about riots. The demographic has never needed to resort to such tactics before. I think it will be more a radicalisation of a few, and not necessarily the boneheaded bnp types, and from many others a turning a blind eye.
Not sure if you witnessed the people voting in the referendum. People who haven’t used their votes for years, if ever before came out and voted. It might be that these people will just drift back into peaceful non participation.
What would have happened in Scotland if it was 52 48 for independence and it all got a bit complicated, it was explained that all the sums were based on oil revenues, oil has crashed, you were misled. And the British government, having been egged by Scots opposed to independence, reneged on the referendum.
I could see insurrection. There’s enough Scot Nat hotheads to DuckDuckGo how to put together primitive devices. Once the violence starts its gets very hard to put it down.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
Grieve Wollaston Soubry Clarke and a.bunch of others would not
May being ousted and being forced to resign can’t happen soon enough. She has been a total disaster ever she called the 2017 general election and is now, in my opinion anyway, the worst Troy PM post 1945 - even worse than Eden or Heath.
I disagree totally with Dominic Grieve’s position on Brexit but he is the only one to come out of the Brexit debates with any credit because he is the only one who has thought through his approach and applied that to his actions. May has just capitulated to the EU without negotiating anything rather like Cameron over the EU budget and then the pre referendum renegotiation; most Tory MPs have followed her like lemmings whilst the Brexit supporters have betrayed their cause by failing to put in the hard yards to come up with any credible plan at any stage.
I desperately want Brexit to happen and not because of immigration but it’s going to be betrayed by a supine Parliament with a Remain majority who don’t believe in it and are scared of it.
Labour look nailed on favourites to be in power early next year but ditching May at least gives the Tories a fighting chance of stopping them - if they pick the right leader.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort
I know the apocalyptic "there will be riots" prediction is regularly rolled out by Leavers fearful that their hard-won victory will be reversed, but I also believe there would be civil unrest if a referendum were called without Remain on the ballot.
Remain had its chance in 2016 and lost.
Given the Yougov results were Remain 50% Deal 50%, Remain 52% No Deal 48% and Deal 62% No Deal 38% the only chance of a conclusive referendum result is Deal v No Deal
Or a ranked choice vote. Which would have the benefit of giving everyone the chance to vote for their first choice.
Telling half the electorate they don't get to vote for what they actually want won't end well.
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
This will become the new great Brexit myth, now that most of the others have evaporated after coming face to face with the real world.
As the economy dives into decline after a no deal Brexit we will be told that of course with an extra 24 months planning it would have been brilliant.
They can say this safe in the knowledge that it can never be tested. First rule of Brexit, nothing will ever be the fault of Brexit.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
DUP won't vote for deal being an option.
Many 'wet' Tories wouldn't vote for no deal being an option.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-06/brexit-a-test-for-humanity Paul Krugman opined recently that Brexit would likely cost the U.K. about 2 percent of GDP, a fair estimate in my view. But that is not the only thing at stake here. Humanity is on trial — more specifically, its collective decision-making capacity — and it is the U.K. standing in the dock...
Hilarious hyperbole. Would be quite willing to call the whole Brexit thing off on the condition we don’t tell him and a few others that we have actually done that and let them continue to bark at parked cars.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
No deal, as in no side deals or grandfathering would rip open the world trading system...
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
No deal, as in no side deals or grandfathering would rip open the world trading system...
The UK withdraws from the world to start trade negotiations with the Universe. Disgraced national security risk Liam Fox gets placed onto a space shuttle, fired in the direction of Alpha Centauri and told not to come back until he has a trade deal.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
48%. And we wouldn’t be having a second referendum to decide whether to do it or not. You don’t get a second spin of the coin. It will be to decide the type of Brexit. Any remainer who has not realised that a Norway or Norway+ option is their best end game needs to think a bit more about what they want out of this.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
That's why a referendum must have more than two choices, at least to begin with. Whether you use AV or two rounds would have to be decided.
