I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.
That is also my expectation. A50 will be revoked and the question of whether this will be temporary or permanent will be left open. But the reality is that it will be permanent.
Arguably (to say the least) Remain should not be on the ballot. The choices should be two leave options.
I suggested Norway vs No Deal the other day (with some tinkering around CU issues).
Doubt this will happen though.
I worry a great deal about the political turmoil that putting Remain on the ballot will cause.
I think your suggestion is spot on. It honours the referendum result, and allows everyone a voice. From the EU's point of view, they'd rather we were Norway, rather than out altogether, as we'd be handing over at least some money, and it makes us a rule taker. From our side it allows us to resolve what the future relationship looks like, and allows purists to argue for No Deal.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
Well, you can see it that way, or you can accept that there was a vote and Leave won. To revisit that question is, I am very sad to say, probably going to be explosive.
I write as a Remainer.
I don't like any of this, but seems to me, increasingly, that a period in Norway arrangement and then a revisit of the rejoin question is probably a better way forward.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
In order to overrule Parliament, who will have failed to come up with a workable option.
It won't have been parliament's failure - it will have been the government's failure. Parliament will have just sent back to the kitchen the plate of offal served up to them.
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
Likewise if Leave with No Deal is soundly rejected by parliament.
In electoral terms, it would be a case of "Reopen nominations", as none of the Brexit candidates so far presented are acceptable.
The only Brexit that has a chance of getting through parliament is a deal that Labour can sign on to. With most of Labour, half of the Tories and the DUP you have a parliamentary majority. That is the only way I can see a deal being agreed.
Slight problem is that Labour won't agree to anything while they think they have a chance of creating as much chaos as possible resulting in a GE that even Corbyn has a chance of winning. It is their only hope for electoral success. Both major parties are putting party before country
Which is why May needs to reach out and say she is looking for cross-party consensus. How could Starmer refuse an invitation to head over to Brussels to lead the negotiations?
What negotiations? The deal is done. Surely everyone now realises that? There is no more negotiation to be had. THE DEAL IS DONE.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
EUCO would never grant an A50 extension for a referendum on Norway, because *no Norway deal has been negotiated*. The referendum can only be on the deal the government already negotiated.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
Exactly. We have only two deliverable options in the short term. We're at a fork in the road where we can either ratify the Withdrawal Agreement or revoke notification under Article 50. That's the real choice and the people should be given the opportunity to decide.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
Intwresting gambling related story in the Guardian to the effect that one of Britain’s biggest bookmakers agreed to pay £1m to the victims of a problem gambler who had stolen the money he was using to bet, in return for a pledge not to inform the industry regulator.
The bookie showered the gambling addict with thousands of pounds-worth of gifts over two years – including free tickets to football matches and business class flights.
How many here, I wonder non-judgementally, have had corporate hospitality, including free tickets to Arsenal games, four tickets to see the Floyd Mayweather v Marcos Maidana boxing match in Las Vegas and an invitation to the company box at Royal Ascot?
Mind the 'gambler' wasn't very good at it; he kept losing!
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
I am just not sure she is competent. At some point you need to accept she is not a good leader. The economic news is really bad today. Retail is dying and exports are struggling especially outside Europe. May be hard to avoid a recession
its the same across the world, this isnt just a UK issue
No it isn't. That is complacent %%&*(%$
The UK has had a collapse in investment. Not only will the recession be worse than our competitors, the recovery when it eventually comes will be very slow and shallow. The weakness of Sterling not withstanding, the long run business model of using "equity" from housing to buy other peoples products is finally running out of road. So prolonged house price weakness on top of everything else. You may have thought the past ten years were a bit tricky. Unless we get rid of the bullshit and focus on the reality of what is about to happen, the next ten years will definitively knock the UK economy out of the top ten global economies. JLR job losses presage a wholesale shift of manufacturing away from the non EU UK. Project Fear? Not scary enough.
Can you tell us more about this collapse in investement?
Annoyingly, there's not a lot of good real time investment data - a sort of Markit PMI for investment decisions. And there's also the fundamental problem that investment in building a new apartment block is lumped in with business expansion.
The latest economic numbers (released last Monday), show industrial output down 1% yoy in October and manufacturing output down 0.8%, These numbers that were nicely positive (as much as 3% yoy at one point this year) that are now sharply down. Construction activity, by contrast, continues to be strongly positive, up 3.8% yoy.
My guess, therefore, is that housing investment remains up, while business investment will be down.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.
That is also my expectation. A50 will be revoked and the question of whether this will be temporary or permanent will be left open. But the reality is that it will be permanent.
Arguably (to say the least) Remain should not be on the ballot. The choices should be two leave options.
I suggested Norway vs No Deal the other day (with some tinkering around CU issues).
