So we've got the following labour parties as it stands from the 17 election Labour Corbyn branch Ex labour tiggers Labour brexiteers Labour elementaries under Watson Independent ex labour non tigger Labour prison branch
Lol
Weren't there something like 19 different Communist/left socialist parties registered in the UK at one point?
Edmund Iremonger is a great name for a firebrand populist.
The great TV astronomer Patrick Moore was a fellow member. He was a very rightwing guy, largely untouched by modern mores.
He once said women shouldn’t be on the TV or radio as their voices were too soft.
An extremely far-sighted politician, though. Light years ahead of his time and an all-round stellar performer.
He did have one rather unique claim to fame which he always liked to mention on his talking tours which I saw on a number of occasions.
He met Orville Wright when on leave in New York from flight training in Canada in 1942. In 1960 he was invited to the USSR to meet Yuri Gagarin In 1970 he interviewed Neil Armstrong for the Sky at Night.
He was therefore, he believed, the only person to have met the first man to fly, the first man in space and the first man to walk on the moon.
Neil Gaiman has a great imposters' syndrome story about Neil Armstrong
Jeremy Corbyn’s legacy looks like being a far right, English nationalist Tory government with a majority of 100+ presiding over the break-up of the UK.
But you were predicting 160 - 180 Labour MPs shortly before the release of the 2017 Exit Poll - indeed you remained quite dismissive of the poll for a couple of hours beyond that!
So we've got the following labour parties as it stands from the 17 election Labour Corbyn branch Ex labour tiggers Labour brexiteers Labour elementaries under Watson Independent ex labour non tigger Labour prison branch
Lol
Weren't there something like 19 different Communist/left socialist parties registered in the UK at one point?
Edmund Iremonger is a great name for a firebrand populist.
The great TV astronomer Patrick Moore was a fellow member. He was a very rightwing guy, largely untouched by modern mores.
He once said women shouldn’t be on the TV or radio as their voices were too soft.
An extremely far-sighted politician, though. Light years ahead of his time and an all-round stellar performer.
He did have one rather unique claim to fame which he always liked to mention on his talking tours which I saw on a number of occasions.
He met Orville Wright when on leave in New York from flight training in Canada in 1942. In 1960 he was invited to the USSR to meet Yuri Gagarin In 1970 he interviewed Neil Armstrong for the Sky at Night.
He was therefore, he believed, the only person to have met the first man to fly, the first man in space and the first man to walk on the moon.
I think I've read that before - thanks for the reminder! - a remarkable set to complete*.
*Although the Montgolfier brothers might have a bone to pick with you.
I know. I always see that but I always consider that if we want to split hairs then the criminals thrown off the Tarpeian Rock in Rome would be able to put in a strong case.
Proper flight rather than all that silly balloon stuff.
I'd characterise that as falling rather than flying! But I know what you mean on balloons. Powered, fixed-wing flight revolutionised the world; wobbly sacks of hot air, not so much.
Perhaps, to quote another great space explorer, "falling with style"
A short extension of A50 until May to get required legislation through is common sense with the delays caused by inability to get deal through. It isn’t taking no deal off the table as the media is trying to report but just kicking can down road a couple of months . Hopefully TM will get enough concession from Brussels to get her deal through to take us over the line of leaving . If the EU fail to come good on the FTA then we can go WTO if necessary but with a couple of years transition to prepare for it
Jeremy Corbyn’s legacy looks like being a far right, English nationalist Tory government with a majority of 100+ presiding over the break-up of the UK.
But you were predicting 160 - 180 Labour MPs shortly before the release of the 2017 Exit Poll - indeed you remained quite dismissive of the poll for a couple of hours beyond that!
He truly is Dan Hodges when it comes to the Labour party, everything is doomed because they disagree with him.
So we've got the following labour parties as it stands from the 17 election Labour Corbyn branch Ex labour tiggers Labour brexiteers Labour elementaries under Watson Independent ex labour non tigger Labour prison branch
Lol
Weren't there something like 19 different Communist/left socialist parties registered in the UK at one point?
Edmund Iremonger is a great name for a firebrand populist.
The great TV astronomer Patrick Moore was a fellow member. He was a very rightwing guy, largely untouched by modern mores.
He once said women shouldn’t be on the TV or radio as their voices were too soft.
An extremely far-sighted politician, though. Light years ahead of his time and an all-round stellar performer.
He did have one rather unique claim to fame which he always liked to mention on his talking tours which I saw on a number of occasions.
He met Orville Wright when on leave in New York from flight training in Canada in 1942. In 1960 he was invited to the USSR to meet Yuri Gagarin In 1970 he interviewed Neil Armstrong for the Sky at Night.
He was therefore, he believed, the only person to have met the first man to fly, the first man in space and the first man to walk on the moon.
I think I've read that before - thanks for the reminder! - a remarkable set to complete*.
*Although the Montgolfier brothers might have a bone to pick with you.
I know. I always see that but I always consider that if we want to split hairs then the criminals thrown off the Tarpeian Rock in Rome would be able to put in a strong case.
Proper flight rather than all that silly balloon stuff.
I'd characterise that as falling rather than flying! But I know what you mean on balloons. Powered, fixed-wing flight revolutionised the world; wobbly sacks of hot air, not so much.
Perhaps, to quote another great space explorer, "falling with style"
If only Buzz had mastered the art of flying by throwing himself at the ground, and missing.
"NEW LAW THAT CATS KILLED/INJURED BY A VEHICLE ARE CHECKED FOR A CHIP: ROUND 3 Thousands of cats are just disposed of every year without being scanned for a chip after being involved in RTAs. Owners search for months and years and never get closure. Scanning takes two minutes. Cats are a part of a family and deserve to be returned home, not thrown into landfill."
I make the starting point (take the last VONC, then move the Tory TIGgers) 322 to 309, so the PV people need to gain more Cons than they lose Lab etc, plus 7.
