If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
So what are you afraid of?
Grow up!
Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.
I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.
I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.
Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?
There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
So make any new referendum Deal or No Deal. But Remain cannot be an option. That question was asked and answered.
And as I keep saying Richard it is perfectly legitimate to ask it again
1) because it appears that there is some small movement in the polls which indicate it might be the nation's preference; but mainly because
2) a democratically-elected government mandated to do so will have decided to hold a second referendum.
I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.
From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.
Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS
Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.
I posted these links many moons ago and it looks like I'll have to do so again. Decision making can take place under several conditions (risk, uncertainty, certainty). The referendum a decision made under uncertainty. Things have moved on since then and therefore there is no democratic, moral, or logical deficit by having another referendum.
There is when it's being framed to achieve a desired result. The May deal is not the only basis on which we can leave the EU, therefore it cannot be the only option presented
I hear you. But it is the basis which has been negotiated in good faith by the two parties. I get also that the current government doesn't like it but that is only because some in Parliament dislike it. The reason for a second referendum is to bypass parliament.
A range of options need to be presented if we are to truly undo the supposed knowledge deficit of 2016. Anything else is just fixing it for one side
A range of options is not suitable for a referendum which is really only good for clear yes/no decisions.
This is why the Stewart plan to take the issue to a Citizens Assembly has merit as they would be able to deliberate on the various options available and, unlike MPs, would not be obsessed with trying to gain partisan advantage.
Last GE 8th June 2017. PArliament returned for QS on 21st June 2017. FTPA expires in 2020. Five year term to 20th June 2022. 25 working days later. GE held on Monday 25th July 2022.
You heard it here first. Bet accordingly.
Does the FTPA expire?
I believe its up for review. I assume it may not be. After all, it means a May 2022 election and if Parliament can kick the can just a little longer, then they will.
I do wonder if Parliament can change the length of terms from 5 years to.... oh I don't know.... 100 years.
The next election was delayed at least twice during the Second World War to well beyond 5 years.
That's the spirit! Parliament needs to be extended well beyond 2022. I mean, those pension entitlements won't accrue themselves.
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
You could get squashed by a falling comet at any time, but you still look both ways before crossing a busy road. That's because a speeding taxi is a commonplace and predictable hazard. As are shortages of imported goods in a situation where an underprepared country is suddenly faced with confusing new border arrangements.
Even if you look both ways you can’t “guarantee” you won’t be hit by a speeding taxi
Governments assess risk, balance probabilities, take mitigating actions, etc
I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
You could get squashed by a falling comet at any time, but you still look both ways before crossing a busy road. That's because a speeding taxi is a commonplace and predictable hazard. As are shortages of imported goods in a situation where an underprepared country is suddenly faced with confusing new border arrangements.
Even if you look both ways you can’t “guarantee” you won’t be hit by a speeding taxi
Governments assess risk, balance probabilities, take mitigating actions, etc
They can’t guarantee outcomes. Shit happens.
It does, you're right. But you still take reasonable precautions to guard against predictable tragedies.
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
OMG! HYUDF has uncovered a fatal flaw in the LD's plan! They are not appealing to Leavers!!!!! I have no doubt that when they were formulating their "Revoke Article 50" plan Swinson and Co were relying on attracting votes from TBP as well! HYUDF shows his genius yet again. The LD's must reevaluate immediately. HYUFD is the next Cummings and no mistake.
“Parliament seems incapable of making its mind up so let the people decide”
They did decide.
The main bone of contention at the moment is whether the customs border with the EU should be down the Irish sea or across the island of Ireland. What was the people's decision on this question and when did they make it?
The people’s decision was that the U.K. should leave the EU
Parliament has refused to ratify that with some citing the treatment of NI as the issue
If Parliament is unable to decide it may be appropriate to seek instruction from the principals.
The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.
I posted these links many moons ago and it looks like I'll have to do so again. Decision making can take place under several conditions (risk, uncertainty, certainty). The referendum a decision made under uncertainty. Things have moved on since then and therefore there is no democratic, moral, or logical deficit by having another referendum.
There is when it's being framed to achieve a desired result. The May deal is not the only basis on which we can leave the EU, therefore it cannot be the only option presented
I hear you. But it is the basis which has been negotiated in good faith by the two parties. I get also that the current government doesn't like it but that is only because some in Parliament dislike it. The reason for a second referendum is to bypass parliament.
So you think it’s perfectly fair to present an option which got 48% last time against one that the leaders of the side that got 52% won’t support?!
What next? You’ll be tempting us with even money about the offer of tails with your double headed coin?
Yes I do. The Labour Party will be standing at the next GE as far as I'm aware and they got far from a majority last time round.
The fact is that no deal cannot be on a referendum question not only because of the sheer insanity of the prospect (plenty of lunatic fantasists who "believe" everything will be fine), but because it is just wholly impractical. What "no deal" does it endorse? No deals anymore ever? No "mini-deals" (what they)? No eventual free trade deal which everyone is supposed to want with the EU?
So make the question "leave without the WA" or somesuch but then WAII will be at your girths before you can look over your shoulder (or under it).
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
So what are you afraid of?
Grow up!
Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.
I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.
I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.
Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?
There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
So make any new referendum Deal or No Deal. But Remain cannot be an option. That question was asked and answered.
That question was asked and answered in a different context.
I also don't accept that No Deal should be on a referendum. It would be immoral and irresponsible. If No Deal is going to happen it should be a decision taken by those with the knowledge and understanding of what will happen. It would be like putting healthcare to plebiscite.
Nope you don't get to argue that rubbish. Making the choice between Deal or No Deal answes the question of the form of Brexit. But until such times as we actually leave the Original referendum has not been respected and that question should not be asked again.
Should there be a referendum on letting farmers do surgery on people without medical licenses? No, that would be irresponsible, as would be allowing farmers to do surgery on people.
I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
Interesting assessment of risk. You equate the probability of the sun rising tomorrow with the chances of us running out of medicines post a no deal Brexit and people dying as a result. Those two events in your mind have an equivalent probability.
anothnick says: "FWIW I think Parliament will decide that there is a requirement for an electoral process but it will go for a referendum rather than a general election."
I agree that this is where we are heading. Odds on 2022 GE are much too long IMO.
With regard to a referendum: can they agree the question?
It should be stay or leave followed by if leave wins then current WA deal or no deal.
Why shoukd Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected.
"You have two options: 1) what you have now; 2) something that might make you better off, but we've not worked out how yet."
"I'll have option 2) please. Can you tell me how much better off I'll be with it?"
"We've worked out option 2). You've got one version where you'll be worse off, and another where you'll be much worse off."
"I don't want to be worse off, I want to have what I've got now."
"You don't get a second chance. You chose to make yourself worse off."
