I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
It's not really going to impact Charles and his family though is it. So that's alright.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
The question was "Should the United Kingdom Remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?"
"We should leave the EU" is a bit like saying "I should get more exercise" or "I should tell my boss to stick his job". The sentiment doesn't mean the action always follows.
The
It's rarely spoken about in these parts, but AV Referendum?
Fair comment - also honoured.
There is a fairly obvious difference. The result of all previous referendums re-affirmed the status quo. There are people who argue that a second referendum would justify the SNP securing a second referendum in Scotland. The counter argument is that it would ensure that any referendum future vote for independence would not be final.
Hard to see a referendum taking place at all if there was no question or perceived desire about changing the status quo. As someone who values the Union and doesn’t want to see it broken up, I’d find it hard to justify not giving Scotland its independence if a subsequent referendum voted Yes.
Apparently unless it is super easy it must be overturned. Sucks for the SNP I guess.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that. I certainly did not vote in favour of a reckless, damaging fall over the cliff edge, which is what May has brought us to. I was confident that Remain would win comfortably.
Surprised you think that given how the Remain campaign avoided Cameron’s renegotiation like the plague during the referendum campaign.
I don’t think anyone, however they voted, imagined our politicians and civil service would be so bungling and incompetent in handling the negotiations.
Sky and Faisal Islam bringing up the dire border force warnings leaked to them today in the way only Faisal Islam does. Armageddon, each point worse than the previous, and all as if he is convinced he can single handed stop brexit, his ultimate goal
Sadly for him, it is not cutting through other than to those who are already in that group but it is reach for the 'mute' time as soon as he hoves into view
Sky throughout Brexit have engaged in generally poor journalism and the night before's debate from Leeds with 50 voters, none of whom had changed their minds from the way they voted, was a waste of time and just a nonsense
Our mps are pitiful and most journalists and broadcast presenters are way out of their depth
Having said that there are some journalists who do contribute to the debate including Tim Shipman, John Rentoul, and others but they are a minority
Channel 4 news at 7pm was in Wales . The Welsh assembly were discussing a no deal Brexit. It seemed very dire .
I he actually knows what he is talking about.
The EU and most of the Commons (leavers and remainers) seem to disagree with you about how dire no deal would be, they believe it will not be so bad as to be worth compromising for. The Irish seem pretty sanguine about that too.
If there is one thing I am completely sick of it is MPs and the EU treating us all like idiots when their words demonstrate they may not prefer no deal, but they really do not mind it, yet they spew the same dishonesty words about fearing it. It's an insult every time they do that, and incredibly shameless to boot.
Nobody knows how bad it will be, but there is a conspicuous shortage of credible voices indicating that it's actually going to be good.
So, it's not going to be....like, terrible? Thanks.
Sorry Peter. It looks like the UK needs to WTO to finally prove what a bunch of numpties we have around here.
So, either you and I will be in the Numpty brigade with the rest of the Remainers, or the Leavers and their cheerleaders will.
But at least we will finally have an answer.
At least it is quicker than building a computer called Deep Thought and giving it 7.5 million years to think about it....
I've a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint. In fact it's the main reason why I personally am not that fazed about No Deal. If people vote for that sort of thing, they should be prepared to live with the consequences.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
So no "do-overs" for May's deal in parliament?
Parliament and a referendum are not equivalent. The executive can bring what it likes to Parliament as the legislature can sack them if they want to.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Because we love you
Now I am lost for words.
I just wanted to be kind - we all need kindness
In all my trips to New Zealand and Canada the one thing that stood out is how many people just want a 'hug'
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Because we love you
Now I am lost for words.
Which is something of a disadvantage on a web forum.
PS I may not be quite as fulsome as Big_G but I do love your posts (mostly).
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
Making people vote again and again until they give the "right" answer - why should any leaver bother to vote?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
Why should I care what a prat like JR-M thinks?
Why should we care what you think ?
This is the internet, no one should give a flying feckity doohdah what anyone thinks.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
What do you not like about the original's legitimacy?
