On the topic of novel things that have not previously been discussed here, have you heard of this rather wondrous voting system called the Alternative Vote?
There maybe a thread on AV this weekend.
'Now that the inevitability of Brexit is a lot like virginity, once it is gone it is difficult to get back, so how will Brexit be deflowered? Let me introduce to you the concept of a confirmatory referendum with multiple options.'
Isn’t that wound up in the option for a referendum on remaining, or are you suggesting that such an action should be done without a vote?
No. It needs to be an explicit remain/revoke choice. This option that can lead to leaving.
Opinium have an option of 'Leave with no deal', to a symmetrical question, they need a Remain/Revoke (without a further referendum) option.
Which MPs have proposed revoke without a referendum?
Joanna Cherry, several other SNP MPs, Paul Sweeney.
In total 191 MPs voted to revoke A50 if an extension wasn't granted, to avoid No Deal.
Had she/they done so in January?
Yes.
Why did she write this; "the idea of a temporary cross-party government formed for the purpose of extending Article 50 in order to seek a second EU Referendum, revoke Article 50 and then hold a General Election is gaining increasing currency.", on 21 Jan if she wanted to revoke without a referendum? https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/tale-of-two-unions/
Revoke without a referendum was an option if we were faced with No Deal.
See her comments in November/December 2018 around the time of the ECJ case she brought on unilateral revocation.
Welcome @JackJack. The site has its fair number of Leave representatives, liament.
default.
Or revoke.
A revoke decision without a referendum could be shortly followed by a General Election which would wipe out most of them voting for it.
Lol. You want to try no deal and see what happens.
1. New PM forces revoke vs no deal vs deal choice. 2. Parliament votes for revoke on first reading. 3. PM announces a GE and gets EU extension to do it. 4. Wipe out of Remainers voting for revoke with no referendum. 5. New Leave dominated parliament allows Brexit to go through, with or without a deal. 6. Whatever the damage, next election is five years away.
How do you think the PM gets to call a general election? She needs a two thirds vote in Parliament to be sure of it. If they've just voted to revoke, they're not going to oblige her.
enable.
50%+1 is not enough. It gives everyone else 14 days to try to form a government. Care to bet that no one would try, starting with Jeremy Corbyn?
I am sure Corbyn would try. But he would not get more than 5 Tories, nor would he get CUK, nor the DUP. He doesn't have the numbers.
Then your scenario collapses. If there are the numbers to vote for revoke, there are the numbers to see it though, prior to any election. If there arent the numbers to see it through, it won't have been agreed to in the first place.
Not really, given the Leave PM stays until the election. I don't think the political pressures would allow whatever thin majority existed for revoke would hold together enough to force a constitutional crisis whereby parliament grabs the agenda in contravention of the PM and with an election coming. Especially as a PM could announce that even if it were revoked, they would immediately invoke it again.
But I agree that the scenario is unlikely. The looming threat of this happening with a Revoke means MPs won't do it. The median MPs will either vote for a Deal or abstain and let No Deal happen.
This is why the Tories should get a new leader if they want the party to survive. They havent realised this yet. But they will after the local and European elections wipeout.
The Conservatives do not get to choose the next Prime Minister by themselves through an internal process.
Welcome @JackJack. The site has its fair number of Leave representatives, though they have recently got by turns angrier, quieter, more deranged and weirder. New blood is always welcomed (especially near full moons).
I'm not sure that your idea of holding a referendum but excluding what represents at least half of the population's preferred choice is going to fly, either as a matter of democracy or, more practically, by getting the numbers in Parliament.
I didn't mean in a referendum but as a matter facing parliament. If a PM Raab or Mordaunt made clear they weren't going to agree to another extension, MPs would be deprived of can kicking and would have to vote for a deal or allow no deal by default.
Or revoke.
A revoke decision without a referendum could be shortly followed by a General Election which would wipe out most of them voting for it.
Lol. You want to try no deal and see what happens.
1. New PM forces revoke vs no deal vs deal choice. 2. Parliament votes for revoke on first reading. 3. PM announces a GE and gets EU extension to do it. 4. Wipe out of Remainers voting for revoke with no referendum. 5. New Leave dominated parliament allows Brexit to go through, with or without a deal. 6. Whatever the damage, next election is five years away.
Nope - revoke is 50% of the population and between 45-55% in all constituencies.
In most constituencies the only revoke party would be chuk / lib dems while everyone else offers a variation on leave - so the revoke vote would have a simple choice while leave voters had multiple options.
Hence I suspect all revoke MPs would have a decent chance of retaining their seat.
50% want to revoke?
Edit: 48%+ want to revoke?
What was the Percentage who voted to remain? Do you really expect that has dropped after the last 9 months - especially after May is forced to Accept EU elections and an October 31st departure date.
And remember the negotiations on the final deal with the EU haven’t even begun yet.
I would guess less than 50% of the population want to Revoke without a 2nd Ref - a lot of Remainers are uncomfortable with that idea, I am myself.
In a Deal versus Revoke referendum I think Deal would narrowly win. If Parliament had already approved the Deal subject to that 2nd Ref, that narrow win would see it signed by the PM. Either way the nightmare of Brexit limbo would be over.
The mysterious rise of No Deal Brexit is one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole tale. As has been pointed out many times before, for decades it never even existed as a fringe position with the Leave movement. So where did it spring from and why? My guess is was when it became clear that the EU wasn't going to cave to our every demand. Compromise is for girls, and only be saying 'stuff yer deal' did the Leavers think they could retain some macho pride.
Of course my first comment gets hit by a new thread!
I think this website has increasing gaps in its analysis since it became dominated by Remainers. Speaking to Conservative activists in the last few days, the mood is more one of rage than weariness. This delay has provoked a reaction among usually mild mannered Tories that I haven't seen since the Lisbon controversy. I don't think MPs have quite picked up on the extent of the anger yet but it will hit them shortly. Combined with a wipe out in the local elections and European elections, they will be in a state of shock and awe.