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
Why is everyone so reluctant to question pollsters findings on long term hypotheticals, when their track record is so ridiculously poor? It really is like a religion
It would be interesting to compare the reliability of hypothetical opinion polls to other methods previously used in an attempt to divine the future, such as casting bones, studying entrails, etc.
"Why should Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected."
Remainers would be getting two second chances! Remain plus WA agreement (which is not really Brexit). And I`m saying that as a remainer!
Because the majority of people want to remain. Dunno if that was too hard for you, but I'll say it again.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
I can't recall a democratic vote where the result hasn't been implemented before. I think very long term leaving then rejoining may have served the remain cause better. The forces of leave can't be held out forever, certainly not under FPTP anyway. Will Labour go for PR if they have a minority, it's probably that that is crucial in the next parliament for the Lib Dems to push rather than a second referendum.
Well there's Home Rule for Ireland, which is an interesting precedent given that the major stumbling block for Brexit is dealing with the fallout from that clusterfuck.
I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.
From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.
Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
And yet the tangerine moron was citing the Kurds' non-presence at the Normandy landings as some kind of justifcation, an event that was the very antithesis of America First.
The chances of Trump having a rational, thought out position on this are between zero and fuck all, though I guess that reflects the world view of his base pretty well.
An example not a justification
A (particularly dumbuck) example from the past to validate a current action isn't a justification? Ok.
I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
You could get squashed by a falling comet at any time, but you still look both ways before crossing a busy road. That's because a speeding taxi is a commonplace and predictable hazard. As are shortages of imported goods in a situation where an underprepared country is suddenly faced with confusing new border arrangements.
Even if you look both ways you can’t “guarantee” you won’t be hit by a speeding taxi
Governments assess risk, balance probabilities, take mitigating actions, etc
They can’t guarantee outcomes. Shit happens.
Charles we were talking about the sun. Let's have a bet. If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow I will pay you £1,000,000,000. If it rises tomorrow you will pay me £5.
That should reflect adequately your considered view, no?
I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.
From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.
Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS
Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
Trump was elected on an 'America First' agenda, he is only doing what he said he would and only fighting wars where America is directly at threat.
If we criticise him we cannot do so over the Kurds unless we are also willing to send troops to Syria to protect Kurdish lands
Lindsey Graham is a neocon and was a close ally of John McCain so no surprise there.
However while Graham might be able to criticise Trump unless we are prepared to put British boots on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish territory I don't think we have any moral authority to attack Trump in this
I think we have every basis for criticising a country which claims to be our ally but is willing to take action which will likely result in dangerous terrorists being freed to cause carnage in our countries.
"Why should Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected."
Remainers would be getting two second chances! Remain plus WA agreement (which is not really Brexit). And I`m saying that as a remainer!
Because the majority of people want to remain. Dunno if that was too hard for you, but I'll say it again.
The majority of people want to remain.
When will remainers get it. There's no going back. If we were awkward members before then we will be cancerous members after especially when its brought about by an illegitimate so called GNU!
Looks like we've avoided technical recession which would have been declared in mid November and dominated the subsequent narrative. Unless the September figures are really, suddenly grim the Government has dodged a bullet. A win for Boris.
“Parliament seems incapable of making its mind up so let the people decide”
They did decide.
The main bone of contention at the moment is whether the customs border with the EU should be down the Irish sea or across the island of Ireland. What was the people's decision on this question and when did they make it?
The people’s decision was that the U.K. should leave the EU
Parliament has refused to ratify that with some citing the treatment of NI as the issue
If Parliament is unable to decide it may be appropriate to seek instruction from the principals.
The simple reality is that since the vote the UK no longer truly exists. We have a disunited kingdom. The English rather than accepting that the Scottish and the Northern Irish have a different view have been ramming the fact that there are more of them down their throats.
Parliament reflects the fact that there is no consensus amongst the population. As voting is not considered a useful way to proceed and there is no comprimising what is left? Chaos ?
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
anothnick says: "FWIW I think Parliament will decide that there is a requirement for an electoral process but it will go for a referendum rather than a general election."
I agree that this is where we are heading. Odds on 2022 GE are much too long IMO.
With regard to a referendum: can they agree the question?
It should be stay or leave followed by if leave wins then current WA deal or no deal.
Why shoukd Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected.
"You have two options: 1) what you have now; 2) something that might make you better off, but we've not worked out how yet."
"I'll have option 2) please. Can you tell me how much better off I'll be with it?"
"We've worked out option 2). You've got one version where you'll be worse off, and another where you'll be much worse off."
"I don't want to be worse off, I want to have what I've got now."
"You don't get a second chance. You chose to make yourself worse off."
Should there be a referendum on letting farmers do surgery on people without medical licenses? No, that would be irresponsible, as would be allowing farmers to do surgery on people.
A no deal Brexit would be national suicide.
And if you come across a person, or a nation, intent on suicide then there is a duty to do everything possible to stop them.
Having an EU referendum was a bad idea. Having a second one is a worse idea. But at the moment there seem to be no other options apart from national suicide.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
So what are you afraid of?
Grow up!
Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.
I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.
I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.
Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?
There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
Then they should have voted for Mays agreement with the EU.
They didn't. Parliament is sovereign, not the executive. It was May's job to make a deal that could pass Parliament, not Parliaments job to rubber stamp whatever she produced.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
I can't recall a democratic vote where the result hasn't been implemented before. I think very long term leaving then rejoining may have served the remain cause better. The forces of leave can't be held out forever, certainly not under FPTP anyway. Will Labour go for PR if they have a minority, it's probably that that is crucial in the next parliament for the Lib Dems to push rather than a second referendum.
Revisiting the question once wr have left would be absolutely correct. But as you say, doing it before hand to try and overturn the original vote would he unacceptable and extremly dangerous. Long term it will poison both UK and EU politics far more than leaving.
UK politics is poisoned already, there are no good options. My preference would be two votes on consecutive weeks. First, a vote on a negotiated Brexit deal, of the kind promised by the Leave campaign. If that passes, we leave on that basis. If that fails, a second vote a week later on leave with no deal Vs remain. I think we need a fresh mandate to leave without a deal given that is so far from what was offered in 2016. And since Remain is only an option if the negotiated deal is rejected, then the 2016 vote is being respected, up to the point when the circumstances have clearly changed. A final point: if Leavers really think that people haven't changed their mind then they shouldn't mind another referendum. If they do think people have changed their mind then they should allow that change to be reflected.
The idea seems to be to have a second referendum on Remain Vs May - That's the deal they've rejected three times and if implemented would lead the Northern Ireland being annexed.
I wouldn't vote in such a refernedum and I suspect they will struggle to fine anyone to formally campaign for Leave (with the deal)
Vote Leave and Leave.eu would certainly sit it out.
I think I said earlier. Labour are well up for an election as long as the following conditions are met:
1. The Benn act agreed. 2. An extension actually agreed. 3. Actually, sod it. It has to be in a month ending with a 'Z'.
Three easy conditions to meet.