The only reason for a second referendum would be to specify what type of Leave was required. Remain was eliminated in the first ballot. Why else could Parliament ignore the expressed wish of the voters and one they promised to honour?
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that. I certainly did not vote in favour of a reckless, damaging fall over the cliff edge, which is what May has brought us to. I was confident that Remain would win comfortably.
Never vote for something, unless you want it to happen.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
Making people vote again and again until they give the "right" answer - why should any leaver bother to vote?
I explained that further downthread.
[Edit: I am not asking them to vote again and again - just to clarify the current position since parliament is deadlocked and, unlike Charles, I am prepared to allow answers that differ from my viewpoint as well as ones that agree with it]
The only reason for a second referendum would be to specify what type of Leave was required. Remain was eliminated in the first ballot. Why else could Parliament ignore the expressed wish of the voters and one they promised to honour?
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
Had we gone for a double referendum, the Leave vote in the first would have been huge, as it would have been a free hit.
I thought the whole investigation was into his links to Russia.
Now they are just searching for absolutely anything they can pin on him because they don't like him.
Have you missed the part where a Russian agent who infiltrated the NRA pleaded guilty and there is a huge amount of evidence of financial links to Russia?
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
Charles famously thought the European Medicines Agency was nothing to do with the EU and that it would be unaffected by Brexit, so I think it's right for him to be given another vote.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
Making people vote again and again until they give the "right" answer - why should any leaver bother to vote?
I explained that further downthread.
[Edit: I am not asking them to vote again and again - just to clarify the current position since parliament is deadlocked and, unlike Charles, I am prepared to allow answers that differ from my viewpoint as well as ones that agree with it]
If Parliament is deadlocked, it is because they are refusing to carry out the result of the first referendum, which was to leave.
But of course Parliament isn't deadlocked. They voted to invoke Article 50, which means we leave, by default, on March 29th.
The only reason you are asking for further "clarification" is because you hope to lend a fig leaf of credibility to your desire to nullify the result of the 2016 referendum and tell 17.4 million people that their vote didn't count.
You can ask for guidance on the sort of Leave favoured. Anything else, and it will be seen for what it is …. a re-run because Parliament didn't like the answer. Did they lie when they said they would honour the result?
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
"Leave" has gone Soviet. The next referendum will have the following -
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendum
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
What do you not like about the original's legitimacy?
I refer you to my answer above. It really is not that difficult to understand. "... I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds ..." and that might result in a bigger Leave vote but I am OK with that.
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that.
Apologies if this is a stupid question. Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition? Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA? I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit) What am I missing
The result of a re-run wouldn't actually matter. The insult to democracy would stand. If you do it once, why would any unwelcome result to Parliament matter, when a re-run can always be demanded?
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
"Leave" has gone Soviet. The next referendum will have the following -
Tick only one box:
[ ] We should leave the EU
No, it’s the other way around. If want to leave you just drop your ballot straight into the ballot box. If you want to remain, you have to mark your ballot by going into a polling booth that happens to have a Leave militsioner sitting next to it.
If Parliament is deadlocked, it is because they are refusing to carry out the result of the first referendum, which was to leave.
But of course Parliament isn't deadlocked. They voted to invoke Article 50, which means we leave, by default, on March 29th.
The only reason you are asking for further "clarification" is because you hope to lend a fig leaf of credibility to your desire to nullify the result of the 2016 referendum and tell 17.4 million people that their vote didn't count.
No. I actually do not give a monkeys whether we leave or not. I am totally convinced that it will be a screw-up but if the UK is prepared to allow itself to be railroaded into the oncoming shambles then so be it.
I have stated on here, many times - including this evening - that WTO Brexit may be the only way to kill off this stupid, insular, xenophobic nostalgia that has transformed a large chunk of the Conservative Party into an English Nationalist party.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
"Leave" has gone Soviet. The next referendum will have the following -
Tick only one box:
[ ] We should leave the EU
You're a passionate remainer, and you feel it is a grave mistake to leave the EU. That's a logical and honourable position. You want a second referendum in the hope that it will swing your way. Passionate leavers don't want a second referendum because they feel there has already been one and would like the result to be implemented (although what flavour of Brexit isn't clear). Surely you must be able to understand the frustration for leavers that their vote might be nullified because "they voted the wrong way"?