I actually think this is existential for the Tories if they don't get Brexit over the line. The only way that will happen is with a forced Deal vs No Deal choice. I think they need a new leader for that. Probably someone with more tactical intelligence than Boris.
Hard to keep No Deal on the table with this parliament opposed - witness the Cooper bill - and the EU also not up for it.
So that new Tory leader would need to first fight and win a general election.
No Deal is still the default and parliament can't take it off the table without a cooperative PM.
A cause for optimism that occurred to me whilst noticing, and being mildly annoyed by, the inaccurate assertion, via audiobook, that the Battle of Poitiers was fought in 1355 (it was 1356, obviously):
King John's rubbishness gave us Magna Carta. Maybe the festering mountain of excrement that is politics today will be the fertiliser from constitutional roses?
No, I don't believe that either. But then, John was bloody rubbish.
Welcome @JackJack. The site has its fair number of Leave representatives, though they have recently got by turns angrier, quieter, more deranged and weirder. New blood is always welcomed (especially near full moons).
I'm not sure that your idea of holding a referendum but excluding what represents at least half of the population's preferred choice is going to fly, either as a matter of democracy or, more practically, by getting the numbers in Parliament.
I didn't mean in a referendum but as a matter facing parliament. If a PM Raab or Mordaunt made clear they weren't going to agree to another extension, MPs would be deprived of can kicking and would have to vote for a deal or allow no deal by default.
Or revoke.
A revoke decision without a referendum could be shortly followed by a General Election which would wipe out most of them voting for it.
Lol. You want to try no deal and see what happens.
1. New PM forces revoke vs no deal vs deal choice. 2. Parliament votes for revoke on first reading. 3. PM announces a GE and gets EU extension to do it. 4. Wipe out of Remainers voting for revoke with no referendum. 5. New Leave dominated parliament allows Brexit to go through, with or without a deal. 6. Whatever the damage, next election is five years away.
Nope - revoke is 50% of the population and between 45-55% in all constituencies.
In most constituencies the only revoke party would be chuk / lib dems while everyone else offers a variation on leave - so the revoke vote would have a simple choice while leave voters had multiple options.
Hence I suspect all revoke MPs would have a decent chance of retaining their seat.
50% want to revoke?
Edit: 48%+ want to revoke?
Given a forced choice between Revoke and No Deal it's 50/50.
Given various options, about 35% want to Revoke.
That's the thing, 35% want to revoke in part because they think the other option would be, say, No Deal.
Given a forced choice between Revoke and No Deal it's 50/50.
Given various options, about 35% want to Revoke.
I reckon Parliament will widen the franchise.
Add in 16 and 17 year olds and EU citizens and it'll be a Remain landslide.
The latter definitely should get the vote.
Trying to rerun a referendum on a different franchise would probably shift some voters over to Leave, as it would be correctly viewed as a gerrymander.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
Welcome @JackJack. The site has its fair number of Leave representatives, though they have recently got by turns angrier, quieter, more deranged and weirder. New blood is always welcomed (especially near full moons).
I'm not sure that your idea of holding a referendum but excluding what represents at least half of the population's preferred choice is going to fly, either as a matter of democracy or, more practically, by getting the numbers in Parliament.
I didn't mean in a referendum but as a matter facing parliament. If a PM Raab or Mordaunt made clear they weren't going to agree to another extension, MPs would be deprived of can kicking and would have to vote for a deal or allow no deal by default.
Or revoke.
A revoke decision without a referendum could be shortly followed by a General Election which would wipe out most of them voting for it.
Lol. You want to try no deal and see what happens.
1. New PM forces revoke vs no deal vs deal choice. 2. Parliament votes for revoke on first reading. 3. PM announces a GE and gets EU extension to do it. 4. Wipe out of Remainers voting for revoke with no referendum. 5. New Leave dominated parliament allows Brexit to go through, with or without a deal. 6. Whatever the damage, next election is five years away.
Nope - revoke is 50% of the population and between 45-55% in all constituencies.
In most constituencies the only revoke party would be chuk / lib dems while everyone else offers a variation on leave - so the revoke vote would have a simple choice while leave voters had multiple options.
Hence I suspect all revoke MPs would have a decent chance of retaining their seat.
50% want to revoke?
Edit: 48%+ want to revoke?
Given a forced choice between Revoke and No Deal it's 50/50.
Given various options, about 35% want to Revoke.
Any idea what revoke va May’s deal is without any other options as that’s the lowly option
The mysterious rise of No Deal Brexit is one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole tale. As has been pointed out many times before, for decades it never even existed as a fringe position with the Leave movement. So where did it spring from and why? My guess is was when it became clear that the EU wasn't going to cave to our every demand. Compromise is for girls, and only be saying 'stuff yer deal' did the Leavers think they could retain some macho pride.
I think "No Deal" has risen in popularity as a result of Article 50 where the default end point is (supposed to be) No Deal
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
because Mays deal is not the final end state of the relationship.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
Given a forced choice between Revoke and No Deal it's 50/50.
Given various options, about 35% want to Revoke.
I reckon Parliament will widen the franchise.
Add in 16 and 17 year olds and EU citizens and it'll be a Remain landslide.
The latter definitely should get the vote.
Trying to rerun a referendum on a different franchise would probably shift some voters over to Leave, as it would be correctly viewed as a gerrymander.
It'll be a different franchise anyway as the 15,16 and 17 year olds whe weren't allowed to vote last time will next time.
Plus, regrettably but inevitably, quite a few of the Brexit-leaning over 65s have moved to a different constituency altogether.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
It is, but lets be honest it doesnt have much of a chance.
Isn’t that wound up in the option for a referendum on remaining, or are you suggesting that such an action should be done without a vote?
No. It needs to be an explicit remain/revoke choice. This option that can lead to leaving.