I still don't see how the current parliament makes EURef2 happen, given they can't agree on whose name goes on the No 10 headed paper to send an extension letter.
And as I posted earlier, while I can see the attraction of making Boris swing in the wind for longer, Corbyn looking frit and equally directionless will not do him any favours either.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
So what are you afraid of?
Grow up!
Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.
I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.
I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.
Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?
There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
Then they should have voted for Mays agreement with the EU.
They didn't. Parliament is sovereign, not the executive. It was May's job to make a deal that could pass Parliament, not Parliaments job to rubber stamp whatever she produced.
Labour facing an existential crisis. I'm confident they will be under 200 seats after the next election. Possibly well under.
Stop getting my hopes up
They are utterly fucked, they have no policy on Brexit that makes sense and the Lib Dems are hoovering the remain vote. Labour are in serious trouble everywhere. Sure theyll win in liverpool and Manchester and parts of London but everywhere else the sun is setting on the party of working class betrayal
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
And? The LD's are no more interested in courting leavers than the Tory's are in courting remainers.
However the LDs were previously a repository for people who were sick of the two largest parties. They are now a party of position so voters are likely to view them in terms of their flagship policy.
I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
You could get squashed by a falling comet at any time, but you still look both ways before crossing a busy road. That's because a speeding taxi is a commonplace and predictable hazard. As are shortages of imported goods in a situation where an underprepared country is suddenly faced with confusing new border arrangements.
Even if you look both ways you can’t “guarantee” you won’t be hit by a speeding taxi
Governments assess risk, balance probabilities, take mitigating actions, etc
They can’t guarantee outcomes. Shit happens.
It does, you're right. But you still take reasonable precautions to guard against predictable tragedies.
"Why should Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected."
Remainers would be getting two second chances! Remain plus WA agreement (which is not really Brexit). And I`m saying that as a remainer!
Because the majority of people want to remain. Dunno if that was too hard for you, but I'll say it again.
The majority of people want to remain.
When will remainers get it. There's no going back. If we were awkward members before then we will be cancerous members after especially when its brought about by an illegitimate so called GNU!
When will leavers get it? Brexit is for conmen, xenophobes and thickets. No-deal has no mandate, and most likely there is no longer a majority in favour of the stupidity known as Brexit in any form.
However, we are where we are. Compromise should be the order of the day. Soft Brexit is the logical outcome. If the headbangers want more than that it is up to them to attempt to get support and a further referendum to persuade the gullible.
Xtrain: the referendum doesn`t take into account what we now know.
It has become clear that: leaving the EU is logically inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement; leaving the EU will make it very likely that Scotland will leave the Union; leaving the Eu means that we, one way or other, will be sending billions in divorce settlement.
These factors, and others, were not part of our thinking when we voted in 2016.
I think that Brexiteers are on very thin ice when all they can do is harp on about the 2016 referendum.
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
Not at all if offered a chance to confirm a decision made, by then, four years ago by a slim majority and no agreed method of delivering that decision it is perfectly logical to ask again with the result immediately being written in to law. If those so keen to leave can’t be arsed voting then tough shit. I also expect if this end up with us remaining anyone standing on a leave platform will gain only minor traction from English Nationalists as most people have had enough and will want to move on.
Were I French I would simply say that since the last extension was wasted, another one would only be granted on the basis that there is a referendum to decide between leaving on the basis of the WA or Remaining.
I would have zero appetite for trying to negotiate some other deal either with a majority Johnson government or some other unknown government with all the uncertainties involved.
Take it or leave it.
Parliament seems incapable of making its mind up so let the people decide. A GE risks being, from the EU's perspective, a self-indulgent distraction which may do nothing to resolve matters. Much like the last one.
In what way is that not interfering?
The democratically legitimate option would be deal vs no deal
I didn't say it wasn't. I was merely speculating as to what French reasoning might be.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask a different question to what was asked in the previous referendum.
Both alternatives are different to what was on offer in 2016.
Personally I don't think any responsible government should put as an option a disorderly withdrawal which resolves nothing and leaves everything up in the air. But others may take a different view, of course.
Labour facing an existential crisis. I'm confident they will be under 200 seats after the next election. Possibly well under.
That would be possible if the Tories were not led by a lying incompetent oaf that is happy to damage the country and our economy so he can advance his career by sucking up to headbangers and fools.
The country has a terrible choice. The two party leaders represent the very worst wrecking tendencies of their respective one-time lunatic fringes.
I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.
From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending Kurdish territory from Turkish strikes even if morally the US might still have an obligation to the Kurds.
Plus where are the British and French forces defending the Kurds?
And yet the tangerine moron was citing the Kurds' non-presence at the Normandy landings as some kind of justifcation, an event that was the very antithesis of America First.
The chances of Trump having a rational, thought out position on this are between zero and fuck all, though I guess that reflects the world view of his base pretty well.
An example not a justification
A (particularly dumbuck) example from the past to validate a current action isn't a justification? Ok.
You can’t justify from examples - it’s a logical fallacy. And this was a particularly dumbfuck example.
I can’t guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It probably will but I can’t guarantee it. If it doesn’t there may be deaths. Peoples lives are at risk.
You could get squashed by a falling comet at any time, but you still look both ways before crossing a busy road. That's because a speeding taxi is a commonplace and predictable hazard. As are shortages of imported goods in a situation where an underprepared country is suddenly faced with confusing new border arrangements.
Even if you look both ways you can’t “guarantee” you won’t be hit by a speeding taxi
Governments assess risk, balance probabilities, take mitigating actions, etc
They can’t guarantee outcomes. Shit happens.
Charles we were talking about the sun. Let's have a bet. If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow I will pay you £1,000,000,000. If it rises tomorrow you will pay me £5.
That should reflect adequately your considered view, no?
I’d like an insurance policy that will guarantee the payout please. At your expense, naturally.
The simple reality is that since the vote the UK no longer truly exists. We have a disunited kingdom. The English rather than accepting that the Scottish and the Northern Irish have a different view have been ramming the fact that there are more of them down their throats.
But.... how on earth is that fair?
I recall prior to the referendum, Stugeon asked Cameron in his only TV debate if he would make a condition of the EU Referendum that all four nations had to vote to LEAVE in order to LEAVE. Cameron ignored the question. I mean... he could've accepted the condition but imagine the chaos on the morning of 24th June 2016.
Cameron: "Well, we just had the vote. 17.8m voted to leave the EU. England and Wales both voted 54% to sod off. Only 15.9m voted to stay.
But luckily, Scotland voted to REMAIN, so we aren't leaving.
By the way, I just want to repeat I'm definitely off in 2019, because I'm not going to want to handle the shit storm coming at the 2020 GE."
Nigel_Formain - Soft brexit may be the "logical outcome" but I think that the vast majority - even many brexiters - will agree that any soft brexit is worse than remaining in the EU. Vassallage anyone?
