Forget who mentioned it, but there was 7 on Betfair for 199 MPs or fewer to back the deal. This now has a lay value of 4.5 (although back is just 3.05 so you could wait). I've decided to play it safety first, and am flat for every other result and up a little if May gets under 200 MPs backing her deal.
Tyndall is an extremist. He believes so much in his Brexit the world should burn and all sinners must perish.
It is a deeply scary psychology.
LOL. Says the extremist Eurofanatic.
I am the one accepting compromise whilst you and your fellow travellers would trash our democracy for your fanatical devotion to a failing political construct.
Anyone who taunts leavers about being afraid of a second vote is on very shaky ground. It totally justifies the argument to have reruns off any vote- aftersll are you afraid second vote winner of what the third to vote would do?
Britain urgently needs some ground rules on when a referendum is appropriate. In an unstructured way, that's something I've been trying to explore in a few of my more recent thread headers.
It's an interesting question - but who would set the ground rules ?
I'm not a fan of referendums, but I can see their possible utility in settling persistent national questions which Parliament is unable to settle and/or existing party politics simply don't address..... like the current situation, perhaps.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual....
In your opinion. We have our own opinion about your efforts.
Of course you do. And they are garbage as well.
Face it. You just don't like democracy.
I just don't like your entirely self serving take on it.
I've repeatedly said I would, however grudgingly, accept May's imperfect deal. What I won't accept is a parliamentary minority filibustering their way to a no deal Brexit which is supported by maybe a third of the electorate at best.
You are among the sorest of sore winners. And rude to boot.
Good. I mean to be. It is the only response that some of you deserve.
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
"And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage. "
The problem with that is that the GBP were warned that there would be massive damage, and leavers started their pathetic 'Project Fear' meme against it. But the GBP ignored those warnings, and voted knowing there would be damage.
And now we have leavers threatening violence if they don't get their way. Project Fear is looking more accurate by the day...
You are both talking garbage as usual....
In your opinion. We have our own opinion about your efforts.
Of course you do. And they are garbage as well.
Face it. You just don't like democracy.
I just don't like your entirely self serving take on it.
I've repeatedly said I would, however grudgingly, accept May's imperfect deal. What I won't accept is a parliamentary minority filibustering their way to a no deal Brexit which is supported by maybe a third of the electorate at best.
You are among the sorest of sore winners. And rude to boot.
Good. I mean to be. It is the only response that some of you deserve.
And you wonder why we think it is foolish to trust people with views like yours.
It's probably barking mad, but I'm getting more attached to the idea of a post-Brexit referendum rather than another pre-Brexit one.
Given that the Deal and Withdrawal Agreement are a road to make transition to a destination easier, and not a destination, then get it through by attaching to the Deal vote that there should be a referendum - but one after the Deal is signed and we're out and in the transition period. We could then choose what destination we wanted after the transition. I see four practical destinations from there:
- EEA/EFTA (rendering the backstop unnecessary) - CETA-type deal, with backstop used unless or until either technological solutions or political change in NI render it unnecessary. - No Deal other than WTO rules and micro-deals (which also has the backstop issue, but could also give us up to four more years to work out a technological or political solution - or accept it, as the DUP might not have anywhere near as much power after the next GE - we could even make acceptance subject to a further referendum in NI) - Rejoin (most practical from the transìtion as we'd still be aligned).
This would give clarity to the way forward - if we decide on "No Deal", we could have up to four years to actively prepare. So we vote then, and Brexit has been enacted, and we have a brief period to catch our breath and decide where we go next. Including back in (and yes, we'd probably lose opt-outs, but that's the way of things. We'd almost certainly be able to easily rejoin from the transition situation if that's what's chosen).
Hard Remainers, WTO Brexiters, EEA-ers, everyone has a chance still to get what they want.
It's not ideal - the backstop might still be necessary, for example, but it completes the Brexit decision and gives clarity.
And it's almost certainly barking mad for one reason or another (one question would be how to hold a four - way referendum)
It's probably barking mad, but I'm getting more attached to the idea of a post-Brexit referendum rather than another pre-Brexit one.
Given that the Deal and Withdrawal Agreement are a road to make transition to a destination easier, and not a destination, then get it through by attaching to the Deal vote that there should be a referendum - but one after the Deal is signed and we're out and in the transition period. We could then choose what destination we wanted after the transition. I see four practical destinations from there:
- EEA/EFTA (rendering the backstop unnecessary) - CETA-type deal, with backstop used unless or until either technological solutions or political change in NI render it unnecessary. - No Deal other than WTO rules and micro-deals (which also has the backstop issue, but could also give us up to four more years to work out a technological or political solution - or accept it, as the DUP might not have anywhere near as much power after the next GE - we could even make acceptance subject to a further referendum in NI) - Rejoin (most practical from the transìtion as we'd still be aligned).
This would give clarity to the way forward - if we decide on "No Deal", we could have up to four years to actively prepare. So we vote then, and Brexit has been enacted, and we have a brief period to catch our breath and decide where we go next. Including back in (and yes, we'd probably lose opt-outs, but that's the way of things. We'd almost certainly be able to easily rejoin from the transition situation if that's what's chosen).
Hard Remainers, WTO Brexiters, EEA-ers, everyone has a chance still to get what they want.
It's not ideal - the backstop might still be necessary, for example, but it completes the Brexit decision and gives clarity.
And it's almost certainly barking mad for one reason or another (one question would be how to hold a four - way referendum)
I think it is a reasonable way forward. But as you say there may be issues not yet considered that would scupper it. None immediately spring to mind.
I suppose from the Remain point of view the biggest problem would be we would actually have left and that would make rejoining far more complicated and unlikely given the current treaty/accession rules.
8 mainly public schools, including Eton, Westminster and St Paul's and a handful of 6th form colleges send more pupils to Oxbridge than almost 3000 state schools combined
May's deal will fall, likely taking May with it. Its possible that our new "government of the Parliament" pivots to rejoin EFTA + retaining the permanent customs union backstop already agreed. Its also possible that EFTA agrees to re-associate itself with the noisy British lunatics.
So, given that "Brexit" was ill-defined in the referendum and transmogrified into a spread of different interpretations, given that the government negotiated plan has gone and didn't address many of the claimed aims of "Brexit" anyway, and given that the remaining Brexit proposal on the table (Norway+) has been widely rubbished and ridiculed by the same people now advocating it, is putting the final say back to the people really undemocratic?
