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?
Weird. Almost as if Leave was a coalition of voters wanting contradictory things, and that no one version of Brexit actually has majority support.
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
Somebody pointed out on Twitter if there's a Remain vs May deal referendum, the racists are going to make the entire campaign about immigration.
That would be a very bad, dark time for our non-white and non-British families, friends and colleagues.
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
She is actively destroying the country by word and deed but it's more of a vague aspiration for Corbyn that he would be too idle and stupid to execute anyway.
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.
Yes. It seems (I might be wrong) that Norway and Iceland are quite passive and tend not to rock the boat. So are pliable and open to wink nudge fudging compromise. We are bellicose and disruptive. They will want us nailed down for ECJ.
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.
If Labour also support it and manage to do so in a way that doesn't look too embarassing, then yes.
The media seems to be taking the lazy option of talking about a second referendum rather than investigating the implications of the current law which means we will be leaving the EU on March 28th without having a withdrawal agreement or trade deal in place.
At least with a WTO deal we can start negotiating the divorce bill in parallel with a future trade agreement, a better negotiating position for the UK.
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
Somebody pointed out on Twitter if there's a Remain vs May deal referendum, the racists are going to make the entire campaign about immigration.
That would be a very bad, dark time for our non-white and non-British families, friends and colleagues.
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
Somebody pointed out on Twitter if there's a Remain vs May deal referendum, the racists are going to make the entire campaign about immigration.
That would be a very bad, dark time for our non-white and non-British families, friends and colleagues.
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.
Yes. It seems (I might be wrong) that Norway and Iceland are quite passive and tend not to rock the boat. So are pliable and open to wink nudge fudging compromise. We are bellicose and disruptive. They will want us nailed down for ECJ.
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
Somebody pointed out on Twitter if there's a Remain vs May deal referendum, the racists are going to make the entire campaign about immigration.
That would be a very bad, dark time for our non-white and non-British families, friends and colleagues.
The media seems to be taking the lazy option of talking about a second referendum rather than investigating the implications of the current law which means we will be leaving the EU on March 28th without having a withdrawal agreement or trade deal in place.
At least with a WTO deal we can start negotiating the divorce bill in parallel with a future trade agreement, a better negotiating position for the UK.
Also in parallel with massive economic disruption and the disintegration of the UK.
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.
... and make sure the three options are randomly ordered across different ballots.
Get's my vote. If we are going to end up in a No Deal situation, it would be so much better for the country to have explicitly voted for it.
The EU cannot take our opt outs away if we revoke Article 50 before March as the ECJ effectively confirmed
Indeed, the ECJ has gone out of its way to ensure the status quo ante is simply a phone call away.
And a change in the UK law to prevent Leaving on March 28th 2019. Which requires a government bill and a majority vote of MPs in parliament.
Not as far as the EU is concerned, it doesn't.
It would be royal prerogative, no?
The ECJ ruling says in accordance with our normal constitutional procedures, which (IANAL) means a phone call from Theresa May to Donald Tusk would be all it takes to Remain.
At least with a WTO deal we can start negotiating the divorce bill in parallel with a future trade agreement, a better negotiating position for the UK.
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
Somebody pointed out on Twitter if there's a Remain vs May deal referendum, the racists are going to make the entire campaign about immigration.
That would be a very bad, dark time for our non-white and non-British families, friends and colleagues.
Yikes, better give the racists what they want so we can go back to pretending they don't exist, then.
The EU cannot take our opt outs away if we revoke Article 50 before March as the ECJ effectively confirmed
Indeed, the ECJ has gone out of its way to ensure the status quo ante is simply a phone call away.
And a change in the UK law to prevent Leaving on March 28th 2019. Which requires a government bill and a majority vote of MPs in parliament.
Not as far as the EU is concerned, it doesn't.