Doubt this will happen though.
I worry a great deal about the political turmoil that putting Remain on the ballot will cause.
I think your suggestion is spot on. It honours the referendum result, and allows everyone a voice. From the EU's point of view, they'd rather we were Norway, rather than out altogether, as we'd be handing over at least some money, and it makes us a rule taker. From our side it allows us to resolve what the future relationship looks like, and allows purists to argue for No Deal.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
Well, you can see it that way, or you can accept that there was a vote and Leave won. To revisit that question is, I am very sad to say, probably going to be explosive.
I write as a Remainer.
I don't like any of this, but seems to me, increasingly, that a period in Norway arrangement and then a revisit of the rejoin question is probably a better way forward.
I think the betrayal narrative and conspiracy theories from a period in a Norway-style arrangement would be much greater and do more long-term damage: "They're not letting us leave properly!"
When you add in the fact that project fear would have been discredited by a soft exit, and you have the perfect conditions for a far nastier Brexit 2.0.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
The presence of the backstop was necessitated by the poor choices Mrs May made at the start laying down red lines. If the UK had committed to remaining in the SM and CU, or keeping NI in the SM and CU, no backstop would have been necessary.
Everything, eventually, flows from May's bad decisions.
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
Likewise if Leave with No Deal is soundly rejected by parliament.
In electoral terms, it would be a case of "Reopen nominations", as none of the Brexit candidates so far presented are acceptable.
The only Brexit that has a chance of getting through parliament is a deal that Labour can sign on to. With most of Labour, half of the Tories and the DUP you have a parliamentary majority. That is the only way I can see a deal being agreed.
Slight problem is that Labour won't agree to anything while they think they have a chance of creating as much chaos as possible resulting in a GE that even Corbyn has a chance of winning. It is their only hope for electoral success. Both major parties are putting party before country
Which is why May needs to reach out and say she is looking for cross-party consensus. How could Starmer refuse an invitation to head over to Brussels to lead the negotiations?
What negotiations? The deal is done. Surely everyone now realises that? There is no more negotiation to be had. THE DEAL IS DONE.
Brussels won't move in an ERG direction, but I would expect them to be happy to renegotiate to make it a softer Brexit.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
My guess is that it will be an A50 extension, followed by a referendum to choose between revoking A50 (remain) or May's Deal. I expect that by mid-summer next year it will be all over for Leave.
That is also my expectation. A50 will be revoked and the question of whether this will be temporary or permanent will be left open. But the reality is that it will be permanent.
Arguably (to say the least) Remain should not be on the ballot. The choices should be two leave options.
I suggested Norway vs No Deal the other day (with some tinkering around CU issues).
Doubt this will happen though.
I worry a great deal about the political turmoil that putting Remain on the ballot will cause.
I think your suggestion is spot on. It honours the referendum result, and allows everyone a voice. From the EU's point of view, they'd rather we were Norway, rather than out altogether, as we'd be handing over at least some money, and it makes us a rule taker. From our side it allows us to resolve what the future relationship looks like, and allows purists to argue for No Deal.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
Well, you can see it that way, or you can accept that there was a vote and Leave won. To revisit that question is, I am very sad to say, probably going to be explosive.
I write as a Remainer.
I don't like any of this, but seems to me, increasingly, that a period in Norway arrangement and then a revisit of the rejoin question is probably a better way forward.
I think the betrayal narrative and conspiracy theories from a period in a Norway-style arrangement would be much greater and do more long-term damage: "They're not letting us leave properly!"
When you add in the fact that project fear would have been discredited by a soft exit, and you have the perfect conditions for a far nastier Brexit 2.0.
You may be right. There is no good answer on all this. Just various bad options of different degrees.
My guess is though, that enough Leave voters, sick to the back teeth of it all, will accept Norway and want to get on with life. There will be a noisy minority, but I doubt it will be as big or rabid as if Remain is back on the ballot.
To confirm the deal, or to re-run the first referendum? In any case, 1.3 million votes isn't all that close.
See the 3:56pm entry
Tory MPs may push for second referendum after 2020 if Remain win, says Vote Leave minister Conservative MPs may push for a second referendum on EU membership with a few years if Remain win, Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has said.
Raab, who is a senior figure in Vote Leave, made the revelation in an interview with the House magazine. He said that he would expect MPs to respect the verdict of the people but also that it was inevitable that the prospect of a second referendum would be an issue in the next leadership contest, which he said he hoped would be near the 2020 general election.
This was particularly the case if Leave lost narrowly, he said.
His comment implies candidates in the next leadership contest may be under pressure to offer a second referendum after the 2020 election.
Raab told the magazine:
You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.]
I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.
I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government ...