We cannot just re-run the 2016 referendum - that's the EU "keep voting until you get the correct result" method. This wouldn't be that. A vague question was asked previously, having had an election and the fall of two prime ministers since the final option is a world away from what many of you thought it would be, do you want it?
Apparently EFTA don't want to catch the Brexit disease.
So, May's Deal is dead on arrival. Government of the Parliament is enacted unless we get a General Election. Hard Brexit is dead thanks to GovofParl instructing itself not to crash out.
That only leaves remain. How to make it legitimate? Thats the question. And before Theo or someone pops up and says "PEOPLE VOTED TO LEAVE" yes they did. And that has been extensively tried and can't be done without massive damage.
The cynic in me reads that as: "The Guardian wants us to believe that Norway's not an option. They've therefore found a politician in Norway who says what they want us to hear (please ignore the discrepancy between "Norway has no power and is simply a rule taker" versus "Norway doesn't want to share its power over veto with us"). Forget the discrepancy between what Norway's leaders have said and what this politician has said and we hope you don't stop to consider how easy it is to find a politician here in the UK to say whatever you want to hear in this debate, ranging from Lord Adonis to Jacob Rees-Mogg"
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
I replied earlier but it’s the media sensationalising what happens already
Sensationalising probably. But its obviously not just what happens already or we wouldn't need a new protocol to pass with a shortened consultation period.
And you wonder why we think it is foolish to trust people with views like yours.
I don't ask you to trust me. If you are so dumb that you allow the way in which the facts are delivered to influence your view of the facts themselves then you are beyond help.
It's probably barking mad, but I'm getting more attached to the idea of a post-Brexit referendum rather than another pre-Brexit one.
Given that the Deal and Withdrawal Agreement are a road to make transition to a destination easier, and not a destination, then get it through by attaching to the Deal vote that there should be a referendum - but one after the Deal is signed and we're out and in the transition period. We could then choose what destination we wanted after the transition. I see four practical destinations from there:
- EEA/EFTA (rendering the backstop unnecessary) - CETA-type deal, with backstop used unless or until either technological solutions or political change in NI render it unnecessary. - No Deal other than WTO rules and micro-deals (which also has the backstop issue, but could also give us up to four more years to work out a technological or political solution - or accept it, as the DUP might not have anywhere near as much power after the next GE - we could even make acceptance subject to a further referendum in NI) - Rejoin (most practical from the transìtion as we'd still be aligned).
This would give clarity to the way forward - if we decide on "No Deal", we could have up to four years to actively prepare. So we vote then, and Brexit has been enacted, and we have a brief period to catch our breath and decide where we go next. Including back in (and yes, we'd probably lose opt-outs, but that's the way of things. We'd almost certainly be able to easily rejoin from the transition situation if that's what's chosen).
Hard Remainers, WTO Brexiters, EEA-ers, everyone has a chance still to get what they want.
It's not ideal - the backstop might still be necessary, for example, but it completes the Brexit decision and gives clarity.
And it's almost certainly barking mad for one reason or another (one question would be how to hold a four - way referendum)
What is the point on holding a vote on a menu of choices which aren't necessarily on offer ?
I would say that a suitable issue for a referendum must (i) be very easy to understand and (ii) be important enough to justify the expense and (iii) have no material impact on the economy. In practice that means a referendum will almost never be appropriate. Just about the only one I can think of immediately is abolition of the monarchy.
@ Andy Cooke
IMO none of this EU stuff is suitable for a referendum. However I quite like your thinking that if we really must have one in order to clean up the mess from the 2016 nonsense then it should be on the future relationship that is negotiated in a few years after we have left. I would make this a simple binary of ratify the deal versus seek to rejoin.
Liz Kendall comes out for an EU referendum 2 with questions to be decided by a 'Citizens' Assembly' in the ultimate cop out of Parliamentary responsibility on This Week
If I wanted responsibility shirking, I’d ask for a legal opinion. If she thinks that being an MP is little more than being a glorified social worker then she should become a real one. Pathetic.
Bear in mind that the Report of the Independent Commission on referendums had, as one recommendation:
"- To engage citizens as far as possible in these pre-referendum processes, consideration should be given to using innovative forms of deliberative democratic engagement such as citizens’ assemblies, alongside strengthened processes of parliamentary scrutiny"
Forget who mentioned it, but there was 7 on Betfair for 199 MPs or fewer to back the deal. This now has a lay value of 4.5 (although back is just 3.05 so you could wait). I've decided to play it safety first, and am flat for every other result and up a little if May gets under 200 MPs backing her deal.
I've been trying to do some back of the envelope calculations on this and I have the government losing the vote by something like 170, with 90 or so Tory's opposing the deal. Is it going to be that bad for the government or have I got my calculations way out?
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
"But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
This is going to be enormously disruptive (setting aside the the merits of the move):
https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-War/US-strikes-at-heart-of-Made-in-China-with-Huawei-arrest Washington will take a second -- and stricter -- step, forbidding companies around the world from doing business with U.S. government agencies if they use products from the five companies in their offices. This policy will start on Aug. 13, 2020, and apply regardless of whether the products and services are linked to the equipment.
The second measure has greater implications for companies, given the prevalence of Chinese-made communications equipment at American government agencies and their business partners around the world. If companies that use the five manufacturers' equipment want to continue dealing with the U.S., they will have to stop using them altogether and report the move to Washington....
No-one does protectionism quite like the Americans.
Yes. If only we had a single market with our major trading partner...
Wow , that’s a really good idea. Do you think it could happen?
It’s be great if we could have it without all the other bullshit
How about "EU+"? Membership of the EU, but with a reduced financial contribution and opt-outs from the bits we don't like? If only someone could produce something like that.
The sad thing is that once we leave that position is lost for ever. If the option to return on those terms remained I would be content that we would rejoin within 10 years. Only with hindsight will we realise what we have thrown away.
Anyone who taunts leavers about being afraid of a second vote is on very shaky ground. It totally justifies the argument to have reruns off any vote- aftersll are you afraid second vote winner of what the third to vote would do?
Britain urgently needs some ground rules on when a referendum is appropriate. In an unstructured way, that's something I've been trying to explore in a few of my more recent thread headers.