One serious problem with putting no-deal in a referendum is the Electoral Commission guidance:
o voters can easily understand the question (and its implications) o voters are informed about the possible outcomes, and can easily understand the campaign arguments o voters can have confidence that the result and its implications should be clear and understood
I think you'd find it hard to convince anyone that "no deal" and its implications are clear and understood.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-06/brexit-a-test-for-humanity Paul Krugman opined recently that Brexit would likely cost the U.K. about 2 percent of GDP, a fair estimate in my view. But that is not the only thing at stake here. Humanity is on trial — more specifically, its collective decision-making capacity — and it is the U.K. standing in the dock...
Hilarious hyperbole. Would be quite willing to call the whole Brexit thing off on the condition we don’t tell him and a few others that we have actually done that and let them continue to bark at parked cars.
One serious problem with putting no-deal in a referendum is the Electoral Commission guidance:
o voters can easily understand the question (and its implications) o voters are informed about the possible outcomes, and can easily understand the campaign arguments o voters can have confidence that the result and its implications should be clear and understood
I think you'd find it hard to convince anyone that "no deal" and its implications are clear and understood.
No sensible MP is going to risk no deal going anywhere near a referendum. And those MPs that support it patently aren't sensible.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
That's why a referendum must have more than two choices, at least to begin with. Whether you use AV or two rounds would have to be decided.
MPs voting for a deal/no deal referendum is the same as voting for the deal, except with the added effect of months of delay, uncertainty, risk, and market volatility, ending up in precisely the same position we are in now. Even I don't believe our politicians are that limp.
No sensible MP is going to risk no deal going anywhere near a referendum. And those MPs that support it patently aren't sensible.
Neither would the ERG. They've aready said that a second referendum would be undemocratic, and they seem entirely convinced that a No Deal-by-default crash-out is tantalisingly close.
But no. It seems that nothing like a majority of MPs are ready to be rational.
Ain't that the truth.
In fairness, that applies to we the public too.
I may not agree with plenty of things Mr Meeks says, but in this piece I think he lays it out very plainly and rationally and has called it mostly right. May will go next week. Whether she calls for a referendum or an interim leader does, I don't see another way around this.
The premise of the headline isn't really true though. The protests in the small towns are mostly peaceful.
The ones in Paris were a combination of mob mentality, far left and far right hooligans using the opportunity to have a go and a lot of criminal elements again using it as a smokescreen e.g. I have seen numerous videos of youths with angle grinders etc attacking cash machines. Nobody goes to a protest about fuel prices with an angle grinder just cos.
However, I did see a tweet from a security guy that pointed to many of the most active accounts furiously retweeting RT, which I thought was interesting.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
But no. It seems that nothing like a majority of MPs are ready to be rational.
Ain't that the truth.
In fairness, that applies to we the public too.
A fractious, divided nation. A febrile political situation. This is exactly the kind of environment where we need a skilled people person, a good communicator with that real human touch, who can rally their party, and parliament, and people behind them.
It's odd. I'm a no brainer remainer. I actually pricked my finger and marked the ballot in my own blood back in 2016. Silly really but that's how strongly I felt. I think leaving the EU is a very bad call and that it was deeply unwise to give the public the chance to make such a crazy decision. I believe the main drivers of the Leave vote were (i) ignorance (ii) xenophobia (iii) a soft-head hankering for the simpler days of yore. I am almost certain that Brexit will make us economically and culturally poorer and will render us less influential in the world. The only upsides that I can see are that we might if we're lucky get a property crash and a less bloated City of London. Even worse is the potential existential threat to the EU. Without us it is more likely to fracture over time into a collection of aggressively competing nationalist agendas. So, you know, Brexit, I'm not a fan. Yet the thought of it being reversed via the sordid fundamentally dishonest technique of another referendum which is indefensible in principle and will be farcical in practice dismays me to such an extent that if it were to god forbid take place I may well be voting Leave. Like I say, it's odd.
I can't help thinking that need to try get your decision making process onto firmer ground.
