A good plan from a Conservative point of view. I have been wondering how we can pass the disaster over to Labour so they take the flak.
Nick has thought through a plan, for which credit. Solving the Tory crisis would also deserve credit.
It's biggest weakness is that they can't put no deal to a vote. Partly for the reasons already well rehearsed, but also because it's a non-seller to the minor parties and probably to most Labour MPs. They have already put an amendment ruling out no deal, so how can they possibly stick it in a referendum?
Tbe other weakness is that if Labour's sunshine and sweeties deal proves impossible to negotiate, what then?
And, of course, sorting out the personalities would be horrendous, and there won't be majority support for ever making Corbyn PM
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.
Yes I'm in favour of a deal, but it doesn't look like passing the HoC.
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.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
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.
We paid for higher education by, shock horror, progressive taxation. I benefited from the opportunity to be the first in my family to go to university. In hindsight, I'll always be grateful to the One Nation Conservative and Old Labour governments which then ran the country and understood that 'there is such a thing as society'.
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.
"You said you'd like a sandwich. Oh dear, [I've forgotten where the fridge is|EU27 stole my fridge|My fridge unexpectedly disappeared] (delete as applicable). All I can offer you now is a cat turd roll. That will be disgusting, and it will probably make you sick, but I respect you so much that I feel honour bound to offer you something you can eat between two pieces of bread after I promised. And I wouldn't want to disrespect you by asking you whether you want it or not."
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.
My one constant is that I have never regretted voting remain in the original referendum, I'd have to have a serious serious think if any subsequent one came up. Emotionally 'leave' has a much stronger appeal on the surface than remain right now, but there are other factors to consider.
A good plan from a Conservative point of view. I have been wondering how we can pass the disaster over to Labour so they take the flak.
Nick has thought through a plan, for which credit. Solving the Tory crisis would also deserve credit.
It's biggest weakness is that they can't put no deal to a vote. Partly for the reasons already well rehearsed, but also because it's a non-seller to the minor parties and probably to most Labour MPs. They have already put an amendment ruling out no deal, so how can they possibly stick it in a referendum?
Tbe other weakness is that if Labour's sunshine and sweeties deal proves impossible to negotiate, what then?
And, of course, sorting out the personalities would be horrendous, and there won't be majority support for ever making Corbyn PM
As you imply, it's not much of a plan, since it relies on unicorns prancing in the sunlit meadows of a Corbyn utopia:
We would make a serious effort to negotiate an alternative Brexit deal, scrapping May’s “no customs union” red line and accepting full regulatory alignment in trade (which eliminates the need for a backstop), plus whatever other changes we would hope to achieve, such as relaxation of constraints on state aid. In parallel, we would negotiate basic trading arrangements for a possible WTO exit to avoid the unthinkable consequences of total ‘no deal’. We would request, and expect to get, a three-month extension for this negotiation.
But, as a means for passing the blame on to Labour, it has its merits!
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
Which you would have completely disagreed with had remain won.
During the referendum campaign the government was heavily promoting the Remain side along with most establishment figures. It is generally hard to change the status quo because people are fearful of change. The referendum was heavily weighted in favour of Remain. So it is to be expeceted that anti-establishment forces would anticipate having to keep making their arguments against the established position.
There is a difference between civilians being caught in the crossfire of a military conflict and a country abusing diplomatic privileges to torture and murder a civilian in an embassy. Yes, both are bad. One can still be worse.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the genocide is worse.
What is your opinion on the RAF bombing campaign of German cities in WWII?
A necessary evil. On the other hand the bombing of British cities by the Germans was just plain evil. War isn't a way to launder immoral actions into moral ones. The killings that occur during a war are only as justified as the war itself.
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.
Yes I'm in favour of a deal, but it doesn't look like passing the HoC.
And to think if TM deal passed the pound would rocket, investment would rise, business would be delighted as would EU residents here and UK ones in the EU, planes will fly, holidays can be booked and health cards continued, roaming will continue and we are at the start of a period of intense trade negotiations
TM could arrange an orderly succession and the Country would avoid a horribly divisive referendum
That is all I want along with millions of others
But we have the most pathetic tribal politicians I can ever recall taking us to hell on a handcart
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.
No backstop = no trade negotiations.
They're bluffing.
If we exit with no deal are they going to start erecting customs posts etc? If not then there is no hard border despite being on WTO terms so there's nothing to resolve.
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.
You see, I think you're making the same mistake as May by badly overestimating how willing the EU are to stop us from crashing out without a deal.
