Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
Morning all. The big big news is that I have changed my position on REF2. I still don't want one (unpleasant and divisive) and I still don't think it's coming (unless Labour win a GE offering it) but I do now think there is a solid case for it in principle.
It was a comment from our arch europhile, W Glenn, that got me thinking. He pointed out that even if we leave with No Deal, the EU will not countenance serious trade and future relationship talks unless we commit legally to 3 things, (i) settle our bills, (ii) no deportations, (iii) no border in Ireland.
Recognize that? I do too. It is the essence of the Withdrawal Agreement. It is the Deal. And if true (and it feels like the truth to me) it means that leaving via the Deal is not merely one form of Leave it is the only form of Leave that is possible in the real world as opposed to a fantasy one.
Therefore if MPs cannot find it in their hearts to pass it, what they are saying is that the only realistic form of Leave is unacceptable. Or put another way, Brexit is not possible except in dreamland.
But that is not on. Because in 2016 the people voted to Leave. So a GE to get a different parliament would seem to be in order.
However if that is not possible, or if it is but it fails to unblock the impasse, then yes, REF2, back to the people with the real and only choice - do you want to leave in the only way it is possible to leave or do you, seeing now the reality of leaving, want to stay in the EU?
DEAL vs REMAIN referendum. It is not unfair. It is not a gerrymander. It is not a farce. I take all that back. It works.
Welcome. As noted for example by me to Sam yesterday - It is legitimate and it offers a Leave choice (ie deal).
Based upon your impeccable logic, it would of course be better (and I still think more likely) that the Deal passes, but if not, then EURef2 is the only other alternative.
Morning all. The big big news is that I have changed my position on REF2. I still don't want one (unpleasant and divisive) and I still don't think it's coming (unless Labour win a GE offering it) but I do now think there is a solid case for it in principle.
It was a comment from our arch europhile, W Glenn, that got me thinking. He pointed out that even if we leave with No Deal, the EU will not countenance serious trade and future relationship talks unless we commit legally to 3 things, (i) settle our bills, (ii) no deportations, (iii) no border in Ireland.
Recognize that? I do too. It is the essence of the Withdrawal Agreement. It is the Deal. And if true (and it feels like the truth to me) it means that leaving via the Deal is not merely one form of Leave it is the only form of Leave that is possible in the real world as opposed to a fantasy one.
Therefore if MPs cannot find it in their hearts to pass it, what they are saying is that the only realistic form of Leave is unacceptable. Or put another way, Brexit is not possible except in dreamland.
But that is not on. Because in 2016 the people voted to Leave. So a GE to get a different parliament would seem to be in order.
However if that is not possible, or if it is but it fails to unblock the impasse, then yes, REF2, back to the people with the real and only choice - do you want to leave in the only way it is possible to leave or do you, seeing now the reality of leaving, want to stay in the EU?
DEAL vs REMAIN referendum. It is not unfair. It is not a gerrymander. It is not a farce. I take all that back. It works.
A rational argument, which will no doubt meet with an irrational response.
There was (and conceivably still is) one other possible form of leave (some variant of Norway / Common Market 2), but that hardly invalidates your point. And it's a bit difficult to see a direct route to it now, anyway.
All routes from here (including Norway / Common Market 2) require May's Deal as a starting point...
Exactly. Which is why a referendum on May's deal vs. remain is perfectly sensible (not least as a political solution in terms of ending the current vacuum we find ourselves in....)
Morning all. The big big news is that I have changed my position on REF2. I still don't want one (unpleasant and divisive) and I still don't think it's coming (unless Labour win a GE offering it) but I do now think there is a solid case for it in principle.
It was a comment from our arch europhile, W Glenn, that got me thinking. He pointed out that even if we leave with No Deal, the EU will not countenance serious trade and future relationship talks unless we commit legally to 3 things, (i) settle our bills, (ii) no deportations, (iii) no border in Ireland.
Recognize that? I do too. It is the essence of the Withdrawal Agreement. It is the Deal. And if true (and it feels like the truth to me) it means that leaving via the Deal is not merely one form of Leave it is the only form of Leave that is possible in the real world as opposed to a fantasy one.
Therefore if MPs cannot find it in their hearts to pass it, what they are saying is that the only realistic form of Leave is unacceptable. Or put another way, Brexit is not possible except in dreamland.
But that is not on. Because in 2016 the people voted to Leave. So a GE to get a different parliament would seem to be in order.
However if that is not possible, or if it is but it fails to unblock the impasse, then yes, REF2, back to the people with the real and only choice - do you want to leave in the only way it is possible to leave or do you, seeing now the reality of leaving, want to stay in the EU?
DEAL vs REMAIN referendum. It is not unfair. It is not a gerrymander. It is not a farce. I take all that back. It works.
A rational argument, which will no doubt meet with an irrational response.