For when a referendum should be called: - It should be a major constitutional issue, with interest high enough to ensure a high level of turnout. - The topic must have been subject to considerable public debate and deliberation, carefully considered by bodies such as parliamentary committees, and with opportunities for civil society groups to comment and develop proposals. - It must be established that a referendum is the best way of involving citizens in the decision, with other means of public consultation considered and rejected. Citizens should have the opportunity to contribute to development of proposals through bodies such as citizens assemblies - The alternatives must be clear, and if there are more than two options for change, a multi-option referendum should be seriously considered - Detailed proposals for change should be set out in the enabling legislation and it should be clear to legislators what to enact after the vote, with no risk of uncertainty or conflict with the public vote
For the enacting of a referendum: - If possible, it should come at the end, not the beginning, of the decision-making process. It should be post-legislative, deciding whether legislation that has already passed through the relevant parliament or assembly should be implemented. - If a referendum is needed earlier (for example, to initiate intergovernmental negotiations), he government initiating the referendum should set out precise plans for what will be done in the event of a vote for change; the enabling legislation would set out a two-referendum process, for use in the event that the settlement does not deliver what was promised. This should be clear before the referendum is held.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
I’d be happy with a Norway model as it keeps freedom of movement but this option will get trashed by the media and many MPs who will couch it as a rule taker .
The best mantra now for pro EU politicians is to simply push remaining in the EU as taking back control ! You help make the rules , how ironic !
Big up the UKs opt outs and enforce current EU restrictions , bring in a registration system , enforce the 3 month rule . Even if it’s window dressing , a lot of the public just deal in sound bites , indeed if Cameron had not been so smug he could have done this and won the referendum .
I've received an e-mail about smart meter installation, called up and refused as per my rights on the ofgem website (I have solar panels and I'd rather not wade into potential issues).
However nowhere on the email did it say I had the right to refuse the meter installation. I think that information should have been included - I get why the Gov't is pushing the companies with their targets for meter installation but information that you can refuse should be included on the promotion e-mail.
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
"But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
As I said a small clique of Norwegian politicians who are dedicated to getting Norway into the EU (Hence the 'Norway’s European movement'). Something that would be all the more difficult if the UK joined EFTA.
She is right of course that the other EFTA members would have to agree to us rejoining.
"You are both talking garbage as usual. Nothing has yet been tried because we haven't left yet. All sorts of predictions of catastrophe were made about just voting to Leave without even actually ding it and they didn't come to pass. And now you expect us to just roll over on more claims of disaster when your first lot turned out to be so much rubbish.
If you really hate democracy that much just be honest about it."
Sorry regularly get the block quotes thing wrong!
There would be nothing inherently undemocratic in another referendum but I suspect the real reason some leavers insist on leaving first is so that we lose the advantageous membership terms that we currently hold. I suspect they fear that our current membership terms will increasingly be come to be seen as quite attractive compared to the alternatives.
If remainers believe that remains is now the will of the British people, why do they need a referendum to bring it about? It’s not as if opponents will accept the outcome either way. At least not having a referendum is a guaranteed way of producing the desired outcome.
I agree. Not because remain is 'the will of the people' (whatever that is) but because it appears to be the only option that parliament will ultimately accept.
Parliament is collectively and effectively refusing to Brexit. It is also not possible to know what Brexit means unless we do it. A referendum cannot offer something undefined and undeliverable as a choice, 2016 has taught us that, ergo another referendum is a non starter.
They really ought to ratify this exit deal but if they won't the correct course of action is to apologize to the public for offering something undeliverable (Brexit) and to cancel it.
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
"But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
... a politician who is the president of the movement for Norway to join the EU. As objective, unbiased, and clear as Andrew Adonis on one side, or Jacob Rees-Mogg on the other.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
If we are out - and assuming it takes time to organise these things so we are probably talking a year or two - then personally I think it is perfectly valid to have another referendum as and when it has the public support. My only objection currently is to having a second referendum before we have even enacted the first. That argument evaporates once we have left.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
The referendum in 2016 needs to be implemented. We need to leave. If we don't is there really any point in having another one? Do we have an unofficial clause which states that the outcome of a referendum only applies if the great and the good approve?
Once we have left, on whatever terms, it will be open to people to campaign to join again. If they won a majority in Parliament then they would have the right to bring forward new legislation to have another referendum to ask people if they have changed their minds.
Of course it would only be worth asking that question if the EU were willing to have us back. I suspect that they would be looking for something a lot more fundamental than the odd polling lead or even 1 election result before they would be willing to let us rejoin. They certainly would not want to be going through this again. My guess is that it would be all in with none of the opt outs we have at the moment.
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
"But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
As I said a small clique of Norwegian politicians who are dedicated to getting Norway into the EU (Hence the 'Norway’s European movement'). Something that would be all the more difficult if the UK joined EFTA.
She is right of course that the other EFTA members would have to agree to us rejoining.
LOL
"small clique of Norwegian politicians" = governing party.
Most pertinent phrase for you Richard: "so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK".
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
This is the correct democratic outcome. We leave and then we rejoin at some point in the future if the will is there. Preferably via a party with that in its manifesto winning a general election. No referendum needed. British democracy as we know it. Ah bisto.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
The referendum in 2016 needs to be implemented. We need to leave. If we don't is there really any point in having another one? Do we have an unofficial clause which states that the outcome of a referendum only applies if the great and the good approve?
Once we have left, on whatever terms, it will be open to people to campaign to join again. If they won a majority in Parliament then they would have the right to bring forward new legislation to have another referendum to ask people if they have changed their minds.
Of course it would only be worth asking that question if the EU were willing to have us back. I suspect that they would be looking for something a lot more fundamental than the odd polling lead or even 1 election result before they would be willing to let us rejoin. They certainly would not want to be going through this again. My guess is that it would be all in with none of the opt outs we have at the moment.
It's not that we need to leave so much as there needs to be an official mandate for a second referendum, namely for it to be included in a party's manifesto. Given the febrile state of politics atm in the UK that means that, say, a GE is called as May's government breaks down, and Lab put it in their manifesto and this could all happen if not before next March, then before a no doubt extended A50 term runs out.
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
"But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
As I said a small clique of Norwegian politicians who are dedicated to getting Norway into the EU (Hence the 'Norway’s European movement'). Something that would be all the more difficult if the UK joined EFTA.
She is right of course that the other EFTA members would have to agree to us rejoining.
LOL
"small clique of Norwegian politicians" = governing party.
Most pertinent phrase for you Richard: "so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK".
No grown-ups on PB think it's likely.