As far as the EU is concerned we need to follow our own constitutional requirements. These were prescribed in the Miller case and as a result of Miller there is now an Act of Parliament saying we leave. As a result of Miller it will require a new Act to reverse that.
At least with a WTO deal we can start negotiating the divorce bill in parallel with a future trade agreement, a better negotiating position for the UK.
Absolutely.
Except the EU won't start negotiating a trade deal until there's a legally-binding guarantee of no hard border in Northern Ireland.
The EU cannot take our opt outs away if we revoke Article 50 before March as the ECJ effectively confirmed
Indeed, the ECJ has gone out of its way to ensure the status quo ante is simply a phone call away.
And a change in the UK law to prevent Leaving on March 28th 2019. Which requires a government bill and a majority vote of MPs in parliament.
Not as far as the EU is concerned, it doesn't.
It would be royal prerogative, no?
The ECJ ruling says in accordance with our normal constitutional procedures, which (IANAL) means a phone call from Theresa May to Donald Tusk would be all it takes to Remain.
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check"...
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 ....
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
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
The EU cannot take our opt outs away if we revoke Article 50 before March as the ECJ effectively confirmed
Indeed, the ECJ has gone out of its way to ensure the status quo ante is simply a phone call away.
And a change in the UK law to prevent Leaving on March 28th 2019. Which requires a government bill and a majority vote of MPs in parliament.
Not as far as the EU is concerned, it doesn't.
As far as the EU is concerned we need to follow our own constitutional requirements. These were prescribed in the Miller case and as a result of Miller there is now an Act of Parliament saying we leave. As a result of Miller it will require a new Act to reverse that.
That's unlikely. For one thing the Miller case was only about invoking, not revoking A50. Secondly the ruling was based on the assumption A50 was not revocable.
The EU cannot take our opt outs away if we revoke Article 50 before March as the ECJ effectively confirmed
Indeed, the ECJ has gone out of its way to ensure the status quo ante is simply a phone call away.
And a change in the UK law to prevent Leaving on March 28th 2019. Which requires a government bill and a majority vote of MPs in parliament.
Not as far as the EU is concerned, it doesn't.
It would be royal prerogative, no?
The ECJ ruling says in accordance with our normal constitutional procedures, which (IANAL) means a phone call from Theresa May to Donald Tusk would be all it takes to Remain.
That's unlikely. For one thing the Miller case was only about invoking, not revoking A50. Secondly the ruling was based on the assumption A50 was not revocable.
The Miller case is now, legally speaking, void.
If it is legally void, May can just sign the deal..
If there is a further referendum, I am going to make sure I get out and actively campaign, this time. I regret complacently doing nothing last time.
I'm going to do a lot more, too. I really thought no-one woule daft enough to vote to Leave. However by Referendum Day we had a big Remain poster up, and that day was the day the local house cleaning company made it's fortnightly visit. We asked the two young women if they'd voted yet, and they looked at each other and said 'Yes, but not the way you have.'
That's unlikely. For one thing the Miller case was only about invoking, not revoking A50. Secondly the ruling was based on the assumption A50 was not revocable.
The Miller case is now, legally speaking, void.
If it is legally void, May can just sign the deal..
Not without repealing or amending the Withdrawal Act she can't.
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check"...
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 ....
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
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
What's the justification for the ordering, though? Why not have the first question be "Do you still want to leave?" and the second question be, "How?". Or have the first question be, "Is No Deal acceptible?", then the second question be "So what alternative do you prefer?"
I don't see any particular logic to elevate any of those options above the others. Why not a single question with three options?
If there is a further referendum, I am going to make sure I get out and actively campaign, this time. I regret complacently doing nothing last time.
I'm going to do a lot more, too. I really thought no-one woule daft enough to vote to Leave. However by Referendum Day we had a big Remain poster up, and that day was the day the local house cleaning company made it's fortnightly visit. We asked the two young women if they'd voted yet, and they looked at each other and said 'Yes, but not the way you have.'