I think the public would expect us to accept their verdict, but of course things change. I’m just realistic and I’d like people to acknowledge that whenever the Tory leadership election is, I think it’s obvious that it will be part of that.
So there's really only two options left, May's Deal or Remain. Frankly I think if there was no political fallout we wouldn't even be given the choice, Parliament would Revoke A50. The referendum will simply be to provide cover for Parliament doing what it has wanted to do all along, stop Brexit.
Yes. That is the choice. Pass the Deal (which btw is really only the WA since the PD is waffle and in practice allows the FTA to be Labour's BINO if so desired) or stage a palpably rigged referendum to gerrymander Remain. I think that passing the Deal is most likely.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
Agreed, but the point is that a pivot to a Norway-style end-point doesn't help with the immediate problem, which is parliament's near-certain refusal to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement. The only proviso to that is that pivoting towards Norway might get a few more MPs on board supporting the deal, although it's hard to see it making a big difference unless Labour as a whole agrees.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
Because the decision to leave has already been made.
But needs to be confirmed or rejected when we have the details
Funny, I don't remember being told it was a best of two back in 2016.
It may seem like a game to you watching from afar, but confirming major decision like that which affects real lives is reasonable and sensible
I am on my way back from a somewhat unpleasant hospital procedure. Even after I had signed the form and initialled all the boxes, they asked me twice more whether I wanted to go ahead. Doubtless if I had said that now I am in here I don't fancy it any more, Dr Rob would be telling me that I had already agreed and would be getting it anyway.
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
Likewise if Leave with No Deal is soundly rejected by parliament.
In electoral terms, it would be a case of "Reopen nominations", as none of the Brexit candidates so far presented are acceptable.
The only Brexit that has a chance of getting through parliament is a deal that Labour can sign on to. With most of Labour, half of the Tories and the DUP you have a parliamentary majority. That is the only way I can see a deal being agreed.
Slight problem is that Labour won't agree to anything while they think they have a chance of creating as much chaos as possible resulting in a GE that even Corbyn has a chance of winning. It is their only hope for electoral success. Both major parties are putting party before country
Which is why May needs to reach out and say she is looking for cross-party consensus. How could Starmer refuse an invitation to head over to Brussels to lead the negotiations?
What negotiations? The deal is done. Surely everyone now realises that? There is no more negotiation to be had. THE DEAL IS DONE.
Brussels won't move in an ERG direction, but I would expect them to be happy to renegotiate to make it a softer Brexit.
Really? They have us over a barrel. They scent victory on the air. Why would they cave now?
To confirm the deal, or to re-run the first referendum? In any case, 1.3 million votes isn't all that close.
See the 3:56pm entry
Tory MPs may push for second referendum after 2020 if Remain win, says Vote Leave minister Conservative MPs may push for a second referendum on EU membership with a few years if Remain win, Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has said.
Raab, who is a senior figure in Vote Leave, made the revelation in an interview with the House magazine. He said that he would expect MPs to respect the verdict of the people but also that it was inevitable that the prospect of a second referendum would be an issue in the next leadership contest, which he said he hoped would be near the 2020 general election.
This was particularly the case if Leave lost narrowly, he said.
His comment implies candidates in the next leadership contest may be under pressure to offer a second referendum after the 2020 election.
Raab told the magazine:
You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.]
I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.
I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government ...
I think the public would expect us to accept their verdict, but of course things change. I’m just realistic and I’d like people to acknowledge that whenever the Tory leadership election is, I think it’s obvious that it will be part of that.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
Because the decision to leave has already been made.
But needs to be confirmed or rejected when we have the details
Funny, I don't remember being told it was a best of two back in 2016.
It may seem like a game to you watching from afar, but confirming major decision like that which affects real lives is reasonable and sensible
I am on my way back from a somewhat unpleasant hospital procedure. Even after I had signed the form and initialled all the boxes, they asked me twice more whether I wanted to go ahead. Doubtless if I had said that now I am in here I don't fancy it any more, Dr Rob would be telling me that I had already agreed and would be getting it anyway.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
Agreed, but the point is that a pivot to a Norway-style end-point doesn't help with the immediate problem, which is parliament's near-certain refusal to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement. The only proviso to that is that pivoting towards Norway might get a few more MPs on board supporting the deal, although it's hard to see it making a big difference unless Labour as a whole agrees.
Not to mention, going to Norway to pick up Labour MPs might end up losing you more Tories from the other end.
Can you imagine a party going into the next election:
"So you remembered that three years of total insanity, where we botched Brexit and brought the UK to the brink of ruin, and the country had to be pulled back from the brink of disaster at the very last minute? If you vote for us this election, we promise to do it ALL OVER AGAIN!"
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
Because the decision to leave has already been made.
But needs to be confirmed or rejected when we have the details
Funny, I don't remember being told it was a best of two back in 2016.
