Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How people would feel if the government cancelled Brexit & Bri
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How people would feel if the government cancelled Brexit & Britain stayed in the EU?
Interesting polling out today from YouGov which could just become increasingly important.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Dirty 5
Hungry 13
Frankly I'm surprised the betrayed and delighted figures are as low as they are, that should both encourage and discourage both sides.
https://twitter.com/theneweuropean/status/926767308021710853
Trying to be funny or clever or meaningful but is as shallow as a raindrop and as thick as pigshit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/dec/10/brexit-deal-vote-latest-theresa-may-ecj-government-says-ecj-ruling-irrelevant-because-uk-leaving-eu-anyway-politics-live
It doesn't spell out his motives but the implication is some sort of protest at MPs being denied a say?
Miffed 45
Ennui 32
Seaside 35
Llamas 42
The totals for positive and negative reactions are 43% and 38% respectively, which is also interesting.
A not insignificant difference.
The extreme reactions seem to reflect our national politics, with somewhere around a quarter of the electorate at opposing poles.
Er, no, he's a dick. Ban him for life
To be provocative, does it? We are a Parliamentary democracy.
If Parliament won't vote for the deal which has been reached and doesn't want to let No Deal happen, then let it take a decision.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. My feeling is that there will be a backlash from some group, whatever happens. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise.
There is a deal which could be accepted as @RichardTyndall (fpt) has pointed out. And if that were agreed, I could live with it.
If, OTOH, the choice is revocation, face down those who disagree and explain why you have done what you have done. If that means explaining that the referendum should not have been done or that the options were too vague or that the government adopted the wrong red lines and failed at negotiating a deal or that the sort of Brexit that was sold was unachievable or irreconcilable, so be it. Have a bit of courage.
Deal - and really do this - with some of the concerns which animated many leavers. Many of these will not be alleviated by Brexit but made worse. And some are (and always have been) within Britain's control. Level with voters. Be honest. Be brutally truthful. Speak some hard truths to the voters. And face down those who threaten violence or who have hidden agendas or ulterior motives.
But to refuse to do what you think best for the country because you are scared of the voters or because you feel that you have to intone "Will of the People" repeatedly as if we were some Ruritanian country in the 1930's is pathetic. It shames Parliament.
Other infrastructure, not so.
I worry that if a No-Deal Brexit goes through, even though Parliamentarians are against it and think it should not happen, and if it causes the sort of economic disruption we've been warned about, such a result would be just as corrosive of public belief in democracy and, indeed, the role of Parliament, as a revocation of Brexit. Voters will not blame themselves. They will blame MPs for having allowed something bad to happen even though they knew it was potentially harmful. They will blame those who misled them or those who used improper tactics to win the referendum. Etc etc.
There are no cost free easy options left. I do wonder whether it might be better for Parliament to take the decision it feels is best for the nation and, if that means revoking Article 50, taking the consequences of that. It might, I realise, lead to a backlash from the Farages and Tommy Robinsons of this world but, maybe, best to face these people down rather than go along with a course of action you think deeply unwise and still face a backlash.
Parliament can't revoke it - it's an executive power. I don't even think there's a majority in parliament for revocation. I think there's nearly a majority in parliament for forcing someone else to call it if they could so force them, but that's not the same thing at all on three fronts:
1) "nearly": John Rentoul tweeted today that the MPs were split No deal 127, Deal 207, Remain/ref 303.
2) "if they could force them" but Parliament can't force through the primary legislation needed to pull A50 or call a referendum
3) "someone else" This is the big one. Nobody wants to be That Guy. That Guy says "you were wrong last time. I haven't listened to you. You will vote again. The defeated option might even be on the ballot paper this time. The successful one (or at least your interpretation of it) might not be. This is more democratic than following the result of the first vote, because I might get what I want. I am prepared to put aside the most fundamental point of democracy - we vote and we implement votes - in order to get a second shot at this". That Guy, importantly, doesn't get elected.
After all, if you cut a swathe through the law to get to the devil, then when the last law was down, and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide then? Could you really stand upright in the winds that followed?
And yes, the whole Mace thing is silly anyway, but it's harmless trappings that add to the idiosyncrasies of our democratic processes, acting like a baby about it is not cool, you're not going to be the next Cromwell.
If a quarter of the country feels betrayed by a political move, that will find an outlet. Leavers have been in a feedback loop getting steadily more extreme. The 24% would not go quietly.