"Why should Remain get a second chance? If the argument is that no one voted for a No Deal first time round then have a vote on the form of Brexit. What is certain is that Remain has already been rejected."
Remainers would be getting two second chances! Remain plus WA agreement (which is not really Brexit). And I`m saying that as a remainer!
Because the majority of people want to remain. Dunno if that was too hard for you, but I'll say it again.
The majority of people want to remain.
When will remainers get it. There's no going back. If we were awkward members before then we will be cancerous members after especially when its brought about by an illegitimate so called GNU!
Why we can get back to taking part and shaping the institution. The only cancerous elements are the ERG and TBP
Labour facing an existential crisis. I'm confident they will be under 200 seats after the next election. Possibly well under.
That would be possible if the Tories were not led by a lying incompetent oaf that is happy to damage the country and our economy so he can advance his career by sucking up to headbangers and fools.
The country has a terrible choice. The two party leaders represent the very worst wrecking tendencies of their respective one-time lunatic fringes.
Tbh I think the voters will destroy labour at the election and the 'sort of' Tory party will disintegrate in government and we will have a new paradigm
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
Not at all if offered a chance to confirm a decision made, by then, four years ago by a slim majority and no agreed method of delivering that decision it is perfectly logical to ask again with the result immediately being written in to law. If those so keen to leave can’t be arsed voting then tough shit. I also expect if this end up with us remaining anyone standing on a leave platform will gain only minor traction from English Nationalists as most people have had enough and will want to move on.
"can't be arsed" is not the same as "whats the point it will be ignored again". I fear your complacency is misplaced. I hope I'm wrong.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
So what are you afraid of?
Grow up!
Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.
I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.
I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.
Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?
There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
Then they should have voted for Mays agreement with the EU.
They didn't. Parliament is sovereign, not the executive. It was May's job to make a deal that could pass Parliament, not Parliaments job to rubber stamp whatever she produced.
The Crown-in-Parliament is sovereign
Potato / tomato
Nope. Important constitutional difference.
Parliament has caused this chaos by trying to expand its authority because it disagrees with the executive
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Yep. Leave voters must do their duty and NOT vote!
Xtrain: the referendum doesn`t take into account what we now know.
It has become clear that: leaving the EU is logically inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement; leaving the EU will make it very likely that Scotland will leave the Union; leaving the Eu means that we, one way or other, will be sending billions in divorce settlement.
These factors, and others, were not part of our thinking when we voted in 2016.
I think that Brexiteers are on very thin ice when all they can do is harp on about the 2016 referendum.
Get a mandate for it in GE. Its about democratic legitimacy.
And Leavers will not forget the Liberal Democrats refusing to respect their vote
And? The LD's are no more interested in courting leavers than the Tory's are in courting remainers.
However the LDs were previously a repository for people who were sick of the two largest parties. They are now a party of position so voters are likely to view them in terms of their flagship policy.
Given the two largest parties are either monomaniacal or incompetent on Brexit I don't think that's changed.
The remain solution to 'nobody knew what they were voting for' seems to be to offer a vote between a discredited deal that has been rejected 3 times and leaves us locked in a backstop indefinitely or what they want. Genius.
I posted these links many moons ago and it looks like I'll have to do so again. Decision making can take place under several conditions (risk, uncertainty, certainty). The referendum a decision made under uncertainty. Things have moved on since then and therefore there is no democratic, moral, or logical deficit by having another referendum.
There is when it's being framed to achieve a desired result. The May deal is not the only basis on which we can leave the EU, therefore it cannot be the only option presented
I hear you. But it is the basis which has been negotiated in good faith by the two parties. I get also that the current government doesn't like it but that is only because some in Parliament dislike it. The reason for a second referendum is to bypass parliament.
So you think it’s perfectly fair to present an option which got 48% last time against one that the leaders of the side that got 52% won’t support?!
What next? You’ll be tempting us with even money about the offer of tails with your double headed coin?
Yes I do. The Labour Party will be standing at the next GE as far as I'm aware and they got far from a majority last time round.
The fact is that no deal cannot be on a referendum question not only because of the sheer insanity of the prospect (plenty of lunatic fantasists who "believe" everything will be fine), but because it is just wholly impractical. What "no deal" does it endorse? No deals anymore ever? No "mini-deals" (what they)? No eventual free trade deal which everyone is supposed to want with the EU?
So make the question "leave without the WA" or somesuch but then WAII will be at your girths before you can look over your shoulder (or under it).
So it is a logistical non-starter.
You want to call heads on the toss of a double headed coin
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
Not at all if offered a chance to confirm a decision made, by then, four years ago by a slim majority and no agreed method of delivering that decision it is perfectly logical to ask again with the result immediately being written in to law. If those so keen to leave can’t be arsed voting then tough shit. I also expect if this end up with us remaining anyone standing on a leave platform will gain only minor traction from English Nationalists as most people have had enough and will want to move on.
"can't be arsed" is not the same as "whats the point it will be ignored again". I fear your complacency is misplaced. I hope I'm wrong.
It can’t if the result is written into law before hand requiring no more legislation so it can’t be ‘ignored’ again. I can’t see however what you mean by ignored the Tory Party has spent 31/2 years arguing with itself so it hasn’t been ignored.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
A more positive interpretation is that the public are open to changing their mind, public debate still matters and political campaigning makes a difference.
I can't recall a democratic vote where the result hasn't been implemented before. I think very long term leaving then rejoining may have served the remain cause better. The forces of leave can't be held out forever, certainly not under FPTP anyway. Will Labour go for PR if they have a minority, it's probably that that is crucial in the next parliament for the Lib Dems to push rather than a second referendum.
Well there's Home Rule for Ireland, which is an interesting precedent given that the major stumbling block for Brexit is dealing with the fallout from that clusterfuck.
Popular Votes not implemented -
The Western Australian separation referendum in the early 1930s.
The Puerto Rico statehood referendum.
Irish Home Rule (as you say) and arguably the all-Ireland vote in favour of a 32 County Republic in 1918.
Newfoundland had two referendums in 1948 - the first one was three way and the option of becoming a self-governing dominion again came top with 44% but didn’t get over 50% of the votes. Union with Canada won in the “run off”.
If we went by the results of opinion polls taken before campaigns started, the Tories would have won a majority in 2010, 2015 would have been a hung parliament, Remain won the referendum, Hilary Clinton would be POTUS, and the Conservatives would now have a three figure majority.
Yet people cling on to them to back up want they want to believe. Truly pitiful
So what are you afraid of?
Grow up!
Had Remain won I wouldn’t have been campaigning for or calling for another referendum without a party with one in their manifesto winning a GE. If you are too full of your own self interest to respect the vote of a majority of the country you’ll have to live with yourself
There was literally a UKIP petition already on the gov website the day of the referendum to ask for another one if the result was 52/48 remain.
