The Tories cannot agree on a Brexit policy, so why would they win even if they were the only ones promising to Brexit?
The tories can't go to a GE with a) May as leader and b) the fucking shit deal as a policy. If both of those things can be changed then a GE is only a bad idea instead of a terrible one.
The Tories cannot agree on a Brexit policy, so why would they win even if they were the only ones promising to Brexit?
The tories can't go to a GE with a) May as leader and b) the fucking shit deal as a policy. If both of those things can be changed then a GE is only a bad idea instead of a terrible one.
Vote Green.
The left's answer to UKIP? (well, before UKIP went even more off the wall). No thanks. I prefer my left and right more centrish.
Their 2015 (or perhaps 2017) manifesto did include economic tables in the back though, which did reassure me by their presence whatever was in them.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Dominic 'not a fanatic but willing to overturn centuries of precedent for short term political maneuvering without a thought to the longer term consequences and too cowardly follow through on my honourable remain position directly so I'll snipe around with arcane tinkering' Grieve.
Mr. Tokyo, indeed, I'd been thinking of that from the other angle (May uses said referendum as the stick to try and beat Leavers into supporting her deal).
He's taking tips from May, it'll be to confirm nothing has changed.
He's seen the fevered speculation leading up to her announcements, and the shock and confusion when nothing comes of it, and as a well known troll he'll love that.
Surely even May can not say , nothing has changed on Monday. However behind the warm words of reaching out , nothing will have changed since her massive defeat.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
Problem is, too many people benefit from faff and TM does not want a referendum.
Far more people are being prejudiced asa result of faff. TM’s wishes should not be paramount. This is not about her but about what is best for the country. The reason I now dislike Mrs May is that she is making this all about her and her deal. It’s all very “l’etat c’est moi”.
Enough with this Charles I-style authoritarianism. If she’s blocking possible routes to a resolution then she needs to get out of the way - or be pushed - if necessary.
In an alternative universe JRM had the nouse to wait with his lemming letter campaign until this weekend.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
It could be overturned at any point if the Commons decided it wished to overturn it. And can only happen in the first place if our elected representatives vote for it.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
On topic, the better bet, if you are so inclined, is for Trump not to get the nomination. Similar odds to the other two, but covers more eventualities (and is arguably more likely).
Mr. Tokyo, indeed, I'd been thinking of that from the other angle (May uses said referendum as the stick to try and beat Leavers into supporting her deal).
She should announced a referendum when she made the deal; If they'd expected a referendum, they'd have been more hesitant about demagoging it. But now I don't think she has the numbers; The DUP probably don't really care about protecting Brexit, and the opposition from Leavers has given Tory Remainers an excuse to jump ship as well, so even if she somehow managed to convince *all* the Tory Leavers she'd still come up short.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
When will she see that? Honestly, I don't see what other moves she has.
If she moves to no deal she faces further resignations and arseholes like Grieve. If she tries to soften to a customs union she faces further resignations and the arseholes on the opposite side to Grieve. A GE solves nothing because she cannot enforce a position on her party. If she says she'll go away and try to renegotiate and bring the deal back she's just wasting time by her own admission that the EU won't reopen things. Notway+ and other options are unicorns or unacceptable to too many.
Concede a referendum and her deal gets on the table at least. It gives no dealers nowhere to hide. It forces the parties into broad de facto positions. It's something the EU would extend for. It ends things.
Does anyone really understand it? Given that the amendment would need majority support, why not go directly for an amendment to give priority to this series of indicative votes, or to whatever votes they think will solve the problem?
My humble suggestion: May should call Corbyn's and the Labour Leavers's bluff and offer an extension of the transition period until end-2022 i.e. after the next scheduled GE. This would mean - (a) We actually £$%^ing leave the EU on March 29; and (b) Both parties can then get their ducks in a row for their preferred permanent arrangement, which can then be agreed with the EU by the winner of the GE.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
It could be overturned at any point if the Commons decided it wished to overturn it. And can only happen in the first place if our elected representatives vote for it.
I didn't say it was undemocratic. I'm saying it is a vast vast change, which they clearly don't care about other than a single vote. That it could be overturned is part of the point, you shouldn't be switching out the fundamental basis for constitutional and parliamentary procedure on an issue by issue basis as you are basically saying you should switch up the rules depending on the topic.
It's unnecessary and reckless when being more personally brave to stop a disaster gets the same thing achieved, which is why it is displacement activity again.
Edit: And I bet that if this oh so clever plan is defeated in the Commons whingers like Grieve will talk of the government slapping down parliament, preventing it taking control, even as parliament voting that way is exercising control. His agenda is blatant, cynical, and even though I would rather remain than no deal, I struggle to see why his obvious intellect and parliamentary chicanery grants him respect other frothing fanatics do not get.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
Put it the other way, how would No Deal get *on* the ballot? Leave MPs are strongly opposed to holding the referendum at all, and you can (very probably) put together a majority without them. Added to that, you need the rest of the EU's permission to get the extension you'd need to hold the thing, and it's not clear that they'd agree to that if No Deal is an option.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
It could be overturned at any point if the Commons decided it wished to overturn it.