Opinium have an option of 'Leave with no deal', to a symmetrical question, they need a Remain/Revoke (without a further referendum) option.
Which MPs have proposed revoke without a referendum?
Joanna Cherry, several other SNP MPs, Paul Sweeney.
In total 191 MPs voted to revoke A50 if an extension wasn't granted, to avoid No Deal.
Had she/they done so in January?
Yes.
Why did she write this; "the idea of a temporary cross-party government formed for the purpose of extending Article 50 in order to seek a second EU Referendum, revoke Article 50 and then hold a General Election is gaining increasing currency.", on 21 Jan if she wanted to revoke without a referendum? https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/tale-of-two-unions/
Revoke without a referendum was an option if we were faced with No Deal.
See her comments in November/December 2018 around the time of the ECJ case she brought on unilateral revocation.
Welcome @JackJack. The site has its fair number of Leave representatives, though they have recently got by turns angrier, quieter, more deranged and weirder. New blood is always welcomed (especially near full moons).
I'm not sure that your idea of holding a referendum but excluding what represents at least half of the population's preferred choice is going to fly, either as a matter of democracy or, more practically, by getting the numbers in Parliament.
I didn't mean in a referendum but as a matter facing parliament. If a PM Raab or Mordaunt made clear they weren't going to agree to another extension, MPs would be deprived of can kicking and would have to vote for a deal or allow no deal by default.
Or revoke.
A revoke decision without a referendum could be shortly followed by a General Election which would wipe out most of them voting for it.
Lol. You want to try no deal and see what happens.
1. New PM forces revoke vs no deal vs deal choice. 2. Parliament votes for revoke on first reading. 3. PM announces a GE and gets EU extension to do it. 4. Wipe out of Remainers voting for revoke with no referendum. 5. New Leave dominated parliament allows Brexit to go through, with or without a deal. 6. Whatever the damage, next election is five years away.
Nope - revoke is 50% of the population and between 45-55% in all constituencies.
In most constituencies the only revoke party would be chuk / lib dems while everyone else offers a variation on leave - so the revoke vote would have a simple choice while leave voters had multiple options.
Hence I suspect all revoke MPs would have a decent chance of retaining their seat.
50% want to revoke?
Edit: 48%+ want to revoke?
Given a forced choice between Revoke and No Deal it's 50/50.
Given various options, about 35% want to Revoke.
Any idea what revoke va May’s deal is without any other options as that’s the lowly option
The most recent numbers I've seen were 50/50 with Survation, 54/46 Remain with Opinium, and 57/43 Remain with YouGov, excluding don't knows/won't votes. . Much turns on how many Leave voters would abstain.
The Conservatives do not get to choose the next Prime Minister by themselves through an internal process.
This highlights a good reasons May should probably head off now, and a new Tory leader be found. Brexit isn't going anywhere till at least October 31st - so in keeping with 'using the time wisely' as Tusk pointed out getting the bloodletting done now and hence, if so forced into a position where parliament VONCs the Gov't at least the Tories will be starting off with a leader they actually want in place.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
A cause for optimism that occurred to me whilst noticing, and being mildly annoyed by, the inaccurate assertion, via audiobook, that the Battle of Poitiers was fought in 1355 (it was 1356, obviously):
King John's rubbishness gave us Magna Carta. Maybe the festering mountain of excrement that is politics today will be the fertiliser from constitutional roses?
No, I don't believe that either. But then, John was bloody rubbish.
Isn't the Magna Carta somewhat over-rated as a signifcant pillar of our modern rights and freedoms? I thought it had more to do with the rights of medieval barons.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
Isn’t that wound up in the option for a referendum on remaining, or are you suggesting that such an action should be done without a vote?
No. It needs to be an explicit remain/revoke choice. This option that can lead to leaving.
Opinium have an option of 'Leave with no deal', to a symmetrical question, they need a Remain/Revoke (without a further referendum) option.
Which MPs have proposed revoke without a referendum?
Joanna Cherry, several other SNP MPs, Paul Sweeney.
In total 191 MPs voted to revoke A50 if an extension wasn't granted, to avoid No Deal.
Had she/they done so in January?
Yes.
Why did she write this; "the idea of a temporary cross-party government formed for the purpose of extending Article 50 in order to seek a second EU Referendum, revoke Article 50 and then hold a General Election is gaining increasing currency.", on 21 Jan if she wanted to revoke without a referendum? https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/tale-of-two-unions/
Revoke without a referendum was an option if we were faced with No Deal.
See her comments in November/December 2018 around the time of the ECJ case she brought on unilateral revocation.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
If they want to vote in the elections that matter (i.e. not the locals), they can become citizens.
Given a forced choice between Revoke and No Deal it's 50/50.
Given various options, about 35% want to Revoke.
I reckon Parliament will widen the franchise.
Add in 16 and 17 year olds and EU citizens and it'll be a Remain landslide.
The latter definitely should get the vote.
Trying to rerun a referendum on a different franchise would probably shift some voters over to Leave, as it would be correctly viewed as a gerrymander.
It'll be a different franchise anyway as the 15,16 and 17 year olds whe weren't allowed to vote last time will next time.
Plus, regrettably but inevitably, quite a few of the Brexit-leaning over 65s have moved to a different constituency altogether.
Granted, but that's a different issue to trying to load the vote in favour of a particular outcome. You might just as well argue for the reintroduction of additional votes for business rate payers, in order to boost Remain a bit more.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
The mysterious rise of No Deal Brexit is one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole tale. As has been pointed out many times before, for decades it never even existed as a fringe position with the Leave movement. So where did it spring from and why? My guess is was when it became clear that the EU wasn't going to cave to our every demand. Compromise is for girls, and only be saying 'stuff yer deal' did the Leavers think they could retain some macho pride.
It emerged when the EU announced it would not accept any deal that allowed the UK to be independent of EU law, and when it became clear much of our elite would not fight for that.
