Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leaver case for a second referendum
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leaver case for a second referendum
Once upon a time a grand and determined queen wanted to build a bold new home on the hilltop. Everyday her men would work hard to build the palace only to find on following day their work undone in piles of rubble. The queen was advised to seek help of a local boy born to a virgin mother. The boy advised why the palace could not be built, in a pool beneath the hill two dragons were entwined in combat. He told the queen to dig looking for the lake and the dragons, only once their conflict is resolved can the palace stand and the lands be at peace.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I wasn't clear what you thought should go on the ballot paper?
Deal vs "Remain"? ("Remain" answered in 2016)
Deal vs No Deal? (How to get thru HoC?)
Deal vs Unicorns (Labour position, or any number of other un-negotiated with EU option)
https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1107344660668784642
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
It really is a shocking failure by every one involved on both sides.
If you find yourself getting angry about a procedure (as opposed to an issue) it's worth taking a step back and considering that you probably wouldn't be feeling that if the circumstances were different. That doesn't mean that nobody's right about the procedure, but it does mean you should be suspicious of your own convictions about who it is.
There are also strong tactical moves that No Deal supporters could make in supporting the right kind of referendum, but notwithstanding my previous post, it takes a bit of time to turn an outrage bus around, so I'm not sure if they'll be able to make that pivot.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/comic-relief-down-8m-after-david-lammy-white-saviour-row-dxtv733bp
The question asked was superficially simple: do you want to remain in the EU? I think that anything more complicated than that runs into the same sort of problems that we currently have in the HoC. The attempt by Parliament to fine tune the process has been a disaster. Negotiations are, rightly, a matter for the Executive. I just don’t see this working at all.
It gains them nothing and carries the very real risk of no deal.
The 737 Max is going to have to get properly re-certified from scratch, I don’t see how they are going to get away with anything less.
How they were ever allowed to get away with continuing to use the 52-year-old Type Certificate, for what’s clearly a completely different aeroplane, is a question the FAA need to answer. I think it’s fair to say that they’re not regulating Boeing as well as they should be, and haven’t for some years now - the 787 also had issues on release and had to be grounded.
Personally I can’t see any way that the deal on the table gets passed, there’s too many people ideologically opposed to it who aren’t going to change their minds unless the deal itself changes.
I’m also not sure there’s the numbers for a long extension, and the EU are not going to offer a short one without an agreed deal, because of the dynamics of their own elections in May.
I think the end point is going to be a binary choice either of no deal or revoke A50, closely followed by a general election in which the MPs can be held accountable for their decision.
But as the reporter points out the flaws were well known well before the Ethiopian crash.
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1107518550816759809?s=20
They’ll be gutted in Hartlepool....
I’m not too sure that the largest employer in the city really want the local paper all over their problems, but they’ve clearly got a breadth of industry knowledge from decades of reporting on Boeing. As we’ve discussed previously, most of the MSM reporting on anything to do with aviation is clearly bollocks to anyone with a passing knowledge of the industry.
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2019/03/mystic-hitchens-where-i-was-right-and-where-i-was-wrong-about-the-eu-crisis.html
"A democratically elected Parliament, which wants to stay, will confront a force as great as itself - a national vote, equally democratic, which wants to quit. Are we about to find out what actually happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?"
'Other factors' might include fatigue and just possibly, perhaps a public perception that we need to keep some cash for a rainy day ourselves. I don't get the feeling that there's a public sense of well-being in the nation.
https://twitter.com/trevorsumner/status/1106934362531155974
https://twitter.com/seanfarrington/status/1107526868113260544?s=19
It is as if we had held a referendum on "do you want a fairer voting system?" (or some similar neutrally worded question), and after deciding yes, parliament falls into a huge argument over whether we go for STV or AMS or a List system (as it surely would). The PM wants a List system so she sets about forcing this through.
Meanwhile Boris appears to have worked out how to best bring about May's demise. With Boris against surely the chance of having the vote on Tuesday reduces significantly.