The result of a re-run wouldn't actually matter. The insult to democracy would stand. If you do it once, why would any unwelcome result to Parliament matter, when a re-run can always be demanded?
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that.
Remain told us that was not what it was about.
They may have told you. They certainly didn`t tell me. The Remain campaign (headed by top Tories) was a disaster from start to finish.
The result of a re-run wouldn't actually matter. The insult to democracy would stand. If you do it once, why would any unwelcome result to Parliament matter, when a re-run can always be demanded?
Fine. So we go ahead and wreck the country. No chance of a rethink now that reality looms large.
Apologies if this is a stupid question. Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition? Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA? I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit) What am I missing
I think it would be possible but only by abrogating on the WA, which would certainly undermine our credibility in future treaty discussions.
Passionate leavers don't want a second referendum because they feel there has already been one
...and they are shitting themselves that the public might have changed their minds.
They are terrified of asking the public.
Anti-democrats, all.
You're the sort of fella that makes me hope for a complete clusterfuck of a no deal brexit just so that you end up with yer shitty pants on you head and pencils stuffed up your nose going full wibble.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
Electorate: I want you to do this
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendum
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
It's not really going to impact Charles and his family though is it. So that's alright.
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that. I certainly did not vote in favour of a reckless, damaging fall over the cliff edge, which is what May has brought us to. I was confident that Remain would win comfortably.
Surprised you think that given how the Remain campaign avoided Cameron’s renegotiation like the plague during the referendum campaign. I don’t think anyone, however they voted, imagined our politicians and civil service would be so bungling and incompetent in handling the negotiations.
The problem is that nobody knew precisely what they were voting for. A Remain vote could have been anything from an endorsement of Cameron to a vote for greater integration and joining the Euro. A Leave vote could have meant anything from tearing up all our treaties and sinking the economy (which is Mrs May`s subsequent interpretation) to removing just one restraint which each individual might have taken a dislike to - but of course keeping all the good bits.
I agree with most of you send paragraph though, except that I would not blame the civil service. They are just following the instructions of their political masters, and it just so happens that the present gang of incompetents is divided and self-contradictory, and on top of that, not prepared to listen to professional guidance from the civil service. But the Conservatives always do belittle people in the public service, don`they? and try to undermine them as much s they can.
I understand you believe you are right. Many people do, and you may be right in this instance. But that is missing the point.
I suspect we are not going to agree. That's life. I accepted what I thought was going to be a Remain victory on midnight June 23rd 2016 because that's the way democracy works.
Absolutely, but you are forgetting the comedy value too, when the true costs of Brexit hit and people start saying "What have you done?" and the politicians say "It was the will of the nation - all 37% of you"
And then we start queuing for turnips and mouldy potatoes.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
I’m not a fan of a second referendum (or of any referenda). But since politicians asked the question they are obligated to inplement it. They can ask for clarification (deal or no deal) if they can’t be arsed to do their job, but they can’t try to overturn the decision because they don’t like it
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
Electorate: I want you to do this
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.
Seems that adding no deal option to the WA would be no worse for the EU than present situation.
Making the WA broadly acceptable to ALL leavers might seem like can kicking but crucially it gets you into transition, or at least, dares parliament not to brexit. Once in transition the situation seems better: there is enough time for a real debate (and GE??) on the future relationship, and no particular cliff edge to a default option. Those hoping to crash out by default or remain by stealth would have to choose a plan B, which could of course be campaigning to rejoin or invoke real "managed WTO no deal", but might not be in many cases.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Parliament isnt going to put no deal to a vote, quite obviously. The new information is the deal and the question, if there is one, is whether people want it now they've seen it. Or not.
The electorate voted to leave.
It really is that simple.
Personally I’m a fan of the messy details being left to the executive, subject to parliamentary oversight.