The mysterious rise of No Deal Brexit is one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole tale. As has been pointed out many times before, for decades it never even existed as a fringe position with the Leave movement. So where did it spring from and why? My guess is was when it became clear that the EU wasn't going to cave to our every demand. Compromise is for girls, and only be saying 'stuff yer deal' did the Leavers think they could retain some macho pride.
It was MPs who made No Deal the default in the first place...
It’s simply that leavers would generally prefer No Deal to any underhanded effort to keep us too closely tied to the EU.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
because Mays deal is not the final end state of the relationship.
We can never know what that end state is without taking the first step.
I may be wrong, but I don't see any real pull for a second vote. The People's Vote have succeeded in neutralising the idea that the referendum result must be treated as Holy Writ, because there is an option of confirmation, that may be withheld. But they really want to revoke, not have a second vote. The population is generally fed up with Brexit so politicians are not likely to see much upside in imposing another messy referendum on voter. Brexit will therefore need to be dealt with by parliament.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
The mysterious rise of No Deal Brexit is one of the most bizarre aspects of this whole tale. As has been pointed out many times before, for decades it never even existed as a fringe position with the Leave movement. So where did it spring from and why? My guess is was when it became clear that the EU wasn't going to cave to our every demand. Compromise is for girls, and only be saying 'stuff yer deal' did the Leavers think they could retain some macho pride.
It was MPs who made No Deal the default in the first place...
It’s simply that leavers would generally prefer No Deal to any underhanded effort to keep us too closely tied to the EU.
I think it's A50 that makes No Deal the default, not MPs. To agree a deal you have to invoke A50 but as soon as it's invoked the No Deal default is lurking at theend of a ticking clock.
What numpty European bureaucrat drafted A50 in such dangerous terms?!
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
I may be wrong, but I don't see any real pull for a second vote. The People's Vote have succeeded in neutralising the idea that the referendum result must be treated as Holy Writ, because there is an option of confirmation, that may be withheld. But they really want to revoke, not have a second vote. The population is generally fed up with Brexit so politicians are not likely to see much upside in imposing another messy referendum on voter. Brexit will therefore need to be dealt with by parliament.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
It is still too early. Politics doesn't operate in a vacuum, and a significant shift in public opinion is needed to provide cover for the politicians. I think the surprise of the Euro elections may well be the Remain rather than leave sentiment, but probably not sufficient to put the matter to bed as both extremes are likely to gain at the expense of the old parties.
The other possibility is that Boris or Gove does an Oborne and shows some leadership by advocating we stay in. Ironically that may be Boris's only real (if slim) chance of becoming leader, but he is too far gone down his flight of fancy to be able to see it.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
So have a referendum between the flavours of B
So if 48% of people prefer Remain, 25.9% of people prefer Brexit Version A and 26.1% of people prefer Brexit Version B, the democratic option is Brexit Version B? Seems odd.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
I may be wrong, but I don't see any real pull for a second vote. The People's Vote have succeeded in neutralising the idea that the referendum result must be treated as Holy Writ, because there is an option of confirmation, that may be withheld. But they really want to revoke, not have a second vote. The population is generally fed up with Brexit so politicians are not likely to see much upside in imposing another messy referendum on voter. Brexit will therefore need to be dealt with by parliament.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
Yes I think revoke is a serious option now. Which in a way is a backhanded compliment to the PV campaigners, since they are really all about staying in and I guess most of them would be equally happy with revoke rather than their official target of another vote. Revoke would have been seen as sacrilege a few months ago - the fact it is now openly advocated shows how far, and how fast, the tide has gone out on leave.
Until recently I thought another referendum was the most likely outcome but now I think prolonged A50 extensions are a strong possibility. These avoid either the EU or the UK taking any irrevocable decisions, and the UK will clearly not be in a position to do that unless there is cross party agreement (unlikely) or a general election giving one party a clear majority.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Why not have it now?
Have what?
Oh sorry I thought we were talking about flavours of B!
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
So have a referendum between the flavours of B
So if 48% of people prefer Remain, 25.9% of people prefer Brexit Version A and 26.1% of people prefer Brexit Version B, the democratic option is Brexit Version B? Seems odd.
A cause for optimism that occurred to me whilst noticing, and being mildly annoyed by, the inaccurate assertion, via audiobook, that the Battle of Poitiers was fought in 1355 (it was 1356, obviously):
King John's rubbishness gave us Magna Carta. Maybe the festering mountain of excrement that is politics today will be the fertiliser from constitutional roses?
No, I don't believe that either. But then, John was bloody rubbish.
Isn't the Magna Carta somewhat over-rated as a signifcant pillar of our modern rights and freedoms? I thought it had more to do with the rights of medieval barons.
More significant in what people perceive it to be about than its intention was perhaps. Which can be even more important than reality.
But it should be noted that the statute of limitations for the Swedish allegations - no matter what happens - runs out in mid-August 2020.
That statute of limitations gives Assange an incentive to challenge any Swedish EAW until the time runs out. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, he will have extra opportunities to do so. Ordinary extradition law will apply, so Sweden could issue a standard non-EU-based extradition request like the US has. However, ordinary requests take more time on average to process than EAWs.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
So have a referendum between the flavours of B
So if 48% of people prefer Remain, 25.9% of people prefer Brexit Version A and 26.1% of people prefer Brexit Version B, the democratic option is Brexit Version B? Seems odd.
Depends on the transfers from A....
Well, if you go by AV it does, though that's not the only non-FPTP methodology for resolving preference votes.
But yep, I agree that actually the answer is that we really don't know based on the information I gave. And the only way to find out would be, you guessed it, a referendum with all of the above options on the ballot. One with only Brexit Version A and B wouldn't do it.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
So have a referendum between the flavours of B
So if 48% of people prefer Remain, 25.9% of people prefer Brexit Version A and 26.1% of people prefer Brexit Version B, the democratic option is Brexit Version B? Seems odd.
Depends on the transfers from A....