More information here:
http://www.pig-world.co.uk/news/business/27903.html
I'd agree something like this does seem like it should require parliamentary sign off. But I think that would have been the case in the sense legislation would still be needed? Very different if it was a fait accompli though I guess.
I doubt most Leavers would support a second referendum.
That 737 story looks horrendous. Families of those on the Ethiopian plane must be furious.
F1: my post-race analysis of an interesting season opener is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/03/australia-post-race-analysis-2019.html
I was amused to hear the BBC belittling the race as boring. One imagines it would've been full of tension and surprises after testing, had it been on the BBC.
Oh, sorry, you meant the DUP? Hmmm. I'm afraid my objection still applies...
There is a leave case for a second vote. I've been amazed how it has not gained even more traction as an idea in parliament.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see fit (and, no, that does not include choosing to ignore it) and then be judged for it at the next election
A separate point is that introducing a second referendum at this point is changing to rules of the game after the event. If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it
(And, I don’t agree that a second referendum will drain the well. But I thought you story was about Vortigern and his castle not a queen and her palace? The fighting dragons were the Saxons and the British/Welsh)
Ultimately, part of that story suggests that an aircraft was certified as safe despite not meeting minimum regulatory requirements, even though evidence was twisted to try and make it look as though it was compliant. That'a something that just can't be overlooked, especially not after causing north of 300 deaths.
If the government survives they should swallow their pride and do a Brexit deal for the next phase with labour whatever it takes rather than be beholden to the DUP all the time. They're too obviously thrilled at being able to dictate to the Tories.
Part of the reason for this whole sorry mess is that May has made little or no attempt to get Labour on board. For her it's the Tory Way or No Way.
https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1102446242540515328
If you find yourself getting angry about a procedure (as opposed to an issue) it's worth taking a step back and considering that you probably wouldn't be feeling that if the circumstances were different. That doesn't mean that nobody's right about the procedure, but it does mean you should be suspicious of your own convictions about who it is.
Good point well made. Lots of complaints about order of things or the problem with rule x when really its behaviour or culture that's behind an issue too.
It's also why people tinker with procedures a lot because they can when tackling the real issues can be harder.
And as I understand it May made several early efforts to get Labour on board but was repeatedly rebuffed by Corbyn.
I know he doesn't do sandals. But I'm thinking flip-flops might suit?
As I said “if it had been set up front”
But it wasn’t
And now I'm off to the gym for an hour. I'm sure it won't be sorted by the time I come back!
It's also why people tinker with procedures a lot because they can when tackling the real issues can be harder.
Bottom line is people can see it wont have the numbers even if the DUP switch and they're sick of voting on the question.
A few Tories are switching to back it. Have any labour mps said the same? If not it will go the way of MV2. And please God no MV4.
Firstly, the principle that the government is formed by the party that commands a majority in the Commons has been undermined by both main parties giving leadership decisions to their members outside Parliament. That has given us a leader of the opposition that can stay even after losing two confidence votes in the PLP and a PM who stays because her own Parliamentary party are terrified of what alternative the members outside Parliament will vote for should she be deposed by them.
Secondly, Parliamentary Sovereignty has been undermined by the idea that there is another source of sovereignty by which it is bound. If sovereignty is to lie with the people, expressed by a referendum, then so be it, I don’t have a problem with the concept, but it needs to be decided somehow and the rules by which that new sovereignty is exercised. At the moment there is effectively a debate as to where sovereignty lies and how it is to be expressed.
If you are and MP that believes in the constitution as it is (was?) then you need to stop accepting the whip of the two main parties and ignore the referendum and vote with your conscience as to what is in the best interest of your constituents. If you believe there is a new constitutional settlement overriding the above then by all means say so and give the basis on which you come to your conclusions, and outline the new rules so we know what they are.
I know what he's trying to say: that the software worked perfectly but the specification it worked to was incorrect, and that's where the investigators should look - but a) it's far too early to say that, and b) it's rather irrelevant.