However I think there's a good argument that there may be quite a few more Cons willing to jump than have jumped before, in that:
1) If you're going to annoy both your base and your boss, there's no point in doing it for mere virtue signalling; You'd only do it for a vote that actually makes a difference. 2) Once No Deal is off the table and you've started delaying because the Commons won't pass the thing, there's no actual route to delivering Brexit, so you can say, in some cases sincerely, that the referendum is the best way to actually make it happen.
One for the constitutional lawyers and owners of Erskine May:
Does the bit of Cooper-Boles 2 mandating the PM to seek an A50 extension of Parliament's choosing affect Royal prerogative, and if so does it need Royal Consent (not just Royal Assent), and if so can't the PM/relevant minister just not seek it? That would hole the Cooper-Boles 2 amendment below the waterline even after it had passed.
The PM couldn't then be forced to extend, and it would be deal or no deal, and the 4-1 or 5-1 odds in the header for leaving on time seem value. Discuss.
I make the starting point (take the last VONC, then move the Tory TIGgers) 322 to 309, so the PV people need to gain more Cons than they lose Lab etc, plus 7.
However I think there's a good argument that there may be quite a few more Cons willing to jump than have jumped before, in that:
1) If you're going to annoy both your base and your boss, there's no point in doing it for mere virtue signalling; You'd only do it for a vote that actually makes a difference. 2) Once it No Deal is off the table and you've started delaying because the Commons won't pass a the thing there's no actual route to delivering Brexit, so you can say, in some cases sincerely, that the referendum is the best way to actually make it happen.
May's line for quite a while has been that we shouldn't be having a second referendum, but that still gives her scope to back one in order to get her deal through parliament.
I struggle to see a pathway for any deal to exit...and it has been that way since the day after the referendum.
Once the first extension is agreed then I believe the clock will be ticking towards cancelling Brexit.
Once this dynamic becomes clear I wonder if we'll see some movement among leavers to go with the second referendum, at least that actually has a chance of getting you guys to your destination.
One for the constitutional lawyers and owners of Erskine May:
Does the bit of Cooper-Boles 2 mandating the PM to seek an A50 extension of Parliament's choosing affect Royal prerogative, and if so does it need Royal Consent (not just Royal Assent), and if so can't the PM/relevant minister just not seek it? That would hole the Cooper-Boles 2 amendment below the waterline even after it had passed.
The PM couldn't then be forced to extend, and it would be deal or no deal, and the 4-1 or 5-1 odds in the header for leaving on time seem value. Discuss.
There is no such thing as Royal Consent in reality, only Royal Assent, the Civil War and Glorious Revolution settled that in favour of Parliamentary Sovereignty, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy.
In any case while interesting in theory in practice irrelevant as May will rule out No Deal in the next day or two to avoid mass resignations from the Government and to force the ERG to face a Deal v indefinite Art 50 extension choice
Mass walk out of Con Brexiteers from Tory party next?
Well it would be self-obsessed posturing so there's a chance or perhaps they might try voting for something.
It's not the ERG who are threatening to bring down the government for refusing to throw away the only leverage we have with the EU.
They've been threatening to paralyse it for years now when they do not get their way, there's little difference.
There are some deeply unimpressive MPs in the ERG but I really struggle with this. They represent the groundswell of the party membership and a third of the electorate - and that is if you subscribe to the view that they all support no deal as the preferred option. Which I certainly don't, although no doubt one or two will - most I believe want a deal, but also want to use whatever leverage we have with the EU to improve the deal. Most if not all voted for the Brady Amendment.
While the ERG's performance over Brexit has been lamentable as a whole, I struggle to see why their current position is in any way contrary to the party interest, or a niche position with regard to the public's opinion.
And if the Deal is not improved what do they do then ?
I don't know. Quite possibly many would support the deal on the basis that we have played the only card that we have and failed to extract a concession. They have historically rebelled far less than the remain wing of the party.
What we do know is that there is a majority in Parliament for a deal that reduces the backstop risk, and there is a majority in Parliament against No Deal at any cost. Therefore if the choice is Deal v No Deal then Deal wins whether or not the ERG back it.
Remove No Deal from the equation then the EU will not negotiate, the deal fails and carnage ensues. Carnage which is likely to destroy the tories.
One for the constitutional lawyers and owners of Erskine May:
Does the bit of Cooper-Boles 2 mandating the PM to seek an A50 extension of Parliament's choosing affect Royal prerogative, and if so does it need Royal Consent (not just Royal Assent), and if so can't the PM/relevant minister just not seek it? That would hole the Cooper-Boles 2 amendment below the waterline even after it had passed.
The PM couldn't then be forced to extend, and it would be deal or no deal, and the 4-1 or 5-1 odds in the header for leaving on time seem value. Discuss.
There is no such thing as Royal Consent in reality, only Royal Assent, the Civil War and Glorious Revolution settled that in favour of Parliamentary Sovereignty, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy.
In any case while interesting in theory in practice irrelevant as May will rule out No Deal in the next day or two to avoid mass resignations from the Government and to force the ERG to face a Deal v indefinite Art 50 extension choice
Royal Assent is part of the constitution, Royal Consent merely part of Parliamentary procedure
Mass walk out of Con Brexiteers from Tory party next?
Well it would be self-obsessed posturing so there's a chance or perhaps they might try voting for something.
It's not the ERG who are threatening to bring down the government for refusing to throw away the only leverage we have with the EU.
They've been threatening to paralyse it for years now when they do not get their way, there's little difference.
There are some deeply unimpressive MPs in the ERG but I really struggle with this. They represent the groundswell of the party membership and a third of the electorate - and that is if you subscribe to the view that they all support no deal as the preferred option. Which I certainly don't, although no doubt one or two will - most I believe want a deal, but also want to use whatever leverage we have with the EU to improve the deal. Most if not all voted for the Brady Amendment.
While the ERG's performance over Brexit has been lamentable as a whole, I struggle to see why their current position is in any way contrary to the party interest, or a niche position with regard to the public's opinion.
And if the Deal is not improved what do they do then ?