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...
Their evaluation of everything, including the motives of others, is coloured (poisoned) by their having decided in advance that the EU is some sort of EUSSR.
It's why no nutjob Brexiter would have made anything worthwhile of the negotiations.
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.
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.
Yes I'm in favour of a deal, but it doesn't look like passing the HoC.
And to think if TM deal passed the pound would rocket, investment would rise, business would be delighted as would EU residents here and UK ones in the EU, planes will fly, holidays can be booked and health cards continued, roaming will continue and we are at the start of a period of intense trade negotiations
TM could arrange an orderly succession and the Country would avoid a horribly divisive referendum
That is all I want along with millions of others
But we have the most pathetic tribal politicians I can ever recall taking us to hell on a handcart
Labour is clearly acting in their own party interests. Many on the Tory benches might ask (if the deal is rejected) why the hell shouldn't they.
How can Tony Blair's proposal to reform the EU and "rethink" FOM be implemented except if the richer member states invoke A50, leave the EU, and set up a replacement with different movement rules?
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.
No backstop = no trade negotiations.
They're bluffing.
If we exit with no deal are they going to start erecting customs posts etc? If not then there is no hard border despite being on WTO terms so there's nothing to resolve.
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.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
I take your point, but May has managed to say nothing at all in all of those 12 hours. Nothing has changed in fact. She will spend serval more hours saying nothing this afternoon.
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
Giving her enough rope? Not disagreeing, just wondering.
Not too sure I like the inference of the rope
I know you don't like the overuse of violent metaphors, and I broadly agree that we need to dial back the violent imagery in these troubled times, but surely "give somebody enough rope to hang themselves" gets a free pass because it's a common English idiom?
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.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.
Yet more retail woes; Laura Ashley announcing that they are closing 40 stores. The significance here is that all this bad retail news is coming before Xmas - usually when the retail sector hits bad times, it is after Xmas that it shows up. That suggests to me that we've got a lot more bad news coming over the next couple of months.
The remainer activity to overturn the Brexit vote is nothing compared to what would be done to overturn an indyref2 yes vote
Still be the same clowns & incompetents & all round horrible people doing it though, with the added bonus that it might be Boris or Corbyn at the helm.
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.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.
Is that like the fantasy thinking of an EU Army, which we were all told was garbage?
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
I take your point, but May has managed to say nothing at all in all of those 12 hours. Nothing has changed in fact. She will spend serval more hours saying nothing this afternoon.
I think that's right. Big_G is shooting himself in the foot a bit there. Oh...
It looks increasingly like MPs will vote for a Norway option and EU referendum first by motions from MPs before they vote on the Deal, so if the first two fail that could help May put the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
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.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
The EU cannot take our opt outs away if we revoke Article 50 before March as the ECJ effectively confirmed
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
I take your point, but May has managed to say nothing at all in all of those 12 hours. Nothing has changed in fact. She will spend serval more hours saying nothing this afternoon.
Nothing has changed because various interests are pulling against each other but this is coming to an end as we crash out at the end of March. Time the mps got behind the deal
We paid for higher education by, shock horror, progressive taxation. I benefited from the opportunity to be the first in my family to go to university. In hindsight, I'll always be grateful to the One Nation Conservative and Old Labour governments which then ran the country and understood that 'there is such a thing as society'.
We still do. I believe we actually pay more for students to go to University today than we did back then. It's just that there are so many more going.
Back then, by and large, we didn't have free University education, because we didn't have University education. Only a very few special ones did. If we went back to the same proportion going, we could pay for all their tuition and more towards their subsistence - but at the cost of most who currently go, not going.
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.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.
I don't actually, but this sort of trite arch-remainer attitude is why you lost the vote.
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
It's leaving the European union. It is Brexit. And Brexit means Brexit.
Which you would have completely disagreed with had remain won.
Wrong.
He's right though. People can't spend the campaign dismissing Farage, calling him a liar and then select one thing that he said and hold it up as gospel. Not to mention that Farage was neither part of an official campaign, nor part of the electoral commission who set the question. It's really clutching at straws.
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
I take your point, but May has managed to say nothing at all in all of those 12 hours. Nothing has changed in fact. She will spend serval more hours saying nothing this afternoon.
Nothing has changed because various interests are pulling against each other but this is coming to an end as we crash out at the end of March. Time the mps got behind the deal
We paid for higher education by, shock horror, progressive taxation. I benefited from the opportunity to be the first in my family to go to university. In hindsight, I'll always be grateful to the One Nation Conservative and Old Labour governments which then ran the country and understood that 'there is such a thing as society'.