But the people voted to leave. So leave we must. No do-overs.
If the public voted to Remain in a 2nd referendum, the more recent decision would trump the first. It's like a will.
Or perhaps this example will serve:
Cecily. I am afraid you must be under some misconception. Ernest proposed to me exactly ten minutes ago.
Gwendolen. It is certainly very curious, for he asked me to be his wife yesterday afternoon at 5.30. If you would care to verify the incident, pray do so. [Produces diary of her own.] I never travel without my diary. One should always have something sensational to read in the train. I am so sorry, dear Cecily, if it is any disappointment to you, but I am afraid I have the prior claim.
Cecily. It would distress me more than I can tell you, dear Gwendolen, if it caused you any mental or physical anguish, but I feel bound to point out that since Ernest proposed to you he clearly has changed his mind.
“Vote again and again until you give me the answer I want” is not a democratic system
Why should I care what a prat like JR-M thinks?
Why should we care what you think ?
You don’t have to. I’m participating in a discussion and you can join inor ignore it.
But just posting a random quote from a minor politician isn’t an argument.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
Electorate: I want you to do this
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.
That’s exactly what Corbyn is saying
Great, let's have an election.
An election would probably generate a result very similar to the one we already have in terms of the party totals.
Had we gone for a double referendum, the Leave vote in the first would have been huge, as it would have been a free hit.
This is true. Also, even if the EU had agreed to negotiate, people wouldn't have belived the negotiation was the real negotiation: They'd have said the EU was offering a deliberately shitty deal on purpose, to win the second referendum, and once people voted to confirm the Leave vote the real negotiation would begin.
These things don't apply to deciding to have the second referendum now, though. It has the democratic benefit the Rees Mogg was identifying then, but without the practical problems you'd have had if Cameron had announced that as the plan.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendum
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake news
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
If there is another vote, quite clearly it will include the option to reject the deal, now that the box has been opened. Not least because that's what all the people calling for it want the vote to be.
Sure. If you don’t like the deal we leave without a deal.
Otherwise you create an incentive for politicians to behave like a stroppy teenager and break all the crockery so they don’t have to wash up in future
This is a serious decision affecting our nation's future for a generation. You might want to review your half baked analogies in that light.
Electorate: I want you to do this
Politician: i don’t want to. Hmm, if I do a crap job at it perhaps they’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.
That’s exactly what Corbyn is saying
Great, let's have an election.
An election would probably generate a result very similar to the one we already have in terms of the party totals.
A lot can change during a campaign as we saw last time.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
I’m not a fan of a second referendum (or of any referenda). But since politicians asked the question they are obligated to inplement it. They can ask for clarification (deal or no deal) if they can’t be arsed to do their job, but they can’t try to overturn the decision because they don’t like it
Define "can't".
I'm pretty sure that, given an advisory referendum and a parliament democratically elected at a General Election, those democratically elected MPs can do what the hell they like. If you think otherwise you're welcome to pursue a legal case.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
Charles famously thought the European Medicines Agency was nothing to do with the EU and that it would be unaffected by Brexit, so I think it's right for him to be given another vote.
No. That’s not accurate but I will put it down to false recall on your part not a deliberate lie.
I said that the sensible outcome would be for the U.K. to remain part of the EMA. (And I still believe that is the sensible outcome).
However - which I didn’t realise - was that you have to be a member of the EU to be a member of the EMA. I think that’s a stupid rule, but if that’s a rule that’s important to them we’ll just have to beef up the MHRA instead.
Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
Apologies if this is a stupid question. Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition? Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA? I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit) What am I missing
The EU has explicitly ruled that out. Once in the backstop you can only leave with their permission (unless you repudiate)
Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are ending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Oh, come off it.
Turns out that quite a lot of socialists and social democrats are Remainers. Socialists and social democrats generally think that a Big Fund for left-behind places is a great idea, irrespective of Brexit.
You're welcome to compare how progressive the voting records are of your average Leave MP vs your average Remain MP. What was it Boris said about Liverpool again?