I also remember JRM in the House saying we can always have a confirmatory referendum on any deal.
I also remember the entire referendum campaign being around getting a deal being super easy, no deal was project fear, and we could be just like Norway.
Why can't we just be like Norway? Why are the government ignoring the will of the people by not offering a Norway deal?
There is no mandate for a No Deal exit of the EU. The referendum does not provide it. The last election does not provide it. I doubt another election will provide it.
Then they should have voted for Mays agreement with the EU.
They didn't. Parliament is sovereign, not the executive. It was May's job to make a deal that could pass Parliament, not Parliaments job to rubber stamp whatever she produced.
The Crown-in-Parliament is sovereign
Potato / tomato
Nope. Important constitutional difference.
Parliament has caused this chaos by trying to expand its authority because it disagrees with the executive
What they should have done is fired the executive
But that wouldn't solve the problem. A GE won't solve the problem. The fact is the British people were lied to about the effects of a thing they voted for. The politicians who know that it will be overwhelmingly bad do not want to let it happen without at least mitigating it as much as they can. The executive seem to want to self immolate the entire country. And a large chunk, maybe a plurality, possibly even a majority, still believe the lies they were told. I do not think parliament's inaction over removing the executive is good, but I do think it is potentially the least bad option currently available to them.
Which will be refuted by labour talking about “Tory” Swinson. This GE will be particularly brutal.
Interestingy 'Tory' Swinson made a complaint to the ASA about a L'Oreal ad which featured Julia roberts and Christy Turlington on the grounds that the results shown were not representative of the results than can actually be achieved. Both were found to breach the code for exaggeration and being misleading and both ads were pulled.
If only the ASA were allowed to rule on political ads and referendums Johnson might now be ringing bells at Notre Dame
If we look back, not so long ago there is a precedent for calling referendums, or not, on the back of opinion polls.
22 May 2014, UKIP win the Euro Elections... 4 out of the next 7 polls showed Leave ahead in a hypothetical referendum
09 Oct 2014, UKIP win Clacton by Election... 9 out of the next 13 polls show Leave ahead in a hypothetical referendum
20 Oct 2014, UKIP win Rochester by Election... 4 out of the next 6 polls show Leave ahead in a hypothetical referendum
Were there calls for an instant referendum? Or one before the next GE? If the opinion poll devotees are to be believed, it was the perfectly correct thing to do. Just think! We were living under the conditions of the EU despite a clear majority on opinion poll panels guessing that people would vote LEAVE!!
But was anybody calling for a referendum before one was put in the manifesto of a GE winning party?
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
Not at all if offered a chance to confirm a decision made, by then, four years ago by a slim majority and no agreed method of delivering that decision it is perfectly logical to ask again with the result immediately being written in to law. If those so keen to leave can’t be arsed voting then tough shit. I also expect if this end up with us remaining anyone standing on a leave platform will gain only minor traction from English Nationalists as most people have had enough and will want to move on.
"can't be arsed" is not the same as "whats the point it will be ignored again". I fear your complacency is misplaced. I hope I'm wrong.
It can’t if the result is written into law before hand requiring no more legislation so it can’t be ‘ignored’ again. I can’t see however what you mean by ignored the Tory Party has spent 31/2 years arguing with itself so it hasn’t been ignored.
Parliament has rejected May's deal three times so it should not be put before the public as Parliament itself doesn't want it.
Remain should not be on the ballot paper as it already lost a referendum and that decision hasn't been implemented.
No one on the Leave side will campaign in the referendum and most Leavers will just sit it out and then wait to vote, en mass, for leave parties in a subsequent general election whenever it comes.
I don't disagree but Trump remember was elected on an 'America First' agenda.
From his perspective now IS have been defeated there is no need to keep risking US servicemens lives defending the Kurds?
Why are so anti-Kurdish and pro-Putin?
I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS
Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
Trump was elected on an 'America First' agenda, he is only doing what he said he would and only fighting wars where America is directly at threat.
If we criticise him we cannot do so over the Kurds unless we are also willing to send troops to Syria to protect Kurdish lands
Lindsey Graham is a neocon and was a close ally of John McCain so no surprise there.
However while Graham might be able to criticise Trump unless we are prepared to put British boots on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish territory I don't think we have any moral authority to attack Trump in this
I think we have every basis for criticising a country which claims to be our ally but is willing to take action which will likely result in dangerous terrorists being freed to cause carnage in our countries.
No we do not at all unless we are willing to put British troops on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish land and contain imprisoned IS prisoners otherwise we are hypocrites of the highest order.
Though I note even Trump has taken 2 IS prisoners into US custody and the Turks are saying they want a 'buffer zone' from terrorism not to occupy the whole of Kurdistan
Were I French I would simply say that since the last extension was wasted, another one would only be granted on the basis that there is a referendum to decide between leaving on the basis of the WA or Remaining.
I would have zero appetite for trying to negotiate some other deal either with a majority Johnson government or some other unknown government with all the uncertainties involved.
Take it or leave it.
Parliament seems incapable of making its mind up so let the people decide. A GE risks being, from the EU's perspective, a self-indulgent distraction which may do nothing to resolve matters. Much like the last one.
In what way is that not interfering?
The democratically legitimate option would be deal vs no deal
I didn't say it wasn't. I was merely speculating as to what French reasoning might be.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask a different question to what was asked in the previous referendum.
Both alternatives are different to what was on offer in 2016.
Personally I don't think any responsible government should put as an option a disorderly withdrawal which resolves nothing and leaves everything up in the air. But others may take a different view, of course.
In a deal or no deal referendum what would the odds be I wonder?
On topic, I agree with Alastair’s conclusions, with one constraint: the suggestion in the Benn Act letter is for an extension until 31st January.
If that is the extension given, then the election is probably going to have to be on 5th December, or possibly 13th. No-one is going to want to campaign over Christmas (or be seen supporting the idea), and an early January dissolution leads to a mid-February election, most likely 20th if we stick to a 25 day campaign and a Thursday election.
My betting plan here is to base decisions on the extension date proposal, any date other than 31st Jan leads to a 2020 election. (But what do I know, I didn’t see Boris as next PM until it was way too late to still be laying the favourite).
Parliament could be dissolved in mid-December to allow an election to be held on 23rd or 30th January.
The simple reality is that since the vote the UK no longer truly exists. We have a disunited kingdom. The English rather than accepting that the Scottish and the Northern Irish have a different view have been ramming the fact that there are more of them down their throats.
But.... how on earth is that fair?
I recall prior to the referendum, Stugeon asked Cameron in his only TV debate if he would make a condition of the EU Referendum that all four nations had to vote to LEAVE in order to LEAVE. Cameron ignored the question. I mean... he could've accepted the condition but imagine the chaos on the morning of 24th June 2016.
Cameron: "Well, we just had the vote. 17.8m voted to leave the EU. England and Wales both voted 54% to sod off. Only 15.9m voted to stay.