One serious problem with putting no-deal in a referendum is the Electoral Commission guidance:
o voters can easily understand the question (and its implications) o voters are informed about the possible outcomes, and can easily understand the campaign arguments o voters can have confidence that the result and its implications should be clear and understood
I think you'd find it hard to convince anyone that "no deal" and its implications are clear and understood.
No sensible MP is going to risk no deal going anywhere near a referendum. And those MPs that support it patently aren't sensible.
On the other hand there is a significant chance of no deal happening absent a referendum.
There is a real problem with what to put on the ballot against remain. Parliament won't countenance no deal, and they'll have just rejected a sensible deal brought forward
Have just remain on the ballot paper. If they want to look more democratic they could have remain on there twice or even 3 times using AV.
This will settle the outcome for a generation.
Why not put Remain and Status Quo.
That will confuse 87.5% of the leavers.
I think a lot of leavers would go for Status Quo. Remainers would probably prefer Marillion.
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Remember the London riots in 2011?
(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)
But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.
It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.
The premise of the headline isn't really true though. The protests in the small towns are mostly peaceful.
The ones in Paris were a combination of mob mentality, far left and far right hooligans using the opportunity to have a go and a lot of criminal elements again using it as a smokescreen e.g. I have seen numerous videos of youths with angle grinders etc attacking cash machines. Nobody goes to a protest about fuel prices with an angle grinder just cos.
However, I did see a tweet from a security guy that pointed to many of the most active accounts furiously retweeting RT, which I thought was interesting.
But no. It seems that nothing like a majority of MPs are ready to be rational.
Ain't that the truth.
In fairness, that applies to we the public too.
A fractious, divided nation. A febrile political situation. This is exactly the kind of environment where we need a skilled people person, a good communicator with that real human touch, who can rally their party, and parliament, and people behind them.
Instead we got:
May got the Deal which as Yougov shows is the only way over 60% of the country will ever agree a solution to Brexit
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Remember the London riots in 2011?
(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)
But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.
It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.
Isn’t that how all identity politics work? It’s the EU, men, evil old whitey etc?
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Before the 1997 Princess Diana funeral I would have said we didn't do things like that in this country, but since then I'm not so sure, especially with social media.
However, I did see a tweet from a security guy that pointed to many of the most active accounts furiously retweeting RT, which I thought was interesting.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
Not me. No deal has to be on any referendum ballot, and has to be seen to be defeated.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
I agree, and that's part of my argument for why a PV is a dangerous and foolish idea. The last referendum showed the enormous political risk of calling a referendum where Parliament does not believe that one of the two outcomes is reasonable and viable.
To make the same mistake *again* by risking a No Deal, and then perhaps refusing to implement no deal, would be absurd. Which practically means, No Deal cannot be an option, which in the interests of democracy means that a second referendum cannot happen.
If there were a remain/deal referendum, I'd expect a massive leaver boycott, which would reduce the legitimay of the entire thing to a sad joke.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
Wrong, 70% of Remain voters would vote for the Deal over No Deal with Yougov
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
I agree, and that's part of my argument for why a PV is a dangerous and foolish idea. The last referendum showed the enormous political risk of calling a referendum where Parliament does not believe that one of the two outcomes is reasonable and viable.
To make the same mistake *again* by risking a No Deal, and then perhaps refusing to implement no deal, would be absurd. Which practically means, No Deal cannot be an option, which in the interests of democracy means that a second referendum cannot happen.
If there were a remain/deal referendum, I'd expect a massive leaver boycott, which would reduce the legitimay of the entire thing to a sad joke.
Pretending a restricted vote in a second referendum might achieve the consent of the electorate is even more foolish.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
A third of the electorate are going to be upset regardless - the challlenge is getting it down from 2/3 of the electorate being upset. If the question is some kind of 50/50 then this is just going to rumble on for decades. I've felt for a while that the only way of getting to only 1/3 being upset is some kind of referendum, and probably the only option that allows 2/3 to be happy is some kind of variation on Norway. Right now, getting a stable result is more important than the detail of how much harm each version does.
