politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As more Labour MPs call for a referendum on the deal I’m not c
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As more Labour MPs call for a referendum on the deal I’m not changing my betting position that there won’t be another referendum
INDEPENDENT DIGITAL: Labour MPs tell Corbyn to back new referendum #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/uljMBCIYx3
Comments
-
I just wonder how the numbers stack up within the Conservative Party. Obviously the others matter a lot as well but what might be the deciding factor is how many blue MPs would go for a second referendum.
Edited extra bit: link to my little early Canada ramble:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2018/06/early-canada-ramble.html0 -
Funny, it's on the main site but I can't see it in Vanilla Forums.
Edit: ah, it's just appeared.0 -
On topic, as I understand it, even in the Leave voting areas, most Labour voters voted Remain.
0 -
We can't have a referendum on deal or 'dont leave' until we have a ruling from CJEU if that is indeed possible. Then we need to organise, campaign for and hold a referendum. Then we need a short act through parliament authorising the PM to withdraw Article 50 (for the same reasons as we needed one to authorise her to place it), plus settle any legal challenges that arise at any point in the above, all before March next year, seems a bit unlikely.
Should the CJEU rule that Article 50 isn't revocable it all becomes a bit moot.0 -
FPT:
I've had that for a bit now. It's in the bay platform 6 at Woking in between measurement train duties.david_herdson said:
Have you changed your user pic for today's topic or was it always a class 37 (and where's it passing through?)tlg86 said:Big win for the bookies in The Derby.
0 -
FPT - I wonder if New Zealand is a good comparison. Circumstances are different in certain crucial ways. They are not part of a large integrated manufacturing system like we are and they don't have a land border (indeed, it's further from New Zealand to Australia than it is from Penzance to Thurso) so things like customs barriers are not necessarily such a problem.0
-
Typo in your last sentence TSE?0
-
Well spotted.RobinWiggs said:Typo in your last sentence TSE?
This was a last minute thread written at a cold Headingley.0 -
Are you in fancy dress?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well spotted.RobinWiggs said:Typo in your last sentence TSE?
This was a last minute thread written at a cold Headingley.0 -
Nope, jeans, England rugby shirt, and North Face jacket.tlg86 said:
Are you in fancy dress?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well spotted.RobinWiggs said:Typo in your last sentence TSE?
This was a last minute thread written at a cold Headingley.
Winners of the fancy dress contest are the chaps dressed up as David Warner replete with sandpaper.0 -
Very little indiginous manufacturing to protect either, so tariffs on imported goods just a cost, rather than protectionist.ydoethur said:FPT - I wonder if New Zealand is a good comparison. Circumstances are different in certain crucial ways. They are not part of a large integrated manufacturing system like we are and they don't have a land border (indeed, it's further from New Zealand to Australia than it is from Penzance to Thurso) so things like customs barriers are not necessarily such a problem.
0 -
May could even call Labour’s bluff and announce a referendum before the Commons vote. They want to use it to trigger a GE.RoyalBlue said:@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.0 -
Agree with TSE on this, all the Labour MPs who signed this letter calling for a second EU referendum represent Remain constituencies in London, as does LD leader Sir Vince Cable who also signed the letter, yet as Corbyn well knows a majority of his MPs represent Labour seats which voted Leave0
-
Other Labour MPs who represent Leave constituencies have also come out in support of a referendum.HYUFD said:Agree with TSE on this, all the Labour MPs who signed this letter calling for a second EU referendum represent Remain constituencies mainly in London, as does LD leader Sir Vince Cable who also signed the letter, yet as Corbyn well knows a majority of his MPs represent Labour seats which voted Leave
0 -
They were shown on the telly.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, jeans, England rugby shirt, and North Face jacket.tlg86 said:
Are you in fancy dress?TheScreamingEagles said:
Well spotted.RobinWiggs said:Typo in your last sentence TSE?
This was a last minute thread written at a cold Headingley.
Winners of the fancy dress contest are the chaps dressed up as David Warner replete with sandpaper.0 -
The sub heading that Corbyn must back a referendum to protect jobs doesn't really stack up does it. Presumably they mean backing remain would do that, backing a public vote but supporting leave would not do it.0
-
Only a minority of them, Turkeys don't vote for Christmaswilliamglenn said:
Other Labour MPs who represent Leave constituencies have also come out in support of a referendum.HYUFD said:Agree with TSE on this, all the Labour MPs who signed this letter calling for a second EU referendum represent Remain constituencies mainly in London, as does LD leader Sir Vince Cable who also signed the letter, yet as Corbyn well knows a majority of his MPs represent Labour seats which voted Leave
0 -
No horse should generally be odds on in the Derby unless it is something like Frankel - it is the first time these horses will run over 12f.tlg86 said:FPT:
I've had that for a bit now. It's in the bay platform 6 at Woking in between measurement train duties.david_herdson said:
Have you changed your user pic for today's topic or was it always a class 37 (and where's it passing through?)tlg86 said:Big win for the bookies in The Derby.
I wonder if opposing the triple crown wishful thinking is profitable long term0 -
Cheers. That would explain why I didn't recognise where it was!tlg86 said:FPT:
I've had that for a bit now. It's in the bay platform 6 at Woking in between measurement train duties.david_herdson said:
Have you changed your user pic for today's topic or was it always a class 37 (and where's it passing through?)tlg86 said:Big win for the bookies in The Derby.
Is there any significance to the picture?0 -
Would that referendum be a Leave with No Deal Vs Leave with the Bad Deal?
or would it be Lave with bad deal and stay out Vs Leave and then ask to come beak in?