Calling the "Norway's European Movement" a clique of Norwegian politicians is as appropriate as calling the ERG "a clique of UK politicians". They, after all, are also in the relevant governing party. And, likewise, do not have chapter and verse on the stance of the Government when it conflicts with what they're saying.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
This is the correct democratic outcome. We leave and then we rejoin at some point in the future if the will is there. Preferably via a party with that in its manifesto winning a general election. No referendum needed. British democracy as we know it. Ah bisto.
I bloody loved your post yesterday about your thoughts on a second referendum (literally bloody loved it given your method of voting at the last one).
Mr Tyndall, re your much earlier comment: you are not entirely correct. The value of the pound has tanked. That much was predicted with respect to the vote. Most of the rest of the forecasts were based on us leaving, and as you say we haven't left yet.
There is of course, the thin possibility that those like you in the la la land of absurd Brexit optimism might get lucky and turn out to be right, and hard Brexit might confound it's critics. However, most of us, particularly those with businesses have to live in the real world of sensible balance of probability. The balance of probability is that it will be a disaster of massive proportions. And for what?
As for democracy, I believe in the parliamentary version, where people delegate their vote to those who have time and (hopefully) expertise to consider the implications thoroughly. I do not believe in the democratic legitimacy of cack-handed referenda that are hijacked and abused by the purveyors of hate and prejudice.
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
"But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
... a politician who is the president of the movement for Norway to join the EU. As objective, unbiased, and clear as Andrew Adonis on one side, or Jacob Rees-Mogg on the other.
A useful clarification thank you. It is always useful to have the possible motivations of politicians revealed. She would not want EFTA strengthened by Britain's membership
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
"But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
As I said a small clique of Norwegian politicians who are dedicated to getting Norway into the EU (Hence the 'Norway’s European movement'). Something that would be all the more difficult if the UK joined EFTA.
She is right of course that the other EFTA members would have to agree to us rejoining.
LOL
"small clique of Norwegian politicians" = governing party.
Most pertinent phrase for you Richard: "so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK".
No grown-ups on PB think it's likely.
Calling the "Norway's European Movement" a clique of Norwegian politicians is as appropriate as calling the ERG "a clique of UK politicians". They, after all, are also in the relevant governing party. And, likewise, do not have chapter and verse on the stance of the Government when it conflicts with what they're saying.
But may have, as we might be about to see over here, the ability to prevent Government policy.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
The referendum in 2016 needs to be implemented. We need to leave. If we don't is there really any point in having another one? Do we have an unofficial clause which states that the outcome of a referendum only applies if the great and the good approve?
Once we have left, on whatever terms, it will be open to people to campaign to join again. If they won a majority in Parliament then they would have the right to bring forward new legislation to have another referendum to ask people if they have changed their minds.
Of course it would only be worth asking that question if the EU were willing to have us back. I suspect that they would be looking for something a lot more fundamental than the odd polling lead or even 1 election result before they would be willing to let us rejoin. They certainly would not want to be going through this again. My guess is that it would be all in with none of the opt outs we have at the moment.
It's not that we need to leave so much as there needs to be an official mandate for a second referendum, namely for it to be included in a party's manifesto. Given the febrile state of politics atm in the UK that means that, say, a GE is called as May's government breaks down, and Lab put it in their manifesto and this could all happen if not before next March, then before a no doubt extended A50 term runs out.
Well there is the small detail that these parties who are apparently going to reject May's deal by a majority of 200+ were both elected at the last election committed to implement the outcome of the referendum. Those that weren't, principally the SNP, lost seats and the Lib Dems are still struggling to get into double figures.
The campaign for a second referendum at this point with this Parliament is the most undemocratic thing I have ever seen in this country. I am not so sure that what you propose is enough, the people having been asked, but it would at the least be a minimum.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
This is the correct democratic outcome. We leave and then we rejoin at some point in the future if the will is there. Preferably via a party with that in its manifesto winning a general election. No referendum needed. British democracy as we know it. Ah bisto.
I bloody loved your post yesterday about your thoughts on a second referendum (literally bloody loved it given your method of voting at the last one).
I feel exactly the same.
I'd like to join the mutual admiration society, but that would mean coming to accept that the UK has to settle for a bad deal (universally agreed by all except TMay and the payroll vote) or No Deal which most people accept would be terrible for Britain.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
The referendum in 2016 nt and the good approve?
Once we have left, on whatever terms, it will be open to people to campaign to join again. If they won a majority in Parliament then they would have the right to bring forward new legislation to have another referendum to ask people if they have changed their minds.
Of course it would only be worth asking that question if the EU were willing to have us back. I suspect that they would be looking for something a lot more fundamental than the odd polling lead or even 1 election result before they would be willing to let us rejoin. They certainly would not want to be going through this again. My guess is that it would be all in with none of the opt outs we have at the moment.
It's not that we need to leave so much as there needs to be an official mandate for a second referendum, namely for it to be included in a party's manifesto. Given the febrile state of politics atm in the UK that means that, say, a GE is called as May's government breaks down, and Lab put it in their manifesto and this could all happen if not before next March, then before a no doubt extended A50 term runs out.
Well there is the small detail that these parties who are apparently going to reject May's deal by a majority of 200+ were both elected at the last election committed to implement the outcome of the referendum. Those that weren't, principally the SNP, lost seats and the Lib Dems are still struggling to get into double figures.
The campaign for a second referendum at this point with this Parliament is the most undemocratic thing I have ever seen in this country. I am not so sure that what you propose is enough, the people having been asked, but it would at the least be a minimum.
I think it's fair to say that the facts have changed since the election (18 months ago did someone say yesterday god help us?). Labour want to form the next government are you saying they should be bound by previous manifesto commitments in order to help the Conservative government out of a pickle?
Yep. There is a clique of Norwegian politicians who have been trying for years to get Norway into the UE proper. But they certainly don't represent the Norwegian people in this view nor even the bulk of Norwegian politicians.
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
"But the plan was rejected by Heidi Nordby Lunde, an MP in Norway’s governing Conservative party, and leader of Norway’s European movement. She said her views reflected those of the governing party even though the Norwegian prime minister, Erna Solberg, has been more diplomatic by saying Noway would examine a UK application.
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
As I said a small clique of Norwegian politicians who are dedicated to getting Norway into the EU (Hence the 'Norway’s European movement'). Something that would be all the more difficult if the UK joined EFTA.
She is right of course that the other EFTA members would have to agree to us rejoining.
LOL
"small clique of Norwegian politicians" = governing party.
Most pertinent phrase for you Richard: "so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK".
No grown-ups on PB think it's likely.