As it apparently gives a minority control of the order of business, is that obvious?
On topic, the better bet, if you are so inclined, is for Trump not to get the nomination. Similar odds to the other two, but covers more eventualities (and is arguably more likely).
I think there will be a primary challenge, and it could be quite heated. Trump does have Corbyn like campaigning qualities, unlike May. Campaigning is the bit that he is good at.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
The likelihood is that, imaginative (and arguably merited - given the lengths government has gone to to prevent parliament having a say) though this is, it probably would fail. He starts with only a narrow majority based on the anti-no-deal amendments. Whilst I guess he might pick up a few new supporters such as that disgruntled Scottish Tory, he could easily lose support from people worrying about precedent or for whom Grieve's plan is a step too far.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I don't see how it could get a parliamentary majority if No Deal was on the ballot.
Mr. Jonathan, she doesn't seem to want no deal either, though.
A referendum would either get her her preferred option, or have the pretext of the electorate's decision for remaining.
I think the only certain thing is that May's a rubbish PM, and Corbyn's a terrible Leader of the Opposition.
These are the contraints in which a solution has to be found. Arguments however reasoned and logical that do not accept that are a waste of time.
They are in charge, they do not want a vote. It was bloody stupid to have them in charge and many of us resisted both, but that is where we are whether we like it or not.
Could this not be frustrated by Tory backbenchers pretending to form a few new parties?
how? I dont see it from reading the amendment.
If three Tory backbenchers formed new parties called "A", "B" and "C", then they, the Tories and the DUP could together regain control of the proceedings. Unless I'm missing something.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
you need the rest of the EU's permission to get the extension you'd need to hold the thing, and it's not clear that they'd agree to that if No Deal is an option.
So some have said, but I fail to see why. No deal will potentially happen with no extension if we are still arguing, so it's no worse an outcome than that, and they seem quite prepared to face no deal rather than bend one iota on their own red lines, so why would they not permit an extension for a deal/no deal referendum...which might then cause no deal anyway?
My humble suggestion: May should call Corbyn's and the Labour Leavers's bluff and offer an extension of the transition period until end-2022 i.e. after the next scheduled GE. This would mean - (a) We actually £$%^ing leave the EU on March 29; and (b) Both parties can then get their ducks in a row for their preferred permanent arrangement, which can then be agreed with the EU by the winner of the GE.
Well an extendable transition would eliminate the backstop, but Lord knows when we would actually leave. It could take decades. It's also the sort of sensible idea that most of Parliament appears to be dead against.
On topic, the better bet, if you are so inclined, is for Trump not to get the nomination. Similar odds to the other two, but covers more eventualities (and is arguably more likely).
Or, at shorter odds, lay him to be next president. Next president to be female is also worth a look.
Could this not be frustrated by Tory backbenchers pretending to form a few new parties?
how? I dont see it from reading the amendment.
If three Tory backbenchers formed new parties called "A", "B" and "C", then they, the Tories and the DUP could together regain control of the proceedings. Unless I'm missing something.
OK - now I see the actual text it specifies "elected as members of ..."
Does anyone really understand it? Given that the amendment would need majority support, why not go directly for an amendment to give priority to this series of indicative votes, or to whatever votes they think will solve the problem?
Because he needs to secure the ability to table stuff from outside government before he can proceed to table propositions that will get enough time to be debated and agreed.
Does anyone really understand it? Given that the amendment would need majority support, why not go directly for an amendment to give priority to this series of indicative votes, or to whatever votes they think will solve the problem?
Because he needs to secure the ability to table stuff from outside government before he can proceed to table propositions that will get enough time to be debated and agreed.
Could this not be frustrated by Tory backbenchers pretending to form a few new parties?
how? I dont see it from reading the amendment.
If three Tory backbenchers formed new parties called "A", "B" and "C", then they, the Tories and the DUP could together regain control of the proceedings. Unless I'm missing something.
Their ideas wouldn't have a majority, so even if they gain the right to table stuff it wont be agreed.
Mr. Tokyo, indeed, I'd been thinking of that from the other angle (May uses said referendum as the stick to try and beat Leavers into supporting her deal).
She should announced a referendum when she made the deal; If they'd expected a referendum, they'd have been more hesitant about demagoging it. But now I don't think she has the numbers; The DUP probably don't really care about protecting Brexit, and the opposition from Leavers has given Tory Remainers an excuse to jump ship as well, so even if she somehow managed to convince *all* the Tory Leavers she'd still come up short.
The Hard Leavers in Parliament have destroyed Brexit.
Does anyone really understand it? Given that the amendment would need majority support, why not go directly for an amendment to give priority to this series of indicative votes, or to whatever votes they think will solve the problem?
Because he needs to secure the ability to table stuff from outside government before he can proceed to table propositions that will get enough time to be debated and agreed.