But luckily, Scotland voted to REMAIN, so we aren't leaving.
By the way, I just want to repeat I'm definitely off in 2019, because I'm not going to want to handle the shit storm coming at the 2020 GE."
I mean, politics isn't fair. The UK isn't fair. The history of the political union of these countries is not a history of fairness. In terms of realpolitik, it makes sense for giant constitutional changes to be based on a system where, at bare minimum, a majority of the member states of the union agree.
Roger says: "Meanwhile can Boris be stopped from winning an outright majority while Corbyn still leads the Labour party? I don't think so"
As I keep saying ad nauseam, it all depends on what the BXP do. Farage could yet act in a way which ironically: 1) defeats Brexit (by producing a non-Tory led govenment which referendums/revokes) 2) Makes Corbyn PM
Boris has all the cards. 1. He's unscrupulous. 2. As PM he can offer Farage anything he wants. Ambassador to Washington? 3. Corbyn's people are from the 70's. Techniques have moved on 4. Cummings is perhaps the smartest salesperson in the land 5. All the significant press are in his corner 6. His press are uncritical to the point of acting as his mouthpiece 7. The Mail The Telegraph and The Sun will act as Johnson free-sheets for the length of the campaign 8. Corbyn lends himself to a negative campaign particulary in the hands of the above. There will be no holes barred. He will get the full Michael Foot treatment
“No holes barred”? I’m don’t think even the British tabloids would stoop to violating Corbyn to that extent.
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
Not at all if offered a chance to confirm a decision made, by then, four years ago by a slim majority and no agreed method of delivering that decision it is perfectly logical to ask again with the result immediately being written in to law. If those so keen to leave can’t be arsed voting then tough shit. I also expect if this end up with us remaining anyone standing on a leave platform will gain only minor traction from English Nationalists as most people have had enough and will want to move on.
"can't be arsed" is not the same as "whats the point it will be ignored again". I fear your complacency is misplaced. I hope I'm wrong.
It can’t if the result is written into law before hand requiring no more legislation so it can’t be ‘ignored’ again. I can’t see however what you mean by ignored the Tory Party has spent 31/2 years arguing with itself so it hasn’t been ignored.
Parliament has rejected May's deal three times so it should not be put before the public as Parliament itself doesn't want it.
Remain should not be on the ballot paper as it already lost a referendum and that decision hasn't been implemented.
No one on the Leave side will campaign in the referendum and most Leavers will just sit it out and then wait to vote, en mass for leave parties in a subsequent general election whenever it comes.
So your proposal is a referendum with one option? "Leave the EU"?
I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS
Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
Trump was elected on an 'America First' agenda, he is only doing what he said he would and only fighting wars where America is directly at threat.
If we criticise him we cannot do so over the Kurds unless we are also willing to send troops to Syria to protect Kurdish lands
Lindsey Graham is a neocon and was a close ally of John McCain so no surprise there.
However while Graham might be able to criticise Trump unless we are prepared to put British boots on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish territory I don't think we have any moral authority to attack Trump in this
I think we have every basis for criticising a country which claims to be our ally but is willing to take action which will likely result in dangerous terrorists being freed to cause carnage in our countries.
No we do not at all unless we are willing to put British troops on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish land and contain imprisoned IS prisoners otherwise we are hypocrites of the highest order.
Though I note even Trump has taken 2 IS prisoners into US custody and the Turks are saying they want a 'buffer zone' from terrorism not to occupy the whole of Kurdistan
We shouldn't criticise the Chinese for Uighur internment camps unless we are willing to invade and secure the whole region. Right. Got it.
You want to call heads on the toss of a double headed coin
Not at all. The WA is leaving. You agree with that and so do I. Is it leaving while scuttling the ship ten miles from shore in deep water with sharks circling? No. But then the government does have some responsibility for, you know, the wellbeing of its citizens and no one in power would be as deranged as to offer people the chance to do themselves damage.
We remain in a parliamentary democracy but even they can't prevent us leaving eventually. Because it can all be sorted at the ballot box come GE time. Let's suppose they are super-naughty and keep stopping us leaving, then sure as eggs is eggs there will be a near 100% majority at the GE for The Brexit Party.
So I wouldn't worry about all this shenanigans with a referendum. If the people are so worried about respecting democracy they will give Nigel the mandate to get us out however he damn well likes.
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
Not at all if offered a chance to confirm a decision made, by then, four years ago by a slim majority and no agreed method of delivering that decision it is perfectly logical to ask again with the result immediately being written in to law. If those so keen to leave can’t be arsed voting then tough shit. I also expect if this end up with us remaining anyone standing on a leave platform will gain only minor traction from English Nationalists as most people have had enough and will want to move on.
"can't be arsed" is not the same as "whats the point it will be ignored again". I fear your complacency is misplaced. I hope I'm wrong.
It can’t if the result is written into law before hand requiring no more legislation so it can’t be ‘ignored’ again. I can’t see however what you mean by ignored the Tory Party has spent 31/2 years arguing with itself so it hasn’t been ignored.
Parliament has rejected May's deal three times so it should not be put before the public as Parliament itself doesn't want it.
Remain should not be on the ballot paper as it already lost a referendum and that decision hasn't been implemented.
No one on the Leave side will campaign in the referendum and most Leavers will just sit it out and then wait to vote, en mass, for leave parties in a subsequent general election whenever it comes.
If we go by the pattern of Scotland 2014 and 2015 then a 55% to 45% Remain vote in any EUref2 would be followed by a Boris led Tories or Farage led Brexit Party landslide at the next general election under FPTP, so Labour should be careful what it is pushing for
A second referendum, without an GE mandate, should be boycotted by leave voters. All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well. A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Tough shit if they can’t be bothered voting
Tough shit when governmet is seen as illegitimate. Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
Not at all if offered a chance to confirm a decision made, by then, four years ago by a slim majority and no agreed method of delivering that decision it is perfectly logical to ask again with the result immediately being written in to law. If those so keen to leave can’t be arsed voting then tough shit. I also expect if this end up with us remaining anyone standing on a leave platform will gain only minor traction from English Nationalists as most people have had enough and will want to move on.
"can't be arsed" is not the same as "whats the point it will be ignored again". I fear your complacency is misplaced. I hope I'm wrong.
It can’t if the result is written into law before hand requiring no more legislation so it can’t be ‘ignored’ again. I can’t see however what you mean by ignored the Tory Party has spent 31/2 years arguing with itself so it hasn’t been ignored.
Parliament has rejected May's deal three times so it should not be put before the public as Parliament itself doesn't want it.
Remain should not be on the ballot paper as it already lost a referendum and that decision hasn't been implemented.
No one on the Leave side will campaign in the referendum and most Leavers will just sit it out and then wait to vote, en mass for leave parties in a subsequent general election whenever it comes.