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check"...
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 ....
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
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
That's unlikely. For one thing the Miller case was only about invoking, not revoking A50. Secondly the ruling was based on the assumption A50 was not revocable.
The Miller case is now, legally speaking, void.
If it is legally void, May can just sign the deal..
The Miller case has nothing to do with the deal. It was only about invoking Article 50. The Brexit deal itself would always have required legislation.
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.
I expect there are lots of high street retailers that were holding on, hoping for a reasonable Black Friday / Christmas season - but their early numbers suggest people aren't spending. Combined with the number of restaurant chains having issues, I think people are holding back their discretionary spending.
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.
Yes. It seems (I might be wrong) that Norway and Iceland are quite passive and tend not to rock the boat. So are pliable and open to wink nudge fudging compromise. We are bellicose and disruptive. They will want us nailed down for ECJ.
If there is a further referendum, I am going to make sure I get out and actively campaign, this time. I regret complacently doing nothing last time.
I'm going to do a lot more, too. I really thought no-one woule daft enough to vote to Leave. However by Referendum Day we had a big Remain poster up, and that day was the day the local house cleaning company made it's fortnightly visit. We asked the two young women if they'd voted yet, and they looked at each other and said 'Yes, but not the way you have.'
Furiously to think
You'd actively campain for May's deal?
If the choice was that or crashing out, I think yes. I still want to Stay In.
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.
Yes. It seems (I might be wrong) that Norway and Iceland are quite passive and tend not to rock the boat. So are pliable and open to wink nudge fudging compromise. We are bellicose and disruptive. They will want us nailed down for ECJ.
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.
Agree, but marginally less of a joke than Referendum #1 when the public got one page of unicorns and outright lies. Instead of 600 pages of tyre-hit-the-road treaty provisions.
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.
I expect there are lots of high street retailers that were holding on, hoping for a reasonable Black Friday / Christmas season - but their early numbers suggest people aren't spending. Combined with the number of restaurant chains having issues, I think people are holding back their discretionary spending.
I think a recession is around the corner - not necessarily Brexit-driven but Brexit is not helping.
From a purely selfish point I'm pondering whther it's time to get out of the stock market for a year or so. Who knows??
If there is a further referendum, I am going to make sure I get out and actively campaign, this time. I regret complacently doing nothing last time.
I'm going to do a lot more, too. I really thought no-one woule daft enough to vote to Leave. However by Referendum Day we had a big Remain poster up, and that day was the day the local house cleaning company made it's fortnightly visit. We asked the two young women if they'd voted yet, and they looked at each other and said 'Yes, but not the way you have.'
Furiously to think
You'd actively campain for May's deal?
If the choice was that or crashing out, I think yes. I still want to Stay In.
So what is May going to say this afternoon? Will she insist she can get satisfactory "clarifications"' in the face of all available evidence? Would that be brave? Or something else? Also. Am getting fed up with "managed No Deal." It is an oxymoron and offends the English language.
When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check"...
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 ....
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
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
It rightly sets that hurdle for both remainers and ideologue no dealers. I think May’s deal would win by a significant majority - though no deal would lose significantly.
So what is May going to say this afternoon? Will she insist she can get satisfactory "clarifications"' in the face of all available evidence? Would that be brave? Or something else? Also. Am getting fed up with "managed No Deal." It is an oxymoron and offends the English language.
I think it's going to be the aggressive rhetoric of hinted violent consequences of a referendum, and the equally aggressive, and what she imagines to be simultaneously the good negotiating strategy of, no deal planning. The markets will destroy this posturing and hot air soon enough, if her cabinet colleagues don't.
That's unlikely. For one thing the Miller case was only about invoking, not revoking A50. Secondly the ruling was based on the assumption A50 was not revocable.
The Miller case is now, legally speaking, void.
If it is legally void, May can just sign the deal..