Thanks. I think I follow now.
And this would apply for one day only, and a motion on one subject only.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
Whatever your political views, one thing in all this is that the Remain option has been rejected by the electorate. For the sake of democracy any new vote has to be WTO v WA. A Remain v WA would lead to mass abstentions.
You reinforce my point. It’s about reviving her political career and fuck the rest of us.
If that is the attitude of May’s Tories they are not getting my vote. Since Parliament cannot decide, send it back to us.
We have to look at it from her point of view. If you were her would you rather win your deal (the best solution in the national interest as she sees it) via a people’s vote or via a majority won at a General Election that clears out the nutters and frees her from the DUP.
She has been sucking up to the nutters and headbangers in her party ever since she got into power. That’s why we’re in this mess.
She needs to stop confusing what’s in the national interest with what’s in her interest.
She can’t. They are the same. That’s the mess we are in and we can’t get rid. I think we have to accept that at the heart of the problem, plot what might then happen and see what opportunities exist in that context.
You may well be right that that's the mess we're in. But the idea that the interests of one MP, even if they are the PM, are the same as the national interest I find utterly repellent. That is not what democracy is meant to be about.
If the Tories do not understand this basic point and persist in confusing the two then they deserve to be annihilated at the next GE, whenever it is. One of my many reservations about the EU is that it sometimes appears to put the interests of the EU above the interests of democracy. The Tories seem to be in danger of doing the same: putting their interests above those of the country and confusing what is best for their survival with what is best for the country. Off with their heads (metaphorically)!
I see no sensible way out - since May won't follow my very sensible suggestions ( ) - so best be off and do some tidying up in the garden.
Does anyone really understand it? Given that the amendment would need majority support, why not go directly for an amendment to give priority to this series of indicative votes, or to whatever votes they think will solve the problem?
Because he needs to secure the ability to table stuff from outside government before he can proceed to table propositions that will get enough time to be debated and agreed.
Grieve seems quite a clever fellow, and one of the advantages of an unwritten constitution is that it can evolve.
Mr. Tokyo, indeed, I'd been thinking of that from the other angle (May uses said referendum as the stick to try and beat Leavers into supporting her deal).
She should announced a referendum when she made the deal; If they'd expected a referendum, they'd have been more hesitant about demagoging it. But now I don't think she has the numbers; The DUP probably don't really care about protecting Brexit, and the opposition from Leavers has given Tory Remainers an excuse to jump ship as well, so even if she somehow managed to convince *all* the Tory Leavers she'd still come up short.
The Hard Leavers in Parliament have destroyed Brexit.
They will not be allowed to forget this.
There's a sort of parallel with the English revolution, with the extreme protestants on the parliamentary side making it impossible for Cromwell to form any sort of stable settlement.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
He'd lose his salary if he voted to bring down the government and could not stand as a Conservative in the subsequent election.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
Parliament will otherwise find a way to unilaterally revoke Brexit, which will be terrible for our democracy, or we'll crash out, in which case we'll have nasty economic turbulence, the fall of the Government, full Corbyn socialism, and then re-joining in prompt order on full terms, including a commitment to join the euro.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
Whatever your political views, one thing in all this is that the Remain option has been rejected by the electorate. For the sake of democracy any new vote has to be WTO v WA. A Remain v WA would lead to mass abstentions.
Does anyone really understand it? Given that the amendment would need majority support, why not go directly for an amendment to give priority to this series of indicative votes, or to whatever votes they think will solve the problem?
Because he needs to secure the ability to table stuff from outside government before he can proceed to table propositions that will get enough time to be debated and agreed.
Grieve seems quite a clever fellow, and one of the advantages of an unwritten constitution is that it can evolve.
Doing so for very short term reasons is hardly a good way to evolve matters. He is so focused on only one issue he does not care about any potential implications, and that is not a sensible way to conduct matters, unless you think changing rules topic by topic is a good way to conduct parliamentary business.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
He'd lose his salary if he voted to bring down the government and could not stand as a Conservative in the subsequent election.
If his proposal finds a way out of the current impasse its equally likely he'll become some sort of hero.
Mr. Tokyo, indeed, I'd been thinking of that from the other angle (May uses said referendum as the stick to try and beat Leavers into supporting her deal).
She should announced a referendum when she made the deal; If they'd expected a referendum, they'd have been more hesitant about demagoging it. But now I don't think she has the numbers; The DUP probably don't really care about protecting Brexit, and the opposition from Leavers has given Tory Remainers an excuse to jump ship as well, so even if she somehow managed to convince *all* the Tory Leavers she'd still come up short.
The Hard Leavers in Parliament have destroyed Brexit.
They will not be allowed to forget this.
There's a sort of parallel with the English revolution, with the extreme protestants on the parliamentary side making it impossible for Cromwell to form any sort of stable settlement.
Yes, it could be like that.
The two comparisons are the English reformation, and the English Civil War.