I don't know. Quite possibly many would support the deal on the basis that we have played the only card that we have and failed to extract a concession. They have historically rebelled far less than the remain wing of the party.
What we do know is that there is a majority in Parliament for a deal that reduces the backstop risk, and there is a majority in Parliament against No Deal at any cost. Therefore if the choice is Deal v No Deal then Deal wins whether or not the ERG back it.
Remove No Deal from the equation then the EU will not negotiate, the deal fails and carnage ensues. Carnage which is likely to destroy the tories.
I would not be so sure, tonight Labour Leave seat MPs like Flint have committed to Brexit and would back the Deal over EUref2
So we've got the following labour parties as it stands from the 17 election Labour Corbyn branch Ex labour tiggers Labour brexiteers Labour elementaries under Watson Independent ex labour non tigger Labour prison branch
Lol
Weren't there something like 19 different Communist/left socialist parties registered in the UK at one point?
Edmund Iremonger is a great name for a firebrand populist.
The great TV astronomer Patrick Moore was a fellow member. He was a very rightwing guy, largely untouched by modern mores.
He once said women shouldn’t be on the TV or radio as their voices were too soft.
An extremely far-sighted politician, though. Light years ahead of his time and an all-round stellar performer.
He did have one rather unique claim to fame which he always liked to mention on his talking tours which I saw on a number of occasions.
He met Orville Wright when on leave in New York from flight training in Canada in 1942. In 1960 he was invited to the USSR to meet Yuri Gagarin In 1970 he interviewed Neil Armstrong for the Sky at Night.
He was therefore, he believed, the only person to have met the first man to fly, the first man in space and the first man to walk on the moon.
Patrick Moore may have met the first man to fly, the first man in space and the first man to walk on the moon - but did he actually have the ambition to achieve any of these things himself?
One of my heroes appeared to have these very three ambitions. Francis Albert Sinatra.
"Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars".
Mass walk out of Con Brexiteers from Tory party next?
Well it would be self-obsessed posturing so there's a chance or perhaps they might try voting for something.
It's not the ERG who are threatening to bring down the government for refusing to throw away the only leverage we have with the EU.
They've been threatening to paralyse it for years now when they do not get their way, there's little difference.
There are some deeply unimpressive MPs in the ERG but I really struggle with this. They represent the groundswell of the party membership and a third of the electorate - and that is if you subscribe to the view that they all support no deal as the preferred option. Which I certainly don't, although no doubt one or two will - most I believe want a deal, but also want to use whatever leverage we have with the EU to improve the deal. Most if not all voted for the Brady Amendment.
While the ERG's performance over Brexit has been lamentable as a whole, I struggle to see why their current position is in any way contrary to the party interest, or a niche position with regard to the public's opinion.
And if the Deal is not improved what do they do then ?
I don't know. Quite possibly many would support the deal on the basis that we have played the only card that we have and failed to extract a concession. They have historically rebelled far less than the remain wing of the party.
What we do know is that there is a majority in Parliament for a deal that reduces the backstop risk, and there is a majority in Parliament against No Deal at any cost. Therefore if the choice is Deal v No Deal then Deal wins whether or not the ERG back it.
Remove No Deal from the equation then the EU will not negotiate, the deal fails and carnage ensues. Carnage which is likely to destroy the tories.
So what you are saying is that you are willing to lose 90% of what you want in order to try getting 91% of what you want.
Because that is what the ERG tantrums have amounted to.
Patrick Moore may have met the first man to fly, the first man in space and the first man to walk on the moon - but did he actually have the ambition to achieve any of these things himself?
One of my heroes appeared to have just these ambitions. Francis Albert Sinatra.
"Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars".
Very Good.
But, Patrick Moore was entirely self-taught in astronomy.
And his early researches on the Moon were a serious contribution to lunar studies at the time.
Patrick Moore may have met the first man to fly, the first man in space and the first man to walk on the moon - but did he actually have the ambition to achieve any of these things himself?
One of my heroes appeared to have just these ambitions. Francis Albert Sinatra.
"Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars".
Very Good.
But, Patrick Moore was entirely self-taught in astronomy.
And his early researches on the Moon were a serious contribution to lunar studies at the time.
All this excitable talk about another referendum ignores one crucial fact. Will the EU agree to an extension and won’t this depend on what the question is?
Smart play by the EU, as they know support for Brexit is only going one way - down. Every month that goes by, it gets weaker.
All this excitable talk about another referendum ignores one crucial fact. Will the EU agree to an extension and won’t this depend on what the question is?
Smart play by the EU, as they know support for Brexit is only going one way - down. Every month that goes by, it gets weaker.
Nobody should assert on the basis of the analysis in this blog that it is now clear that the outcome of a second referendum would be different from that of the first. Given the potential difficulties that faces all polling, the Remain lead is both too narrow and too reliant on the views of those who did not vote in June 2016 (who might or might not vote in another ballot) for anything other than caution to be the order of the day. Even if the polls are entirely accurate, such a narrow lead might still be overturned if Leave were to fight the better campaign – as they are widely adjudged to have done in 2016.
That said, it looks though there has been a modest but discernible softening of the Leave vote. As a result, those who wish to question whether Brexit does still represent ‘the will of the people’ do now have rather more evidence with which to back their argument. In the meantime, it might at least be thought somewhat ironic that doubts about Brexit appear to have grown in the minds of some Leave voters just as the scheduled date for the UK’s departure is coming into sight.
All this excitable talk about another referendum ignores one crucial fact. Will the EU agree to an extension and won’t this depend on what the question is?
Smart play by the EU, as they know support for Brexit is only going one way - down. Every month that goes by, it gets weaker.
Whisper it quietly but Matthew Goodwin will distort any data to push a pro-populist narrative.
And you are the soul of impartiality too!
As with all these polls it depends on the question asked and the context.
Do you want a people's vote to approve the deal to leave the European union? vs
Do you want a second referendum to stop Brexit?