The Miller case has nothing to do with the deal. It was only about invoking Article 50. The Brexit deal itself would always have required legislation.
Strange. Some simple souls on here were going around blaming Gina for the fact that the PM couldn't just toddle over to Brussels and sign the deal off.
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.
I expect there are lots of high street retailers that were holding on, hoping for a reasonable Black Friday / Christmas season - but their early numbers suggest people aren't spending. Combined with the number of restaurant chains having issues, I think people are holding back their discretionary spending.
We certainly have spent less on Xmas, but that is because the kids have grown up and actually want very little other than a big Xmas dinner and some family time.
I do not do Black Friday because it is, frankly, a con job as stores clear out backroom stock and throw in a few loss-leaders to get a crush of bodies into the store. Being squashed flat in a raging stampede for a very limited supply of goodies is not my idea of fun.
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.
All seem innocuous to me and just wishful thinking , certainly not any threat , even if it would certainly improve the country.
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.
Yes. It seems (I might be wrong) that Norway and Iceland are quite passive and tend not to rock the boat. So are pliable and open to wink nudge fudging compromise. We are bellicose and disruptive. They will want us nailed down for ECJ.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's needlessly weird. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
No need for conditional clevers, just do the 2 rounds.
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.
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.
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?
Snip
The amount of utter bollox spouted on here is incredible. Mountains of supposition and supposed expert baloney.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's backwards. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
Question 1 can be answered by parliament and question 2 put to the public in a referendum.
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
Somebody pointed out on Twitter if there's a Remain vs May deal referendum, the racists are going to make the entire campaign about immigration.
That would be a very bad, dark time for our non-white and non-British families, friends and colleagues.
It would be horrible
G, it is horrible as it is , just more of the same.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's needlessly weird. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
No need for conditional clevers, just do the 2 rounds.
Then Remainers try to game the system by selecting No Deal in response to the first question.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's needlessly weird. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
No need for conditional clevers, just do the 2 rounds.
On two different days? Because if not you'd need to have 2a and 2b on the ballot paper.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's backwards. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
Question 1 can be answered by parliament and question 2 put to the public in a referendum.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's needlessly weird. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
No need for conditional clevers, just do the 2 rounds.
Then Remainers try to game the system by selecting No Deal in response to the first question.
Possibly, but it's not really clear that Deal would be a stronger contender than No Deal. In any case it's a different kind of thing to needing to choose option x to even be allowed the option to vote.
The EU cannot take our opt outs away if we revoke Article 50 before March as the ECJ effectively confirmed
Indeed, the ECJ has gone out of its way to ensure the status quo ante is simply a phone call away.
And a change in the UK law to prevent Leaving on March 28th 2019. Which requires a government bill and a majority vote of MPs in parliament.
I looked up the EU Withdrawal Act on legislation.gov.uk the other day, and as far as I can tell, section 1, which gives effect to the withdrawal date, has not been commenced yet, and will require a minister to lay an order before parliament to do so. IANAL of course, and if we have any experts here who can confirm or deny this, I’d be grateful.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's backwards. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
Question 1 can be answered by parliament and question 2 put to the public in a referendum.
Parliament is refusing to answer question 1...
Perhaps parliament would give a more sensible answer to question 1 if it knew question 2 was coming.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's backwards. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
Question 1 can be answered by parliament and question 2 put to the public in a referendum.
I agree, that would be my inclination, not least because if chosen, No Deal has all the same problems as the original Brexit thing did as an option: Does it really mean *no* deal, or just not that one? The campaign for it would obviously try to sell the voters a unicorn made of cake.
But I understand the feelings of people who might think it should be an option. And if you do, the least-bad way to handle it is with 2 rounds.
Man Utd v PSG Possible FA Cup 5th Round Tie Man Utd v Liverpool Crystal Palace v Man Utd Man Utd v Southampton PSG v Man Utd Arsenal v Man Utd Man Utd v Man City
The governments conduct really is disgraceful and increasingly reckless.