In the first case, our national established religion became a May-like compromise that took about 50 years to establish, after a lot of religious turbulence. Dissenters and Catholics have been there ever since, but in a relatively happy minority.
The English Civil War totally failed to establish a republic, and it was reversed, but we did end up with a constitutional monarchy within 50 years too.
The parallels for Brexit are that it could either be a compromise, or reversed, but there can be and won't be any total victory for Remain in the long-term. The factors that led to Brexit will have to be accommodated one way or another.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead bes Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
Whatever your political views, one thing in all this is that the Remain option has been rejected by the electorate. For the sake of democracy any new vote has to be WTO v WA. A Remain v WA would lead to mass abstentions.
Democracy is going to take a back seat. It's a parliamentary fight, and parliament won't include no deal, end of, and will insist on remain, end of. They are no doubt rightly confident that as they will all have done it, no single party will be punished for it at a GE.
Of course, that assumes present stumbling blocks to a referendum can be overcome, which is not certain, but wrangling over the question will see the above occur. If people don't like it they'll have to vote for someone other than every party in the commons.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
you need the rest of the EU's permission to get the extension you'd need to hold the thing, and it's not clear that they'd agree to that if No Deal is an option.
So some have said, but I fail to see why. No deal will potentially happen with no extension if we are still arguing, so it's no worse an outcome than that, and they seem quite prepared to face no deal rather than bend one iota on their own red lines, so why would they not permit an extension for a deal/no deal referendum...which might then cause no deal anyway?
1) The UK still has the ability to pull one of their preferred emergency levers right until the last minute, so the EU may prefer to hold off and see if they pull one of them.
2) A referendum resulting in No Deal would be much more chaotic than a straight No Deal, because it would be much harder to patch together other deals to fix the damage. It's Brexit-squared: It doesn't specify what the government have to do, but it restrains their freedom of action to various options that they think are terrible.
That said, I'm pulling this entirely out of my arse - I haven't heard anything specific from other member states to the effect that they *wouldn't* agree to an extension for a referendum with No Deal in there.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
He'd lose his salary if he voted to bring down the government and could not stand as a Conservative in the subsequent election.
Which is a price he should be willing to pay if Brexit is the worst decision in 70 years as he claims. Better than trying to alter parliamentary rules topic by topic for short term advantage. Some changes might be better, some worse, but when the only goal is stop Brexit he has other options.
My humble suggestion: May should call Corbyn's and the Labour Leavers's bluff and offer an extension of the transition period until end-2022 i.e. after the next scheduled GE. This would mean - (a) We actually £$%^ing leave the EU on March 29; and (b) Both parties can then get their ducks in a row for their preferred permanent arrangement, which can then be agreed with the EU by the winner of the GE.
It's good, but fly in ointment - we only get a transition period of any duration if we leave under the withdrawal agreement, which has the dreaded backstop in it.
Mr. Tokyo, indeed, I'd been thinking of that from the other angle (May uses said referendum as the stick to try and beat Leavers into supporting her deal).
She should announced a referendum when she made the deal; If they'd expected a referendum, they'd have been more hesitant about demagoging it. But now I don't think she has the numbers; The DUP probably don't really care about protecting Brexit, and the opposition from Leavers has given Tory Remainers an excuse to jump ship as well, so even if she somehow managed to convince *all* the Tory Leavers she'd still come up short.
The Hard Leavers in Parliament have destroyed Brexit.
They will not be allowed to forget this.
There's a sort of parallel with the English revolution, with the extreme protestants on the parliamentary side making it impossible for Cromwell to form any sort of stable settlement.
So May will be followed by the political equivalent of her son, who will lack the backing she had quickly, and a remainer turned leaver will then facilitate the return of remain?
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
They won't have any say over what's on the ballot paper.
They will be able to define what Remain means, which they will need to formally clarify.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
Yes. I'm not saying a referendum with "No Deal" is any more feasible. I'm just pointing to the objection to a referendum without "No Deal".
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
With the greatest of respect the EU cannot decide the questions.
That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission
Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
They won't have any say over what's on the ballot paper.
They have absolute power to decide whether there will be time to have a ballot at all.
My humble suggestion: May should call Corbyn's and the Labour Leavers's bluff and offer an extension of the transition period until end-2022 i.e. after the next scheduled GE. This would mean - (a) We actually £$%^ing leave the EU on March 29; and (b) Both parties can then get their ducks in a row for their preferred permanent arrangement, which can then be agreed with the EU by the winner of the GE.
It's good, but fly in ointment - we only get a transition period of any duration if we leave under the withdrawal agreement, which has the dreaded backstop in it.
That's a problem for you, maybe, not for the intended audience of Labour Leavers.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
He'd lose his salary if he voted to bring down the government and could not stand as a Conservative in the subsequent election.
I can't begin to describe my contempt for Grieve's plans. Nevertheless they'll work so I've shifted my pension more to UK rather than global.
Blimey, risking pension investments on the Grieve amendment.
Brave.