So that feels like some kind of STV referendum between Deal/Norway/Remain.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
DUP won't vote for deal being an option.
Many 'wet' Tories wouldn't vote for no deal being an option.
Even Ken Clarke backs the Deal, the DUP backed Leave and would prefer Deal v No Deal to Deal v Remain
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
Wrong, 70% of Remain voters would vote for the Deal over No Deal with Yougov
That's in a situation where they've already had the opportunity to express their view. What I'm talking about is what would happen if you deliberately tried to exclude the view of half the electorate entirely by not allowing remain to be a choice.
I confidently predict a popular movement of vindictive-remainers-for-no-deal would be born.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort
I know the apocalyptic "there will be riots" prediction is regularly rolled out by Leavers fearful that their hard-won victory will be reversed, but I also believe there would be civil unrest if a referendum were called without Remain on the ballot.
Remain had its chance in 2016 and lost.
Given the Yougov results were Remain 50% Deal 50%, Remain 52% No Deal 48% and Deal 62% No Deal 38% the only chance of a conclusive referendum result is Deal v No Deal
Or a ranked choice vote. Which would have the benefit of giving everyone the chance to vote for their first choice.
Telling half the electorate they don't get to vote for what they actually want won't end well.
And if it ends up Remain v Deal and a 50% 50% result as Yougov suggests? We end up even more divided than now.
Even if it was Remain v No Deal Remain only wins 52% to 48% so we are just as divided as 2016.
Allowing Remain on the ballot denies a clear result
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
DUP won't vote for deal being an option.
Many 'wet' Tories wouldn't vote for no deal being an option.
Even Ken Clarke backs the Deal, the DUP backed Leave and would prefer Deal v No Deal to Deal v Remain
Ken Clarke backs the Deal, he opposes No Deal. DUP oppose the Deal.
You can't get MPs to back a referendum just by putting their favourite option as an option, not if something they bitterly oppose is also there and could win.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
Not me. No deal has to be on any referendum ballot, and has to be seen to be defeated.
And that is why a referendum is fiendishly difficult: there are too many options that can genuinely be said to 'deserve' to be presented to the public: *) crash-out Brexit; *) some pie-in-the-sky new deal (yet alone a negotiated one); *) May's deal *) Remain
And there are different versions of all of these.
Good luck in presenting those, and their differences, to the public.
It's a mess, and one that is the responsibility of the Europhobes who spent decades screaming and screeching without thinking. And making allies of some very dubious sorts.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
A third of the electorate are going to be upset regardless - the challlenge is getting it down from 2/3 of the electorate being upset. If the question is some kind of 50/50 then this is just going to rumble on for decades. I've felt for a while that the only way of getting to only 1/3 being upset is some kind of referendum, and probably the only option that allows 2/3 to be happy is some kind of variation on Norway. Right now, getting a stable result is more important than the detail of how much harm each version does.
So that feels like some kind of STV referendum between Deal/Norway/Remain.
I agree. I am not advocating voting No Deal. I am saying since it is clearly a well supported (if minority) outcome it needs to be on the ballot. Personally of course I think if there is a ballot it should just be a Deal/No Deal choice since we already decided the Leave/Remain question but the bad losers won't let that happen.
May being ousted and being forced to resign can’t happen soon enough. She has been a total disaster ever she called the 2017 general election and is now, in my opinion anyway, the worst Troy PM post 1945 - even worse than Eden or Heath.
I disagree totally with Dominic Grieve’s position on Brexit but he is the only one to come out of the Brexit debates with any credit because he is the only one who has thought through his approach and applied that to his actions. May has just capitulated to the EU without negotiating anything rather like Cameron over the EU budget and then the pre referendum renegotiation; most Tory MPs have followed her like lemmings whilst the Brexit supporters have betrayed their cause by failing to put in the hard yards to come up with any credible plan at any stage.