So your proposal is a referendum with one option? "Leave the EU"?
I don't want another refernedum at all but if we must have one the only acceptable choice would be various leave options.
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
You want to call heads on the toss of a double headed coin
Not at all. The WA is leaving. You agree with that and so do I. Is it leaving while scuttling the ship ten miles from shore in deep water with sharks circling? No. But then the government does have some responsibility for, you know, the wellbeing of its citizens and no one in power would be as deranged as to offer people the chance to do themselves damage.
We remain in a parliamentary democracy but even they can't prevent us leaving eventually. Because it can all be sorted at the ballot box come GE time. Let's suppose they are super-naughty and keep stopping us leaving, then sure as eggs is eggs there will be a near 100% majority at the GE for The Brexit Party.
So I wouldn't worry about all this shenanigans with a referendum. If the people are so worried about respecting democracy they will give Nigel the mandate to get us out however he damn well likes.
I’d happily vote for Mays deal, but the other option should be no deal, not remain. It isn’t my fault the MPs risked no deal by failing to vote for the WA, and the public have already rejected Remain.
The longer after 1 Nov an election the more time for Bojo to appear to have another plan. I see little reason for Corbyn to delay VoNC past necessary. Call for VoNC on 17th to be held on 19th Oct. Parliament will still be sitting past 31 Oct so if Boris refuses to send letter/refuses to resign/EU refuse extension then Boris can be expelled (?), install national (dis)unity PM and if no extension vote for revocation.
Delaying beyond 19th Oct makes Corbyn look weak and afraid of election for no good reason AFAICS.
Whether EU would grant extension in time for election to be called on Nov 28 seems rather tight but not impossible and earlier before Christmas and bad weather may be considered desirable.
XTrain says: "Get a mandate for it in GE. Its about democratic legitimacy."
A GE covers a multitude of policy areas - can`t legitimately be used to solve the Brexit single issue. I think you know that.
Representative democracy is deadlocked. It wasn`t in 2016 but is now. Therefore, reverting to direct democracy via a refendum is justfied and necessary now; it was not justifited in 2016.
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
Much in line with what TND was tweeting last night although I note he hasn't actually named the date (26th November) as The Sun was reporting.
I am not anti Kurdish or pro Putin though we shared the aim of both to defeat IS
Now IS is defeated should American servicepeoples lives still be risked to defend Kurdish territory from Turkey when European servicepersons lives are not being risked to do the same?
You’re really missing the point. Turkey would not be invading if American armed forces were not stood down.
Well why can't British and French forces fill the gap then?
American forces are already there and are willing to continue their duty. Your apologism for Trump is really something to behold.
Trump was elected on an 'America First' agenda, he is only doing what he said he would and only fighting wars where America is directly at threat.
If we criticise him we cannot do so over the Kurds unless we are also willing to send troops to Syria to protect Kurdish lands
Lindsey Graham is a neocon and was a close ally of John McCain so no is
I think we have every basis for criticising a country which claims to be our ally but is willing to take action which will likely result in dangerous terrorists being freed to cause carnage in our countries.
No we do not at all unless we are willing to put British troops on the ground in Syria to protect Kurdish land and contain imprisoned IS prisoners otherwise we are hypocrites of the highest order.
Though I note even Trump has taken 2 IS prisoners into US custody and the Turks are saying they want a 'buffer zone' from terrorism not to occupy the whole of Kurdistan
We shouldn't criticise the Chinese for Uighur internment camps unless we are willing to invade and secure the whole region. Right. Got it.
Totally irrelevant to the point, we are criticising Trump for withdrawing US troops from Kurdistan not for creating internment camps for Kurds like the Chinese are with Muslims
Corbyn has just been making a speech in which he has been uncharacteristically clear on the questions of a GE and referendum:
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
"And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide."
The British people were told that before and would have been lied to. Why should they believe it this time? There would be another three years of foot draggingand sabotage, before a third referendum to get the right answer again.
Only if Leave won of course. Remain would be enacted immediately.
Comments
1) because it appears that there is some small movement in the polls which indicate it might be the nation's preference; but mainly because
2) a democratically-elected government mandated to do so will have decided to hold a second referendum.
This is why the Stewart plan to take the issue to a Citizens Assembly has merit as they would be able to deliberate on the various options available and, unlike MPs, would not be obsessed with trying to gain partisan advantage.
All the people that voted in the first ref. that don't usually vote will see voting again as pointless so it will be "won" by remain anyway as the remainers know full well.
A general leave boycott will deny it legitimacy.
Governments assess risk, balance probabilities, take mitigating actions, etc
They can’t guarantee outcomes. Shit happens.
Then there would be a clear mandate for no deal (if that side wins).
IMO will will never get a deal with EU which doesn`t represent vassallage.
Parliament has refused to ratify that with some citing the treatment of NI as the issue
If Parliament is unable to decide it may be appropriate to seek instruction from the principals.
The fact is that no deal cannot be on a referendum question not only because of the sheer insanity of the prospect (plenty of lunatic fantasists who "believe" everything will be fine), but because it is just wholly impractical. What "no deal" does it endorse? No deals anymore ever? No "mini-deals" (what they)? No eventual free trade deal which everyone is supposed to want with the EU?
So make the question "leave without the WA" or somesuch but then WAII will be at your girths before you can look over your shoulder (or under it).
So it is a logistical non-starter.
"I'll have option 2) please. Can you tell me how much better off I'll be with it?"
"We've worked out option 2). You've got one version where you'll be worse off, and another where you'll be much worse off."
"I don't want to be worse off, I want to have what I've got now."
"You don't get a second chance. You chose to make yourself worse off."
"But you told me I'd be better off!"
"No, I said you might be better off."
"Oh no you didn't."
"Oh yes I did"
Ad infinitum.
Dunno if that was too hard for you, but I'll say it again.
The majority of people want to remain.
At least May is a non-unicorn option for Leave. Hapless Tessa might have been, but she remains the only person who has got a deal with the EU!
If we leave Eu it will be against the will of the people.
I think Brexiters now this which is why they are flatly opposed to a second or confirmatory referendum.
That should reflect adequately your considered view, no?
There's no going back. If we were awkward members before then we will be cancerous members after especially when its brought about by an illegitimate
so called GNU!
1. The Benn act agreed.
2. An extension actually agreed.
3. Actually, sod it. It has to be in a month ending with a 'Z'.
Three easy conditions to meet.
Parliament reflects the fact that there is no consensus amongst the population. As voting is not considered a useful way to proceed and there is no comprimising what is left? Chaos ?
Sums up the remainers view of democracy!
And if you come across a person, or a nation, intent on suicide then there is a duty to do everything possible to stop them.
Having an EU referendum was a bad idea. Having a second one is a worse idea. But at the moment there seem to be no other options apart from national suicide.
My preference would be two votes on consecutive weeks.