Even if we leave without a deal, sterling tanking should mean the FTSE heads up. If we remain the FTSE heads up. It's barely gone anywhere in the last 5 years and I think there's value whatever happens quite honestly.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
The likelihood is that, imaginative (and arguably merited - given the lengths government has gone to to prevent parliament having a say) though this is, it probably would fail. He starts with only a narrow majority based on the anti-no-deal amendments. Whilst I guess he might pick up a few new supporters such as that disgruntled Scottish Tory, he could easily lose support from people worrying about precedent or for whom Grieve's plan is a step too far.
I rather think I've seen enough and had enough.
I'm a life-long 'duty' voter and have always voted for someone even when my preferred choice doesn't have an earthly chance of winning.
What we now have is a Parliament full of people who voted to give the general population a choice; voted to implement what the population (narrowly) chose to do; and now are trying every wheeze they can come up with to make sure that the population's narrow choice was nugatory.
I'd have accepted Mrs May's deal, although I think the way the government have handled this has been dreadful.
If the HoP really do find a way to reverse the decision they voted to allow and to implement, I'm very close to a resolution never, ever, to waste my time voting again.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
They won't have any say over what's on the ballot paper.
They have absolute power to decide whether there will be time to have a ballot at all.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
They won't have any say over what's on the ballot paper.
They have absolute power to decide whether there will be time to have a ballot at all.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
They won't have any say over what's on the ballot paper.
They have absolute power to decide whether there will be time to have a ballot at all.
I can't begin to describe my contempt for Grieve's plans. Nevertheless they'll work so I've shifted my pension more to UK rather than global.
Blimey, risking pension investments on the Grieve amendment.
Brave.
Even if we leave without a deal, sterling tanking should mean the FTSE heads up. If we remain the FTSE heads up. It's barely gone anywhere in the last 5 years and I think there's value whatever happens quite honestly.
I've bet on No Deal not so much as a political bet but as good value insurance. It's approaching 5/1 in places, which is insane.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
The likelihood is that, imaginative (and arguably merited - given the lengths government has gone to to prevent parliament having a say) though this is, it probably would fail. He starts with only a narrow majority based on the anti-no-deal amendments. Whilst I guess he might pick up a few new supporters such as that disgruntled Scottish Tory, he could easily lose support from people worrying about precedent or for whom Grieve's plan is a step too far.
I rather think I've seen enough and had enough.
I'm a life-long 'duty' voter and have always voted for someone even when my preferred choice doesn't have an earthly chance of winning.
What we now have is a Parliament full of people who voted to give the general population a choice; voted to implement what the population (narrowly) chose to do; and now are trying every wheeze they can come up with to make sure that the population's narrow choice was nugatory.
I'd have accepted Mrs May's deal, although I think the way the government have handled this has been dreadful.
If the HoP really do find a way to reverse the decision they voted to allow and to implement, I'm very close to a resolution never, ever, to waste my time voting again.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Sadly, they would be very happy if you and millions of others did so.
One of the aspects of the current impasse I find most disappointing is the craven cowardice of the majority of remainer mp's.
They are looking for May to make the decision that will lead to the Brexit result being over-turned rather than forcing it themselves and having to take the consequences.
Centuries of democratic convention are being subverted for a very short term political issue which diminishes parliament and makes us little better than a 3rd world tinpot country.
In principle, it would be straightforward to have a No Deal referendum.
The question would be along the lines "Do you wish Parliament to legislate for the UK to remain within the European Union.
Yes/No."
What do you think is the way out, Sean?
I wish I knew.
On reflection, I think I'd offer an indicative free vote on Leave with deal, leave without deal, EFTA/EEA, Remain to the Commons. If most decide on Remain, so be it. They can own it.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
Parliament will otherwise find a way to unilaterally revoke Brexit, which will be terrible for our democracy, or we'll crash out, in which case we'll have nasty economic turbulence, the fall of the Government, full Corbyn socialism, and then re-joining in prompt order on full terms, including a commitment to join the euro.
Remain cannot be on the ballot paper because it was rejected in the first referendum. No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it would cause economic chaos. Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it is "dead" after a decisive rejection in the "meaningful vote". What was the question, again?
This is very good on why a Deal/Remain referendum is better than a Norway Plus stitch up.
I didn't realise there was anybody left that didn't understand that Deal vs Remain was just Remain.
There will be next to no support for Deal from any of the political class, and to be frank, after MP's collectively destroyed it I can't believe they would treat the public with such contempt as to offer it to them.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
Parliament will otherwise find a way to unilaterally revoke Brexit, which will be terrible for our democracy, or we'll crash out, in which case we'll have nasty economic turbulence, the fall of the Government, full Corbyn socialism, and then re-joining in prompt order on full terms, including a commitment to join the euro.
Remain cannot be on the ballot paper because it was rejected in the first referendum. No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it would cause economic chaos. Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it is "dead" after a decisive rejection in the "meaningful vote". What was the question, again?