They almost certainly mean the same thing in practice - but I bet you would get very different polling results. The former implies backing Brexit the latter staying in the EU - but they both could be argued to support a second vote. As we saw with polls recently some remain leaning voters think no deal means staying in the EU.
Does anyone really have any idea what is going on or what is going to happen?
The case for a second Brexit referendum to leave the European Union relies on at least one of two premises.
First, that in June 2016 it was insufficiently clear what “leave” would entail, but that this is now clearer. And second, that trying to combine direct and parliamentary forms of democracy has so confounded Britain’s usual political decision-making processes that the resulting impasse can be resolved only by going back to the people.
Each of these premises suggests that if the second referendum is to have any political legitimacy, it will need to comprise three questions, which can be loosely characterised as:
- Leave with no deal
- Leave with the prime minister’s deal
- Remain in the EU on unchanged terms (which, thanks to the Court of Justice of the European Union, we now know that Britain can decide to do unilaterally)
All this excitable talk about another referendum ignores one crucial fact. Will the EU agree to an extension and won’t this depend on what the question is?
Smart play by the EU, as they know support for Brexit is only going one way - down. Every month that goes by, it gets weaker.
Whisper it quietly but Matthew Goodwin will distort any data to push a pro-populist narrative.
That's not strictly true: his analysis is good and I like his "three Leave tribes" typology. However he also acts as an advocate for his Leave beliefs and sometimes he blurs the two. I have a lot of time for his analysis and little for his advocacy.
Why doesn't she favour Labour's proposed Brexit deal being on the ballot paper too? Its just May's deal but with added Turkey (i.e. in a customs union with the EU but not in the single market) isn't it.
Why doesn't she favour Labour's proposed Brexit deal being on the ballot paper too? Its just May's deal but with added Turkey (i.e. in a customs union with the EU but not in the single market) isn't it.
IIUC the answer she'd give would be that they'd rather Labour's proposed Brexit deal was on the ballot paper, but in the event that TMay stubbornly refuses to actually go and negotiate that deal, the next best thing is to vote on the one she's negotiated.
All this excitable talk about another referendum ignores one crucial fact. Will the EU agree to an extension and won’t this depend on what the question is?
Smart play by the EU, as they know support for Brexit is only going one way - down. Every month that goes by, it gets weaker.
So we've got the following labour parties as it stands from the 17 election Labour Corbyn branch Ex labour tiggers Labour brexiteers Labour elementaries under Watson Independent ex labour non tigger Labour prison branch
Lol
Weren't there something like 19 different Communist/left socialist parties registered in the UK at one point?
Edmund Iremonger is a great name for a firebrand populist.
The great TV astronomer Patrick Moore was a fellow member. He was a very rightwing guy, largely untouched by modern mores.
He once said women shouldn’t be on the TV or radio as their voices were too soft.
An extremely far-sighted politician, though. Light years ahead of his time and an all-round stellar performer.
He did have one rather unique claim to fame which he always liked to mention on his talking tours which I saw on a number of occasions.
He met Orville Wright when on leave in New York from flight training in Canada in 1942. In 1960 he was invited to the USSR to meet Yuri Gagarin In 1970 he interviewed Neil Armstrong for the Sky at Night.
He was therefore, he believed, the only person to have met the first man to fly, the first man in space and the first man to walk on the moon.
Neil Gaiman has a great imposters' syndrome story about Neil Armstrong
Why doesn't she favour Labour's proposed Brexit deal being on the ballot paper too? Its just May's deal but with added Turkey (i.e. in a customs union with the EU but not in the single market) isn't it.
IIUC the answer she'd give would be that they'd rather Labour's proposed Brexit deal was on the ballot paper, but in the event that TMay stubbornly refuses to actually go and negotiate that deal, the next best thing is to vote on the one she's negotiated.
So they'd campaign to Leave if they got their Deal in place, and for Remain if it's Theresa May's.
Does that make any sense to anyone?
Labour's worst case scenario is now May agreeing to permanent CU and being forced to defend it in the subsequent referendum campaign.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
Why doesn't she favour Labour's proposed Brexit deal being on the ballot paper too? Its just May's deal but with added Turkey (i.e. in a customs union with the EU but not in the single market) isn't it.
IIUC the answer she'd give would be that they'd rather Labour's proposed Brexit deal was on the ballot paper, but in the event that TMay stubbornly refuses to actually go and negotiate that deal, the next best thing is to vote on the one she's negotiated.
So they'd campaign to Leave if they got their Deal in place, and for Remain if it's Theresa May's.
Does that make any sense to anyone?
Labour's worst case scenario is now May agreeing to permanent CU and being forced to defend it in the subsequent referendum campaign.
Not sure, maybe they wouldn't take a position.
But yes, the PM could cause a lot of discomfort for Labour if she were to say, "fairy nuff, let's do lexit". Not really her style though.
Why doesn't she favour Labour's proposed Brexit deal being on the ballot paper too? Its just May's deal but with added Turkey (i.e. in a customs union with the EU but not in the single market) isn't it.
IIUC the answer she'd give would be that they'd rather Labour's proposed Brexit deal was on the ballot paper, but in the event that TMay stubbornly refuses to actually go and negotiate that deal, the next best thing is to vote on the one she's negotiated.
So they'd campaign to Leave if they got their Deal in place, and for Remain if it's Theresa May's.
Does that make any sense to anyone?
Labour's worst case scenario is now May agreeing to permanent CU and being forced to defend it in the subsequent referendum campaign.
Not sure, maybe they wouldn't take a position.
But yes, the PM could cause a lot of discomfort for Labour if she were to say, "fairy nuff, let's do lexit". Not really her style though.
Not taking a position would be... incredible. And brave. And suicidal.
Labour are playing chicken. Which I guess just puts them back in line with everyone else.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
My guess is the source is one of Corbyn's opponents in the PLP, after spending ages building up the EU as the weapon to bash Corbyn with they are now disappointed to find themselves disarmed.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
The Electoral Commission only judges if the question is intelligible and fair. What the options are is a political decision and nothing to do with them.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
I do get the argument for lots of direct democracy and I'm not arguing *against* having 3 options, but I don't think there are any non-divisive routes out of this thing.