It may seem like a game to you watching from afar, but confirming major decision like that which affects real lives is reasonable and sensible
I am on my way back from a somewhat unpleasant hospital procedure. Even after I had signed the form and initialled all the boxes, they asked me twice more whether I wanted to go ahead. Doubtless if I had said that now I am in here I don't fancy it any more, Dr Rob would be telling me that I had already agreed and would be getting it anyway.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
Agreed, but the point is that a pivot to a Norway-style end-point doesn't help with the immediate problem, which is parliament's near-certain refusal to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement. The only proviso to that is that pivoting towards Norway might get a few more MPs on board supporting the deal, although it's hard to see it making a big difference unless Labour as a whole agrees.
Not to mention, going to Norway to pick up Labour MPs might end up losing you more Tories from the other end.
Not sure about that. Nearly all of the Tory MPs who back the deal do so because it is the deal.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
Because the decision to leave has already been made.
But needs to be confirmed or rejected when we have the details
Funny, I don't remember being told it was a best of two back in 2016.
It may seem like a game to you watching from afar, but confirming major decision like that which affects real lives is reasonable and sensible
I am on my way back from a somewhat unpleasant hospital procedure. Even after I had signed the form and initialled all the boxes, they asked me twice more whether I wanted to go ahead. Doubtless if I had said that now I am in here I don't fancy it any more, Dr Rob would be telling me that I had already agreed and would be getting it anyway.
Get well soon Ian.
I also imagine it would have been a different conversation had they realised that the benefits and risks were very different, after you had signed the forms.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
The presence of the backstop was necessitated by the poor choices Mrs May made at the start laying down red lines. If the UK had committed to remaining in the SM and CU, or keeping NI in the SM and CU, no backstop would have been necessary.
Everything, eventually, flows from May's bad decisions.
Apparently we are not allowed to say that as it is hindsight and absolutely no one said anything like that at the time.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
Agreed, but the point is that a pivot to a Norway-style end-point doesn't help with the immediate problem, which is parliament's near-certain refusal to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement. The only proviso to that is that pivoting towards Norway might get a few more MPs on board supporting the deal, although it's hard to see it making a big difference unless Labour as a whole agrees.
Not to mention, going to Norway to pick up Labour MPs might end up losing you more Tories from the other end.
Not sure about that. Nearly all of the Tory MPs who back the deal do so because it is the deal.
Nearly all of the Tory MPs who back the deal do so because they're on the payroll and their job depends on it.
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
In order to overrule Parliament, who will have failed to come up with a workable option.
There is just a hint of circular logic/intended self fulfilling prophecy for those rejecting the deal in parliament and then advocating a second vote. Those who advocate leaving without the deal before us and since it is the only deal by implication no deal (Crispin Blunt) are being intellectually far more pure.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
EUCO would never grant an A50 extension for a referendum on Norway, because *no Norway deal has been negotiated*. The referendum can only be on the deal the government already negotiated.
We'd be saying the EU, "Hey guys, would you like a situation where we continue to make large payments to you for years to come, using a largely off the shelf agreement?" (And protecting the Four Freedoms.)
Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.
From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.
We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.
Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
Agreed, but the point is that a pivot to a Norway-style end-point doesn't help with the immediate problem, which is parliament's near-certain refusal to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement. The only proviso to that is that pivoting towards Norway might get a few more MPs on board supporting the deal, although it's hard to see it making a big difference unless Labour as a whole agrees.
Not to mention, going to Norway to pick up Labour MPs might end up losing you more Tories from the other end.
Not sure about that. Nearly all of the Tory MPs who back the deal do so because it is the deal.
Nearly all of the Tory MPs who back the deal do so because they're on the payroll and their job depends on it.
The VONC & pre deal statements proved the non payroll Tories are very much of the no deal rather than the 2nd ref variety.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
But surely that is the case with any deal. The backstop only becomes an issue if we don't have a deal by the end of the 2 years. And if we are looking at a Norway style deal it becomes all the easier.
Agreed, but the point is that a pivot to a Norway-style end-point doesn't help with the immediate problem, which is parliament's near-certain refusal to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement. The only proviso to that is that pivoting towards Norway might get a few more MPs on board supporting the deal, although it's hard to see it making a big difference unless Labour as a whole agrees.
Not to mention, going to Norway to pick up Labour MPs might end up losing you more Tories from the other end.
Not sure about that. Nearly all of the Tory MPs who back the deal do so because it is the deal.
Nearly all of the Tory MPs who back the deal do so because they're on the payroll and their job depends on it.
That amounts to the same thing. The point is that if May goes for Norway, they will still be the payroll and will still support it...
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
Likewise if Leave with No Deal is soundly rejected by parliament.