Cameron’s deal was rejected. If he hadn’t gone through the renegotiation, a meaningful number of Conservatives would never have jumped ship to back Leave.
My view on Starmer is softening in as much as he is giving May the opportunity to say Labour are responsible for a Brexit that is questionable in faithfulness to the referendum result.
The public will of course have different views on whether it is or isn't but at least each party will be taking responsibility for the outcome and voters can make their judgements at the next GE.
This is very good on why a Deal/Remain referendum is better than a Norway Plus stitch up.
I didn't realise there was anybody left that didn't understand that Deal vs Remain was just Remain.
There will be next to no support for Deal from any of the political class, and to be frank, after MP's collectively destroyed it I can't believe they would treat the public with such contempt as to offer it to them.
They do understand, they just want to remain in the EU by any means possible.
Another referendum but this time between a deal almost everyone doesn't want and remain would be so ridiculous that they may as well cut out the crap and just remain straight away. At least it would be honest.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
TMay's deal is dead because she can't get it through parliament. A quid pro quo with the parliamentary Remainiacs that gives them a second referendum in return gets it through parliament. So one way or another, it solves the problem.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK - if May proposes a Deal v Remain referendum, I'd be happy with that since either option seems palatable to me personally (plus, from the selfish partisan point, May being the one to propose it reduces the chances of Leave voters blaming Labour exclusively for a referendum taking place).
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
With the greatest of respect the EU cannot decide the questions.
That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission
Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this
Indirectly, they have all the power.
They decide whether to grant the extension needed to have the referendum. They will ask: why do you need it? Answer: a referendum. Question: what will be on the ballot?
If they don't like the answer to that, no extension. No extension. No referendum.
There is only one option where Parliament has total control without requiring the EU's consent: revocation of Article 50.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
A GE gives the TM the best opportunity from the current impasse to deliver Brexit, It will be the tories vs those trying to block Brexit, and Corbyn will do worse than 2017, the voters have learnt that they cant risk another protest, and the tories wont make the same strategic mistakes they made in 2017. TM will get her majority and hopefully will play hard ball with EU over backstop from a stronger position in parliament. Bercow will be resigned to history, and Corbyn will be finished too, whats not to like about it!
A GE is the traditional way to solve an impasse under our system.
Doubt her party would let her, even is she came to this conclusion.
A GE didn’t solve the impasse last time. I doubt it will this time.
I think it probably would, in some accidental way - it is really just an oddity that the current balance is held by the DUP. I really have no certainty about which way things would shift, but the probability is that they would either shift enough to give May a majority no longer dependent on the DUP and squeeze her deal through, or shift enough to let Corbyn prove we have better unicorns, or find that we don't and end up with a referendum.
Unless May has a stonking majority she cannot get her deal through on Tory votes alone. Even were the DUP onboard now she'd not get it through because of no dealers. And as you point out if Corbyn cannot find better unicorns other options have to then be looked at. Both of which prove that even in your scenario the GE won't have solved the impasse, even if it makes some solutions slightly easier or harder.
I would argue that, under our system, a GE should be tried before another Referendum is contemplated.
If Grieve wants to do things like this I really do not know why he does not just quit the whip already to bring down the government, I really don't. As true blue a conservative as he no doubt is, he clearly regards leaving the EU as something that must be stopped by any means necessary. Is hamfisted constitutional meddling which could have vast implications to do that really the best way to do so when he and a few others, which is all it would take, can sacrifice their Tory careers and just bring down the government?
Arcane procedural measures have their place, but this seems like a major shift which they are not thinking about consequences beyond a single vote on a single issue. The man is incredibly reckless and gets away with fanaticism because people agree with him.
The likelihood is that, imaginative (and arguably merited - given the lengths government has gone to to prevent parliament having a say) though this is, it probably would fail. He starts with only a narrow majority based on the anti-no-deal amendments. Whilst I guess he might pick up a few new supporters such as that disgruntled Scottish Tory, he could easily lose support from people worrying about precedent or for whom Grieve's plan is a step too far.
I rather think I've seen enough and had enough.
I'm a life-long 'duty' voter and have always voted for someone even when my preferred choice doesn't have an earthly chance of winning.
What we now have is a Parliament full of people who voted to give the general population a choice; voted to implement what the population (narrowly) chose to do; and now are trying every wheeze they can come up with to make sure that the population's narrow choice was nugatory.
I'd have accepted Mrs May's deal, although I think the way the government have handled this has been dreadful.
If the HoP really do find a way to reverse the decision they voted to allow and to implement, I'm very close to a resolution never, ever, to waste my time voting again.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Sadly, they would be very happy if you and millions of others did so.
Definitely. Civic participation is nice but voting is a powerful weapon, and these people wielding it isn't harmless. It actively reduces other people's freedom. If people who want to use the government to commit harm to other people stop doing that, it's a huge benefit.
This is very good on why a Deal/Remain referendum is better than a Norway Plus stitch up.
I didn't realise there was anybody left that didn't understand that Deal vs Remain was just Remain.