What it does show is that the election debate had (by its very nature) a lot of partisan spin around how much cancelling debt would cost. If you look at the Lords report, the whole thing is just bizarre smoke and mirrors. "I had not understood that by moving to a system of funding through loans, because of the accounting methods of the Treasury, it was possible for George Osborne to appear to increase funding for higher education by £3bn but at the same time cut his deficit by £3.8bn," said Lord Forsyth.
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.
Andy isn't saying that.
It's what is implied, though.
It's what you want to read into it in order to justify the conclusion that democracy means doing what the majority don't want.
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
Giving her enough rope? Not disagreeing, just wondering.
Not too sure I like the inference of the rope
I know you don't like the overuse of violent metaphors, and I broadly agree that we need to dial back the violent imagery in these troubled times, but surely "give somebody enough rope to hang themselves" gets a free pass because it's a common English idiom?
I have concern over any use of violent suggestion but I know OKC expressed himself without any such thoughts
"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.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.
Is that like the fantasy thinking of an EU Army, which we were all told was garbage?
No - it's like the fantasy thinking of '12m Turks coming to Britain', 'The easiest deal in the world', 'They need us more than we need them', '£350m per week for the NHS'...
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
There has always been a significant minority of the Leave vote, such as Richard Tyndall, John M and myself, who wanted us to leave the political structure of the EU, but was largely happy with the Four Freedoms.
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.
Yes I'm in favour of a deal, but it doesn't look like passing the HoC.
And to think if TM deal passed the pound would rocket, investment would rise, business would be delighted as would EU residents here and UK ones in the EU, planes will fly, holidays can be booked and health cards continued, roaming will continue
You know what else does that? Remain.
And it avoids us needing to spend the next seven years being repeatedly humiliated and outmanoeuvred in backbreaking trade deals, because we're ALREADY IN THE SINGLE MARKET!
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
Giving her enough rope? Not disagreeing, just wondering.
Not too sure I like the inference of the rope
I know you don't like the overuse of violent metaphors, and I broadly agree that we need to dial back the violent imagery in these troubled times, but surely "give somebody enough rope to hang themselves" gets a free pass because it's a common English idiom?
Point taken Mr G, but what other idiom or phrase could one use? 'Dig her own grave' is no better, surely?
We think that the public will understand a 600 page international treaty and the various complex competing options that the accompanying 30 pages of waffling and sometimes contradictory political aspiration make more or less likely, do we?
C'mon. It's a joke. The 'democracy' argument is a fig leaf. It's just desperation to Remain. First PV person to be honest and say so gets a week's holiday in the sun and £500 spending money.
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
It's leaving the European union. It is Brexit. And Brexit means Brexit.
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
There has always been a significant minority of the Leave vote, such as Richard Tyndall, John M and myself, who wanted us to leave the political structure of the EU, but was largely happy with the Four Freedoms.
It's deluded to think that a single market is not a political structure. Your position is based on identity, not politics.
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
Giving her enough rope? Not disagreeing, just wondering.
Not too sure I like the inference of the rope
I know you don't like the overuse of violent metaphors, and I broadly agree that we need to dial back the violent imagery in these troubled times, but surely "give somebody enough rope to hang themselves" gets a free pass because it's a common English idiom?
I have concern over any use of violent suggestion but I know OKC expressed himself without any such thoughts
Absolutely. Let’s not get all caught up. It’s one thing to say “all politicians should be hanged”, another to say “the prime mininster should be hanged” and another again to say “give somebody enough rope”. The first two are differing threats of violence, one minimal and one a touch more serious, but only a touch, the latter is entirely innocuous.
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.
No backstop = no trade negotiations.
They're bluffing.
If we exit with no deal are they going to start erecting customs posts etc? If not then there is no hard border despite being on WTO terms so there's nothing to resolve.
You were shot down on this the last time.
No I wasn't. You disagreeing isn't shooting down.
The Irish have said they won't build customs posts even if there is no deal so what's the big deal? They've preannounced that they are bluffing!
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
I take your point, but May has managed to say nothing at all in all of those 12 hours. Nothing has changed in fact. She will spend serval more hours saying nothing this afternoon.
Nothing has changed because various interests are pulling against each other but this is coming to an end as we crash out at the end of March. Time the mps got behind the deal
Why should they act as a rubber-stamping office?