I desperately want Brexit to happen and not because of immigration but it’s going to be betrayed by a supine Parliament with a Remain majority who don’t believe in it and are scared of it.
Labour look nailed on favourites to be in power early next year but ditching May at least gives the Tories a fighting chance of stopping them - if they pick the right leader.
Wrong, no alternative leader polls any better than May and most poll worse.
No current poll gives a Labour majority, including Survation
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
And yet many on here are suggesting - or rather arguing vociferously - that 'No Deal' should be excluded from the vote. An outcome that has the support of at least a third of the electorate.
I agree, and that's part of my argument for why a PV is a dangerous and foolish idea. The last referendum showed the enormous political risk of calling a referendum where Parliament does not believe that one of the two outcomes is reasonable and viable.
To make the same mistake *again* by risking a No Deal, and then perhaps refusing to implement no deal, would be absurd. Which practically means, No Deal cannot be an option, which in the interests of democracy means that a second referendum cannot happen.
If there were a remain/deal referendum, I'd expect a massive leaver boycott, which would reduce the legitimay of the entire thing to a sad joke.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
48%. And we wouldn’t be having a second referendum to decide whether to do it or not. You don’t get a second spin of the coin. It will be to decide the type of Brexit. Any remainer who has not realised that a Norway or Norway+ option is their best end game needs to think a bit more about what they want out of this.
An under examined problem of a further referendum is that it seems to be impossible to devise questions which would command general assent as being legitimate. Millions (including me) would regard 'Remain' being on the ballot as illegitimate, millions more would regard its omission in the same way. Same with options within 'Leave'. It is as difficult and potentially problem creating as another GE. Continuity May keeping on working at the present deal could easily turn out to be the best of a bad lot
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
As almost all Tory MPs plus the DUP would vote for it plus Hoey, Field, Stringer and Mann.
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
Grieve Wollaston Soubry Clarke and a.bunch of others would not
Clarke has already said he would back the Deal and Field, Mann, Skinner, Stringer and Hoey would vote for Deal v No Deal anyway, cancelling out the above
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Remember the London riots in 2011?
(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)
But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.
It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.
Except the manifesto didn't say any of that at all. Keep on making stuff up JJ.
We realise that compromises will have to be made. We would like to have completely unrestricted trade with Europe, as we have now, as well as being able to control immigration and make our own trade deals. But we realise that it is not possible to have everything we want. A compromise would: • Allow us to travel to the EU for holidays without a visa and for EU citizens to visit the UK under the same terms. However, in both cases we would prefer that people should need health insurance to cover medical emergencies. • Allow us to go to EU countries to look for work, and for EU citizens to look for work in the UK, but for public services only to be accessible to those who have a job. • Allow UK businesses to trade freely in EU countries, and EU businesses to do the same in the UK. This is important both for goods and for services such as banking. • Allow the UK to make its own laws in most areas, although we realise that we will need to be bound by EU laws around trade. • Allow the UK to make its own trade deals outside the EU, which we accept may mean remaining outside the EU’s customs union.
Also, I can imagine if we did have a May Deal/No Deal referendum there would be an active campaign to get furious remainers to vote No Deal as an act of pure spite.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
This has been the attitude of quite a few influential remainers. They would rather we failed and suitably learnt our lesson.
If Parliament were to move a referendum and deliberately exclude the viewpoint of 50% of the people, what would you expect to happen? That they would sit quietly at home and sulk?
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
48%. And we wouldn’t be having a second referendum to decide whether to do it or not. You don’t get a second spin of the coin. It will be to decide the type of Brexit. Any remainer who has not realised that a Norway or Norway+ option is their best end game needs to think a bit more about what they want out of this.
An under examined problem of a further referendum is that it seems to be impossible to devise questions which would command general assent as being legitimate. Millions (including me) would regard 'Remain' being on the ballot as illegitimate, millions more would regard its omission in the same way. Same with options within 'Leave'. It is as difficult and potentially problem creating as another GE. Continuity May keeping on working at the present deal could easily turn out to be the best of a bad lot
Yep. I don't like the Deal but it is better than Remain any day. And probably better than No Deal in spite of its serious flaws.