Technically we have never rejected being a member of the EU. We merely rejected what the Tories through David Cameron wanted our relationship to look like
The referendum question was specifically about EU membership - remaining or leaving. Remaining was rejected. Cameron’s putative renegotiation of terms didn’t feature.
I have to admit that I understood a vote for Remain to signify approval for Cameron`s pathetic attempts at renegotiation - after all, he was heading the Remain campaign, with a lot of dirty Tory tricks too - so I voted against that.
Remain told us that was not what it was about.
They may have told you. They certainly didn`t tell me. The Remain campaign (headed by top Tories) was a disaster from start to finish.
The remain campaign was board - Sainsbury, Mandleson, Clegg and Damian Green. The exec was Will Straw and some top lib dem strategist. Cameron and Osborne had to take over this shambles because they were getting mullerd. But I will complement the original remain campaign for having the most memorable honest statement in the whole campaign when they were asked what happens to wages in the event of a vote to leave. They will rise was the correct honest answer.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendum
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake news
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all
Some senior politicians predict catastrophe, other equally well briefed politicians claim it will be fine. With just weeks to go there is no official line on no deal. What are the facts? What does the government really think will happen? We need to know. No spin. No negotiating position. Just facts, unvarnished.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
"Leave" has gone Soviet. The next referendum will have the following -
Tick only one box:
[ ] We should leave the EU
You're a passionate remainer, and you feel it is a grave mistake to leave the EU. That's a logical and honourable position. You want a second referendum in the hope that it will swing your way. Passionate leavers don't want a second referendum because they feel there has already been one and would like the result to be implemented (although what flavour of Brexit isn't clear). Surely you must be able to understand the frustration for leavers that their vote might be nullified because "they voted the wrong way"?
Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
I bet there are more super-affluent Leavers than super-affluent Remainers.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think Remain is the mostly likely outcome now, but in no way does it resolve the EU question. At best we will be back to how things were in early 2016, but in the event of Remain winning a second referendum it will lead to an extremely angry and large Brexiteer block becoming a permanent fixture of UK politics.
No Deal and May's Deal may be bad outcomes of the first referendum, but Remain would also be a bad outcome for a second referendum. We need a looser relationship with the EU that reflects the UK's broad skepticism of the whole EU project and its direciton of travel, and until we arrive at such a destination this issue will not die down.
There simply aren't enough die-hard Europhiles in the UK to justify continuing on the current track as though nothing much has changed.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendum
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake news
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all
Some senior politicians predict catastrophe, other equally well briefed politicians claim it will be fine. With just weeks to go there is no official line on no deal. What are the facts? What does the government really think will happen? We need to know. No spin. No negotiating position. Just facts, unvarnished.
The government are publishing the facts as they see them but they are not believed, which no doubt is, in part, caused by the failure of the last referendum by project fear
Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
I bet there are more super-affluent Leavers than super-affluent Remainers.
I bet you are wrong.
However, the point is that it is the Remainers who want the rules bent. They want another referendum, so what are they prepared to concede to get it?
A second bit at the cherry don't come for free, you know.
Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
Leave will deliver the square root of fuck all for Stoke, Hull, and the Welsh Valleys, but the scadenfreude will be shortlived.
Well my biggest asset is a house in north London that has already fallen in value, while half my business (risk on public equity) has disappeared. So yes, like every other middle class professional, it will impact on me
As for my brother - who I suspect that @Benpointer was meaning - he has significant exposure to London property and many of his clients are bankers and lawyers so he’s likely to be impacted as well.
Ah, fuck the EU. On the day the mask finally slipped on its ambitions to create a European army, the full-on Franco-German federalist axis reboot, and tax raising powers for the EU Commission; we’re well shot of it.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think Remain is the mostly likely outcome now, but in no way does it resolve the EU question. At best we will be back to how things were in early 2016, but in the event of Remain winning a second referendum it will lead to an extremely angry and large Brexiteer block becoming a permanent fixture of UK politics.