I mean, No Deal voters are going to be narked off if there was a vote without a No Deal option, and they'd also be narked off if there was a vote that the No Deal option won but the politicians then did some other deal, and they'd be exceedingly narked off at the results (this time on their jobs) of voting for No Deal then refusing to do any kind of deal with anyone. And that's just the people on the *winning* side...
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
The Electoral Commission only judges if the question is intelligible and fair. What the options are is a political decision and nothing to do with them.
Sure, I wasn't clear. Two options wouldn't be fair when there's clearly three paths available. My guess is that the EC would have to advise that there was no question they could recommend under those circumstances.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
I do get the argument for lots of direct democracy and I'm not arguing *against* having 3 options, but I don't think there are any non-divisive routes out of this thing.
I mean, No Deal voters are going to be narked off if there was a vote without a No Deal option, and they'd also be narked off if there was a vote that the No Deal option won but the politicians then did some other deal, and they'd be exceedingly narked off at the results (this time on their jobs) of voting for No Deal then refusing to do any kind of deal with anyone. And that's just the people on the *winning* side...
Removing No Deal turns No Dealers into the key constituency whose votes both sides will be trying to win, so they should be happy to have so much attention and power.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
I do get the argument for lots of direct democracy and I'm not arguing *against* having 3 options, but I don't think there are any non-divisive routes out of this thing.
I mean, No Deal voters are going to be narked off if there was a vote without a No Deal option, and they'd also be narked off if there was a vote that the No Deal option won but the politicians then did some other deal, and they'd be exceedingly narked off at the results (this time on their jobs) of voting for No Deal then refusing to do any kind of deal with anyone. And that's just the people on the *winning* side...
Removing No Deal turns No Dealers into the key constituency whose votes both sides will be trying to win, so they should be happy to have so much attention and power.
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
The Electoral Commission only judges if the question is intelligible and fair. What the options are is a political decision and nothing to do with them.
Sure, I wasn't clear. Two options wouldn't be fair when there's clearly three paths available. My guess is that the EC would have to advise that there was no question they could recommend under those circumstances.
It's not true though. In 2016, why was there no true status quo option, or deeper integration option? It was only Cameron's deal or nothing.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
I do get the argument for lots of direct democracy and I'm not arguing *against* having 3 options, but I don't think there are any non-divisive routes out of this thing.
I mean, No Deal voters are going to be narked off if there was a vote without a No Deal option, and they'd also be narked off if there was a vote that the No Deal option won but the politicians then did some other deal, and they'd be exceedingly narked off at the results (this time on their jobs) of voting for No Deal then refusing to do any kind of deal with anyone. And that's just the people on the *winning* side...
Removing No Deal turns No Dealers into the key constituency whose votes both sides will be trying to win, so they should be happy to have so much attention and power.
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
Removing No Deal turns No Dealers into the key constituency whose votes both sides will be trying to win, so they should be happy to have so much attention and power.
I'd forgive them for not being particularly thrilled about that since both the options have already been decided...
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
The Electoral Commission only judges if the question is intelligible and fair. What the options are is a political decision and nothing to do with them.
Sure, I wasn't clear. Two options wouldn't be fair when there's clearly three paths available. My guess is that the EC would have to advise that there was no question they could recommend under those circumstances.
It's not true though. In 2016, why was there no true status quo option, or deeper integration option? It was only Cameron's deal or nothing.
Presumably this wasn't identified as an issue during EC testing, since only a tiny minority of people wanted deeper integration, and the vast majority agreed that Cameron's renegotiation was either strictly better than status quo, or as close to identical as made no difference. Plus no one in Parliament or the media had spent six months prior to the campaign agitating for a third way.
What do you think the EC would do, if a third to a half of every focus group they tried spoiled their test ballots in protest because they couldn't actually vote for their preferred option?
Presumably this wasn't identified as an issue during EC testing, since only a tiny minority of people wanted deeper integration, and the vast majority agreed that Cameron's renegotiation was either strictly better than status quo, or as close to identical as made no difference. Plus no one in Parliament or the media had spent six months prior to the campaign agitating for a third way.
What do you think the EC would do, if a third to a half of every focus group they tried spoiled their test ballots in protest because they couldn't actually vote for their preferred option?
Check they understood what the question meant and that they were intending to do that, if so then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
You wouldn't get that many spoiled ballots, though.
Labour foreign affairs spokeswoman Emily Thornberry told ITV a second referendum should present a choice between May’s deal and remaining in the EU, but the Labour spokesman directly contradicted her, saying that would be an unacceptable choice.
TBH considering the tone to try and rubbish Labour's position my first guess would one be of Labour's pro EU (at least in rhetoric) anti Corbyn lot. Someone like Tim basically, devastated that Labour are backing a second referendum and hoping to rubbish the position as it takes a weapon away from them.
It's not true though. In 2016, why was there no true status quo option, or deeper integration option? It was only Cameron's deal or nothing.
Presumably this wasn't identified as an issue during EC testing, since only a tiny minority of people wanted deeper integration, and the vast majority agreed that Cameron's renegotiation was either strictly better than status quo, or as close to identical as made no difference. Plus no one in Parliament or the media had spent six months prior to the campaign agitating for a third way.
What do you think the EC would do, if a third to a half of every focus group they tried spoiled their test ballots in protest because they couldn't actually vote for their preferred option?
Things like that are outside the scope of their role. In 2015 when they were testing the question, the EFTA/EEA option was being actively promoted by many Leavers, but no-one asked for it to be on the ballot paper.
TBH considering the tone to try and rubbish Labour's position my first guess would one be of Labour's pro EU (at least in rhetoric) anti Corbyn lot.