There will be next to no support for Deal from any of the political class, and to be frank, after MP's collectively destroyed it I can't believe they would treat the public with such contempt as to offer it to them.
There was next to no support for Leave from any of the political class, yet it still won. There are lots of the political class who do support Deal. They just don't want to be seen supporting it.
That's a problem for you, maybe, not for the intended audience of Labour Leavers.
Perhaps we are at cross purposes but I thought your suggestion was for May to 'call Corbyn's bluff' by offering a transition to end of 2022, after the next scheduled GE, and that this would allow us to leave the EU on 29/3.
My point is that she can't - because she can't offer any transition at all unless the withdrawal agreement (containing the backstop) is ratified.
Unless the WA (with backstop) is ratified we cannot leave via a transition period. If we wish to leave without signing the WA we must crash out with no deal.
A GE is a very bad idea. What will it resolve? Nothing.
If the decision has to go to the people let’s have a second referendum: Leave on the terms negotiated or Remain. And get that Art 50 extension agreed pronto.
Stop all this faffing about.
But do you really think another referendum would go any differently to last time?
In any case, given May's deal is dead, I would've thought if there was to be one then the choices would be Remain v No Deal -- even some of the "People's Vote" people like Chuka Umunna have admitted that.
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
Well, OK -
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
I'm coming round to this idea too. I see no other way out.
The trouble is, for any way out, there's a reason why it's impossible.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
A referendum requires an extension to Article 50 which requires the unanimous consent of the other EU states. They will have a say on what is on the ballot paper, like it or not.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
With the greatest of respect the EU cannot decide the questions.
That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission
Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this
Indirectly, they have all the power.
They decide whether to grant the extension needed to have the referendum. They will ask: why do you need it? Answer: a referendum. Question: what will be on the ballot?
If they don't like the answer to that, no extension. No extension. No referendum.
There is only one option where Parliament has total control without requiring the EU's consent: revocation of Article 50.
I would suggest the question on the ballot will follow the approval from the EU
The timetable produced by the government yesterday showed the legal process a referendum would go through extending over 12 months. Now that timescale seems too long but the decision and the questions and the wording are recommended by the electoral commission some weeks later
Therefore when requesting an extension the wording would be unknown
Comments
Vote Green.
Their 2015 (or perhaps 2017) manifesto did include economic tables in the back though, which did reassure me by their presence whatever was in them.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/secret-plan-by-rebel-mps-to-stop-a-no-deal-brexit
I think Remain would likely beat Deal (or No Deal for that matter) but it could go either way. But whichever way a Remain vs Deal referendum goes, it gets you out of the treacle.
However behind the warm words of reaching out , nothing will have changed since her massive defeat.
Somehow, I just don't see how "No Deal" is kept off the ballot in a new vote, though.
If she moves to no deal she faces further resignations and arseholes like Grieve.
If she tries to soften to a customs union she faces further resignations and the arseholes on the opposite side to Grieve.
A GE solves nothing because she cannot enforce a position on her party.
If she says she'll go away and try to renegotiate and bring the deal back she's just wasting time by her own admission that the EU won't reopen things.
Notway+ and other options are unicorns or unacceptable to too many.
Concede a referendum and her deal gets on the table at least. It gives no dealers nowhere to hide. It forces the parties into broad de facto positions. It's something the EU would extend for. It ends things.
So you either bypass her (Greive) or do something else. The only remaining way to get rid of her is a GE that she calls and loses OR a VONC.
People’s Vote fans need to accept reality.
I suspect a GE is more attractive to her than a referendum. She has not ruled one out in quite he same way.
May should call Corbyn's and the Labour Leavers's bluff and offer an extension of the transition period until end-2022 i.e. after the next scheduled GE.
This would mean -
(a) We actually £$%^ing leave the EU on March 29; and
(b) Both parties can then get their ducks in a row for their preferred permanent arrangement, which can then be agreed with the EU by the winner of the GE.
It's unnecessary and reckless when being more personally brave to stop a disaster gets the same thing achieved, which is why it is displacement activity again.
Edit: And I bet that if this oh so clever plan is defeated in the Commons whingers like Grieve will talk of the government slapping down parliament, preventing it taking control, even as parliament voting that way is exercising control. His agenda is blatant, cynical, and even though I would rather remain than no deal, I struggle to see why his obvious intellect and parliamentary chicanery grants him respect other frothing fanatics do not get.
A referendum would either get her her preferred option, or have the pretext of the electorate's decision for remaining.
I think the only certain thing is that May's a rubbish PM, and Corbyn's a terrible Leader of the Opposition.
They are in charge, they do not want a vote. It was bloody stupid to have them in charge and many of us resisted both, but that is where we are whether we like it or not.
They will not be allowed to forget this.
If the Tories do not understand this basic point and persist in confusing the two then they deserve to be annihilated at the next GE, whenever it is. One of my many reservations about the EU is that it sometimes appears to put the interests of the EU above the interests of democracy. The Tories seem to be in danger of doing the same: putting their interests above those of the country and confusing what is best for their survival with what is best for the country. Off with their heads (metaphorically)!