There was (and conceivably still is) one other possible form of leave (some variant of Norway / Common Market 2), but that hardly invalidates your point. And it's a bit difficult to see a direct route to it now, anyway.
All routes from here (including Norway / Common Market 2) require May's Deal as a starting point...
Norway would not have done, but probably does now (although with a 12 month extension, it is still conceivable, however unlikely).
Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
What do you mean by Leave? May's Deal equals leave
Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
If politicians are thought to be trying to wriggle out of responsibility for Brexit then it will result in a leave win, by some distance. An angry electorate will deliver the FU vote
Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
It's entirely possible. I'd make Remain clear favourite but not out of sight. The drawback for Leave next time is that it would need to coalesce around a form of Leave. That would lose it votes. On the other hand, the public would not take kindly to being asked the same question again.
That’s why these sort of decisions shouldn’t be up to the legislature
So we should put it back to the people...
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
No problem as far as I am concerned, but I don't think the electorates verdict on the Tory Brexiteers would be to your liking.
Fair enough. If the decision of a GE is a Labour government (on whatever Brexit prospectus Corbyn stands on) then at least we'll have a decision from GBP and we can all move on.
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
We asked them for a decision, but we can't ask them whether that decision should be implemented?
Cons being hammered for May's failure to deliver Brexit.
The PM and the cabinet have failed. No excuses.
Theresa May has to go once she's secured the extension it's as simple as that.
There then needs to be a new leader (Remainers need not apply after May) who is committed to actually delivering Brexit, followed by a new Cabinet, followed by a new Parliament via a general election.
And if it turns out to be an (even more) heavily Remainer Parliament, what then.
In that case we'll have to call the whole thing off (or rather the Labour government will) and we'll have to deal with the fall out after that.
One way or another though this has got to be resolved. We can't keep going along making complete and utter fools of ourselves because MPs are too paralyzed to make a decision.
Can't wait to see Con and Lab manifestos based on remain
"Let's forget about the silly referendum and focus on how to run the NHS with £350m a week less"
Why would we need to do that? the current funding for the NHS has not come from reduced EU subs.
No, May specifically said it was using part of the Brexit Bonus.
MPs aren't going to enjoy being quizzed on why their local hospital can't cope, while we still write mega-cheques to Brussels - when they wouldn't implement their promise to Leave....
What is this Brexit bonus of which you speak? currently we are still paying full subs.
or is it the £350 million per week that is the fiction?
May's NHS boost was for the next five years....and part did indeed come from the Brexit bonus; Here's her sspeech outlining the increases:
"Some of the extra funding I am promising today will come from using the money we will no longer spend on our annual membership subscription to the European Union after we have left.
But the commitment I am making goes beyond that Brexit dividend because the scale of our ambition for our NHS is greater still."
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Cons being hammered for May's failure to deliver Brexit.
The PM and the cabinet have failed. No excuses.
Theresa May has to go once she's secured the extension it's as simple as that.
There then needs to be a new leader (Remainers need not apply after May) who is committed to actually delivering Brexit, followed by a new Cabinet, followed by a new Parliament via a general election.
And if it turns out to be an (even more) heavily Remainer Parliament, what then.
In that case we'll have to call the whole thing off (or rather the Labour government will) and we'll have to deal with the fall out after that.
One way or another though this has got to be resolved. We can't keep going along making complete and utter fools of ourselves because MPs are too paralyzed to make a decision.
Can't wait to see Con and Lab manifestos based on remain
"Let's forget about the silly referendum and focus on how to run the NHS with £350m a week less"
Why would we need to do that? the current funding for the NHS has not come from reduced EU subs.
No, May specifically said it was using part of the Brexit Bonus.
MPs aren't going to enjoy being quizzed on why their local hospital can't cope, while we still write mega-cheques to Brussels - when they wouldn't implement their promise to Leave....
What is this Brexit bonus of which you speak? currently we are still paying full subs.
or is it the £350 million per week that is the fiction?
May's NHS boost was for the next five years....and part did indeed come from the Brexit bonus; Here's her sspeech outlining the increases:
"Some of the extra funding I am promising today will come from using the money we will no longer spend on our annual membership subscription to the European Union after we have left.
But the commitment I am making goes beyond that Brexit dividend because the scale of our ambition for our NHS is greater still."
I'm going to call it a development of my thinking.
Still prefer a GE, though. I love the idea of Oct, and Labour offering REF2 and winning outright. Get a PM who would refuse to talk to Trump, plus some socialism, but at the same time we stay in the EU which prevents too much socialism.
Yes, GE, that's the ticket, but I will no longer be obnoxiously slagging off the very idea of a DEAL v REMAIN referendum.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
All the MPs that have prevented the 2016 referendum being implemented (the Soubry's and Grieves AND the Bakers and Jenkyns) need to be sent back to their constituency's to explain themselves and let the voters sort it out.
Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
It's entirely possible. I'd make Remain clear favourite but not out of sight. The drawback for Leave next time is that it would need to coalesce around a form of Leave. That would lose it votes. On the other hand, the public would not take kindly to being asked the same question again.
I think I'd agree.
But, there is a very strong assumption among campaigners for a re-run that they would win, which could trip them up as again, as in 2015/16.
How does that work when House Prices in London have rising by 250% since 2004 yet up north they haven't changed.
The details would need careful thought, but presumably if the mechanism was something like limiting salary multiples, that would automatically differentiate between areas where house prices were rising excessively and areas where they aren't.
More generally, in the UK and elsewhere we currently have central banks supposedly focusing exclusively on one economic statistic. That might not be optimal.
Morning all. Dyed Woolies patented anti incumbency penalty is going to provide much larks when we get a GE. Which I think is soon, probably July after a lightning tory leader contest, or sooner if the ERG split out in disgust. I think May will quit tomorrow unless she gets June 30, she said she's not going beyond that date with Brexit and we have a non functioning govt. If they grant June 30 and there is a conlab deal I think she goes as soon as it passes parliament. She will remain as PM till the leadership election is done probably if not caretaker Lidington who will agree not to stand These are my morning thoughts
Anything about Mrs May along the lines of "..must resign because she said.." has already been found not to work.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
All the MPs that have prevented the 2016 referendum being implemented (the Soubry's and Grieves AND the Bakers and Jenkyn's) need to be sent back to their constituency's to explain themselves and let the voters sort it out.
Why? You could argue its merely confirmation of the final destination...
Oh and why do you talk about the middle of the road MPs and ignore the muppets in the ERG who merely had to vote for May's Deal and then implement what they wanted in phase 2 after we left the EU.
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
I've no doubt Remain could manage to lose another referendum. After the failure of their unremittingly negative campaign first time round, the lesson they drew, according to Shipman's book, was that they were not negative enough.
Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
It's entirely possible. I'd make Remain clear favourite but not out of sight. The drawback for Leave next time is that it would need to coalesce around a form of Leave. That would lose it votes. On the other hand, the public would not take kindly to being asked the same question again.
I think I'd agree.
But, there is a very strong assumption among campaigners for a re-run that they would win, which could trip them up as again, as in 2015/16.
You assume that all campaigners are crypto-Remainers. I would just like a specific result either way to break the deadlock.
Morning all. Dyed Woolies patented anti incumbency penalty is going to provide much larks when we get a GE. Which I think is soon, probably July after a lightning tory leader contest, or sooner if the ERG split out in disgust. I think May will quit tomorrow unless she gets June 30, she said she's not going beyond that date with Brexit and we have a non functioning govt. If they grant June 30 and there is a conlab deal I think she goes as soon as it passes parliament. She will remain as PM till the leadership election is done probably if not caretaker Lidington who will agree not to stand These are my morning thoughts
Anything about Mrs May along the lines of "..must resign because she said.." has already been found not to work.
I don't think she'll be given a choice this time. There havent been cabinet resignations for a reason imo, that being the next few days have been planned out. As ever I may be barking at the wrong postman
Oh and why do you talk about the middle of the road MPs and ignore the muppets in the ERG who merely had to vote for May's Deal and then implement what they wanted in phase 2 after we left the EU.
You were so desperate to find something to argue about you missed that I specifically mentioned Steve Baker and Andrea Jenkyns alongside Grieve and Soubry?
All the MPs that have prevented the 2016 referendum being implemented (the Soubrys and Grieves AND the Bakers and Jenkyns) need to be sent back to their constituency's to explain themselves and let the voters sort it out.
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
But it's not a bet or a game, is it? It is supposed to be an important political decision
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
Snip
A claim often made and never justified. Which do you want more, the things you wanted in 2016 or the things you want now? And if your wants have not changed over that period where is the harm in confirming that?
How does that work when House Prices in London have rising by 250% since 2004 yet up north they haven't changed.
The details would need careful thought, but presumably if the mechanism was something like limiting salary multiples, that would automatically differentiate between areas where house prices were rising excessively and areas where they aren't.
More generally, in the UK and elsewhere we currently have central banks supposedly focusing exclusively on one economic statistic. That might not be optimal.
I received my quarterly report from the investors of our pension fund this morning. It has been a very good quarter recovering the losses in December. One thing really stood out. The returns, in the last quarter, of our substantial investments in tech giants/Amazon in the US was 20%.
20% return for investing in the largest and, presumably, safest companies in the world? Surely this is a bubble of truly epic proportions. Your comment that our central banks perhaps focus on far too narrow a range of economic statistics brought it to mind.
I've no doubt Remain could manage to lose another referendum. After the failure of their unremittingly negative campaign first time round, the lesson they drew, according to Shipman's book, was that they were not negative enough.
Which is basically the Tory playbook at every election. Some of them still think they werent negative enough in 2017.