Remain should have been declared the Victor with less than 50%!!!!
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Why not have it now?
Have what?
Oh sorry I thought we were talking about flavours of B!
The reason why not is because if you are going to have the damn thing I don't think you can exclude an option that three years ago nearly 50% of people and now arguably a greater number than that want. It is wholly wrong to ask people who would not be affected or involved to opine on where we should go from here. It is perfectly legitimate to ask the very same people to confirm they really did want that.
And as for flavours of B there will be some people disappointed. Who do those people who want to join the Euro vote for?
Mike, you must get really pissed off by some of the posts on here then 😀
Mike is as guilty of this as anyone else on here. It was he who spent years telling us that the fact that the EU featured in 7th or 8th place in a poll asking people to list their priorities meant that no one gave a Monkey's about the EU as an issue.
It was obvious at the time - as some of us regularly pointed out - that this was a gross misrepresentation of what the polls were saying but he would never listen and carried on making the same erroneous claims based on that poll set.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
Then leavers had better come up with a realistic form of Leave, then. Which is likely to be softer than where we are with May's deal. The risks of no deal are such that it is never going to be allowed to happen, however much the obsessives keep ranting about it. It's like the death penalty in that its supporters may choose to overlook the risks from the safety of their armchairs, but no responsible government is ever going to introduce it.
Leavers would have been a lot better off if they had accepted the impossibility of no deal at the outset.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
So have a referendum between the flavours of B
From a moral perspective, it's clear that we should be trying to find the Concordet winner. Which is the option that beats out every other option in a head-to-head.
Therefore, we simply need to either have everyone do "ranked choice", or we ask the three questions.
It is wrong to remove an option supported by 40% of the population (say No Deal), and it is also wrong to remove Remain. (Imagine if we'd had an election in 2011 on whether to keep FPTP - that would be stupid, right? You need to have a defined outcome, and - as I predicted at the time, and loudly on here - this was always going to come back and bit us on the arse.)
So: simples. Three pairs of questions. No Deal might win. So might Remain. And so might Mrs May's Withdrawal agreement.
I may be wrong, but I don't see any real pull for a second vote. The People's Vote have succeeded in neutralising the idea that the referendum result must be treated as Holy Writ, because there is an option of confirmation, that may be withheld. But they really want to revoke, not have a second vote. The population is generally fed up with Brexit so politicians are not likely to see much upside in imposing another messy referendum on voter. Brexit will therefore need to be dealt with by parliament.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
Yes I think revoke is a serious option now. Which in a way is a backhanded compliment to the PV campaigners, since they are really all about staying in and I guess most of them would be equally happy with revoke rather than their official target of another vote. Revoke would have been seen as sacrilege a few months ago - the fact it is now openly advocated shows how far, and how fast, the tide has gone out on leave.
Until recently I thought another referendum was the most likely outcome but now I think prolonged A50 extensions are a strong possibility. These avoid either the EU or the UK taking any irrevocable decisions, and the UK will clearly not be in a position to do that unless there is cross party agreement (unlikely) or a general election giving one party a clear majority.
I think revoke would, nods to Norman Wisdom, provoke trouble in store. NW would undoubtedly relish today's BREXIT brouhaha.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Why not have it now?
Have what?
Oh sorry I thought we were talking about flavours of B!
The reason why not is because if you are going to have the damn thing I don't think you can exclude an option that three years ago nearly 50% of people and now arguably a greater number than that want. It is wholly wrong to ask people who would not be affected or involved to opine on where we should go from here. It is perfectly legitimate to ask the very same people to confirm they really did want that.
And as for flavours of B there will be some people disappointed. Who do those people who want to join the Euro vote for?
I'd vote Remain if it were me, and there is no reason to think the public have changed their mind either way.
But my point is, why allow remainer MPs, who didn't like the result of the 2016 referendum, the ability to filibuster the process for 3 years, then declare the original result out of date and have another one without leaving? Because that is what they have done and are attempting to do
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I geto.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
So have a referendum between the flavours of B
From a moral perspective, it's clear that we should be trying to find the Concordet winner. Which is the option that beats out every other option in a head-to-head.
Therefore, we simply need to either have everyone do "ranked choice", or we ask the three questions.
It is wrong to remove an option supported by 40% of the population (say No Deal), and it is also wrong to remove Remain. (Imagine if we'd had an election in 2011 on whether to keep FPTP - that would be stupid, right? You need to have a defined outcome, and - as I predicted at the time, and loudly on here - this was always going to come back and bit us on the arse.)
So: simples. Three pairs of questions. No Deal might win. So might Remain. And so might Mrs May's Withdrawal agreement.
Too risky for the government to ask that question, elegant solution as it might be.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
So have a referendum between the flavours of B
From a moral perspective, it's clear that we should be trying to find the Concordet winner. Which is the option that beats out every other option in a head-to-head.
Therefore, we simply need to either have everyone do "ranked choice", or we ask the three questions.
It is wrong to remove an option supported by 40% of the population (say No Deal), and it is also wrong to remove Remain. (Imagine if we'd had an election in 2011 on whether to keep FPTP - that would be stupid, right? You need to have a defined outcome, and - as I predicted at the time, and loudly on here - this was always going to come back and bit us on the arse.)
So: simples. Three pairs of questions. No Deal might win. So might Remain. And so might Mrs May's Withdrawal agreement.
Politicians are never going to risk putting no deal to voters, for the same reason that there has never been a referendum on the death penalty. Sometimes we do need politicians to save us from ourselves.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Why not have it now?
Have what?
Oh sorry I thought we were talking about flavours of B!
The reason why not is because if you are going to have the damn thing I don't think you can exclude an option that three years ago nearly 50% of people and now arguably a greater number than that want. It is wholly wrong to ask people who would not be affected or involved to opine on where we should go from here. It is perfectly legitimate to ask the very same people to confirm they really did want that.
And as for flavours of B there will be some people disappointed. Who do those people who want to join the Euro vote for?