No Deal and May's Deal may be bad outcomes of the first referendum, but Remain would also be a bad outcome for a second referendum. We need a looser relationship with the EU that reflects the UK's broad skepticism of the whole EU project and its direciton of travel, and until we arrive at such a destination this issue will not die down.
There simply aren't enough die-hard Europhiles in the UK to justify continuing on the current track as though nothing much has changed.
I go back and forth. The stupidity of the ERG makes it easy for Remain MP's to prevail. But, the latter fear public opinion.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendum
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake news
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all
Some senior politicians predict catastrophe, other equally well briefed politicians claim it will be fine. With just weeks to go there is no official line on no deal. What are the facts? What does the government really think will happen? We need to know. No spin. No negotiating position. Just facts, unvarnished.
The government are publishing the facts as they see them but they are not believed, which no doubt is, in part, caused by the failure of the last referendum by project fear
The government is not consistent. Fox says one thing. Rudd says another. There is next to no information on no deal. We need to kno what that really looks like. Not as a device to get us to fall in line behind a deal, but to start to prepare.
Personally, I think May's deal is fine -- a halfway house which is a good reflection of the referendum result.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
I bet there are more super-affluent Leavers than super-affluent Remainers.
Probably. The super-rich already have Freedom of Movement, it is the plebs that will lose it.
Sell villas on the Costas, buy caravans in Skegness. That is the future for retired Leavers.
Charles is wrong. A second referendum is a more democratic option than a parliamentary hack. This chaos was unforeseen. Remain is a viable route out, as such we shouldn’t rule it out.
I think we may know quite a lot more about this time next week including how much appetite there is for a referendum
One truly annoying thing is that the implications of no deal are still shrouded in mythology. We should be in a position to know some facts now. The cabinet has been briefed, by there is no official line.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
The real problem is that fake news dominates stories even when it is not fake news
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all
Some senior politicians predict catastrophe, other equally well briefed politicians claim it will be fine. With just weeks to go there is no official line on no deal. What are the facts? What does the government really think will happen? We need to know. No spin. No negotiating position. Just facts, unvarnished.
The government are publishing the facts as they see them but they are not believed, which no doubt is, in part, caused by the failure of the last referendum by project fear
The government is not consistent. Fox says one thing. Rudd says another. There is next to no information on no deal. We need to kno what that really looks like. Not as a device to get us to fall in line behind a deal, but to start to prepare.
Apologies if this is a stupid question. Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition? Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA? I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit) What am I missing
The EU has explicitly ruled that out. Once in the backstop you can only leave with their permission (unless you repudiate)
Surely they would think about conceding this if the threatened alternative was immediate chaotic no deal?
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
Yes of course - you are right. It should only be "Leave" vs "Leave" on the ballot paper....
Why do I subject myself to this place?
Sure. The people were asked Leave vs Remain. You don’t get a do-over because you don’t like the answer. Sorry.
I do not like the answer, but I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds. If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
I’m not a fan of a second referendum (or of any referenda). But since politicians asked the question they are obligated to inplement it. They can ask for clarification (deal or no deal) if they can’t be arsed to do their job, but they can’t try to overturn the decision because they don’t like it
Define "can't".
I'm pretty sure that, given an advisory referendum and a parliament democratically elected at a General Election, those democratically elected MPs can do what the hell they like. If you think otherwise you're welcome to pursue a legal case.
“Shouldn’t” or “can’t without undermining democracy in this country”
Yes, the important thing to worry about right now is party politics.
Sure. But it’s a useful point. It underlines how fucked we might be, that the government is taking us to the brink and it’s ok to look at possible alternatives.
I can't understand the view that the first referendum's Leave vote didn't have "legitimacy", yet a second Leave vote prior to Brexit happening would have legitimacy. What would be different this time?
The first time round we voted "Leave". Exactly what did that mean? Mrs May's horrible deal is "Leave". WTO Brexit is "Leave". Norway+ and Canada- are both "Leave" but they are all totally different from each other.
This time around "Leave" (since Mrs May's Deal is currently dead) means WTO. That is what is different.
The electorate has determined leave vs remain
If you want to ask mays deal vs no deal that’s fine.