The government has agreed a deal which has majority support on its side of the House. It is the opposition which is rejecting the deal not on its merits but as an attempt to try to change the government.
Which is why some of us back a second referendum with this format: A first yes/no vote on the deal we have. Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
Your approach required Remainers to take a gamble. If they stick to their principles they'd vote no to the first question, but that risks No Deal (though tbh I suspect Remain versus No Deal would leade to victory for Remain).
Yup, it's needlessly weird. The non-bonkers way to do this with 2 rounds is: 1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal. 2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
No need for conditional clevers, just do the 2 rounds.
On two different days? Because if not you'd need to have 2a and 2b on the ballot paper.
Yes, do it on two different days with like a week or two in between. That would work better anyway because the media is only set up to deal with two opinions at a time.
Has he not read the decision, or does he not understand it?
I suspect he hasn't put that case and Miller together.
And I know the below is obvious to everyone here but I suspect we are the most educated people on this in the country.
The Miller ruling means that Parliament has to have a say so Parliament could decide to Revoke the deal but it's no longer in the Government's or May's control to do it without agreement from Parliament.
And unless Parliament makes a decision it's a No Deal exit and the clock is ticking.
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.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
Man Utd v PSG Possible FA Cup 5th Round Tie Man Utd v Liverpool Crystal Palace v Man Utd Man Utd v Southampton PSG v Man Utd Arsenal v Man Utd Man Utd v Man City
The media seems to be taking the lazy option of talking about a second referendum rather than investigating the implications of the current law which means we will be leaving the EU on March 28th without having a withdrawal agreement or trade deal in place.
At least with a WTO deal we can start negotiating the divorce bill in parallel with a future trade agreement, a better negotiating position for the UK.
Point of clarification. With what organisation do we strike this 'WTO deal'?
Has he not read the decision, or does he not understand it?
I suspect he hasn't put that case and Miller together.
And I know the below is obvious to everyone here but I suspect we are the most educated people on this in the country.
The Miller ruling means that Parliament has to have a say so Parliament could decide to Revoke the deal but it's no longer in the Government's or May's control to do it without agreement from Parliament.
And unless Parliament makes a decision it's a No Deal exit and the clock is ticking.
Genuine question: I thought the Miller case was based on the principle that the Executive could not take away rights from the people without the active say-so of Parliament, and that as leaving the EU removed rights the people already had, this could not be done by bypassing Parliament.
Does revoking A50 take any existing rights away from the people? If not, it could be done by Executive prerogative without Parliamentary agreement.
(As I understand it, the irrevocability of A50 was assumed in the case, as otherwise it could be argued that the Executive could always revoke A50 and thus the decision to remove the rights wasn't at the time of invocation but at the time of enactment - as long as Parliament, at some point, gave the Executive their consent to not revoke A50)
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.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
If Leavers are already saying they wouldn't respect the result of a referendum, why should Remainers respect the result of another referendum?
And I feel that any drive to boycott by Leavers would simply depress turnout by a small amount (but not regarded as significant, as most people would ignore the boycott attempt) and ensure Remain won.
The governments conduct really is disgraceful and increasingly reckless.
The government has agreed a deal which has majority support on its side of the House. It is the opposition which is rejecting the deal not on its merits but as an attempt to try to change the government.
The opposition is opposing the government. Shock horror.
That's because it was discussed last night and has little to do with Brexit and a lot to do with the market shifting to electric (and equally importantly away from Diesel) far quicker than anyone expected.
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.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
That is your prerogative (not to trust). I reserve my prerogative not to trust any advocates for Leave or to "respect" the vote. Why should I "respect" the existing referendum vote? It was a thin majority in favour of a notion that was inadequately explained, exaggerated or downright lied about ( probably by both sides).