In electoral terms, it would be a case of "Reopen nominations", as none of the Brexit candidates so far presented are acceptable.
The only Brexit that has a chance of getting through parliament is a deal that Labour can sign on to. With most of Labour, half of the Tories and the DUP you have a parliamentary majority. That is the only way I can see a deal being agreed.
Slight problem is that Labour won't agree to anything while they think they have a chance of creating as much chaos as possible resulting in a GE that even Corbyn has a chance of winning. It is their only hope for electoral success. Both major parties are putting party before country
Which is why May needs to reach out and say she is looking for cross-party consensus. How could Starmer refuse an invitation to head over to Brussels to lead the negotiations?
What negotiations? The deal is done. Surely everyone now realises that? There is no more negotiation to be had. THE DEAL IS DONE.
Brussels won't move in an ERG direction, but I would expect them to be happy to renegotiate to make it a softer Brexit.
Really? They have us over a barrel. They scent victory on the air. Why would they cave now?
Because they would rather have us in a CU and SM permanently than either the current deal of No Deal.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
EUCO would never grant an A50 extension for a referendum on Norway, because *no Norway deal has been negotiated*. The referendum can only be on the deal the government already negotiated.
We'd be saying the EU, "Hey guys, would you like a situation where we continue to make large payments to you for years to come, using a largely off the shelf agreement?" (And protecting the Four Freedoms.)
Why would they say no?
They don't think the EEA governance model is robust enough for a country like the UK so "Norway" for the UK most likely does not mean the EEA but a bespoke Association Agreement. In practice it cannot be largely off the shelf.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
There's no need to throw insults around, but the problem is that putting a Norway-style option in a referendum is meaningless. This is because the EU's response would be 'Fine, ratify the existing Withdrawal Agreement - including crucially the backstop - and then over the next couple of years we can talk about whether the UK wishes to amend the political delaration'. So it gets us precisely nowhere.
EUCO would never grant an A50 extension for a referendum on Norway, because *no Norway deal has been negotiated*. The referendum can only be on the deal the government already negotiated.
We'd be saying the EU, "Hey guys, would you like a situation where we continue to make large payments to you for years to come, using a largely off the shelf agreement?" (And protecting the Four Freedoms.)
Why would they say no?
1) Because they want us to to remain, and they can smell that we're tantalisingly close to that. 2) If we don't remain, they've got us trapped in a terrible deal of our own making.
The EU have us exactly where we want us, and they have zero reason to change course.
I don't think you can say it is as toxic as no deal. EUref2 might be politically toxic to some (probably about 30% max), but it doesn't bring economic chaos, so not equivalent at all really.
I would say that another referendum is as toxic as no deal but I agree that it is not equivalent. It would inflict a different form of damage, less monetary and more emotional. Would you rather lose your wallet or your self-respect? Depends, of course. How much was in the wallet relative to your bank account? How much self-respect did you start off with? Etc. Different people will answer (and therefore feel) differently.
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
What is wrong with a choice between Leave on the basis of the WA or Remain on current terms?
Meanwhile I see that it is all kicking off again in France and Belgium in relation to the Marrakech Declaration our own @Alanbrooke wrote about recently.
Because the decision to leave has already been made.
But needs to be confirmed or rejected when we have the details
Funny, I don't remember being told it was a best of two back in 2016.
It may seem like a game to you watching from afar, but confirming major decision like that which affects real lives is reasonable and sensible
I am on my way back from a somewhat unpleasant hospital procedure. Even after I had signed the form and initialled all the boxes, they asked me twice more whether I wanted to go ahead. Doubtless if I had said that now I am in here I don't fancy it any more, Dr Rob would be telling me that I had already agreed and would be getting it anyway.
Good luck Ian, I hope you have a swift recovery.
I see that the stygian murk surrounding May's intentions persists. Quelle surprise.
In terms of 'the deal', there is no deal, because parliament won't ratify it. As I am an imperturbable boulevardier, I shall merely observe that we are 102 days from Brexit.
f we haven't agreed something by January 21st, I shall consider raising one eyebrow. I may even look askance at our beloved government.
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.
"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.
I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.
The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).
Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.
But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.
Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.
From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.
We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.
That's quite spectacularly backwards! The main objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is to get a transition period and an orderly exit without utter chaos. In your scenario we get the utter chaos and no transition period, and then from an abject position of a crashed economy and voters going ballistic at the job losses and disruption, we'd be coming back to the EU begging for some relief (which, even with the best will in the world, they'd have trouble giving us).
I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.
They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).
That is also my expectation. A50 will be revoked and the question of whether this will be temporary or permanent will be left open. But the reality is that it will be permanent.
I worry a great deal about the political turmoil that putting Remain on the ballot will cause.