Hence the campaign cant be left in the hands of Tories. Which it won't be, since there aren't many Tory Remainers left.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
Snip
A claim often made and never justified. Which do you want more, the things you wanted in 2016 or the things you want now? And if your wants have not changed over that period where is the harm in confirming that?
How often should it be checked? And when should it definitely definitely be my choices forever home?
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
But it's not a bet or a game, is it? It is supposed to be an important political decision
The same principle applies. It's plain why Remain supporters would want a re-run. But why should I agree to a leonine bargain?
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
It's worse than that. If you won again, you know they STILL wouldn't pay out....
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
Snip
A claim often made and never justified. Which do you want more, the things you wanted in 2016 or the things you want now? And if your wants have not changed over that period where is the harm in confirming that?
How often should it be checked? And when should it definitely definitely be my choices forever home?
Obviously you keep checking it until you get the right answer and then you stop.
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
But it's not a bet or a game, is it? It is supposed to be an important political decision
The same principle applies. It's plain why Remain supporters would want a re-run. But why should I agree to a leonine bargain?
In your analogies the voters are the coin you and Mr Lammy toss or the goods or services one of you contracts to sell to the other. In reality they are the actors and you and Mr Lammy are not (except as voters).
This call for a re-run is getting boring. When asked specifically why, the Remainers I know who answer tend to say "Because we might get a different result." Possibly so.
When asked if they would be supporting a re-run if they'd won 52 - 48, the answer, if they do answer, is "Of course not."
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
But it's not a bet or a game, is it? It is supposed to be an important political decision
The same principle applies. It's plain why Remain supporters would want a re-run. But why should I agree to a leonine bargain?
In your analogies the voters are the coin you and Mr Lammy toss or the goods or services one of you contracts to sell to the other. In reality they are the actors and you and Mr Lammy are not (except as voters).
Collectively, then, why should Leave supporters agree?
A rational argument, which will no doubt meet with an irrational response.
There was (and conceivably still is) one other possible form of leave (some variant of Norway / Common Market 2), but that hardly invalidates your point. And it's a bit difficult to see a direct route to it now, anyway.
Rationality is what seems to be missing in the HoC. Or rather it is being trumped by the hard politics of the situation, I suppose is fairer to say.
Norway Plus to me is the same essential Leave proposition, in that it commits us to the sine qua non of money, citizens' rights, and no border in Ireland.
Morning all. The big big news is that I have changed my position on REF2. I still don't want one (unpleasant and divisive) and I still don't think it's coming (unless Labour win a GE offering it) but I do now think there is a solid case for it in principle.
It was a comment from our arch europhile, W Glenn, that got me thinking. He pointed out that even if we leave with No Deal, the EU will not countenance serious trade and future relationship talks unless we commit legally to 3 things, (i) settle our bills, (ii) no deportations, (iii) no border in Ireland.
Recognize that? I do too. It is the essence of the Withdrawal Agreement. It is the Deal. And if true (and it feels like the truth to me) it means that leaving via the Deal is not merely one form of Leave it is the only form of Leave that is possible in the real world as opposed to a fantasy one.
Therefore if MPs cannot find it in their hearts to pass it, what they are saying is that the only realistic form of Leave is unacceptable. Or put another way, Brexit is not possible except in dreamland.
But that is not on. Because in 2016 the people voted to Leave. So a GE to get a different parliament would seem to be in order.
However if that is not possible, or if it is but it fails to unblock the impasse, then yes, REF2, back to the people with the real and only choice - do you want to leave in the only way it is possible to leave or do you, seeing now the reality of leaving, want to stay in the EU?
DEAL vs REMAIN referendum. It is not unfair. It is not a gerrymander. It is not a farce. I take all that back. It works.
The EU are saying that now because they want you to pass the deal. If we were out the situation would be different
1. We would pay our liabilities not the transition payments
2. We’re never going to deport anyway
3. There will be a solution that doesn’t require a customs union. They will have their no deal arrangement in place and we work from there
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
Snip
A claim often made and never justified. Which do you want more, the things you wanted in 2016 or the things you want now? And if your wants have not changed over that period where is the harm in confirming that?
How often should it be checked? And when should it definitely definitely be my choices forever home?
Obviously you keep checking it until you get the right answer and then you stop.
It would be reasonable to recheck when the tribunes of the majority have proven themselves to be clueless about what they want. It's not as though they have a clear plan yet.
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
It's worse than that. If you won again, you know they STILL wouldn't pay out....
Isn't it more like: you win a bet but refuse the payment, because you think the payout should be different but other people think... oh wait this bet analogy doesn't really work does it? except to say if you want a certain payout make sure the terms of the bet specify the exact payment you want before making the bet
I've no doubt Remain could manage to lose another referendum. After the failure of their unremittingly negative campaign first time round, the lesson they drew, according to Shipman's book, was that they were not negative enough.