It will leave a majority of people in this country significantly worse off, and has the capacity to irrevocably damaged the country and probably cause the dissolution of the UK. It is supported by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Arron Banks and was almost certainly encouraged and partially financed by Vladimir Putin. There is no reason for anyone, least of all anyone that voted against this madness, to "respect" what was a corrupt process. It has, in my opinion, very little more democratic legitimacy than a Zimbabwean General Election.
The media seems to be taking the lazy option of talking about a second referendum rather than investigating the implications of the current law which means we will be leaving the EU on March 28th without having a withdrawal agreement or trade deal in place.
At least with a WTO deal we can start negotiating the divorce bill in parallel with a future trade agreement, a better negotiating position for the UK.
The future arrangement, which needs to go well beyond trade, is about retaining part of the status quo. Losing everything first and then maybe getting getting some of it back at some indeterminate future date absolutely is not a better position from which to negotiate partial retention.
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.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
That is your prerogative (not to trust). I reserve my prerogative not to trust any advocates for Leave or to "respect" the vote. Why should I "respect" the existing referendum vote? It was a thin majority in favour of a notion that was inadequately explained, exaggerated or downright lied about ( probably by both sides).
It will leave a majority of people in this country significantly worse off, and has the capacity to irrevocably damaged the country and probably cause the dissolution of the UK. It is supported by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Arron Banks and was almost certainly encouraged and partially financed by Vladimir Putin. There is no reason for anyone, least of all anyone that voted against this madness, to "respect" what was a corrupt process. It has, in my opinion, very little more democratic legitimacy than a Zimbabwean General Election.
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.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
Not sure about Lammy, but the vote has been respected. The Government has tried its damndest to implement the result, but it has proved beyond it. It may well have been an impossible task, and you may criticise the Government for offering a referendum where one of the choices was unattainable but you cannot say it hasn't tried.
In the circumstances it would be entirely reasonable for HMG to return to the electorate and say 'this is the best we could do, are you sure you still want to go ahead?' A good deal of time has elapsed since the referendum. People may have changed their minds, especially in the light of what has happened since. It makes perfect sense, especially on a matter as important as this, to offer the public a second chance in the light all it now knows.
Leavers have not done a very good job of selling Brexit since the vote. There is every likelihood that it could fail second time round, but that is not certain. If Brexit really is worth having, the Leave campaign should be able to convince the doubters now that everyone is more familiar with the pros and cons. The truth, I suspect however, is that Leavers have no confidence in their case. They pulled it off two years ago with some dubious arguments and techniques, and are far from sure they could do so again.
I think May is actually a leaver now. And she has the zeal of the converted. Today's bleating from Maugham make me believe this is the case more today than I was sure yesterday.
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.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
That is your prerogative (not to trust). I reserve my prerogative not to trust any advocates for Leave or to "respect" the vote. Why should I "respect" the existing referendum vote? It was a thin majority in favour of a notion that was inadequately explained, exaggerated or downright lied about ( probably by both sides).
It will leave a majority of people in this country significantly worse off, and has the capacity to irrevocably damaged the country and probably cause the dissolution of the UK. It is supported by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Arron Banks and was almost certainly encouraged and partially financed by Vladimir Putin. There is no reason for anyone, least of all anyone that voted against this madness, to "respect" what was a corrupt process. It has, in my opinion, very little more democratic legitimacy than a Zimbabwean General Election.
Its not legitimate because I don't like it.
A grown up argument for the ages, that one.
Possibly, but clearly you don't want to engage with the points I have made. I don't think anyone who supports Remain needs to be lectured about being "grown-up" by anyone who supports the intellectually vacuous nonsense that is postulated by the self harm advocates of Brexit. A more puerile philosophy has not been devised than Brexit. It is a disease for the gullible that was manufactured by the insanely manipulative.
There a bit of a logical flaw in bbc argument. Cut fees to cut the deficit, but if you cut fees either unis are going to have to do more with less (and for science £9k already doesn’t cover it & we already know some unis have got bailed out) or the government will have to provide more direct funding which if cause will push up the deficit.