Saying “we rejected the best leave option so you are going to have to vote on Remain again” is not
hey’ll change their mind
Incentive for politician to do a crap job
How is that different to a stroppy teenager?
If the thing the politician were asked to do were rational and deliverable, another politician would say, "Vote for me instead and I'll do it properly." That is not happening, because nobody wants the poisoned chalice.
That’s exactly what Corbyn is saying
Great, let's have an election.
An election would probably generate a result very similar to the one we already have in terms of the party totals.
A lot can change during a campaign as we saw last time.
One reason TM did worse than she expected last time was that the public perceived the Election as unnecessary. It wasn't the only or the biggest reason, but it was a factor. I suspect it would be a factor again if she called one now.
Comments
Surprised you think that given how the Remain campaign avoided Cameron’s renegotiation like the plague during the referendum campaign.
I don’t think anyone, however they voted, imagined our politicians and civil service would be so bungling and incompetent in handling the negotiations.
If you have only "leave" options on the ballot, then why should any Remainer bother to vote? It is like having a "fixed" result Soviet style.
If you put only "leave" on the ballot paper and it gets (say) 100% on 30% turnout then what does that say to its legitimacy.
Hugs are good. Too many people neglect them.
[Edit: I am not asking them to vote again and again - just to clarify the current position since parliament is deadlocked and, unlike Charles, I am prepared to allow answers that differ from my viewpoint as well as ones that agree with it]
Now they are just searching for absolutely anything they can pin on him because they don't like him.
But of course Parliament isn't deadlocked. They voted to invoke Article 50, which means we leave, by default, on March 29th.
The only reason you are asking for further "clarification" is because you hope to lend a fig leaf of credibility to your desire to nullify the result of the 2016 referendum and tell 17.4 million people that their vote didn't count.
You can ask for guidance on the sort of Leave favoured. Anything else, and it will be seen for what it is …. a re-run because Parliament didn't like the answer. Did they lie when they said they would honour the result?
Tick only one box:
[ ] We should leave the EU
Is it possible to agree the WA and then go to "no deal" during transition?
Would it resolve fears about being trapped in the "permanent backstop" if a mechanism to move to no deal (with suitably long notice period) was added to the WA?
I am thinking that this could be a way to stumble into transition without ruling out any option (except no Brexit)
What am I missing
The result of a re-run wouldn't actually matter. The insult to democracy would stand. If you do it once, why would any unwelcome result to Parliament matter, when a re-run can always be demanded?
I have stated on here, many times - including this evening - that WTO Brexit may be the only way to kill off this stupid, insular, xenophobic nostalgia that has transformed a large chunk of the Conservative Party into an English Nationalist party.
https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1087824598983499778
Apart from that...
Ok.
They are terrified of asking the public.
Anti-democrats, all.
" I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds .."
You forgot to add "if I don't like the result,"
Therein ;lies the problem. If Remain had won by the same margin would you be making that same statement?
If not, you're guilty of something beginning with H and having nine letters. Honesty only has seven.
At this time of crisis, I'm left with two questions:
1) Will my local Patisserie Valerie survive?
2) Will you still love me tomorrow?
"... I am prepared to allow people the chance to say they changed their minds ..." and that might result in a bigger Leave vote but I am OK with that. If Remain had won then none of these conversations would be taking place. "Remain" is not the destroyer and wrecker that Brexit is. When you start altering my words to make them appear to mean the opposite of what I said then I am not the one with the honesty problem.
It is time now for us to know the official position, if not the whole story. No spin. Just facts.
I agree with most of you send paragraph though, except that I would not blame the civil service. They are just following the instructions of their political masters, and it just so happens that the present gang of incompetents is divided and self-contradictory, and on top of that, not prepared to listen to professional guidance from the civil service. But the Conservatives always do belittle people in the public service, don`they? and try to undermine them as much s they can.
I understand you believe you are right. Many people do, and you may be right in this instance. But that is missing the point.