It appears tim reckons its Seamus (who does fairly frequently appear as the unattributed "Labour Spokesman") - who has held the line on 'no second referendum' successfully until now given the chance that affords Remain and the kybosh that would put on his Socialist Paradise in Britain were we to stay in the EU.
TBH considering the tone to try and rubbish Labour's position my first guess would one be of Labour's pro EU (at least in rhetoric) anti Corbyn lot.
It appears tim reckons its Seamus (who does fairly frequently appear as the unattributed "Labour Spokesman") - who has held the line on 'no second referendum' successfully until now given the chance that affords Remain and the kybosh that would put on his Socialist Paradise in Britain were we to stay in the EU.
Do we actually have proof of any of that beyond the ravings of Blairites?
Corbyn, Milne and plenty of others have been Eurosceptic but that doesn't prove the above
They were all calling Corbyn a disaster socialist pushing for no deal but here we are with Corbyn calling for a second referendum. It just seems to me that this could easily be another in the long list of misreadings of left wing intentions by centrists / right wingers.
We had Southam writing articles a couple of years ago about how the left actively don't want power, all the terrible takes on why the left does what it does are at least poor betting advice even if good trolling.
Guys can we just have a really aggressive paintballing session instead...
Edit: I'm willing to allow punching and kicking, the lot.
Given you call rockets designed to kill 'fireworks' in order to make the scum who fire them appear less scummy, might I suggest that in your mind 'paintballs' are brightly-coloured 1,000-lb bombs?
TBH considering the tone to try and rubbish Labour's position my first guess would one be of Labour's pro EU (at least in rhetoric) anti Corbyn lot.
It appears tim reckons its Seamus (who does fairly frequently appear as the unattributed "Labour Spokesman") - who has held the line on 'no second referendum' successfully until now given the chance that affords Remain and the kybosh that would put on his Socialist Paradise in Britain were we to stay in the EU.
Do we actually have proof of any of that beyond the ravings of Blairites?
Historically, the party’s left has been thoroughly Eurosceptical, viewing the EU’s economic arrangements as institutionally averse to state intervention, governed by the rules and principles of the free market and embodying fiscal orthodoxy. This is a view inherited by Corbyn’s most senior and trusted advisors, Seamus Milne and Karie Murphy who, convinced that EU membership will trammel a future government’s capacity to pursue radical economic policies, are sanguine about Brexit.
Someone take his hands away from the 'send' button please ...
It can't be beyond the wit of man for him to have a lawyer between his phone and his live Twitter account. In fact, that's what Tesla promised the SEC they would do last time.
Lawyer now needs to tell him to delete the Twitter app from his phone otherwise he's going to end up in prison!
Someone take his hands away from the 'send' button please ...
It can't be beyond the wit of man for him to have a lawyer between his phone and his live Twitter account. In fact, that's what Tesla promised the SEC they would do last time.
Lawyer now needs to tell him to delete the Twitter app from his phone otherwise he's going to end up in prison!
What amuses me are the legions of Muskites who automatically jump to defend him and attack the SEC. In their eyes, shorters who manipulate the market downwards are evil. Musk manipulating the market upwards - whether through malice or incompetence - is fine and dandy. And organisations such as the SEC who prevent the anointed one from doing whatever he wants are thoroughly evil.
Though fortunately many fans of his realise he's being a dick and say so.
Quite apart from the inaccuracy (Labour are not promising a second referendum, they are promising to back a second referendum), is this not breaking some kind of BBC impartiality rule? I can't see how Laura Kuennsberg can know that Labour are planning not to keep their promise!?
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
The decision to leave the EU was recommended by voters in June 2016 and ratified by MPs in March 2017, when A50 was invoked. Therefore in theory, any referendum should be between the "deal" and "no deal".
In all this discussion, MPs and others are forgetting that any vote to extend A50 endorsed by the HoC is merely a request to the EU for such an extension. This will require unanimous support from key EU institutions and all other 27 EU member states, so in practice cannot be requested at the last minute. It is also unlikely to be granted if there is no clear aim/reason (i.e. a few more months of indecisive discussions would be unwelcome) or if it is for a long period (in practice beyond 30/6/19).
It is in the EU's interest to get Brexit done and dusted, and not have a recalcitrant member in perpetuity, with loads of problematic "opt out" clauses. Any rejoining of the EU by the UK or parts of it should be on standard terms and conditions, as for any new member states.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
Pharmaceutical reports are saying similar things. Shortages of medicines, many of which are imported. I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
That's like saying removing Labour from the ballot papers in a general election would give Labour voters the power to choose whether the Conservatives or Lib Dems form the next government. Most Labour voters would probably say no thanks to such an opportunity.
No Dealers will have the option of abstention too.
The decision to leave the EU was recommended by voters in June 2016 and ratified by MPs in March 2017, when A50 was invoked. Therefore in theory, any referendum should be between the "deal" and "no deal".
In all this discussion, MPs and others are forgetting that any vote to extend A50 endorsed by the HoC is merely a request to the EU for such an extension. This will require unanimous support from key EU institutions and all other 27 EU member states, so in practice cannot be requested at the last minute. It is also unlikely to be granted if there is no clear aim/reason (i.e. a few more months of indecisive discussions would be unwelcome) or if it is for a long period (in practice beyond 30/6/19).
It is in the EU's interest to get Brexit done and dusted, and not have a recalcitrant member in perpetuity, with loads of problematic "opt out" clauses. Any rejoining of the EU by the UK or parts of it should be on standard terms and conditions, as for any new member states.
But this tells us little about what will actually happen.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
The Electoral Commission only judges if the question is intelligible and fair. What the options are is a political decision and nothing to do with them.
Sure, I wasn't clear. Two options wouldn't be fair when there's clearly three paths available. My guess is that the EC would have to advise that there was no question they could recommend under those circumstances.
3 paths are only available if one of them is not blocked off and as part of the vote on a referendum it's perfectly possible for enough MPs to block off a No Deal option.
I'd be astounded if parliament would insult the publics intelligence by insisting May's deal was one half of a binary choice in R2 (or even in a 3-way).