Hmm. You maybe need to look at Norwegian politics a bit more. The current Conservative party (which is part of a coalition) is well known for being fanatically pro EU even though the polls show 70% oppose Norway's EU membership. As I said they view UK emembership of EFTA as reducing even further the chances of Norway joining the EU. By contrast both the junior partners are opposed to EU membership and are in favour of renegotiating the EEA treaty with the EU as well.
As with so many of these things it all comes down to who is likely to be in power at the time.
Of course I agree that getting to an EFTA situation from where we are now is extremely difficult. But to claim that just because one party in a coalition opposes it we should forget about it seems somewhat short sighted.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
This is the correct democratic outcome. We leave and then we rejoin at some point in the future if the will is there. Preferably via a party with that in its manifesto winning a general election. No referendum needed. British democracy as we know it. Ah bisto.
This would be my preference also, though I am not sure the EU would have us back, unless there was an overwhelming majority in favour. I think some sort of associate membership may have been further evolved by that point. I just hope I am still alive to see it, and that there are enough gammons still around so I can see their heads exploding with outrage when we join the Euro!!
I think it's fair to say that the facts have changed since the election (18 months ago did someone say yesterday god help us?). Labour want to form the next government are you saying they should be bound by previous manifesto commitments in order to help the Conservative government out of a pickle?
Their opposition right now is clearly for narrow political advantage and not based off of (deeply held) principle such as the SNP's. They haven't moved ahead in the polls because the non base Labour vote can see straight through it.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
If we are out - and assuming it takes time to organise these things so we are probably talking a year or two - then personally I think it is perfectly valid to have another referendum as and when it has the public support. My only objection currently is to having a second referendum before we have even enacted the first. That argument evaporates once we have left.
After the calamitous experience of this referendum I'd be surprised if this method is used again. Much more likely is a couple of lines in a party manifesto 'we will undertake to rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity'. Labour with a new leader or virtually any other credible Party in the next few years would seem extremely likely.
Mr Tyndall, re your much earlier comment: you are not entirely correct. The value of the pound has tanked. That much was predicted with respect to the vote. Most of the rest of the forecasts were based on us leaving, and as you say we haven't left yet.
There is of course, the thin possibility that those like you in the la la land of absurd Brexit optimism might get lucky and turn out to be right, and hard Brexit might confound it's critics. However, most of us, particularly those with businesses have to live in the real world of sensible balance of probability. The balance of probability is that it will be a disaster of massive proportions. And for what?
As for democracy, I believe in the parliamentary version, where people delegate their vote to those who have time and (hopefully) expertise to consider the implications thoroughly. I do not believe in the democratic legitimacy of cack-handed referenda that are hijacked and abused by the purveyors of hate and prejudice.
So what you are actually saying is you like the version of democracy that agrees with your views but not the one that disagrees with you.
How did you do in that Emergency Budget that was supposed to happen because we voted to Leave? Or the massive fall in GDP just from voting to Leave?
I think it's fair to say that the facts have changed since the election (18 months ago did someone say yesterday god help us?). Labour want to form the next government are you saying they should be bound by previous manifesto commitments in order to help the Conservative government out of a pickle?
Their opposition right now is clearly for narrow political advantage and not based off of (deeply held) principle such as the SNP's. They haven't moved ahead in the polls because the non base Labour vote can see straight through it.
"narrow political advantage" is that the same as Man City wanting to win each game for "narrow footballing advantage"?
It is the duty of the opposition to oppose and to try to form the next government. It is all about bleedin' "narrow political advantage"!!
Once we have left, on whatever terms, it will be open to people to campaign to join again. If they won a majority in Parliament then they would have the right to bring forward new legislation to have another referendum to ask people if they have changed their minds.
Of course it would only be worth asking that question if the EU were willing to have us back. I suspect that they would be looking for something a lot more fundamental than the odd polling lead or even 1 election result before they would be willing to let us rejoin. They certainly would not want to be going through this again. My guess is that it would be all in with none of the opt outs we have at the moment.
It's not that we need to leave so much as there needs to be an official mandate for a second referendum, namely for it to be included in a party's manifesto. Given the febrile state of politics atm in the UK that means that, say, a GE is called as May's government breaks down, and Lab put it in their manifesto and this could all happen if not before next March, then before a no doubt extended A50 term runs out.
Well there is the small detail that these parties who are apparently going to reject May's deal by a majority of 200+ were both elected at the last election committed to implement the outcome of the referendum. Those that weren't, principally the SNP, lost seats and the Lib Dems are still struggling to get into double figures.
The campaign for a second referendum at this point with this Parliament is the most undemocratic thing I have ever seen in this country. I am not so sure that what you propose is enough, the people having been asked, but it would at the least be a minimum.
I think it's fair to say that the facts have changed since the election (18 months ago did someone say yesterday god help us?). Labour want to form the next government are you saying they should be bound by previous manifesto commitments in order to help the Conservative government out of a pickle?
I am saying that in this Parliament they were elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment to implement the 2016 decision and they are breaking that pledge. Of course they can commit themselves to doing something different the next time but the issue of whether we remain (as opposed to rejoin) will only be live because they broke their manifesto commitment (and the ERG are lunatics, and May would struggle to find a pro Liverpool majority at the Kop end to be fair).
to claim that just because one party in a coalition opposes it we should forget about it seems somewhat short sighted.
No you fuck off.
Wait, what? "somewhat short sighted"??
Richard, are you ok?
To be fair I am not sure I have ever told anyone to 'fuck off' - at least not since I came back on here. I like to think my insults a just a little more crafted than that.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
If we are out - and assuming it takes time to organise these things so we are probably talking a year or two - then personally I think it is perfectly valid to have another referendum as and when it has the public support. My only objection currently is to having a second referendum before we have even enacted the first. That argument evaporates once we have left.
After the calamitous experience of this referendum I'd be surprised if this method is used again. Much more likely is a couple of lines in a party manifesto 'we will undertake to rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity'. Labour with a new leader or virtually any other credible Party in the next few years would seem extremely likely.
I think most people would have a problem with that. Major constitutional change in how we are governed really does need to get a direct mandate from the people. Otherwise in theory you could get the current crop of Parliamentarians voting for 20 year terms.
I am saying that in this Parliament they were elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment to implement the 2016 decision and they are breaking that pledge. Of course they can commit themselves to doing something different the next time but the issue of whether we remain (as opposed to rejoin) will only be live because they broke their manifesto commitment (and the ERG are lunatics, and May would struggle to find a pro Liverpool majority at the Kop end to be fair).