Comments
The tricky concept of minority government has not yet been grasped.
https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1070412979303272448?s=21
Rupert Murdoch asked Lord Rothermere at a recent lunch why he removed Paul Dacre from the Daily Mail. Rothermere replied it was because Dacre was "bad for business".
The electoral commission can have no complaints as Leave won in 2016, this is just on the method of leaving
That's pretty much the definition of bad for business.
Given the Yougov results were Remain 50% Deal 50%, Remain 52% No Deal 48% and Deal 62% No Deal 38% the only chance of a conclusive referendum result is Deal v No Deal
The DUP won't support any referendum that has May's deal on it.
Rest of the parliamentary party won't support a deal that has just been roundly rejected by the house and would risk a No Deal.
I think a proposal for a May Deal/No Deal referendum would find about four votes in the whole house.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-12-06/brexit-a-test-for-humanity
Paul Krugman opined recently that Brexit would likely cost the U.K. about 2 percent of GDP, a fair estimate in my view. But that is not the only thing at stake here. Humanity is on trial — more specifically, its collective decision-making capacity — and it is the U.K. standing in the dock...
Nothing else is currently on offer.
Not sure if you witnessed the people voting in the referendum. People who haven’t used their votes for years, if ever before came out and voted. It might be that these people will just drift back into peaceful non participation.
What would have happened in Scotland if it was 52 48 for independence and it all got a bit complicated, it was explained that all the sums were based on oil revenues, oil has crashed, you were misled. And the British government, having been egged by Scots opposed to independence, reneged on the referendum.
I could see insurrection. There’s enough Scot Nat hotheads to DuckDuckGo how to put together primitive devices. Once the violence starts its gets very hard to put it down.
I disagree totally with Dominic Grieve’s position on Brexit but he is the only one to come out of the Brexit debates with any credit because he is the only one who has thought through his approach and applied that to his actions. May has just capitulated to the EU without negotiating anything rather like Cameron over the EU budget and then the pre referendum renegotiation; most Tory MPs have followed her like lemmings whilst the Brexit supporters have betrayed their cause by failing to put in the hard yards to come up with any credible plan at any stage.
I desperately want Brexit to happen and not because of immigration but it’s going to be betrayed by a supine Parliament with a Remain majority who don’t believe in it and are scared of it.
Labour look nailed on favourites to be in power early next year but ditching May at least gives the Tories a fighting chance of stopping them - if they pick the right leader.
Which would have the benefit of giving everyone the chance to vote for their first choice.
Telling half the electorate they don't get to vote for what they actually want won't end well.
This will become the new great Brexit myth, now that most of the others have evaporated after coming face to face with the real world.
As the economy dives into decline after a no deal Brexit we will be told that of course with an extra 24 months planning it would have been brilliant.
They can say this safe in the knowledge that it can never be tested. First rule of Brexit, nothing will ever be the fault of Brexit.
And frankly, who could blame them.
Well done, Mrs May, you crushed the saboteurs. Please enjoy your No Deal. Love, remainers xoxoxo
Won’t take many malcontents to get such protests working here, though we generally don’t do civil disobedience.
Many 'wet' Tories wouldn't vote for no deal being an option.
No, you'd expect them to turn out, en masse, to vote for the Wrong answer. Which is No Deal.
Parliament puts no deal on a referendum at its peril. It won't risk it.
New First Minister Mark Drakeford is an absolute Corbynite spanner!
o voters can easily understand the question (and its implications)
o voters are informed about the possible outcomes, and can easily
understand the campaign arguments
o voters can have confidence that the result and its implications should be clear and understood
I think you'd find it hard to convince anyone that "no deal" and its implications are clear and understood.
Ain't that the truth.
In fairness, that applies to we the public too.
I may not agree with plenty of things Mr Meeks says, but in this piece I think he lays it out very plainly and rationally and has called it mostly right. May will go next week. Whether she calls for a referendum or an interim leader does, I don't see another way around this.