Despite over two years of relentless remain propaganda (given the referendum campaign has never ceased for them) the fact support for Remain has only marginally increased in the polls might lend support to that thesis.
Those moaning about the idea of a second referendum should note that there are almost as many Lib Dem voters in this poll as active supporters of the government-approved plan for Brexit.
Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
If people still want to leave then that is fine what I can't see the point of us pushing on with such a massive change if people have indeed changed their minds.
The sole reason given for proceeding these days seems to be that we voted for it 3 years ago so we must. Surely it is sensible to check whether we still want it before throwing away our current beneficial terms of membership.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
Snip
A claim often made and never justified. Which do you want more, the things you wanted in 2016 or the things you want now? And if your wants have not changed over that period where is the harm in confirming that?
How often should it be checked? And when should it definitely definitely be my choices forever home?
Obviously you keep checking it until you get the right answer and then you stop.
It would be reasonable to recheck when the tribunes of the majority have proven themselves to be clueless about what they want. It's not as though they have a clear plan yet.
Or we find new Tribunes. I prefer that approach myself.
One upside of a GE is that the CUKs are going to be wiped out and the likes of Grieve and Boles won't be there either. Unfortunately, right now, many of the ERG would be but you can't have everything. Even with the strong likelihood of more Labour MPs I think it is far from clear that the next Parliament will be as pro-remain as this one is.
A thought on polling. UKIP at 7%..... unless they get heavy backing ftom somewhere they can probably only afford to stand a few dozen candidates. Might make a big difference to the result
A thought on polling. UKIP at 7%..... unless they get heavy backing ftom somewhere they can probably only afford to stand a few dozen candidates. Might make a big difference to the result
Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
If people still want to leave then that is fine what I can't see the point of us pushing on with such a massive change if people have indeed changed their minds.
The sole reason given for proceeding these days seems to be that we voted for it 3 years ago so we must. Surely it is sensible to check whether we still want it before throwing away our current beneficial terms of membership.
But I don't believe that you, or Lammy, or Grieve et al would regard it as "fine" if the public voted again to leave.
What I see is a basic asymmetery. You only have to win once. I have to win again and again.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
Snip
A claim often made and never justified. Which do you want more, the things you wanted in 2016 or the things you want now? And if your wants have not changed over that period where is the harm in confirming that?
How often should it be checked? And when should it definitely definitely be my choices forever home?
Obviously you keep checking it until you get the right answer and then you stop.
Don't be silly. That sort of snipey assumption of bad faith really doesn't make you look good and I am not a committed remainer so there isn't a "right answer", at least to me.
To answer the question, I don't know, and that is the problem. You shouldn't have referenda without first having established in advance rules about that sort of thing. Absent any rules we are left with a question of what is reasonable. I think the starting point for guidance, although it doesn't translate directly across, is the rules for General Elections where you have rethinks every 5 years. Crucially you also have provisions to rethink earlier in a crisis, and the smaller the majority in the election the easier it is to force an early rethink. In the current circumstances we have a slim majority and an epic fuck up, and an early rethink therefore looks reasonable to me.
Tory MPs, too clever by half, too stupid by a factor of 100 - on both the Remain and Brexiteer wings. The miracle is that they are still polling in the thirties....
A thought on polling. UKIP at 7%..... unless they get heavy backing ftom somewhere they can probably only afford to stand a few dozen candidates. Might make a big difference to the result
I am sure our Russian friends will oblige.
I think UKIP will be a marginal force in the next GE, their racism will be front and centre. Brexit on the other hand........
Or we find new Tribunes. I prefer that approach myself.
One upside of a GE is that the CUKs are going to be wiped out and the likes of Grieve and Boles won't be there either. Unfortunately, right now, many of the ERG would be but you can't have everything. Even with the strong likelihood of more Labour MPs I think it is far from clear that the next Parliament will be as pro-remain as this one is.
If Conservatives wish to see the last vestiges of anyone who supports remaining in the EU cleared from their party, that is their right. They should also then expect to see Conservatives fade into obscurity as well over time, as they vacate the electoral field among those with significant working careers ahead of them.
Welcome. As noted for example by me to Sam yesterday - It is legitimate and it offers a Leave choice (ie deal).
Based upon your impeccable logic, it would of course be better (and I still think more likely) that the Deal passes, but if not, then EURef2 is the only other alternative.
I now find it hard (sadly) to see this parliament passing the WA. Can't see REF2 being offered either, not under May and not under any of the likely successors.
So perhaps a GE, which Labour win offering the Ref. Would be 2020 by the time such a Ref happens, in that case, so I am happy to lay EU Ref in 2019 at BF range 2.9 to 3.1.
Bottom line seems to be that Real Leave is far less popular than Fantasy Leave. No surprise, really, who doesn't prefer fantasies to mundane everyday life? I certainly do. But it is causing a real headache with this.