I think your suggestion is spot on. It honours the referendum result, and allows everyone a voice. From the EU's point of view, they'd rather we were Norway, rather than out altogether, as we'd be handing over at least some money, and it makes us a rule taker. From our side it allows us to resolve what the future relationship looks like, and allows purists to argue for No Deal.
A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.
Well, you can see it that way, or you can accept that there was a vote and Leave won. To revisit that question is, I am very sad to say, probably going to be explosive.
I write as a Remainer.
I don't like any of this, but seems to me, increasingly, that a period in Norway arrangement and then a revisit of the rejoin question is probably a better way forward.
I think the betrayal narrative and conspiracy theories from a period in a Norway-style arrangement would be much greater and do more long-term damage: "They're not letting us leave properly!"
When you add in the fact that project fear would have been discredited by a soft exit, and you have the perfect conditions for a far nastier Brexit 2.0.
You may be right. There is no good answer on all this. Just various bad options of different degrees.
My guess is though, that enough Leave voters, sick to the back teeth of it all, will accept Norway and want to get on with life. There will be a noisy minority, but I doubt it will be as big or rabid as if Remain is back on the ballot.
Norway means no control of EU immigration and continuing contributions to the EU - both glaring red lines for any Leave voters.
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.
"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.
I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.
The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).
Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.
But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
Likewise if Leave with No Deal is soundly rejected by parliament.
In electoral terms, it would be a case of "Reopen nominations", as none of the Brexit candidates so far presented are acceptable.
The only Brexit that has a chance of getting through parliament is a deal that Labour can sign on to. With most of Labour, half of the Tories and the DUP you have a parliamentary majority. That is the only way I can see a deal being agreed.
Slight problem is that Labour won't agree to anything while they think they have a chance of creating as much chaos as possible resulting in a GE that even Corbyn has a chance of winning. It is their only hope for electoral success. Both major parties are putting party before country
Which is why May needs to reach out and say she is looking for cross-party consensus. How could Starmer refuse an invitation to head over to Brussels to lead the negotiations?
What negotiations? The deal is done. Surely everyone now realises that? There is no more negotiation to be had. THE DEAL IS DONE.
Brussels won't move in an ERG direction, but I would expect them to be happy to renegotiate to make it a softer Brexit.
The Trade Agreemnt may well be a soft Brexit. The EU is sitting pretty if we have signed uop tio the divorce bill without having agreed what kind of trade agreement we have in the future.
Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.
From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.
We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.
Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.
I am sure we will all be happy to put our businesses and finances on hold and sit calmly while we wait for all that to carry on.
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.
"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.
I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.
The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).
Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.
But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
In order to overrule Parliament, who will have failed to come up with a workable option.
There is just a hint of circular logic/intended self fulfilling prophecy for those rejecting the deal in parliament and then advocating a second vote. Those who advocate leaving without the deal before us and since it is the only deal by implication no deal (Crispin Blunt) are being intellectually far more pure.
"We don't think it's a good idea or delivers what was promised to you, but we will abide by your decision on that."
Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.
From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.
We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.
Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.
I am sure we will all be happy to put our businesses and finances on hold and sit calmly while we wait for all that to carry on.
Exactly. Its ultimately just a much more extreme version of where we stand today. Which is why its also not a viable proposition.
Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.
From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.
We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.
Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.
I am sure we will all be happy to put our businesses and finances on hold and sit calmly while we wait for all that to carry on.
Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.
From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.
We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.
Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.
With all due respect, David, it's a bit more complicated than that.
Firstly, we would get a case brought against us by (for example) the Uruguayan government asking for the same tariffs on their beef that the Irish got. We could resole this through unilaterally removing all tariffs, but that would be politically difficult. And if we did that, then our negotiating position with the EU wouldn't be particularly strong either...
Secondly, supply chains might start bypassing the UK, particularly in automotive. Don't forget that parts of a car might cross the border half a dozen times. So, if the supply chains start to avoid us, then - oh yes - our negotiating position is weaker.
Thirdly, this still doesn't deal with the massive problem of dropping out of the EU's rules on double taxation and withholding taxes. Or with dropping out of all the EU's existing trade agreements (except Switzerland and South Africa.)
Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.
From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.
We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.
Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.
I am sure we will all be happy to put our businesses and finances on hold and sit calmly while we wait for all that to carry on.
You realise, of course, the EU utterly refuses to begin any trade negotiations until there is a legally binding assurance of no hard border in Northern Ireland?
No matter how much you tut the word "WTO", it isn't going to change that.
I mildly object to 'any'. I don't care about EU immigration - if you look at the various EU member states economic growth rates, you can see that it's a transient issue exacerbated by Blair's loop-de-loop decision not to have transitional controls.