I suspect we are not going to agree. That's life. I accepted what I thought was going to be a Remain victory on midnight June 23rd 2016 because that's the way democracy works.
And then we start queuing for turnips and mouldy potatoes.
On that happy note, goodnight!
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/22/no-deal-brexit-panic-grips-major-uk-firms
What next? Wetherspoons to move all their pubs to Belguim would be a great one
Making the WA broadly acceptable to ALL leavers might seem like can kicking but crucially it gets you into transition, or at least, dares parliament not to brexit. Once in transition the situation seems better: there is enough time for a real debate (and GE??) on the future relationship, and no particular cliff edge to a default option. Those hoping to crash out by default or remain by stealth would have to choose a plan B, which could of course be campaigning to rejoin or invoke real "managed WTO no deal", but might not be in many cases.
But just posting a random quote from a minor politician isn’t an argument.
If you concede the public has a right to vote (which of course they do) you can't restrict the choices.
That would not be democratic
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46958560
These things don't apply to deciding to have the second referendum now, though. It has the democratic benefit the Rees Mogg was identifying then, but without the practical problems you'd have had if Cameron had announced that as the plan.
Tonight Sky have been predicting armageddon at the border but then they have been so into project fear they annoy leavers who just become more determined to 'sock it to the EU' and 'keep our 39 billion'
The most alarming thing this week has been how many of the public almost yearn for no deal and even some of them think it will be the same as it is now, with no change at all
I'm pretty sure that, given an advisory referendum and a parliament democratically elected at a General Election, those democratically elected MPs can do what the hell they like. If you think otherwise you're welcome to pursue a legal case.
I said that the sensible outcome would be for the U.K. to remain part of the EMA. (And I still believe that is the sensible outcome).
However - which I didn’t realise - was that you have to be a member of the EU to be a member of the EMA. I think that’s a stupid rule, but if that’s a rule that’s important to them we’ll just have to beef up the MHRA instead.
However, as a Leaver, I am happy with another referendum -- but, what will Remainers concede to get one ? Because, they must know really that they are bending the rules.
How about a Big Fund for Stoke and Hull and Darlington and Jaywick -- all the left-behind places that the Remainers could not give a shit about?
Why can't the super-affluent Remainers with their multiple homes in the Lake District and Hungary and their nannies and their trust funds for their kids contribute a Big Fund to the Left Behind people?
In return, they get another bite at the cherry, another referendum.
At least the w@nkers who believe in Trump's Wall are prepared to GoFund it.
Turns out that quite a lot of socialists and social democrats are Remainers. Socialists and social democrats generally think that a Big Fund for left-behind places is a great idea, irrespective of Brexit.
You're welcome to compare how progressive the voting records are of your average Leave MP vs your average Remain MP. What was it Boris said about Liverpool again?
But I will complement the original remain campaign for having the most memorable honest statement in the whole campaign when they were asked what happens to wages in the event of a vote to leave. They will rise was the correct honest answer.
Will Zig a Zig Ah really cut it as an answer?
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1087684519736590336?s=19
No Deal and May's Deal may be bad outcomes of the first referendum, but Remain would also be a bad outcome for a second referendum. We need a looser relationship with the EU that reflects the UK's broad skepticism of the whole EU project and its direciton of travel, and until we arrive at such a destination this issue will not die down.
There simply aren't enough die-hard Europhiles in the UK to justify continuing on the current track as though nothing much has changed.
However, the point is that it is the Remainers who want the rules bent. They want another referendum, so what are they prepared to concede to get it?
A second bit at the cherry don't come for free, you know.
As for my brother - who I suspect that @Benpointer was meaning - he has significant exposure to London property and many of his clients are bankers and lawyers so he’s likely to be impacted as well.
Goodnight.
The details are up to them
Sell villas on the Costas, buy caravans in Skegness. That is the future for retired Leavers.
Glad we cleared that up.
"I think Remain is the mostly likely outcome now, but in no way does it resolve the EU question."
I fear that is correct. Why would it resolve anything when cheats rule? That will be the feeling strongly, and not just by extremists.
Thank you for pointing that out