Maybe a third box marked “you lot decide.. that’s what we pay you for and you have researchers’n’shit so you can get it right” should be a prerequisite in future...
I'm starting to think that the only way out of the mess we are going to find ourselves in is to revoke A50, for Parliament to suffer the consequences and for it all to start again 3 years hence when we know what we actually want to fix...
Intoxicated 15
Horny 34
But the irony of MPs bleating about Parliamentary sovereignty and wanting to make laws instead of those pesky Europeans and then running away from the biggest decision they have to take.......
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tommy-robinsons-brexit-march_uk_5c0d2a31e4b0ab8cf6942c04
vindicated,
but weary.
Is this a perfect deal? No.
Was a perfect deal possible? No.
Is there any realistic prospect of a better deal? No.
Do we want to crash out without a deal? No.
Yet people are not facing that reality and pretending that their posturing will deliver something that doesn't exist.
It is all so infantile. And this isn't party political - all parties are indulging in pathetic posturing.
Now as it happens I don't think there would be riot, I think it would just cause some protests and a big group of people justifiably giving up on politics altogether. But there are perhaps reasons people have not been feeling it necessary to march for something that was already on track.
A handful of knuckle draggers will continue to threaten violence and make sinister gambits, but will be largely ignored.
48% gruntled
Will the deal makes us better off? No
Will the deal take back control? No
Is this the only way? No
Do we have to leave? No
“Needing a second cup of strong tea. And a bloody *chocolate* digestive”
38% disgruntled
43% gruntled
And voters vote all the time for all sorts of things which don't get implemented. Manifestos are rarely implemented in full or at all. And governments do things which the voters did not first get a say on. That is what Parliamentary democracy is. If we believe in it, let's uphold it.
I am not against a second referendum. It may be a way to get out of this mess. I am just querying - partly for debate's sake - whether it is the only way.
If they lost a second, would they call for a third? a fourth?
No easy answers.
Let’s just get on with it.
No bets are being accepted on these possibilities at this time.
If you believe in something you keep fighting.
Remain: 54%
Deal: 18%
No Deal: 28%
Why don’t we find out?
The thing is Leavers told us 'you lost, suck it up' and for the most part we did. We were assured by Davis and Johnson how easy it would all be, but here we are some 90 days before we leave and we have a diabolical deal before us that even Leavers don't like! To cap it all no one, NO ONE has made any preparation for a no deal which Mrs May says is our only other option. And you think we are being unreasonable?
I don't regard there as anything inherently wrong with arguing for another vote, democracy is democracy, but it is not the same as fighting the next regularly scheduled election.
Anaspeptic: 38%
Pericombobulated: 89%
If you are prepared to put aside those central tenets of in pursuit of your goals, what business do you have in Parliament, or in any democracy? What else, what other mainstays of civil society, are you willing to sacrifice to get your way?
The LibDems wanted some traffic calming measures installed in some side-roads in a place I lived.
They caused a small plebiscite to be held in the affected streets.
Unhappily for the LibDems, the result of the plebiscite was that most of the residents didn’t want the traffic calming measures.
The LibDems at that time controlled the council, so they ignored the result of the plebiscite and installed the traffic calming measures anyhow.
When the local councillor came round for re-election, I explained why I was not voting for him.
“Oh, I am pleased he said, it’s such a little thing. You’ll come round by next time”.
The ward is now free of LibDem councillors.
Nor does a crude set of figures like this tell us how those surveyed voted last time, whether they've changed their minds, and how likely they would be to vote again.
My take on a second referendum is as follows:
1. It'll be a mass bloodletting exercise that will make referendum Mk.1 look tame by comparison. By the time it's over the current situation - two warring camps that detest one another, with the rest of the population stuck inbetween either trying to ignore it or wishing to God it would stop - will be ten times worse
2. It is unlikely to generate a decisive result, one way or another, and nor will it settle any arguments. Given that it's obvious that a negotiated deal can only be done with the EU on terms that are advantageous to it and keep us closely aligned to its system, only a Hard Brexit can provide any resolution to this endless dispute - except, if there is a Hard Brexit decision then Parliament still won't implement it. And nobody will be stupid enough to trust this Parliament to implement it, either
3. Consequently, the next General Election will probably be the third referendum by proxy, anyway - so why not just cut the crap and skip straight to the election?
Possibly all of the above.