Similarly, if we could simply *pay* for Single Market membership while otherwise being outside the EU's treaty structures, I'd have my cheque book out in short order.
I do appreciate that my position is a niche one of course .
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.
"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.
I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.
The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).
Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.
But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.
If parliament rejects May's deal by 420 - 220 (or thereabouts), why on earth should the very same deal then be put to a public referendum?
In order to overrule Parliament, who will have failed to come up with a workable option.
There is just a hint of circular logic/intended self fulfilling prophecy for those rejecting the deal in parliament and then advocating a second vote. Those who advocate leaving without the deal before us and since it is the only deal by implication no deal (Crispin Blunt) are being intellectually far more pure.
"We don't think it's a good idea or delivers what was promised to you, but we will abide by your decision on that."
Seems valid to me.
My position is changing 3 times a week on Brexit, and twice on sundays. It means I'm able to see it from all sides, and today I'm in the mood for a hard Brexit
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.
"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.
I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.
The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).
Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.
But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.
Brussels won't move in an ERG direction, but I would expect them to be happy to renegotiate to make it a softer Brexit.
I think the EU position is mess around with the PD all you like but no change to the WA. The deal is the WA. We just need to ratify that and then we can brexit and get started asap on the long and tortuous process of negotiating a deep and special relationship to replace our current deep and special relationship.
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.
"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.
I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.
The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).
Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.
But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.
There is plenty of harm in establishing the principle that things have to be voted for twice before they can be permitted to happen.
And, of course, that assumes that voting for them twice would be enough.
The Peoples Vote campaign seems to be spending lots of money on PR and getting results in the media.
However, they are not having any impact on the law since only the government can put forward proposals for a referendum and May is against a second referendum and in place for the next 12 months.
I have not noticed either Gove or Cox exhibiting febrile hatred. I am afraid you are allowing your own clear bias - perhaps your own febrile hatred of Brexit - to cloud your judgement.
And there were plenty of sensible posters on both sides of the debate who pointed out the same May mistakes I mentioned. You just want to paint all those people who disagree with you as holding views which are invalid.
Gove or Cox are sensible, I agree. But they were never going to be in a position to negotiate Brexit. Cox was an unknown, and Gove would have been too untrusted by both sides - especially the Brexiteers. You would have been left with IDS, Davis, Fox or Johnson, each of which would have been utterly disastrous for negotiations - even if they could be bothered to negotiate.
I don't hate Brexit. I wanted the referendum and, oddly, don't regret that we had it (I do regret the manner in which your side ran the debate - although as that would involve you having some genuine introspection, I doubt you'll agree). I do think that your blaming of May is utterly self-serving and blind to the reality of the situation (not that she is blameless - though few people are when it comes to Brexit, myself included).
"You just want to paint all those people who disagree with you as holding views which are invalid. "
Richard, that described so many of your own posts on this topic.
My position is changing 3 times a week on Brexit, and twice on sundays. It means I'm able to see it from all sides, and today I'm in the mood for a hard Brexit
I know what you mean. I'm a deal person (I love the deal) but I do have occasional little bouts of 2nd ref and WTO. Not today though.
Comments
I write as a Remainer.
I don't like any of this, but seems to me, increasingly, that a period in Norway arrangement and then a revisit of the rejoin question is probably a better way forward.
Hmm. What famous experiment involved those words?
Dominic Raab said so in the event of a close referendum result.
Ditto Farage.
The bookie showered the gambling addict with thousands of pounds-worth of gifts over two years – including free tickets to football matches and business class flights.
How many here, I wonder non-judgementally, have had corporate hospitality, including free tickets to Arsenal games, four tickets to see the Floyd Mayweather v Marcos Maidana boxing match in Las Vegas and an invitation to the company box at Royal Ascot?
Mind the 'gambler' wasn't very good at it; he kept losing!
There’s been no turnout filters or political apportioning to those numbers..
The latest economic numbers (released last Monday), show industrial output down 1% yoy in October and manufacturing output down 0.8%, These numbers that were nicely positive (as much as 3% yoy at one point this year) that are now sharply down. Construction activity, by contrast, continues to be strongly positive, up 3.8% yoy.
My guess, therefore, is that housing investment remains up, while business investment will be down.
When you add in the fact that project fear would have been discredited by a soft exit, and you have the perfect conditions for a far nastier Brexit 2.0.
At least you have the balls to state it will be leavers doing violence, not some Deep State remainer conspiracy to make you leavers look bad.
https://twitter.com/carriesymonds/status/1074341700527710209
Everything, eventually, flows from May's bad decisions.
My guess is though, that enough Leave voters, sick to the back teeth of it all, will accept Norway and want to get on with life. There will be a noisy minority, but I doubt it will be as big or rabid as if Remain is back on the ballot.