The ones in Paris were a combination of mob mentality, far left and far right hooligans using the opportunity to have a go and a lot of criminal elements again using it as a smokescreen e.g. I have seen numerous videos of youths with angle grinders etc attacking cash machines. Nobody goes to a protest about fuel prices with an angle grinder just cos.
However, I did see a tweet from a security guy that pointed to many of the most active accounts furiously retweeting RT, which I thought was interesting.
Instead we got:
(The ones that would bring down the evil coalition government?)
But we've had one of these events in a different form: Brexit. Leave's manifesto was simple: whatever's wrong with your life isn't your fault, it's theirs. Without the malign hand of the EU pulling the strings, we'd still be a world power. Everything would be rosy and brilliant.
It's easy to blame others. As we see with Brexiteers on here. Stinking winnets who cannot take responsibility for the mess they've taken the country into.
To make the same mistake *again* by risking a No Deal, and then perhaps refusing to implement no deal, would be absurd. Which practically means, No Deal cannot be an option, which in the interests of democracy means that a second referendum cannot happen.
If there were a remain/deal referendum, I'd expect a massive leaver boycott, which would reduce the legitimay of the entire thing to a sad joke.
So that feels like some kind of STV referendum between Deal/Norway/Remain.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/brexitgame/brexit-the-board-game-of-second-chancestm
I confidently predict a popular movement of vindictive-remainers-for-no-deal would be born.
Even if it was Remain v No Deal Remain only wins 52% to 48% so we are just as divided as 2016.
Allowing Remain on the ballot denies a clear result
DUP oppose the Deal.
You can't get MPs to back a referendum just by putting their favourite option as an option, not if something they bitterly oppose is also there and could win.
*) crash-out Brexit;
*) some pie-in-the-sky new deal (yet alone a negotiated one);
*) May's deal
*) Remain
And there are different versions of all of these.
Good luck in presenting those, and their differences, to the public.
It's a mess, and one that is the responsibility of the Europhobes who spent decades screaming and screeching without thinking. And making allies of some very dubious sorts.
No current poll gives a Labour majority, including Survation
Big G, why do you think every newspaper (bar free rags) has rapidly falling circulations?
Their readership is LITERALLY dying of old age. The Telegraph has the oldest readership, so its audience is dying off the fastest.
An under examined problem of a further referendum is that it seems to be impossible to devise questions which would command general assent as being legitimate. Millions (including me) would regard 'Remain' being on the ballot as illegitimate, millions more would regard its omission in the same way. Same with options within 'Leave'. It is as difficult and potentially problem creating as another GE. Continuity May keeping on working at the present deal could easily turn out to be the best of a bad lot
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744610329292800
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744611486920704
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744612560625666
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744613760188417
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1070744614968152064
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/policy-institute/publications/What-sort-of-Brexit-do-the-British-people-want.pdf
We realise that compromises will have to be made. We would like to have completely unrestricted trade with Europe, as we have now, as well as being able to control immigration and make our own trade deals. But we realise that it is not possible to have everything we want. A compromise would:
•
Allow us to travel to the EU for holidays without a visa and for EU citizens to
visit the UK under the same terms. However, in both cases we would prefer that
people should need health insurance to cover medical emergencies.
•
Allow us to go to EU countries to look for work, and for EU citizens to look
for work in the UK, but for public services only to be accessible to those who
have a job.
•
Allow UK businesses to trade freely in EU countries, and EU businesses to do
the same in the UK. This is important both for goods and for services such as
banking.
•
Allow the UK to make its own laws in most areas, although we realise that we will
need to be bound by EU laws around trade.
•
Allow the UK to make its own trade deals outside the EU, which we accept may
mean remaining outside the EU’s customs union.
He even makes Alun Michael look good, and that's something I never thought I would say.
I read your comments with an open mind, sometimes agreeing, others not, but you spoil your arguments occasionally by a lack of empathy