It is in the national interest to move on and more than anything give business the transistion they need
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
It's leaving the European union. It is Brexit. And Brexit means Brexit.
We voted for Leave and Leave means Leave.
And now people have decided that was a mistake, Remain means Remain.
"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.
B.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.
Is that like the fantasy thinking of an EU Army, which we were all told was garbage?
No - it's like the fantasy thinking of '12m Turks coming to Britain', 'The easiest deal in the world', 'They need us more than we need them', '£350m per week for the NHS'...
I could go on.
"The end of western civilisation" was, I think, the best.
Which you would have completely disagreed with had remain won.
Wrong.
He's right though. People can't spend the campaign dismissing Farage, calling him a liar and then select one thing that he said and hold it up as gospel. Not to mention that Farage was neither part of an official campaign, nor part of the electoral commission who set the question. It's really clutching at straws.
We paid for higher education by, shock horror, progressive taxation. I benefited from the opportunity to be the first in my family to go to university. In hindsight, I'll always be grateful to the One Nation Conservative and Old Labour governments which then ran the country and understood that 'there is such a thing as society'.
Progressive taxation paid for a very small number of people to go to university, disproportionately from means in which support was not needed.
It looks increasingly like MPs will vote for a Norway option and EU referendum first by motions from MPs before they vote on the Deal, so if the first two fail that could help May put the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
Whatever motions are passed they don't change the law that we Leave on March 28th 2019.
Passing a motion just about sums up MPs trying to block the Leave result of the referendum.
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
I don't believe the LDs would get a boost quite as high as that, although they'd undoubtedly get some. The focused nature of the question is pushing people in a direction and in numbers that wouldn't happen at a real election where there are so many different issues competing for attention. The problem with these types of questions is that they are focusing on just one issue.
It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
Giving her enough rope? Not disagreeing, just wondering.
Not too sure I like the inference of the rope
I know you don't like the overuse of violent metaphors, and I broadly agree that we need to dial back the violent imagery in these troubled times, but surely "give somebody enough rope to hang themselves" gets a free pass because it's a common English idiom?
Point taken Mr G, but what other idiom or phrase could one use? 'Dig her own grave' is no better, surely?
I should apologise to you as I know you meant no ill in your comments.
Just I am sensitive in these times to avoid any unnecessary inferences
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
There has always been a significant minority of the Leave vote, such as Richard Tyndall, John M and myself, who wanted us to leave the political structure of the EU, but was largely happy with the Four Freedoms.
It's deluded to think that a single market is not a political structure. Your position is based on identity, not politics.
The EEC was a political structure, but membership of the EEA is a bit deeper than the EEC I would be happy.
I blame the English house sale/purchasing system for people not taking their leave/remain vote with the seriousness it deserved. I reckon less people in Scotland have changed their minds on the referendum with their frankly better system.
"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.
B.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.
Is that like the fantasy thinking of an EU Army, which we were all told was garbage?
No - it's like the fantasy thinking of '12m Turks coming to Britain', 'The easiest deal in the world', 'They need us more than we need them', '£350m per week for the NHS'...
I could go on.
"The end of western civilisation" was, I think, the best.
Wasn't there the threat of a Third World War if we left the EU - from David Cameron.
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
It's leaving the European union. It is Brexit. And Brexit means Brexit.
We voted for Leave and Leave means Leave.
And now people have decided that was a mistake, Remain means Remain.
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 36%.
However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP
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.
How do you know what the "red lines" of every leave voter are? Is it just the vibe?
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
There has always been a significant minority of the Leave vote, such as Richard Tyndall, John M and myself, who wanted us to leave the political structure of the EU, but was largely happy with the Four Freedoms.
Which is precisely why EEA should have been on the ballot paper in the first place.
We think that the public will understand a 600 page international treaty and the various complex competing options that the accompanying 30 pages of waffling and sometimes contradictory political aspiration make more or less likely, do we?
C'mon. It's a joke. The 'democracy' argument is a fig leaf. It's just desperation to Remain. First PV person to be honest and say so gets a week's holiday in the sun and £500 spending money.
After the fiasco of the past two years and the disastrous options in front of us, of course it is desperation to remain. Opinion has changed faced with the reality. Nevertheless it must be done via a vote and if people instead want to leave with the deal, so be it.
"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.
B.
Excellent post.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.
Is that like the fantasy thinking of an EU Army, which we were all told was garbage?