They have collectively trashed it and made clear it would be catastrophic for the UK so how could they legitimately put if forward as an option? Especially if they refused to allow ND as an choice.
Now if they were to offer up Labour's deal on the paper I would be happy...let them take the rap.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
The Guardian has been running a story like this every day for the last 6 months.
There was an extremely good one yesterday when the Guardian warned that no deal Brexit would imperil our right to access the digital archive of Spare Rib magazine.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
The Electoral Commission only judges if the question is intelligible and fair. What the options are is a political decision and nothing to do with them.
Sure, I wasn't clear. Two options wouldn't be fair when there's clearly three paths available. My guess is that the EC would have to advise that there was no question they could recommend under those circumstances.
These referendums are ALL stupid. Hence the mess we are in. The only thing to be said for a second one is that it could be a legitimate path out of said mess, when simply cancelling Brexit would be extremely problematic.
A second referendum would have to include Remain, Leave with Deal and Leave with No Deal. There'd have to be a preference system to deal with none of the 3 options getting 50%. If you exclude any of those 3 options, millions of people would feel that the referendum didn't include their first option and would probably not bother to vote, which would be very divisive.
What's this "have to"? I guess you're saying you think it *should*?
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
I say "have to" because, as I wrote, it would be very divisive to exclude the first choice option of millions of voters. To try to be "clever" by excluding one of the options on the basis that it would make one's preferred option (whatever that happens to be) more likely to win would be seen through by most voters in about 5 seconds.
The No Dealers would start issuing challenges to force Remain off the ballot and replace it with No Deal. It would take the Electoral Commission months to work through it all, and it's probably irreconcilable. Basically what it means is that a second referendum is impossible in practice.
The Electoral Commission only judges if the question is intelligible and fair. What the options are is a political decision and nothing to do with them.
Sure, I wasn't clear. Two options wouldn't be fair when there's clearly three paths available. My guess is that the EC would have to advise that there was no question they could recommend under those circumstances.
3 paths are only available if one of them is not blocked off and as part of the vote on a referendum it's perfectly possible for enough MPs to block off a No Deal option.
And entirely sensible. The one thing MPs aren't going to do is let such a misjudgement onto the ballot paper. Even our politicians retain some ability to learn from past mistakes.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
It might be 'convenient'; it might also be true.
In the short or medium term, I cannot see how Brexit will improve healthcare. Therefore the options are things remaining the same, or getting worse.
Given the general interconnectedness of all things, and the complexity of healthcare systems, it seems perfectly possible that such a change could cause disruption of various scales. And even a 'small' disruption might be critically important for individuals.
An issue is that such problems are going to be very difficult to predict in advance.
And concludes that the only way to avoid damaging healthcare is to remain a member of the bloc.
How convenient.
Pharmaceutical reports are saying similar things. Shortages of medicines, many of which are imported. I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
Under any eventuality other than remain? Give me a break.
Comments
Once the first extension is agreed then I believe the clock will be ticking towards cancelling Brexit.
Now if we were looking at totally new MPs ...
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/02/jeremy-corbyn-has-backed-it-chances-another-referendum-are-slim
I make the starting point (take the last VONC, then move the Tory TIGgers) 322 to 309, so the PV people need to gain more Cons than they lose Lab etc, plus 7.
However I think there's a good argument that there may be quite a few more Cons willing to jump than have jumped before, in that:
1) If you're going to annoy both your base and your boss, there's no point in doing it for mere virtue signalling; You'd only do it for a vote that actually makes a difference.
2) Once No Deal is off the table and you've started delaying because the Commons won't pass the thing, there's no actual route to delivering Brexit, so you can say, in some cases sincerely, that the referendum is the best way to actually make it happen.
Does the bit of Cooper-Boles 2 mandating the PM to seek an A50 extension of Parliament's choosing affect Royal prerogative, and if so does it need Royal Consent (not just Royal Assent), and if so can't the PM/relevant minister just not seek it? That would hole the Cooper-Boles 2 amendment below the waterline even after it had passed.
The PM couldn't then be forced to extend, and it would be deal or no deal, and the 4-1 or 5-1 odds in the header for leaving on time seem value. Discuss.
https://twitter.com/Sonic_Screwup/status/1100185800719912960
In any case while interesting in theory in practice irrelevant as May will rule out No Deal in the next day or two to avoid mass resignations from the Government and to force the ERG to face a Deal v indefinite Art 50 extension choice
What we do know is that there is a majority in Parliament for a deal that reduces the backstop risk, and there is a majority in Parliament against No Deal at any cost. Therefore if the choice is Deal v No Deal then Deal wins whether or not the ERG back it.
Remove No Deal from the equation then the EU will not negotiate, the deal fails and carnage ensues. Carnage which is likely to destroy the tories.
One of my heroes appeared to have these very three ambitions. Francis Albert Sinatra.
"Fly me to the moon and let me play among the stars".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQR0bXO_yI8
Because that is what the ERG tantrums have amounted to.
But, Patrick Moore was entirely self-taught in astronomy.
And his early researches on the Moon were a serious contribution to lunar studies at the time.
So, I have quite a bit of time for him.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1100154812879069184
That said, it looks though there has been a modest but discernible softening of the Leave vote. As a result, those who wish to question whether Brexit does still represent ‘the will of the people’ do now have rather more evidence with which to back their argument. In the meantime, it might at least be thought somewhat ironic that doubts about Brexit appear to have grown in the minds of some Leave voters just as the scheduled date for the UK’s departure is coming into sight.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/has-there-been-a-shift-in-support-for-brexit/
As with all these polls it depends on the question asked and the context.
Do you want a people's vote to approve the deal to leave the European union? vs
Do you want a second referendum to stop Brexit?
They almost certainly mean the same thing in practice - but I bet you would get very different polling results. The former implies backing Brexit the latter staying in the EU - but they both could be argued to support a second vote. As we saw with polls recently some remain leaning voters think no deal means staying in the EU.