I'd vote Remain if it were me, and there is no reason to think the public have changed their mind either way.
But my point is, why allow remainer MPs, who didn't like the result of the 2016 referendum, the ability to filibuster the process for 3 years, then declare the original result out of date and have another one without leaving? Because that is what they have done and are attempting to do
But they haven't. Only six remainer Tories voted against the government, balanced off by five Leaver Labour who voted in support.
Brexit has been lost because a bunch of Leaver Tories and the Leaver DUP didn't support the government's deal.
Mike, you must get really pissed off by some of the posts on here then 😀
Mike is as guilty of this as anyone else on here. It was he who spent years telling us that the fact that the EU featured in 7th or 8th place in a poll asking people to list their priorities meant that no one gave a Monkey's about the EU as an issue.
It was obvious at the time - as some of us regularly pointed out - that this was a gross misrepresentation of what the polls were saying but he would never listen and carried on making the same erroneous claims based on that poll set.
No exception was intended. Instances are multitudinous
But it should be noted that the statute of limitations for the Swedish allegations - no matter what happens - runs out in mid-August 2020.
That statute of limitations gives Assange an incentive to challenge any Swedish EAW until the time runs out. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, he will have extra opportunities to do so. Ordinary extradition law will apply, so Sweden could issue a standard non-EU-based extradition request like the US has. However, ordinary requests take more time on average to process than EAWs.
Surely he'd much prefer a short process to a longer one, for the Swedish case? It's hardly as if any judge is going to bail him while they work through it!
I may be wrong, but I don't see any real pull for a second vote. The People's Vote have succeeded in neutralising the idea that the referendum result must be treated as Holy Writ, because there is an option of confirmation, that may be withheld. But they really want to revoke, not have a second vote. The population is generally fed up with Brexit so politicians are not likely to see much upside in imposing another messy referendum on voter. Brexit will therefore need to be dealt with by parliament.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
Ironically that may be Boris's only real (if slim) chance of becoming leader,
That conversion would take him from no chance to zero.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
Then leavers had better come up with a realistic form of Leave, then. Which is likely to be softer than where we are with May's deal. The risks of no deal are such that it is never going to be allowed to happen, however much the obsessives keep ranting about it. It's like the death penalty in that its supporters may choose to overlook the risks from the safety of their armchairs, but no responsible government is ever going to introduce it.
Leavers would have been a lot better off if they had accepted the impossibility of no deal at the outset.
"never's" a little word fighting above its weight, particularly on here. Might "unlikely" be more appropriate with an optional "most"?
Mike, you must get really pissed off by some of the posts on here then 😀
Mike is as guilty of this as anyone else on here. It was he who spent years telling us that the fact that the EU featured in 7th or 8th place in a poll asking people to list their priorities meant that no one gave a Monkey's about the EU as an issue.
It was obvious at the time - as some of us regularly pointed out - that this was a gross misrepresentation of what the polls were saying but he would never listen and carried on making the same erroneous claims based on that poll set.
People who didn't care about the EU had plenty of reasons for opposing the government in the referendum, and many of them did. The Brexit unicorn was imagined into being as a solution for problems that are almost entirely domestic.
You mean implement the measures that the UK never implemented for EU citizens prior to June 2016 and don't seem to implement now for anyone else?
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Yes I was just trying to illustrate how absurd Deal vs Remain is rather than make a point about immigration.
I get that but the next point to make is that the Deal isn't *the Deal*. It is an interim measure so that we can then go and negotiate *the deal*. It is simply an agreement which makes certain safeguards so that there can be space to negotiate the final state between the UK and the EU. It is putting ourselves outside the EU (or "leaving") to be able to do so.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
Farage reckons it is a Treaty
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
But the whole of B was never a possibility! Only one flavour of B could ever be implemented.
So have a referendum between the flavours of B
From a moral perspective, it's clear that we should be trying to find the Concordet winner. Which is the option that beats out every other option in a head-to-head.
Therefore, we simply need to either have everyone do "ranked choice", or we ask the three questions.
It is wrong to remove an option supported by 40% of the population (say No Deal), and it is also wrong to remove Remain. (Imagine if we'd had an election in 2011 on whether to keep FPTP - that would be stupid, right? You need to have a defined outcome, and - as I predicted at the time, and loudly on here - this was always going to come back and bit us on the arse.)
So: simples. Three pairs of questions. No Deal might win. So might Remain. And so might Mrs May's Withdrawal agreement.
Sounds sensible rcs - too sensible for our MPs, I suspect.
Hello. I am the complainant in this case, this poll was flagged by the Telegraph as evidence and my counter was that it asks "What should the PM/MPs do next" and not "What type of Brexit is preferred"
Trust me, they had absolutely nothing they could defend their claim with and IPSO agreed.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Why not have it now?
Have what?
Oh sorry I thought we were talking about flavours of B!
The reason why not is because if you are going to have the damn thing I don't think you can exclude an option that three years ago nearly 50% of people and now arguably a greater number than that want. It is wholly wrong to ask people who would not be affected or involved to opine on where we should go from here. It is perfectly legitimate to ask the very same people to confirm they really did want that.
And as for flavours of B there will be some people disappointed. Who do those people who want to join the Euro vote for?
I'd vote Remain if it were me, and there is no reason to think the public have changed their mind either way.
But my point is, why allow remainer MPs, who didn't like the result of the 2016 referendum, the ability to filibuster the process for 3 years, then declare the original result out of date and have another one without leaving? Because that is what they have done and are attempting to do
True but I don't think they're the only ones being dishonest about their motives. Remainer MPs are objectionable because they're so holier than thou about it.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Why not have it now?
Have what?
Oh sorry I thought we were talking about flavours of B!
And as for flavours of B there will be some people disappointed. Who do those people who want to join the Euro vote for?
I'd vote Remain if it were me, and there is no reason to think the public have changed their mind either way.