I am only envisaging Labour putting it in their manifesto. For the Cons to put it in theirs would be absurd, if only because the bulk of their supporters, I am guessing ( @HYUFD ?) would disown them.
If and when we leave the EU the chances of a new party or movement forming with the sole intention of rejoining-a UKIP for Remainers-is almost certain to form.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
If we are out - and assuming it takes time to organise these things so we are probably talking a year or two - then personally I think it is perfectly valid to have another referendum as and when it has the public support. My only objection currently is to having a second referendum before we have even enacted the first. That argument evaporates once we have left.
After the calamitous experience of this referendum I'd be surprised if this method is used again. Much more likely is a couple of lines in a party manifesto 'we will undertake to rejoin the EU at the earliest opportunity'. Labour with a new leader or virtually any other credible Party in the next few years would seem extremely likely.
I think most people would have a problem with that. Major constitutional change in how we are governed really does need to get a direct mandate from the people. Otherwise in theory you could get the current crop of Parliamentarians voting for 20 year terms.
I think it's fair to say that the facts have changed since the election (18 months ago did someone say yesterday god help us?). Labour want to form the next government are you saying they should be bound by previous manifesto commitments in order to help the Conservative government out of a pickle?
Their opposition right now is clearly for narrow political advantage and not based off of (deeply held) principle such as the SNP's. They haven't moved ahead in the polls because the non base Labour vote can see straight through it.
"narrow political advantage" is that the same as Man City wanting to win each game for "narrow footballing advantage"?
It is the duty of the opposition to oppose and to try to form the next government. It is all about bleedin' "narrow political advantage"!!
Gah!
Not doing very well at it are they ? Behind against the Tories in open civil war - less Man City, more Hull City.
I think it's fair to say that the facts have changed since the election (18 months ago did someone say yesterday god help us?). Labour want to form the next government are you saying they should be bound by previous manifesto commitments in order to help the Conservative government out of a pickle?
Their opposition right now is clearly for narrow political advantage and not based off of (deeply held) principle such as the SNP's. They haven't moved ahead in the polls because the non base Labour vote can see straight through it.
"narrow political advantage" is that the same as Man City wanting to win each game for "narrow footballing advantage"?
It is the duty of the opposition to oppose and to try to form the next government. It is all about bleedin' "narrow political advantage"!!
Gah!
It's one of those irregular verbs.
I am acting in the national interest. You are seeking narrow political advantage They are betraying the nation.
I suppose we should raise an eyebrow at the sight of Labour actually opposing the government, as opposed to lobbing non-sequiturs at PMQs. Probably nobody is more surprised than Jeremy Corbyn, the soon-to-be accidental Prime Minister.
I think it's fair to say that the facts have changed since the election (18 months ago did someone say yesterday god help us?). Labour want to form the next government are you saying they should be bound by previous manifesto commitments in order to help the Conservative government out of a pickle?
Their opposition right now is clearly for narrow political advantage and not based off of (deeply held) principle such as the SNP's. They haven't moved ahead in the polls because the non base Labour vote can see straight through it.
"narrow political advantage" is that the same as Man City wanting to win each game for "narrow footballing advantage"?
It is the duty of the opposition to oppose and to try to form the next government. It is all about bleedin' "narrow political advantage"!!
Gah!
Not doing very well at it are they ? Behind against the Tories in open civil war - less Man City, more Hull City.
I am saying that in this Parliament they were elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment to implement the 2016 decision and they are breaking that pledge. Of course they can commit themselves to doing something different the next time but the issue of whether we remain (as opposed to rejoin) will only be live because they broke their manifesto commitment (and the ERG are lunatics, and May would struggle to find a pro Liverpool majority at the Kop end to be fair).
I am only envisaging Labour putting it in their manifesto. For the Cons to put it in theirs would be absurd, if only because the bulk of their supporters, I am guessing ( @HYUFD ?) would disown them.
On that we agree. If any party with any chance of winning a majority (thus excluding the Lib Dems) is going to have this in their manifesto it will be Labour.
But the 2016 vote has to be implemented even if it is subsequently reversed. The pretense that a second vote somehow makes the current fiasco ok and everything will continue as normal is every bit as delusional as the ERG. With the odd exception of 2011 we don't indulge in rioting to get our way in this country like the French. We don't because it is very broadly accepted that we have a functional if imperfect democracy. We are breaking it.
Mr Tyndall, re your much earlier comment: you are not entirely correct. The value of the pound has tanked. That much was predicted with respect to the vote. Most of the rest of the forecasts were based on us leaving, and as you say we haven't left yet.
There is of course, the thin possibility that those like you in the la la land of absurd Brexit optimism might get lucky and turn out to be right, and hard Brexit might confound it's critics. However, most of us, particularly those with businesses have to live in the real world of sensible balance of probability. The balance of probability is that it will be a disaster of massive proportions. And for what?
As for democracy, I believe in the parliamentary version, where people delegate their vote to those who have time and (hopefully) expertise to consider the implications thoroughly. I do not believe in the democratic legitimacy of cack-handed referenda that are hijacked and abused by the purveyors of hate and prejudice.
So what you are actually saying is you like the version of democracy that agrees with your views but not the one that disagrees with you.
How did you do in that Emergency Budget that was supposed to happen because we voted to Leave? Or the massive fall in GDP just from voting to Leave?
Or the loss of 500k jobs which in fact turned out to be a gain of 800k?
Probably I wouldn't really go so far as to vote Leave if there's a re-run. I'd probably vote Remain with a very faint and shaky pencil and come out of there feeling all soiled and furtive. Please Parliament, don't inflict that on me. I don't deserve it.
And you wonder why we think it is foolish to trust people with views like yours.
I don't ask you to trust me. If you are so dumb that you allow the way in which the facts are delivered to influence your view of the facts themselves then you are beyond help.
I think it's fair to say that the facts have changed since the election (18 months ago did someone say yesterday god help us?). Labour want to form the next government are you saying they should be bound by previous manifesto commitments in order to help the Conservative government out of a pickle?
Their opposition right now is clearly for narrow political advantage and not based off of (deeply held) principle such as the SNP's. They haven't moved ahead in the polls because the non base Labour vote can see straight through it.
If Theresa May weren't acting for she hoped was "narrow political advantage" she would have presented a different "deal". The sad thing for her, the political advantage of that approach appears to be so narrow as nonexistent.