No - it's like the fantasy thinking of '12m Turks coming to Britain', 'The easiest deal in the world', 'They need us more than we need them', '£350m per week for the NHS'...
I could go on.
"The end of western civilisation" was, I think, the best.
Wasn't there the threat of a Third World War if we left the EU - from David Cameron.
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 36%.
However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP
There is a third poll missing, Tories pivot to a second referendum.
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 26%.
However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP
The one thing you can be >99.9% certain of is that none of those polls would be replicated in a real vote.
It looks increasingly like MPs will vote for a Norway option and EU referendum first by motions from MPs before they vote on the Deal, so if the first two fail that could help May put the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
Whatever motions are passed they don't change the law that we Leave on March 28th 2019.
Passing a motion just about sums up MPs trying to block the Leave result of the referendum.
It may leave with Deal as the last thing standing in the way of No Deal though
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.
Yes I'm in favour of a deal, but it doesn't look like passing the HoC.
And to think if TM deal passed the pound would rocket, investment would rise, business would be delighted as would EU residents here and UK ones in the EU, planes will fly, holidays can be booked and health cards continued, roaming will continue
You know what else does that? Remain.
And it avoids us needing to spend the next seven years being repeatedly humiliated and outmanoeuvred in backbreaking trade deals, because we're ALREADY IN THE SINGLE MARKET!
Indeed it does and I am quite happy for that to happen if TM deal falls
However, the idea a referendum is the answer fills me dread and that it would be so nasty and divisive it could have severe unintended consequences
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 36%.
However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP
There is a third poll missing, Tories pivot to a second referendum.
Which is probably not going to happen, certainly at leadership level unless Deal or No Deal
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 26%.
However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP
The one thing you can be >99.9% certain of is that none of those polls would be replicated in a real vote.
Labour can only win if May pivots to a second referendum.
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.
Is that like the fantasy thinking of an EU Army, which we were all told was garbage?
No - it's like the fantasy thinking of '12m Turks coming to Britain', 'The easiest deal in the world', 'They need us more than we need them', '£350m per week for the NHS'...
I could go on.
"The end of western civilisation" was, I think, the best.
Wasn't there the threat of a Third World War if we left the EU - from David Cameron.
No.
Only because the backlash against the pre-briefing of his speech was so great that he took the line out.
We give our politicians hell and yet no Leaver on here says "I do not want a 2nd referendum because I do not think Leave would win it". Instead we get all sorts of obfuscations and such instead of basic honesty.
Have the referendum. We know exactly what the options are now as opposed to nebulous sunny upland stuff. There are exactly three of them.
-No Deal -May's Deal -Remain
I am an arch-Remainer (apparently!!) but I will abide by the result however it turns out.
I would suggest that this is a PR vote - select 1st, 2nd and 3rd Preference. Put all three on the ballot.
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 36%.
However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP
There is a third poll missing, Tories pivot to a second referendum.
Which is probably going to happen, certainly at leadership level unless Deal or No Deal
I'm predicting a Labour lead in that particular scenario.
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 26%.
However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP
The one thing you can be >99.9% certain of is that none of those polls would be replicated in a real vote.
I think the LDs would surge at Labour's expense if there is a Commons motion for EUref2 and Corbyn opposes it and the LDs back it
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 .
If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?
There has always been a significant minority of the Leave vote, such as Richard Tyndall, John M and myself, who wanted us to leave the political structure of the EU, but was largely happy with the Four Freedoms.
It's deluded to think that a single market is not a political structure. Your position is based on identity, not politics.
The EEC was a political structure, but membership of the EEA is a bit deeper than the EEC I would be happy.
Whilst EFTA membership is achievable, it's by no means clear that the EEA is open to us, practically. The UK is too big and too unreliable for the EU to be happy with us being in the very loose regulatory feedback loop the EEA provides.
The EU will almost certainly insist on a much more rigid enforcement mechanism for ensuring UK maintains regulatory compliance. And they'd also make sure a deal on agriculture and fisheries was tied into that mechanism too.
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 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 perioduch 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
Norway means no control of EU immigration and continuing contributions to the EU - both glaring red lines for any Leave voters.
How do you know what the "red lines" of every leave voter are? Is it just the vibe?
Quite. ‘Any’ would be substituted for “some”. I’m happy that if our gvt enforced its existing power on immigration it could have curbed the free for all we’ve experienced over last fifteen years. And budget contributions to fund the integrity of the single market and its institutions doesn’t also seem unreasonable. I’m just not interested in funding Spanish highways and polish factories to bid for our manufacturing.