But my point is, why allow remainer MPs, who didn't like the result of the 2016 referendum, the ability to filibuster the process for 3 years, then declare the original result out of date and have another one without leaving? Because that is what they have done and are attempting to do
But they haven't. Only six remainer Tories voted against the government, balanced off by five Leaver Labour who voted in support.
Brexit has been lost because a bunch of Leaver Tories and the Leaver DUP didn't support the government's deal.
E.g. Mrs May came back with a deal that couldn't even carry her own party.
Why didn't she consult with them during the process ?
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
Then leavers had better come up with a realistic form of Leave, then. Which is likely to be softer than where we are with May's deal. The risks of no deal are such that it is never going to be allowed to happen, however much the obsessives keep ranting about it. It's like the death penalty in that its supporters may choose to overlook the risks from the safety of their armchairs, but no responsible government is ever going to introduce it.
Leavers would have been a lot better off if they had accepted the impossibility of no deal at the outset.
"never's" a little word fighting above its weight, particularly on here. Might "unlikely" be more appropriate with an optional "most"?
Not when so many spent so long assuring us that the PM meant it when she said that no deal was better than a bad deal, then she got briefed on the economic and political implications of no deal and has striven to avoid it, as any PM would. Same for the EU. So it only happens by some horrendous accident.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Would your proposals embrace reciprocal arrangements?
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
There is no version of Leave that most Leavers like; therein lies the problem.
That's why we should let our elected PM choose
Well, yes, that could have worked. If we had a Tardis it might be worth discussing now, but we don't.
Why not have it now?
Have what?
Oh sorry I thought we were talking about flavours of B!
And as for flavours of B there will be some people disappointed. Who do those people who want to join the Euro vote for?
I'd vote Remain if it were me, and there is no reason to think the public have changed their mind either way.
But my point is, why allow remainer MPs, who didn't like the result of the 2016 referendum, the ability to filibuster the process for 3 years, then declare the original result out of date and have another one without leaving? Because that is what they have done and are attempting to do
But they haven't. Only six remainer Tories voted against the government, balanced off by five Leaver Labour who voted in support.
Brexit has been lost because a bunch of Leaver Tories and the Leaver DUP didn't support the government's deal.
E.g. Mrs May came back with a deal that couldn't even carry her own party.
Why didn't she consult with them during the process ?
There was no deal that would have carried the ERG.
Hello. I am the complainant in this case, this poll was flagged by the Telegraph as evidence and my counter was that it asks "What should the PM/MPs do next" and not "What type of Brexit is preferred"
Trust me, they had absolutely nothing they could defend their claim with and IPSO agreed.
The full question asked for that series of poll was:
"In the event of Parliament voting down the Brexit deal that the Government negotiates with the European Union, what do you think should happen next?"
That doesn't ask what you think MPs or PMs should do, it asks what should happen next.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Because the UK passport holder has an allegiance to the country and is part of the nation in a way that the person that has given his allegiance to Ireland has not. That is what a nation is: a national community of people that are travelling together.
I may be wrong, but I don't see any real pull for a second vote. The People's Vote have succeeded in neutralising the idea that the referendum result must be treated as Holy Writ, because there is an option of confirmation, that may be withheld. But they really want to revoke, not have a second vote. The population is generally fed up with Brexit so politicians are not likely to see much upside in imposing another messy referendum on voter. Brexit will therefore need to be dealt with by parliament.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
Ironically that may be Boris's only real (if slim) chance of becoming leader,
That conversion would take him from no chance to zero.
The country is in desperate need of some real political leadership. Yet it is only journalists so far that have been willing to admit that they were wrong.
In Boris's case he should have done it right after the referendum result, rather than running away into hiding.
Hello. I am the complainant in this case, this poll was flagged by the Telegraph as evidence and my counter was that it asks "What should the PM/MPs do next" and not "What type of Brexit is preferred"
Trust me, they had absolutely nothing they could defend their claim with and IPSO agreed.
Mr. Eagles, allowing people from the EU (beyond the UK) to decide whether the UK remain in the EU or leave it is palpable nonsense.
Either UK citizens living in the EU get to vote in the UK or EU citizens living in the UK are allowed to vote in the UK. You cannot deny both both groups the vote.
Can those of you who object to putting May's deal to a referendum versus Remain explain to me what the objection is please?
I get the 'we shouldn't have a 2nd referendum until we have implemented the 1st' line but the fact is Parliament has not, and in all probability, will never pass the Deal as it stands while the EU has been consistent in saying it will not renegotiate the Deal.
It seems to me Leavers' best chance of achieving Brexit is now to get voters to approve the Deal.
How about Mays deal vs Remain without FOM?
You mean May's Deal versus a Unicorn.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
I know it’s not possible, I’m just trying to illustrate the absurdity of Remain vs a version of Leave that a lot of leavers don’t like
Then leavers had better come up with a realistic form of Leave, then. Which is likely to be softer than where we are with May's deal. The risks of no deal are such that it is never going to be allowed to happen, however much the obsessives keep ranting about it. It's like the death penalty in that its supporters may choose to overlook the risks from the safety of their armchairs, but no responsible government is ever going to introduce it.
Leavers would have been a lot better off if they had accepted the impossibility of no deal at the outset.
"never's" a little word fighting above its weight, particularly on here. Might "unlikely" be more appropriate with an optional "most"?
Not when so many spent so long assuring us that the PM meant it when she said that no deal was better than a bad deal, then she got briefed on the economic and political implications of no deal and has striven to avoid it, as any PM would. Same for the EU. So it only happens by some horrendous accident.
Mr. Eagles, Mr. F is entirely correct. Gerrymandering the franchise to include children and foreigners because the dastardly adult British electorate gave the 'wrong' answer would be a boon for new parties and cause potentially mortal harm to the Conservative Party.
These foreigners can vote in other UK elections, some of them even vote in general elections.
Allowing non-nationals to vote defeats the very concept of citizenship to me.