It will of course be the second option and so no real effect on the deficit.
Man Utd v PSG Possible FA Cup 5th Round Tie Man Utd v Liverpool Crystal Palace v Man Utd Man Utd v Southampton PSG v Man Utd Arsenal v Man Utd Man Utd v Man City
I consider myself suitably chastised.
Arsenal's run in 03-04 was pretty bad:
Chelsea v Arsenal - Champions League Arsenal v Man Utd - League Man Utd v Arsenal - FA Cup Semi Final Arsenal v Chelsea - Champions League Arsenal v Liverpool - League Newcastle v Arsenal - League
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.
Yes but no one trusts you. Plenty of MPs such as David Lammy said they would respect the result and voted to have the referendum and yet on June 24th 2016 they started work to overturn it. I think very few leave voters would respect the result of a hypothetical 2nd ref win or lose and I suspect most like myself would just boycott it to ensure it had zero worth.
That is your prerogative (not to trust). I reserve my prerogative not to trust any advocates for Leave or to "respect" the vote. Why should I "respect" the existing referendum vote? It was a thin majority in favour of a notion that was inadequately explained, exaggerated or downright lied about ( probably by both sides).
It will leave a majority of people in this country significantly worse off, and has the capacity to irrevocably damaged the country and probably cause the dissolution of the UK. It is supported by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Arron Banks and was almost certainly encouraged and partially financed by Vladimir Putin. There is no reason for anyone, least of all anyone that voted against this madness, to "respect" what was a corrupt process. It has, in my opinion, very little more democratic legitimacy than a Zimbabwean General Election.
Intelligent people respect votes that have gone against them, because it's preferable to face one's opponents on the hustings than on the battlefield.
I don't like it when a Labour government gets elected, but I accept that they have the right to govern.
Comments
That would be a very bad, dark time for our non-white and non-British families, friends and colleagues.
At least with a WTO deal we can start negotiating the divorce bill in parallel with a future trade agreement, a better negotiating position for the UK.
Norway: 5.4m
Switzerland: 8.6m
Iceland: 340k
Liechtenstein: 38.3K
U.K.: 66.8m
You see the problem? EEA/EFTA was designed for small, relatively harmless states.
Get's my vote. If we are going to end up in a No Deal situation, it would be so much better for the country to have explicitly voted for it.
A first yes/no vote on the deal we have.
Yes means we leave, on the terms of May’s deal.
A second vote on the ballot - if you turn down the WA, would you choose to leave with no deal or remain ?
Such a vote more than respects the referendum result, and would tell us if the electorate are still prepared to leave, with or without a deal. We remain only if both are rejected.
I would vote to accept May’s deal; and if that were to be rejected, remain.
The Miller case is now, legally speaking, void.
Furiously to think
I don't see any particular logic to elevate any of those options above the others. Why not a single question with three options?
From a purely selfish point I'm pondering whther it's time to get out of the stock market for a year or so. Who knows??
Also. Am getting fed up with "managed No Deal." It is an oxymoron and offends the English language.
https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1074650947647913984
I think May’s deal would win by a significant majority - though no deal would lose significantly.
I do not do Black Friday because it is, frankly, a con job as stores clear out backroom stock and throw in a few loss-leaders to get a crush of bodies into the store. Being squashed flat in a raging stampede for a very limited supply of goodies is not my idea of fun.
1) What is Brexit? Deal or No-Deal.
2) Now that you know what Brexit is, do you want to do it? Remain or Leave.
No need for conditional clevers, just do the 2 rounds.
The amount of utter bollox spouted on here is incredible. Mountains of supposition and supposed expert baloney.
https://twitter.com/ManUtdStuff/status/1074634057131057154
But I understand the feelings of people who might think it should be an option. And if you do, the least-bad way to handle it is with 2 rounds.