I am saying that in this Parliament they were elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment to implement the 2016 decision and they are breaking that pledge. Of course they can commit themselves to doing something different the next time but the issue of whether we remain (as opposed to rejoin) will only be live because they broke their manifesto commitment (and the ERG are lunatics, and May would struggle to find a pro Liverpool majority at the Kop end to be fair).
I am only envisaging Labour putting it in their manifesto. For the Cons to put it in theirs would be absurd, if only because the bulk of their supporters, I am guessing ( @HYUFD ?) would disown them.
On that we agree. If any party with any chance of winning a majority (thus excluding the Lib Dems) is going to have this in their manifesto it will be Labour.
But the 2016 vote has to be implemented even if it is subsequently reversed. The pretense that a second vote somehow makes the current fiasco ok and everything will continue as normal is every bit as delusional as the ERG. With the odd exception of 2011 we don't indulge in rioting to get our way in this country like the French. We don't because it is very broadly accepted that we have a functional if imperfect democracy. We are breaking it.
It is complicated. What about if the next government promises to and then goes ahead and cancels HS2? Or should we build it and then dismantle it?
You are saying that referendums outrank general elections. But at both the British public vote for a stated course of action. So then, you ask, what is the point of a referendum if it can be negated at the very next GE? Not sure I have the answer to that but both are elements of our current political system.
The winding up order for UKIP really cannot be far away. Its making Woolworths look like a thriving business. When it is decided that we are remaining after all there are going to be a lot of disillusioned people out there. Assuming they still engage in the democratic process at all who will they vote for?
The winding up order for UKIP really cannot be far away. Its making Woolworths look like a thriving business. When it is decided that we are remaining after all there are going to be a lot of disillusioned people out there. Assuming they still engage in the democratic process at all who will they vote for?
Some will either vote for UKIP, which will still be around in some smaller form, or one of various alternative AfD style parties. I doubt, as Goodwin is always arguing, that a vacuum can exist for long for a socially conservative, anti-migration party, especially if some populist economics were thrown in. The rest of EU seems to have these kinds of parties and they are doing well in places. Our system acts as a brake, but will that always work?
Which opponents do people think will have most for which to answer for what results if the Deal goes down? Some thoughts, and btw anyone who votes for the deal is exempt from this:
1. Con Brexiteers voting againstt the Deal: they are part of the governing block, voted for A50 on Mansion House, yet are blowing up a substantially similar deal because complications that were always going to be present in some form have been added. 2. Con Remainers. Also voted for A50 almost to a person, are part of the government, and likewise on an A50 and an election that was based on Mansion House (If no deal is the ultimate result, I'd consider swapping 1 and 2) 3. Con 2017 new entrants supportive of the approach in their election literature. Which is probably all of them. 4. Labour leavers who voted for A50. They may not be in the governing block, but that A50 vote predated the election and was clearly on Mansion House terms. 5. Labour Remainers who voted for A50 on Mansion House terms, not knowing that they would fight an election on different terms. (swap 4 and 5 if No Deal) 6. The DUP, who supported A50, whose responsibilities don't go much beyond C&S, but for whom the differences between Mansion House and the deal are much closer to home. 7. Conservatives who opposed A50. A special category just for if Ken Clarke votes against the deal (I think he has said he is supporting?). Whatever he has voted against and said in elections over the years he takes a little responsibility as part of the Tory whip. 8. Labour, LD and SNP who opposed A50 or are 2017 entrants (I think over half of Labour MPs sit here) bear no responsibility for ensuring the deal passes.
To see who defeated the government next Tuesday, flip each category until there is a Deal majority ..
Comments
Betting PostForget who mentioned it, but there was 7 on Betfair for 199 MPs or fewer to back the deal. This now has a lay value of 4.5 (although back is just 3.05 so you could wait). I've decided to play it safety first, and am flat for every other result and up a little if May gets under 200 MPs backing her deal.
I am the one accepting compromise whilst you and your fellow travellers would trash our democracy for your fanatical devotion to a failing political construct.
I'm not a fan of referendums, but I can see their possible utility in settling persistent national questions which Parliament is unable to settle and/or existing party politics simply don't address..... like the current situation, perhaps.
I suppose from the Remain point of view the biggest problem would be we would actually have left and that would make rejoining far more complicated and unlikely given the current treaty/accession rules.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46470838
There are other notable Norwegian politicians who said all along they would be very happy to have us join EFTA. As has the Icelandic Government.
I would say that a suitable issue for a referendum must (i) be very easy to understand and (ii) be important enough to justify the expense and (iii) have no material impact on the economy. In practice that means a referendum will almost never be appropriate. Just about the only one I can think of immediately is abolition of the monarchy.
@ Andy Cooke
IMO none of this EU stuff is suitable for a referendum. However I quite like your thinking that if we really must have one in order to clean up the mess from the 2016 nonsense then it should be on the future relationship that is negotiated in a few years after we have left. I would make this a simple binary of ratify the deal versus seek to rejoin.
"- To engage citizens as far as possible in these pre-referendum processes, consideration should be given to using innovative forms of deliberative democratic engagement such as citizens’ assemblies, alongside strengthened processes of parliamentary scrutiny"
"Lunde told the Guardian: “Really, the Norwegian option is not an option. We have been telling you this for one and a half years since the referendum and how this works, so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK. You just expect us to give you an invitation rather than consider whether Norway would want to give you such an invitation. It might be in your interest to use our agreement, but it would not be in our interest.”"
For when a referendum should be called:
- It should be a major constitutional issue, with interest high enough to ensure a high level of turnout.
- The topic must have been subject to considerable public debate and deliberation, carefully considered by bodies such as parliamentary committees, and with opportunities for civil society groups to comment and develop proposals.
- It must be established that a referendum is the best way of involving citizens in the decision, with other means of public consultation considered and rejected. Citizens should have the opportunity to contribute to development of proposals through bodies such as citizens assemblies
- The alternatives must be clear, and if there are more than two options for change, a multi-option referendum should be seriously considered
- Detailed proposals for change should be set out in the enabling legislation and it should be clear to legislators what to enact after the vote, with no risk of uncertainty or conflict with the public vote
For the enacting of a referendum:
- If possible, it should come at the end, not the beginning, of the decision-making process. It should be
post-legislative, deciding whether legislation that has already passed through the relevant parliament or assembly should be implemented.
- If a referendum is needed earlier (for example, to initiate intergovernmental negotiations), he government initiating the referendum should set out precise plans for what will be done in the event of a vote for change; the enabling legislation would set out a two-referendum process, for use in the event that the settlement does not deliver what was promised. This should be clear before the referendum is held.