Tory MPs may push for second referendum after 2020 if Remain win, says Vote Leave minister
Conservative MPs may push for a second referendum on EU membership with a few years if Remain win, Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has said.
Raab, who is a senior figure in Vote Leave, made the revelation in an interview with the House magazine. He said that he would expect MPs to respect the verdict of the people but also that it was inevitable that the prospect of a second referendum would be an issue in the next leadership contest, which he said he hoped would be near the 2020 general election.
This was particularly the case if Leave lost narrowly, he said.
His comment implies candidates in the next leadership contest may be under pressure to offer a second referendum after the 2020 election.
Raab told the magazine:
You would be naïve to suggest that [a second referendum] wouldn’t become a factor and one element in that [the next leadership contest.]
I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.
I think that’s the pragmatic, sensible approach. Then we can all get on with delivering the business of government ...
I think the public would expect us to accept their verdict, but of course things change. I’m just realistic and I’d like people to acknowledge that whenever the Tory leadership election is, I think it’s obvious that it will be part of that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/09/eu-referendum-live-wollaston-remain-vote-leave-sturgeon-johnson
I am on my way back from a somewhat unpleasant hospital procedure. Even after I had signed the form and initialled all the boxes, they asked me twice more whether I wanted to go ahead. Doubtless if I had said that now I am in here I don't fancy it any more, Dr Rob would be telling me that I had already agreed and would be getting it anyway.
There could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681
Also had Remain won, the decision would have been implemented immediately, so the analogy (as ever) fails.
"So you remembered that three years of total insanity, where we botched Brexit and brought the UK to the brink of ruin, and the country had to be pulled back from the brink of disaster at the very last minute? If you vote for us this election, we promise to do it ALL OVER AGAIN!"
Sure to be a vote winner.
I also imagine it would have been a different conversation had they realised that the benefits and risks were very different, after you had signed the forms.
Those who advocate leaving without the deal before us and since it is the only deal by implication no deal (Crispin Blunt) are being intellectually far more pure.
Why would they say no?
From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.
We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.
However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.
Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.
2) If we don't remain, they've got us trapped in a terrible deal of our own making.
The EU have us exactly where we want us, and they have zero reason to change course.
I see that the stygian murk surrounding May's intentions persists. Quelle surprise.
In terms of 'the deal', there is no deal, because parliament won't ratify it. As I am an imperturbable boulevardier, I shall merely observe that we are 102 days from Brexit.
f we haven't agreed something by January 21st, I shall consider raising one eyebrow. I may even look askance at our beloved government.
"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.
I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.
The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).
Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.
But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.
They don't want us to No Deal, but equally they're barely willing to lift a finger to stop it. Why? Pour encourager les autres...
https://labourlist.org/2018/12/how-labour-can-win-a-parliamentary-consensus-and-then-an-election/
Seems valid to me.
"Student loan change adds £12bn to deficit"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46591500
Woops!
Firstly, we would get a case brought against us by (for example) the Uruguayan government asking for the same tariffs on their beef that the Irish got. We could resole this through unilaterally removing all tariffs, but that would be politically difficult. And if we did that, then our negotiating position with the EU wouldn't be particularly strong either...
Secondly, supply chains might start bypassing the UK, particularly in automotive. Don't forget that parts of a car might cross the border half a dozen times. So, if the supply chains start to avoid us, then - oh yes - our negotiating position is weaker.
Thirdly, this still doesn't deal with the massive problem of dropping out of the EU's rules on double taxation and withholding taxes. Or with dropping out of all the EU's existing trade agreements (except Switzerland and South Africa.)
No matter how much you tut the word "WTO", it isn't going to change that.
No backstop = no trade negotiations.
I mildly object to 'any'. I don't care about EU immigration - if you look at the various EU member states economic growth rates, you can see that it's a transient issue exacerbated by Blair's loop-de-loop decision not to have transitional controls.
Similarly, if we could simply *pay* for Single Market membership while otherwise being outside the EU's treaty structures, I'd have my cheque book out in short order.
I do appreciate that my position is a niche one of course
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1074233341971439617?s=19
It's Norway+.
And, of course, that assumes that voting for them twice would be enough.
However, they are not having any impact on the law since only the government can put forward proposals for a referendum and May is against a second referendum and in place for the next 12 months.
I don't hate Brexit. I wanted the referendum and, oddly, don't regret that we had it (I do regret the manner in which your side ran the debate - although as that would involve you having some genuine introspection, I doubt you'll agree). I do think that your blaming of May is utterly self-serving and blind to the reality of the situation (not that she is blameless - though few people are when it comes to Brexit, myself included).
"You just want to paint all those people who disagree with you as holding views which are invalid. "
Richard, that described so many of your own posts on this topic.
I do not think you will win any of them.