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
But it's not a bet or a game, is it? It is supposed to be an important political decision
The same principle applies. It's plain why Remain supporters would want a re-run. But why should I agree to a leonine bargain?
In your analogies the voters are the coin you and Mr Lammy toss or the goods or services one of you contracts to sell to the other. In reality they are the actors and you and Mr Lammy are not (except as voters).
Collectively, then, why should Leave supporters agree?
What does it matter if they don't? There is no motivation for the government to agree to have a General Election.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
All the MPs that have prevented the 2016 referendum being implemented (the Soubry's and Grieves AND the Bakers and Jenkyns) need to be sent back to their constituency's to explain themselves and let the voters sort it out.
I honesstly don't get how it so undemocratic to find out if people have changed their minds in the 3 intervening years since the first vote. What good will come of it if people really no longer want it?
I don't believe the majority of MPs would change their mind if we voted again and got the same result. Look at their track record? They promised by a large majority to honour the first one and made no effort to do so. A consistent majority of MPs voted against everything.
Those moaning about the idea of a second referendum should note that there are almost as many Lib Dem voters in this poll as active supporters of the government-approved plan for Brexit.
Poll could be interpreted as "Leave but stay in Customs Union and Single Market" is pretty much the midpoint compromise of where the public is. It also seems to be the logical choice. I guess it would be where we were heading if a different leader of the opposition had been arguing for it since the referendum.
It would also allow for us leaving the single market and/or customs union at some point in the future (probably several years) if people actually want that - by which time people might have come up with some kind of a plan on how to do it.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
All the MPs that have prevented the 2016 referendum being implemented (the Soubry's and Grieves AND the Bakers and Jenkyns) need to be sent back to their constituency's to explain themselves and let the voters sort it out.
I rhonesstly don't get how it so undemocratic to find out if people have changed their minds in the 3 years since the first vote. What good will come of it if people really no longer want it?
It isn't as long as you accept that the losers will want another check later on, then another and another and you have no cogent argument why they shouldn't as you've already admitted a 'check' is valid
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
All the MPs that have prevented the 2016 referendum being implemented (the Soubry's and Grieves AND the Bakers and Jenkyns) need to be sent back to their constituency's to explain themselves and let the voters sort it out.
I rhonesstly don't get how it so undemocratic to find out if people have changed their minds in the 3 years since the first vote. What good will come of it if people really no longer want it?
More to the point, Leavers have failed at every stage to learn to count. They need to start looking for options they can live with that could command a majority. A fresh referendum is one, and right now looks quite possibly their best shot of getting Brexit delivered given what a Horlicks they have made of the job so far.
A thought on polling. UKIP at 7%..... unless they get heavy backing ftom somewhere they can probably only afford to stand a few dozen candidates. Might make a big difference to the result
I am sure our Russian friends will oblige.
I think UKIP will be a marginal force in the next GE, their racism will be front and centre. Brexit on the other hand........
I dont think islamophobia is particularly a vote loser for the far right. They might even make it a central policy if Javid is Tory leader.
If I won a bet, and the loser of the bet demanded a fresh bet, which had the potential to cost me my winnings, while costing the loser nothing, I'd also be reluctant to agree.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
But it's not a bet or a game, is it? It is supposed to be an important political decision
The same principle applies. It's plain why Remain supporters would want a re-run. But why should I agree to a leonine bargain?
In your analogies the voters are the coin you and Mr Lammy toss or the goods or services one of you contracts to sell to the other. In reality they are the actors and you and Mr Lammy are not (except as voters).
Collectively, then, why should Leave supporters agree?
What does it matter if they don't? There is no motivation for the government to agree to have a General Election.
I think it does matter. If you want to have a second referendum, you probably have to persuade some Leavers, or Leave-supporting MP's, that this is in their interests.
Yes but via a general election not another referendum.
Why can we ask the people to vote again on who represents them, but not on Brexit?
Doesn't sound very democratic...
*SIGH*
Because we asked them in 2016 and they gave a decision but Parliament has refused to implement that decision so we need a general election to sort out how or whether that decision will be be implemented.
You had one of those in 2017. The public decided that it would rather not crush the saboteurs.
But in 2017 both parties stood on leave manifestos as you know...
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
If you want to ask the public a question about Brexit, ask them a question about Brexit. Don't call an election where they may decide, as last time, to vote on completely different grounds.
Another referendum before the 2016 referendum has been implemented is just too undemocratic.
All the MPs that have prevented the 2016 referendum being implemented (the Soubry's and Grieves AND the Bakers and Jenkyns) need to be sent back to their constituency's to explain themselves and let the voters sort it out.
I rhonesstly don't get how it so undemocratic to find out if people have changed their minds in the 3 years since the first vote. What good will come of it if people really no longer want it?