First, a vote on a negotiated Brexit deal, of the kind promised by the Leave campaign. If that passes, we leave on that basis. If that fails, a second vote a week later on leave with no deal Vs remain. I think we need a fresh mandate to leave without a deal given that is so far from what was offered in 2016. And since Remain is only an option if the negotiated deal is rejected, then the 2016 vote is being respected, up to the point when the circumstances have clearly changed.
A final point: if Leavers really think that people haven't changed their mind then they shouldn't mind another referendum. If they do think people have changed their mind then they should allow that change to be reflected.
I wouldn't vote in such a refernedum and I suspect they will struggle to fine anyone to formally campaign for Leave (with the deal)
Vote Leave and Leave.eu would certainly sit it out.
#shameless
And as I posted earlier, while I can see the attraction of making Boris swing in the wind for longer, Corbyn looking frit and equally directionless will not do him any favours either.
But “guarantee“ means probability of zero
Which is not possible
However, we are where we are. Compromise should be the order of the day. Soft Brexit is the logical outcome. If the headbangers want more than that it is up to them to attempt to get support and a further referendum to persuade the gullible.
It has become clear that: leaving the EU is logically inconsistent with the Good Friday Agreement; leaving the EU will make it very likely that Scotland will leave the Union; leaving the Eu means that we, one way or other, will be sending billions in divorce settlement.
These factors, and others, were not part of our thinking when we voted in 2016.
I think that Brexiteers are on very thin ice when all they can do is harp on about the 2016 referendum.
It is perfectly legitimate to ask a different question to what was asked in the previous referendum.
Both alternatives are different to what was on offer in 2016.
Personally I don't think any responsible government should put as an option a disorderly withdrawal which resolves nothing and leaves everything up in the air. But others may take a different view, of course.
The country has a terrible choice. The two party leaders represent the very worst wrecking tendencies of their respective one-time lunatic fringes.
Surely his Scooby Gang should be running the show by now?!
I recall prior to the referendum, Stugeon asked Cameron in his only TV debate if he would make a condition of the EU Referendum that all four nations had to vote to LEAVE in order to LEAVE. Cameron ignored the question. I mean... he could've accepted the condition but imagine the chaos on the morning of 24th June 2016.
Cameron: "Well, we just had the vote. 17.8m voted to leave the EU. England and Wales both voted 54% to sod off. Only 15.9m voted to stay.
But luckily, Scotland voted to REMAIN, so we aren't leaving.
By the way, I just want to repeat I'm definitely off in 2019, because I'm not going to want to handle the shit storm coming at the 2020 GE."
Why we can get back to taking part and shaping the institution. The only cancerous elements are the ERG and TBP
I fear your complacency is misplaced.
I hope I'm wrong.
Parliament has caused this chaos by trying to expand its authority because it disagrees with the executive
What they should have done is fired the executive
The last words of a multitude
Voting for your own demise seems odd.
I would just let Johnson sort it out,and hope the direction changes to your advantage.
Its about democratic legitimacy.
The Western Australian separation referendum in the early 1930s.
The Puerto Rico statehood referendum.
Irish Home Rule (as you say) and arguably the all-Ireland vote in favour of a 32 County Republic in 1918.
Newfoundland had two referendums in 1948 - the first one was three way and the option of becoming a self-governing dominion again came top with 44% but didn’t get over 50% of the votes. Union with Canada won in the “run off”.
The 1979 Scotland Referendum.
The 2014 Swiss Immigration Referendum
California’s Proposition 8 in 2008
If only the ASA were allowed to rule on political ads and referendums Johnson might now be ringing bells at Notre Dame
22 May 2014, UKIP win the Euro Elections... 4 out of the next 7 polls showed Leave ahead in a hypothetical referendum
09 Oct 2014, UKIP win Clacton by Election... 9 out of the next 13 polls show Leave ahead in a hypothetical referendum
20 Oct 2014, UKIP win Rochester by Election... 4 out of the next 6 polls show Leave ahead in a hypothetical referendum
Were there calls for an instant referendum? Or one before the next GE? If the opinion poll devotees are to be believed, it was the perfectly correct thing to do. Just think! We were living under the conditions of the EU despite a clear majority on opinion poll panels guessing that people would vote LEAVE!!
But was anybody calling for a referendum before one was put in the manifesto of a GE winning party?
It takes away a big bonus for the ruling party, why would they want to give that back to Boris?
Remain should not be on the ballot paper as it already lost a referendum and that decision hasn't been implemented.
No one on the Leave side will campaign in the referendum and most Leavers will just sit it out and then wait to vote, en mass, for leave parties in a subsequent general election whenever it comes.
Though I note even Trump has taken 2 IS prisoners into US custody and the Turks are saying they want a 'buffer zone' from terrorism not to occupy the whole of Kurdistan
1/5 Deal?
We remain in a parliamentary democracy but even they can't prevent us leaving eventually. Because it can all be sorted at the ballot box come GE time. Let's suppose they are super-naughty and keep stopping us leaving, then sure as eggs is eggs there will be a near 100% majority at the GE for The Brexit Party.
So I wouldn't worry about all this shenanigans with a referendum. If the people are so worried about respecting democracy they will give Nigel the mandate to get us out however he damn well likes.
It wasn’t long ago that Johnson was pretending not to want an election. Now he’s pretending that it’s Labour that doesn’t want one.
So let me address this directly:
Prime minister, we can’t trust you not to break the law because you’ve got form.
We can’t trust you not to use the period of an election campaign to drive our country off a No Deal cliff edge that will crash our economy, destroy jobs and industries, cause shortages of medicine and food and endanger peace in Northern Ireland.
So it’s simple: obey the law, take No Deal off the table and then let’s have the election.
and:
The first task of a Labour government will be to finally get Brexit sorted.
After three years of Tory failure, it’s time to take the decision out of the hands of politicians and let the people have the final say.
So a Labour government will immediately legislate for a referendum.
Within six months of being elected we will put that deal to a public vote alongside remain.
And as prime minister I will carry out whatever the people decide.
There’s nothing complicated about that position. It’s really very simple: Labour trusts the people to decide.
(Quotes from the Guardian live blog).
Corbyn is in The Sweeney
Delaying beyond 19th Oct makes Corbyn look weak and afraid of election for no good reason AFAICS.
Whether EU would grant extension in time for election to be called on Nov 28 seems rather tight but not impossible and earlier before Christmas and bad weather may be considered desirable.
A GE covers a multitude of policy areas - can`t legitimately be used to solve the Brexit single issue. I think you know that.
Representative democracy is deadlocked. It wasn`t in 2016 but is now. Therefore, reverting to direct democracy via a refendum is justfied and necessary now; it was not justifited in 2016.
The British people were told that before and would have been lied to. Why should they believe it this time? There would be another three years of foot draggingand sabotage, before a third referendum to get the right answer again.
Only if Leave won of course. Remain would be enacted immediately.