Comments
It's biggest weakness is that they can't put no deal to a vote. Partly for the reasons already well rehearsed, but also because it's a non-seller to the minor parties and probably to most Labour MPs. They have already put an amendment ruling out no deal, so how can they possibly stick it in a referendum?
Tbe other weakness is that if Labour's sunshine and sweeties deal proves impossible to negotiate, what then?
And, of course, sorting out the personalities would be horrendous, and there won't be majority support for ever making Corbyn PM
Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.
And he wants to be PM
I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.
The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html
We paid for higher education by, shock horror, progressive taxation. I benefited from the opportunity to be the first in my family to go to university. In hindsight, I'll always be grateful to the One Nation Conservative and Old Labour governments which then ran the country and understood that 'there is such a thing as society'.
Europe's Retail Apocalypse Spreads to Online From Shopping Malls https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-17/asos-cuts-guidance-after-significant-deterioration-in-november
We would make a serious effort to negotiate an alternative Brexit deal, scrapping May’s “no customs union” red line and accepting full regulatory alignment in trade (which eliminates the need for a backstop), plus whatever other changes we would hope to achieve, such as relaxation of constraints on state aid. In parallel, we would negotiate basic trading arrangements for a possible WTO exit to avoid the unthinkable consequences of total ‘no deal’. We would request, and expect to get, a three-month extension for this negotiation.
But, as a means for passing the blame on to Labour, it has its merits!
TM could arrange an orderly succession and the Country would avoid a horribly divisive referendum
That is all I want along with millions of others
But we have the most pathetic tribal politicians I can ever recall taking us to hell on a handcart
If we exit with no deal are they going to start erecting customs posts etc? If not then there is no hard border despite being on WTO terms so there's nothing to resolve.
It's why no nutjob Brexiter would have made anything worthwhile of the negotiations.
However, TM rises as Corbyn falls as she is in the spotlight and he is anoymous
One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1074635519018131457
I believe we actually pay more for students to go to University today than we did back then. It's just that there are so many more going.
Back then, by and large, we didn't have free University education, because we didn't have University education. Only a very few special ones did.
If we went back to the same proportion going, we could pay for all their tuition and more towards their subsistence - but at the cost of most who currently go, not going.
"I had not understood that by moving to a system of funding through loans, because of the accounting methods of the Treasury, it was possible for George Osborne to appear to increase funding for higher education by £3bn but at the same time cut his deficit by £3.8bn," said Lord Forsyth.
I could go on.
And it avoids us needing to spend the next seven years being repeatedly humiliated and outmanoeuvred in backbreaking trade deals, because we're ALREADY IN THE SINGLE MARKET!
We think that the public will understand a 600 page international treaty and the various complex competing options that the accompanying 30 pages of waffling and sometimes contradictory political aspiration make more or less likely, do we?
C'mon. It's a joke. The 'democracy' argument is a fig leaf. It's just desperation to Remain. First PV person to be honest and say so gets a week's holiday in the sun and £500 spending money.
A vote to implement Brexit means that Brexit will be implemented.
Do you think they're going to build customs posts at the Irish border if we do crash out?
We voted for Leave and Leave means Leave.
The Irish have said they won't build customs posts even if there is no deal so what's the big deal? They've preannounced that they are bluffing!
Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make Brexit mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Only narrowly - against generic ‘free unicorns’ Leave.
That form of Leave no longer exists, even in the imagination.
Progressive taxation paid for a very small number of people to go to university, disproportionately from means in which support was not needed.
Passing a motion just about sums up MPs trying to block the Leave result of the referendum.
Just I am sensitive in these times to avoid any unnecessary inferences
Best wishes to you
However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP
However, the idea a referendum is the answer fills me dread and that it would be so nasty and divisive it could have severe unintended consequences
Have the referendum. We know exactly what the options are now as opposed to nebulous sunny upland stuff. There are exactly three of them.
-No Deal
-May's Deal
-Remain
I am an arch-Remainer (apparently!!) but I will abide by the result however it turns out.
I would suggest that this is a PR vote - select 1st, 2nd and 3rd Preference. Put all three on the ballot.
Hopefully Tottenham Hotspur will not disgrace themselves again at the Emirates this week.
The EU will almost certainly insist on a much more rigid enforcement mechanism for ensuring UK maintains regulatory compliance. And they'd also make sure a deal on agriculture and fisheries was tied into that mechanism too.