More to the point, Leavers have failed at every stage to learn to count. They need to start looking for options they can live with that could command a majority. A fresh referendum is one, and right now looks quite possibly their best shot of getting Brexit delivered given what a Horlicks they have made of the job so far.
Yes, a binding #peoplesvote is probably Leaves best remaining chance, and it could usefully fill the flextension year.
....and May's talking to Labour? Bringing Long-Bailey into the middle of the Brexit process?Genius.....
I’m probably in a minority of one on PB in that I quite like Rebecca Long-Bailey. She’s a self-made woman, a solicitor, and somehow who has more brains than people credit her with. And lots of drive and work ethnic. Sure, she wears high-street ladieswear and has very blonde hair, speaks pure Manchester, so the PB Tories sneer at her as the ‘brassy barmaid’. But I like her, partly because of that actually.
A thought on polling. UKIP at 7%..... unless they get heavy backing ftom somewhere they can probably only afford to stand a few dozen candidates. Might make a big difference to the result
I am sure our Russian friends will oblige.
I think UKIP will be a marginal force in the next GE, their racism will be front and centre. Brexit on the other hand........
I dont think islamophobia is particularly a vote loser for the far right. They might even make it a central policy if Javid is Tory leader.
It's a 2% position, not a 7% one, the BNP only ever scored highly in isolated pockets
In the local elections, the only choice in my area is Con, Lab or Independent, so if I vote it'll probably be for the Ind but obviously have to check on exactly what he/she is advocating. Sometimes independents are either very left-wing or right-wing.
A thought on polling. UKIP at 7%..... unless they get heavy backing ftom somewhere they can probably only afford to stand a few dozen candidates. Might make a big difference to the result
I am sure our Russian friends will oblige.
I think UKIP will be a marginal force in the next GE, their racism will be front and centre. Brexit on the other hand........
I dont think islamophobia is particularly a vote loser for the far right. They might even make it a central policy if Javid is Tory leader.
It's a 2% position, not a 7% one, the BNP only ever scored highly in isolated pockets
....and May's talking to Labour? Bringing Long-Bailey into the middle of the Brexit process?Genius.....
I’m probably in a minority of one on PB in that I quite like Rebecca Long-Bailey. She’s a self-made woman, a solicitor, and somehow who has more brains than people credit her with. And lots of drive and work ethnic. Sure, she wears high-street ladieswear and has very blonde hair, speaks pure Manchester, so the PB Tories sneer at her as the ‘brassy barmaid’. But I like her, partly because of that actually.
This PB conservative does not sneer at her at all.
Whether she has the ability for her role is another matter
A thought on polling. UKIP at 7%..... unless they get heavy backing ftom somewhere they can probably only afford to stand a few dozen candidates. Might make a big difference to the result
I am sure our Russian friends will oblige.
I think UKIP will be a marginal force in the next GE, their racism will be front and centre. Brexit on the other hand........
I dont think islamophobia is particularly a vote loser for the far right. They might even make it a central policy if Javid is Tory leader.
It's a 2% position, not a 7% one, the BNP only ever scored highly in isolated pockets
The BNP won 8% at their peak.
Not in a GE though, in the euros, on a low turnout in what many see as a meaningless election
I've no doubt Remain could manage to lose another referendum. After the failure of their unremittingly negative campaign first time round, the lesson they drew, according to Shipman's book, was that they were not negative enough.
Even now we see very little positive campaigning for continuing EU membership, almost all we hear from Remainers is something along the lines of "you old racist idiots are going to get us all killed".
Now I think Project Fear 3.0 would almost certainly work and Remain would win handsomely, but if the EU is so great you would think membership would be easy to sell.
That said I'm still convinced EFTA (or something extremely similar) is where we ought to be headed if our politicians really did want to unite the country, and mitigate the problems with leaving the EU or remaining as a member.
Comments
Has anyone considered that another referendum might result in a win for Leave? Recent polling (including this morning's Kantar poll) seems pretty tight.
Based upon your impeccable logic, it would of course be better (and I still think more likely) that the Deal passes, but if not, then EURef2 is the only other alternative.
Doesn't sound very democratic...
"Some of the extra funding I am promising today will come from using the money we will no longer spend on our annual membership subscription to the European Union after we have left.
But the commitment I am making goes beyond that Brexit dividend because the scale of our ambition for our NHS is greater still."
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-the-nhs-18-june-2018
Another reason why we need an election to sort this out one way or another is to stop us going round and round in circles with the same arguments ad infinitum on here...
I'm going to call it a development of my thinking.
Still prefer a GE, though. I love the idea of Oct, and Labour offering REF2 and winning outright. Get a PM who would refuse to talk to Trump, plus some socialism, but at the same time we stay in the EU which prevents too much socialism.
Yes, GE, that's the ticket, but I will no longer be obnoxiously slagging off the very idea of a DEAL v REMAIN referendum.