1. Get the DUP signed up to the Deal. Say Northern Ireland will get a big regional development fund, acknowledging that decades of The Troubles stunted growth. (With a proviso: the tap gets turned off the moment The Troubles 2 start up. And it will need the devolved executive and assembly back up and running, in order to sign off the process.)
2. Isolate the hardest of hard core Tory rebels. Buy off the waverers. Get the "idealist opposition" down below 20. Those who are prepared to side against the DUP might be as few as 10.
3. Find out, from discussions with their association chairmen, whether they have a preferred local candidate to replace their current MP if they will not pass the deal. Warn them that the selection process may need to be expedited with an EGM. Let the chairmen know you are happy fo rthem to discuss this succession-planning with their current MP.
4. Cabinet sign up to a 3-line whip for MV3. Those that vote against WILL be expelled from the party. That will almost certainly be the end of their Parliamentary careers. Some, like Grieve, will join the TIGs. Some, like Boris, will wave goodbye to their ambitions. Or else rethink. Either way, it will end the power of the ERG and the extreme EUrophiles. Which is why May will get the authority to do it. Whoever succeeds her will have got a coherent, cohesive party back.
5. Cabinet also sign up to a huge increase in the fund for redevelopment of town centres. As now, these towns will have to make well-argued applications, but those Labour MPs representing such northern, Leave-voting towns will be given a private reassurance these locally-driven projects in their constituency will be looked upon favourably. Personally, I can't think of a better way for Hammond to spend his war chest.
6. If MV3 fails, the PM will ask for a lengthy extension, saying she already has Parliamentary authority for this. During that extension, the PM will not stand down. She will wait for the Party to move against her in December. If they have the numbers.
I suspect much of the above is already in play.
A Deal, subject to a binding referendum would pass with a huge majority. If Mrs May wanted it, she could have it.
It looks like Blitz Spirit Brexit will provide a glut of fish & lamb, so we'll just have to revert to kippers & cutlets for brekkie.
MV3 is going to be pulled. May wants to pretend her deal might get approved and knows it will lose in a referendum, so dont vote and go to extension if she can and so preserve the fantasy her deal is not totally rejected as an option yet.
I note that the airy pronouncements of 'no deal it is then', which were once such a staple of pb.com tories, are now thin on in the ground.
Have a good morning.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
If the answer is ‘some’, will it be forthcoming?
And if the answer is ‘none’, is there any scope for the SI on changing Exit Day being argued over?
It seems to me that quite a few MPs would feel the heat of Brexiteers for threatening to support a long delay, and the current pattern of ‘do nothing’ might prevail.
Win or lose, however, it has to happen as it determines the length of the extension requested from the EU.
And even if it was less than that the cabinet would not do it. They don't have the guts to resign when they defy the whip themselves and may lacks the authority to sack them. No way they go against the fear of confronting the party factions that had led May to avoid decisions for so long.
Not least because it immediately destroys the majority even with the DUP.
I have a feeling MV3 will be pulled this week and so our popcorn can stay in the cupboard. We will see tomorrow.
You have my sympathy. A nice try, but as always, you don't explain why there was a different response to the vote because of the result. A Remain win by 52 to 48 would have been met with a satisfied 'Job done'. No mention of the tightness of the result and a determination not to have a re-run 'for a generation.'
Why the difference? Basically arrogance. The 'We know best' illusion writ large. The voters were stupid, misled, and short of information. My superior reasoning can see this, so why can't the fools who voted wrongly see this? That proves they're stupid. We need to reverse this asap.
"I argue this not to bury brexit, but to save brexit from becoming a bad deal or vassalage."
We thank you for your kindness, sir.
Now, back to normal life. My son, who lives in Copenhagen, stocks up with bacon when he visits, claiming that the best stuff goes for export. They have their heads screwed on, those Danes.
Karma, eh?
Winning over the DUP is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Theresa May.