Does anyone really have any idea what is going on or what is going to happen?
First, that in June 2016 it was insufficiently clear what “leave” would entail, but that this is now clearer. And second, that trying to combine direct and parliamentary forms of democracy has so confounded Britain’s usual political decision-making processes that the resulting impasse can be resolved only by going back to the people.
Each of these premises suggests that if the second referendum is to have any political legitimacy, it will need to comprise three questions, which can be loosely characterised as:
- Leave with no deal
- Leave with the prime minister’s deal
- Remain in the EU on unchanged terms (which, thanks to the Court of Justice of the European Union, we now know that Britain can decide to do unilaterally)
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/01/16/how-to-run-a-new-brexit-referendum-and-disappoint-everyone
Playing the man, much?
https://twitter.com/SDoughtyMP/status/1100138920480772097
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i0o3JRaF2g
Does that make any sense to anyone?
Labour's worst case scenario is now May agreeing to permanent CU and being forced to defend it in the subsequent referendum campaign.
But yes, the PM could cause a lot of discomfort for Labour if she were to say, "fairy nuff, let's do lexit". Not really her style though.
Labour are playing chicken. Which I guess just puts them back in line with everyone else.
If you were going to do 3 options I think the cleanest way is to have two rounds with a couple of weeks in between: First you work out what Brexit is (Deal vs Not), then you make sure you still want to do it (Leave the way you just decided vs Remain).
But I don't think there's a constituency for a No Deal option in Parliament, because the MPs who want No Deal are also outraged at the idea of having another referendum.
As you can imagine my heart bleeds for them.
I mean, No Deal voters are going to be narked off if there was a vote without a No Deal option, and they'd also be narked off if there was a vote that the No Deal option won but the politicians then did some other deal, and they'd be exceedingly narked off at the results (this time on their jobs) of voting for No Deal then refusing to do any kind of deal with anyone. And that's just the people on the *winning* side...
Edit: I'm willing to allow punching and kicking, the lot.
What do you think the EC would do, if a third to a half of every focus group they tried spoiled their test ballots in protest because they couldn't actually vote for their preferred option?
You wouldn't get that many spoiled ballots, though.
Labour foreign affairs spokeswoman Emily Thornberry told ITV a second referendum should present a choice between May’s deal and remaining in the EU, but the Labour spokesman directly contradicted her, saying that would be an unacceptable choice.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-labour-referendum-idUKKCN1QE25S?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5c7482fb1adf640001b8e959&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
tim has a theory....
https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/1100211266059153408
https://twitter.com/GOsborneGenius/status/1100224477965807616
If we can figure out how to pull this trick with Brexit...
https://twitter.com/ReutersWorld/status/1100248334265188352
Corbyn, Milne and plenty of others have been Eurosceptic but that doesn't prove the above
They were all calling Corbyn a disaster socialist pushing for no deal but here we are with Corbyn calling for a second referendum. It just seems to me that this could easily be another in the long list of misreadings of left wing intentions by centrists / right wingers.
We had Southam writing articles a couple of years ago about how the left actively don't want power, all the terrible takes on why the left does what it does are at least poor betting advice even if good trolling.
I know they campaigned for Brexit but surely May's deal, which to them could separate NI and GB more than currently is worse than what they have?
I can see why they might want no deal but I assumed remain was preferable to May's deal.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/labours-muddled-policy-on-brexit/#Author
Do you count Eric Shaw as a "raving Blairite", or the LSE Brexit blog?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/elon-musk-faces-u-s-contempt-claim-for-violating-sec-accord
Someone take his hands away from the 'send' button please ...
https://t.co/AkcKrs80hg?amp=1
Lawyer now needs to tell him to delete the Twitter app from his phone otherwise he's going to end up in prison!
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2019/2/25/18229714/cognizant-facebook-content-moderator-interviews-trauma-working-conditions-arizona
Though fortunately many fans of his realise he's being a dick and say so.
How convenient.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-47365647
Quite apart from the inaccuracy (Labour are not promising a second referendum, they are promising to back a second referendum), is this not breaking some kind of BBC impartiality rule? I can't see how Laura Kuennsberg can know that Labour are planning not to keep their promise!?
In all this discussion, MPs and others are forgetting that any vote to extend A50 endorsed by the HoC is merely a request to the EU for such an extension. This will require unanimous support from key EU institutions and all other 27 EU member states, so in practice cannot be requested at the last minute. It is also unlikely to be granted if there is no clear aim/reason (i.e. a few more months of indecisive discussions would be unwelcome) or if it is for a long period (in practice beyond 30/6/19).
It is in the EU's interest to get Brexit done and dusted, and not have a recalcitrant member in perpetuity, with loads of problematic "opt out" clauses. Any rejoining of the EU by the UK or parts of it should be on standard terms and conditions, as for any new member states.
I looked at the three I take each morning the other day and every one seems to be made outside the UK.
They have collectively trashed it and made clear it would be catastrophic for the UK so how could they legitimately put if forward as an option? Especially if they refused to allow ND as an choice.
Now if they were to offer up Labour's deal on the paper I would be happy...let them take the rap.
There was an extremely good one yesterday when the Guardian warned that no deal Brexit would imperil our right to access the digital archive of Spare Rib magazine.
https://tinyurl.com/y5bwbfov
However, Peak Guardian was achieved with the article that claimed no deal Brexit would cause the Great Nanny Shortage.
Remainers might have to look after little Ella Persephone and tiny Tancred Thomas themselves in the event of No Deal.
No party really wants a referendum, certainly not the Tories. Might increases the chances of a deal passing though.
Interesting times
How convenient.
In the short or medium term, I cannot see how Brexit will improve healthcare. Therefore the options are things remaining the same, or getting worse.
Given the general interconnectedness of all things, and the complexity of healthcare systems, it seems perfectly possible that such a change could cause disruption of various scales. And even a 'small' disruption might be critically important for individuals.
An issue is that such problems are going to be very difficult to predict in advance.