All the MPs that have prevented the 2016 referendum being implemented (the Soubry's and Grieves AND the Bakers and Jenkyns) need to be sent back to their constituency's to explain themselves and let the voters sort it out.
But, there is a very strong assumption among campaigners for a re-run that they would win, which could trip them up as again, as in 2015/16.
More generally, in the UK and elsewhere we currently have central banks supposedly focusing exclusively on one economic statistic. That might not be optimal.
Oh and why do you talk about the middle of the road MPs and ignore the muppets in the ERG who merely had to vote for May's Deal and then implement what they wanted in phase 2 after we left the EU.
Lammy has to indicate what he is prepared to risk losing, in order to induce me to bet again.
"but we can't ask them whether that decision should be implemented?"
You don't need to, the MPs promised before the referendum and after that it would be implemented. Are they all suffering from short-term memory loss?
20% return for investing in the largest and, presumably, safest companies in the world? Surely this is a bubble of truly epic proportions. Your comment that our central banks perhaps focus on far too narrow a range of economic statistics brought it to mind.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1115926643799932929
Hence the campaign cant be left in the hands of Tories. Which it won't be, since there aren't many Tory Remainers left.
But, if we did have a second referendum and Remain ran a more positive campaign, that could lead to a very significant change.
EU REF 2016: Climb Everest!
GE 2017: ... With one arm and no legs.
Opinion Polls 2019: Why haven't you climbed Everest yet?! WTF?
Nice job, People.
When asked if they would be supporting a re-run if they'd won 52 - 48, the answer, if they do answer, is "Of course not."
Perhaps they're more honest up here?
Norway Plus to me is the same essential Leave proposition, in that it commits us to the sine qua non of money, citizens' rights, and no border in Ireland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRtsgOYJoD4
1. We would pay our liabilities not the transition payments
2. We’re never going to deport anyway
3. There will be a solution that doesn’t require a customs union. They will have their no deal arrangement in place and we work from there
Election Maps UK
@ElectionMapsUK
2h2 hours ago
More
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 35% (+4)
CON: 32% (-9)
LDM: 11% (+3)
UKIP: 7% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-2)
Via @KantarTNS, 4-8 Apr.
Changes w/ 7-11 Mar.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1115929467619291142
Those moaning about the idea of a second referendum should note that there are almost as many Lib Dem voters in this poll as active supporters of the government-approved plan for Brexit.
"But you had one not long ago, Jemima."
"I didn't like that one, want another one."
"We told you before, there's only one."
"Don't care, want another one."
Sorry, but boundaries need to be set otherwise the child is spoiled.
The sole reason given for proceeding these days seems to be that we voted for it 3 years ago so we must. Surely it is sensible to check whether we still want it before throwing away our current beneficial terms of membership.
One upside of a GE is that the CUKs are going to be wiped out and the likes of Grieve and Boles won't be there either. Unfortunately, right now, many of the ERG would be but you can't have everything. Even with the strong likelihood of more Labour MPs I think it is far from clear that the next Parliament will be as pro-remain as this one is.
What I see is a basic asymmetery. You only have to win once. I have to win again and again.
To answer the question, I don't know, and that is the problem. You shouldn't have referenda without first having established in advance rules about that sort of thing. Absent any rules we are left with a question of what is reasonable. I think the starting point for guidance, although it doesn't translate directly across, is the rules for General Elections where you have rethinks every 5 years. Crucially you also have provisions to rethink earlier in a crisis, and the smaller the majority in the election the easier it is to force an early rethink. In the current circumstances we have a slim majority and an epic fuck up, and an early rethink therefore looks reasonable to me.
So perhaps a GE, which Labour win offering the Ref. Would be 2020 by the time such a Ref happens, in that case, so I am happy to lay EU Ref in 2019 at BF range 2.9 to 3.1.
Bottom line seems to be that Real Leave is far less popular than Fantasy Leave. No surprise, really, who doesn't prefer fantasies to mundane everyday life? I certainly do. But it is causing a real headache with this.
That is not a convincing argument.
https://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1115908800920395779?s=19
I don't believe the majority of MPs would change their mind if we voted again and got the same result. Look at their track record? They promised by a large majority to honour the first one and made no effort to do so. A consistent majority of MPs voted against everything.
Those nasty facts spoiling your thesis.
It would also allow for us leaving the single market and/or customs union at some point in the future (probably several years) if people actually want that - by which time people might have come up with some kind of a plan on how to do it.
There are arguments against holding a second referendum but democracy is not one of them.
Bad faith? How do you describe MPs voting to honour the referendum result while doing everything to stop it. A bit of fun?
Whether she has the ability for her role is another matter
Now I think Project Fear 3.0 would almost certainly work and Remain would win handsomely, but if the EU is so great you would think membership would be easy to sell.
That said I'm still convinced EFTA (or something extremely similar) is where we ought to be headed if our politicians really did want to unite the country, and mitigate the problems with leaving the EU or remaining as a member.