Applying that strictly, why should a 36 year old with a UK passport who has lived and worked abroad for 14 years since university be able to vote when someone who was born in NI, chooses an Irish passport and citizenship, has always lived and paid taxes in the UK would not be able to vote?
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Would your proposals embrace reciprocal arrangements?
I am not making any proposals beyond saying it is complicated! And that citizenship should be one factor to help decide who can vote, not the only one, long term residency should be another.
Comments
Add in 16 and 17 year olds and EU citizens and it'll be a Remain landslide.
The latter definitely should get the vote.
"The Scottish National party’s Joanna Cherry, one of the politicians involved and a supporter of the People’s Vote campaign"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/27/brexit-european-court-to-rule-on-whether-article-50-can-be-reversed
In a Deal versus Revoke referendum I think Deal would narrowly win. If Parliament had already approved the Deal subject to that 2nd Ref, that narrow win would see it signed by the PM. Either way the nightmare of Brexit limbo would be over.
King John's rubbishness gave us Magna Carta. Maybe the festering mountain of excrement that is politics today will be the fertiliser from constitutional roses?
No, I don't believe that either. But then, John was bloody rubbish.
Wtff is the point of presenting the country with an option the EU won't agree to!?!
Sam the fact is that until a far more extreme party gets into power we are stuck with immigration (from wherever) at levels far higher than I suspect you want.
Ain't nothing to do with the EU.
Plus, regrettably but inevitably, quite a few of the Brexit-leaning over 65s have moved to a different constituency altogether.
So a People's Vote was the first choice and revocation without a referendum if we were facing an imminent No Deal exit.
https://twitter.com/robmcd85/status/1116334612886822912
Isn't the Magna Carta somewhat over-rated as a signifcant pillar of our modern rights and freedoms? I thought it had more to do with the rights of medieval barons.
She voted on it recently.
Like most normal people she has different solutions for different scenarios.
It’s simply that leavers would generally prefer No Deal to any underhanded effort to keep us too closely tied to the EU.
It is not a deal!!!!!!!!!!
We can never know what that end state is without taking the first step.
Sensible parliamentarians (most of them although some are keeping quiet about it) won't want to be associated with the fallout from No Deal. There isn't either the bandwidth or the political will for a long term Brexit resolution in the short or medium term. Which makes the most likely outcomes either revoke with a promise to find a Brexit solution some time in the vague future or Blind Brexit and trust to the transition period going on, essentially forever.
Previously I strongly believed we were headed to permanent transition (Blind Brexit), but now I think Brexit Review (Revoke) is a serious possibility
If it is good enough for the Tory party then it should be good enough for the mother-in-law of Parliaments.
Look, I would vote for it, but I think it is crooked to have a referendum on the whole of A vs a part B which has been trashed by many of the people who vehemently oppose A
What numpty European bureaucrat drafted A50 in such dangerous terms?!
The other possibility is that Boris or Gove does an Oborne and shows some leadership by advocating we stay in. Ironically that may be Boris's only real (if slim) chance of becoming leader, but he is too far gone down his flight of fancy to be able to see it.
Until recently I thought another referendum was the most likely outcome but now I think prolonged A50 extensions are a strong possibility. These avoid either the EU or the UK taking any irrevocable decisions, and the UK will clearly not be in a position to do that unless there is cross party agreement (unlikely) or a general election giving one party a clear majority.
But it should be noted that the statute of limitations for the Swedish allegations - no matter what happens - runs out in mid-August 2020.
That statute of limitations gives Assange an incentive to challenge any Swedish EAW until the time runs out. If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, he will have extra opportunities to do so. Ordinary extradition law will apply, so Sweden could issue a standard non-EU-based extradition request like the US has. However, ordinary requests take more time on average to process than EAWs.
https://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/04/12/playing-for-time-how-brexit-could-help-assange-beat-the-extr
But yep, I agree that actually the answer is that we really don't know based on the information I gave. And the only way to find out would be, you guessed it, a referendum with all of the above options on the ballot. One with only Brexit Version A and B wouldn't do it.
Well that is a new one at least
And as for flavours of B there will be some people disappointed. Who do those people who want to join the Euro vote for?
It was obvious at the time - as some of us regularly pointed out - that this was a gross misrepresentation of what the polls were saying but he would never listen and carried on making the same erroneous claims based on that poll set.
Leavers would have been a lot better off if they had accepted the impossibility of no deal at the outset.
Therefore, we simply need to either have everyone do "ranked choice", or we ask the three questions.
It is wrong to remove an option supported by 40% of the population (say No Deal), and it is also wrong to remove Remain. (Imagine if we'd had an election in 2011 on whether to keep FPTP - that would be stupid, right? You need to have a defined outcome, and - as I predicted at the time, and loudly on here - this was always going to come back and bit us on the arse.)
So: simples. Three pairs of questions. No Deal might win. So might Remain. And so might Mrs May's Withdrawal agreement.
But my point is, why allow remainer MPs, who didn't like the result of the 2016 referendum, the ability to filibuster the process for 3 years, then declare the original result out of date and have another one without leaving? Because that is what they have done and are attempting to do
Even if we allow for exceptions for Irish passport holders, it still seems just that someone who is a long standing resident and tax payer here would have at least similar voting rights as long term ex pats who live abroad and may be out of touch with UK reality.
Brexit has been lost because a bunch of Leaver Tories and the Leaver DUP didn't support the government's deal.
Trust me, they had absolutely nothing they could defend their claim with and IPSO agreed.
Why didn't she consult with them during the process ?
I'd have thought after Theresa got the can kicked to Halloween they'd have wound these "talks" up asap...
"In the event of Parliament voting down the Brexit deal that the Government negotiates with the European Union, what do you think should happen next?"
That doesn't ask what you think MPs or PMs should do, it asks what should happen next.
In Boris's case he should have done it right after the referendum result, rather than running away into hiding.