Man Utd v PSG
Possible FA Cup 5th Round Tie
Man Utd v Liverpool
Crystal Palace v Man Utd
Man Utd v Southampton
PSG v Man Utd
Arsenal v Man Utd
Man Utd v Man City
And I know the below is obvious to everyone here but I suspect we are the most educated people on this in the country.
The Miller ruling means that Parliament has to have a say so Parliament could decide to Revoke the deal but it's no longer in the Government's or May's control to do it without agreement from Parliament.
And unless Parliament makes a decision it's a No Deal exit and the clock is ticking.
Regarding the US opioid crisis, the graph on this page is worrying.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2018/nov/29/usdrug-overdose-epidemic-opioids-crisis-getting-worse
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html
Does revoking A50 take any existing rights away from the people? If not, it could be done by Executive prerogative without Parliamentary agreement.
(As I understand it, the irrevocability of A50 was assumed in the case, as otherwise it could be argued that the Executive could always revoke A50 and thus the decision to remove the rights wasn't at the time of invocation but at the time of enactment - as long as Parliament, at some point, gave the Executive their consent to not revoke A50)
And I feel that any drive to boycott by Leavers would simply depress turnout by a small amount (but not regarded as significant, as most people would ignore the boycott attempt) and ensure Remain won.
https://twitter.com/autocar/status/1074287461457641473
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/100616/downing-street-say-no-plans-votes-brexit-alternatives
Note at the bottom of the article:
a spokesperson for the European Commission today made clear that Brussels is not willing to "reopen" talks on her deal.
"The EU Council has given the clarifications that were possible at this stage so no further meetings with the UK are foreseen," they added.
So basically no reason not to crack on and for parliament to vote on May's deal before Christmas.
It will leave a majority of people in this country significantly worse off, and has the capacity to irrevocably damaged the country and probably cause the dissolution of the UK. It is supported by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Arron Banks and was almost certainly encouraged and partially financed by Vladimir Putin. There is no reason for anyone, least of all anyone that voted against this madness, to "respect" what was a corrupt process. It has, in my opinion, very little more democratic legitimacy than a Zimbabwean General Election.
A grown up argument for the ages, that one.
Moving the MV to January focuses minds. It also reduces the time available for political chicanery from those opposed to the deal on the remain side.
In the circumstances it would be entirely reasonable for HMG to return to the electorate and say 'this is the best we could do, are you sure you still want to go ahead?' A good deal of time has elapsed since the referendum. People may have changed their minds, especially in the light of what has happened since. It makes perfect sense, especially on a matter as important as this, to offer the public a second chance in the light all it now knows.
Leavers have not done a very good job of selling Brexit since the vote. There is every likelihood that it could fail second time round, but that is not certain. If Brexit really is worth having, the Leave campaign should be able to convince the doubters now that everyone is more familiar with the pros and cons. The truth, I suspect however, is that Leavers have no confidence in their case. They pulled it off two years ago with some dubious arguments and techniques, and are far from sure they could do so again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/byers-hoon-and-hewitt-suspended-from-party-1925390.html
This will provide an incentive for the government to reduce the level of tuition fees, allowing them to limit the negative impact on the deficit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-46591500
There a bit of a logical flaw in bbc argument. Cut fees to cut the deficit, but if you cut fees either unis are going to have to do more with less (and for science £9k already doesn’t cover it & we already know some unis have got bailed out) or the government will have to provide more direct funding which if cause will push up the deficit.
It will of course be the second option and so no real effect on the deficit.
Chelsea v Arsenal - Champions League
Arsenal v Man Utd - League
Man Utd v Arsenal - FA Cup Semi Final
Arsenal v Chelsea - Champions League
Arsenal v Liverpool - League
Newcastle v Arsenal - League
We won one.
I don't like it when a Labour government gets elected, but I accept that they have the right to govern.