It'll start with a much larger support base than UKIP ever had and with the overwhelming support of younger voters it should thrive in a relatively short space of time and if economic conditions take a downturn we could be asking to rejoin in next to no time
What'll then be interesting is how long before the 2016 Referendum can be overturned without its supporters crying foul.
The best mantra now for pro EU politicians is to simply push remaining in the EU as taking back control ! You help make the rules , how ironic !
Big up the UKs opt outs and enforce current EU restrictions , bring in a registration system , enforce the 3 month rule . Even if it’s window dressing , a lot of the public just deal in sound bites , indeed if Cameron had not been so smug he could have done this and won the referendum .
However nowhere on the email did it say I had the right to refuse the meter installation. I think that information should have been included - I get why the Gov't is pushing the companies with their targets for meter installation but information that you can refuse should be included on the promotion e-mail.
She is right of course that the other EFTA members would have to agree to us rejoining.
If you really hate democracy that much just be honest about it."
Sorry regularly get the block quotes thing wrong!
There would be nothing inherently undemocratic in another referendum but I suspect the real reason some leavers insist on leaving first is so that we lose the advantageous membership terms that we currently hold. I suspect they fear that our current membership terms will increasingly be come to be seen as quite attractive compared to the alternatives.
Parliament is collectively and effectively refusing to Brexit. It is also not possible to know what Brexit means unless we do it. A referendum cannot offer something undefined and undeliverable as a choice, 2016 has taught us that, ergo another referendum is a non starter.
They really ought to ratify this exit deal but if they won't the correct course of action is to apologize to the public for offering something undeliverable (Brexit) and to cancel it.
As objective, unbiased, and clear as Andrew Adonis on one side, or Jacob Rees-Mogg on the other.
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1070978518891290624
Once we have left, on whatever terms, it will be open to people to campaign to join again. If they won a majority in Parliament then they would have the right to bring forward new legislation to have another referendum to ask people if they have changed their minds.
Of course it would only be worth asking that question if the EU were willing to have us back. I suspect that they would be looking for something a lot more fundamental than the odd polling lead or even 1 election result before they would be willing to let us rejoin. They certainly would not want to be going through this again. My guess is that it would be all in with none of the opt outs we have at the moment.
"small clique of Norwegian politicians" = governing party.
Most pertinent phrase for you Richard: "so I am surprised that after all these years it is still part of the grown-up debate in the UK".
No grown-ups on PB think it's likely.
I feel exactly the same.
There is of course, the thin possibility that those like you in the la la land of absurd Brexit optimism might get lucky and turn out to be right, and hard Brexit might confound it's critics. However, most of us, particularly those with businesses have to live in the real world of sensible balance of probability. The balance of probability is that it will be a disaster of massive proportions. And for what?
As for democracy, I believe in the parliamentary version, where people delegate their vote to those who have time and (hopefully) expertise to consider the implications thoroughly. I do not believe in the democratic legitimacy of cack-handed referenda that are hijacked and abused by the purveyors of hate and prejudice.
The campaign for a second referendum at this point with this Parliament is the most undemocratic thing I have ever seen in this country. I am not so sure that what you propose is enough, the people having been asked, but it would at the least be a minimum.
As with so many of these things it all comes down to who is likely to be in power at the time.
Of course I agree that getting to an EFTA situation from where we are now is extremely difficult. But to claim that just because one party in a coalition opposes it we should forget about it seems somewhat short sighted.
Wait, what? "somewhat short sighted"??
Richard, are you ok?
How did you do in that Emergency Budget that was supposed to happen because we voted to Leave? Or the massive fall in GDP just from voting to Leave?
It is the duty of the opposition to oppose and to try to form the next government. It is all about bleedin' "narrow political advantage"!!
Gah!
I am acting in the national interest.
You are seeking narrow political advantage
They are betraying the nation.
I suppose we should raise an eyebrow at the sight of Labour actually opposing the government, as opposed to lobbing non-sequiturs at PMQs. Probably nobody is more surprised than Jeremy Corbyn, the soon-to-be accidental Prime Minister.
Standard response was either ‘I’m not a racist ergo UKIP isn’t racist’ or ‘Islam isn’t a race’
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1070984539193917440?s=21
https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1070985232302657536?s=21
https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1070987727456403456?s=21
But the 2016 vote has to be implemented even if it is subsequently reversed. The pretense that a second vote somehow makes the current fiasco ok and everything will continue as normal is every bit as delusional as the ERG. With the odd exception of 2011 we don't indulge in rioting to get our way in this country like the French. We don't because it is very broadly accepted that we have a functional if imperfect democracy. We are breaking it.
:-)
Probably I wouldn't really go so far as to vote Leave if there's a re-run. I'd probably vote Remain with a very faint and shaky pencil and come out of there feeling all soiled and furtive. Please Parliament, don't inflict that on me. I don't deserve it.
You are saying that referendums outrank general elections. But at both the British public vote for a stated course of action. So then, you ask, what is the point of a referendum if it can be negated at the very next GE? Not sure I have the answer to that but both are elements of our current political system.
1. Con Brexiteers voting againstt the Deal: they are part of the governing block, voted for A50 on Mansion House, yet are blowing up a substantially similar deal because complications that were always going to be present in some form have been added.
2. Con Remainers. Also voted for A50 almost to a person, are part of the government, and likewise on an A50 and an election that was based on Mansion House
(If no deal is the ultimate result, I'd consider swapping 1 and 2)
3. Con 2017 new entrants supportive of the approach in their election literature. Which is probably all of them.
4. Labour leavers who voted for A50. They may not be in the governing block, but that A50 vote predated the election and was clearly on Mansion House terms.
5. Labour Remainers who voted for A50 on Mansion House terms, not knowing that they would fight an election on different terms.
(swap 4 and 5 if No Deal)
6. The DUP, who supported A50, whose responsibilities don't go much beyond C&S, but for whom the differences between Mansion House and the deal are much closer to home.
7. Conservatives who opposed A50. A special category just for if Ken Clarke votes against the deal (I think he has said he is supporting?). Whatever he has voted against and said in elections over the years he takes a little responsibility as part of the Tory whip.
8. Labour, LD and SNP who opposed A50 or are 2017 entrants (I think over half of Labour MPs sit here) bear no responsibility for ensuring the deal passes.
To see who defeated the government next Tuesday, flip each category until there is a Deal majority ..