I see no sensible way out - since May won't follow my very sensible suggestions (
The first crocuses are flowering and a solitary iris reticulata - https://indianapublicmedia.org/focusonflowers/files/2013/01/iris-reticulata_cropped.jpg
Glorious!
Parliament will otherwise find a way to unilaterally revoke Brexit, which will be terrible for our democracy, or we'll crash out, in which case we'll have nasty economic turbulence, the fall of the Government, full Corbyn socialism, and then re-joining in prompt order on full terms, including a commitment to join the euro.
The two comparisons are the English reformation, and the English Civil War.
In the first case, our national established religion became a May-like compromise that took about 50 years to establish, after a lot of religious turbulence. Dissenters and Catholics have been there ever since, but in a relatively happy minority.
The English Civil War totally failed to establish a republic, and it was reversed, but we did end up with a constitutional monarchy within 50 years too.
The parallels for Brexit are that it could either be a compromise, or reversed, but there can be and won't be any total victory for Remain in the long-term. The factors that led to Brexit will have to be accommodated one way or another.
Of course, that assumes present stumbling blocks to a referendum can be overcome, which is not certain, but wrangling over the question will see the above occur. If people don't like it they'll have to vote for someone other than every party in the commons.
2) A referendum resulting in No Deal would be much more chaotic than a straight No Deal, because it would be much harder to patch together other deals to fix the damage. It's Brexit-squared: It doesn't specify what the government have to do, but it restrains their freedom of action to various options that they think are terrible.
That said, I'm pulling this entirely out of my arse - I haven't heard anything specific from other member states to the effect that they *wouldn't* agree to an extension for a referendum with No Deal in there.
Having a referendum with "No Deal" excluded would split the Tory party.
"Take Back Control" ..etc......
Brave.
They will be able to define what Remain means, which they will need to formally clarify.
That is a decision for the HOC and electoral commission
Indeed I doubt they would attempt to interfere in something as controversial as this
https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/1086257394349416448
I'm a life-long 'duty' voter and have always voted for someone even when my preferred choice doesn't have an earthly chance of winning.
What we now have is a Parliament full of people who voted to give the general population a choice; voted to implement what the population (narrowly) chose to do; and now are trying every wheeze they can come up with to make sure that the population's narrow choice was nugatory.
I'd have accepted Mrs May's deal, although I think the way the government have handled this has been dreadful.
If the HoP really do find a way to reverse the decision they voted to allow and to implement, I'm very close to a resolution never, ever, to waste my time voting again.
Good afternoon, everyone.
The question would be along the lines "Do you wish Parliament to legislate for the UK to remain within the European Union.
Yes/No."
Grieve is relying on Labour MPs to provide at least 80% of the parliamentary votes for it.
https://twitter.com/rcorbettmep/status/1086566263390982145?s=21
They are looking for May to make the decision that will lead to the Brexit result being over-turned rather than forcing it themselves and having to take the consequences.
Centuries of democratic convention are being subverted for a very short term political issue which diminishes parliament and makes us little better than a 3rd world tinpot country.
Many remainers should be ashamed of themselves.
On reflection, I think I'd offer an indicative free vote on Leave with deal, leave without deal, EFTA/EEA, Remain to the Commons. If most decide on Remain, so be it. They can own it.
No Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it would cause economic chaos.
Deal cannot be on the ballot paper because it is "dead" after a decisive rejection in the "meaningful vote".
What was the question, again?
There will be next to no support for Deal from any of the political class, and to be frank, after MP's collectively destroyed it I can't believe they would treat the public with such contempt as to offer it to them.
The public will of course have different views on whether it is or isn't but at least each party will be taking responsibility for the outcome and voters can make their judgements at the next GE.
https://twitter.com/martynware/status/1086557989522280452
Another referendum but this time between a deal almost everyone doesn't want and remain would be so ridiculous that they may as well cut out the crap and just remain straight away. At least it would be honest.
They decide whether to grant the extension needed to have the referendum. They will ask: why do you need it? Answer: a referendum. Question: what will be on the ballot?
If they don't like the answer to that, no extension. No extension. No referendum.
There is only one option where Parliament has total control without requiring the EU's consent: revocation of Article 50.
It failed and made things worse.
Sadly she's almost definitely bluffing.
There are lots of the political class who do support Deal. They just don't want to be seen supporting it.
My point is that she can't - because she can't offer any transition at all unless the withdrawal agreement (containing the backstop) is ratified.
Unless the WA (with backstop) is ratified we cannot leave via a transition period. If we wish to leave without signing the WA we must crash out with no deal.
That's correct, isn't it?
The timetable produced by the government yesterday showed the legal process a referendum would go through extending over 12 months. Now that timescale seems too long but the decision and the questions and the wording are recommended by the electoral commission some weeks later
Therefore when requesting an extension the wording would be unknown