As I understand it there is no Legal right for the UK to change its mind. now the EU bosses, may find a way of ignoring the law, and letting the UK stay, I suspect they would quite like that, but it will be a strange referendum to get encourage people to vote to ignore the law0 -
The irony of a London-centric metropolitan elite advocating a second referendum as the only way of avoiding "tearing the capital apart" - which would undoubtedly tear much of the rest of the country apart and destroy confidence in democracy for a generation or more - seems to be lost on those Remainer London MPs still trying to stop Brexit.
0 -
Although that wouldn't include voters that switched from Labour to UKIP, which Labour would want back again. Theresa May lost her majority at the last GE primarily because she assumed she just had to be euro-hostile and the UKIP vote would tumble into her lap. (Confession: I made the same wrong assumption). In fact half the UKIP vote returned to Labour.Foxy said:On topic, as I understand it, even in the Leave voting areas, most Labour voters voted Remain.
0 -
If Corbyn himself really wanted to Remain I’m sure he’d find a way to come out for this, regardless of what Labour voters want. But I don’t think he does. So they’re whistling in the wind these MPs.
Fantastic Derby btw!0 -
A case can also be made that UKIP-Labour swing voters are of the ‘smash the system’ kind and Corbyn’s brand appealed to them.FF43 said:
Although that wouldn't include voters that switched from Labour to UKIP, which Labour would want back again. Theresa May lost her majority at the last GE primarily because she assumed she just had to be euro-hostile and the UKIP vote would tumble into her lap. (Confession: I made the same wrong assumption). In fact half the UKIP vote returned to Labour.Foxy said:On topic, as I understand it, even in the Leave voting areas, most Labour voters voted Remain.
0 -
This is all rather predicated on the assumption that if there was a second referendum the public wouldn't vote for "Didn't you hear us the first time ?".
What would the Millibands and Blairs of this world do if and when the public show their displeasure at being asked the same question again, and vote 60/40 for Leave ?0 -
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.RoyalBlue said:@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.0 -
FPT:
Do people advocating a NZ style slashing of tariffs really know what they’re talking about?
Our unilateral tariff (and non-tariff barrier) reduction of the mid-80s had the effect of destroying various domestic industries. These were damned at the time as inefficient and uncompetitive and there were few tears shed - unless of course you happened to lose your job.
On the plus side - clothing, electronics, and cars immediately became much cheaper. We were able to import all sorts of tat from China and still do. Our largest national retail chain - “The Warehouse” - expanded massively in this era.
On the downside, the price drop obviously didn’t extend to any quality, branded goods. In fact, quality is quite hard to find. The abundance of tat crowds out local producers, and the small size of our domestic market means it’s often not worth bothering with for quality international brands.
And, we have a persistent trade deficit - one of the largest in the OECD - and pretty much produce nothing apart from dairy and lamb, which admittedly we do very well.
Britain’s problems, which include a large trade deficit of its own, and struggling, ex-industrial regions, would not be solved by unilateral tariff reduction. There would presumably be an income effect - as in NZ - but it would make the underlying problems worse, not better.0 -
HYUFD said:
Only a minority of them, Turkeys don't vote for Christmaswilliamglenn said:
Other Labour MPs who represent Leave constituencies have also come out in support of a referendum.HYUFD said:Agree with TSE on this, all the Labour MPs who signed this letter calling for a second EU referendum represent Remain constituencies mainly in London, as does LD leader Sir Vince Cable who also signed the letter, yet as Corbyn well knows a majority of his MPs represent Labour seats which voted Leave
This mantra that a majority of Labour constituencies are Leave is a red herring used by Brexiteers to console themselves. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas
It doesn't mean a majority of Labour voters are Leave - we know they aren't. - they are Remainers. The Leave/Remain split isn't the most important determinant of voting intention. Kate Hoey, an ardent Leaver, got a majority of 11,000 in Vauxhall which was 78% Remain!
0 -
Not really, I just know how popular trains are on here!david_herdson said:
Cheers. That would explain why I didn't recognise where it was!tlg86 said:FPT:
I've had that for a bit now. It's in the bay platform 6 at Woking in between measurement train duties.david_herdson said:
Have you changed your user pic for today's topic or was it always a class 37 (and where's it passing through?)tlg86 said:Big win for the bookies in The Derby.
Is there any significance to the picture?0 -
Any remain campaign in the second referendum is going to be project fear 2.williamglenn said:
It''s going to be the same establishment politicians being paraded around telling people that the world is going to collapse if we leave the EU, based on expert forecasts and not much more than that. It's just going to be exactly the same thing again, with probably the same result.0 -
Seriously, why are his musings even still news?williamglenn said:0 -
Seriously, why are his musings even still news?williamglenn said:0 -
The problem with a second referendum (apart from the fact people appear to be a bit sick of them and time to hold one ran out about a year ago) is that it can't realistically be a binary choice because it offers the wrong options.
Certain obsessives on here - who shall be nameless - fantasise about a referendum with a choice to 'leave with the deal that this incompetent clown Davis has just about eked out or remain as we are.' And let's face it, it's these sort of people are the ones agitating for this referendum. But that's a fantasy even John Dorian or Walter Mitty would hesitate at. We voted to leave. If the options are to leave on terms, or not leave, it then becomes about respecting democracy and leave would almost certainly win by a large margin.
However, there is a very compelling argument that an option to remain is in itself is a dishonest choice for two reasons:
(1) we can't realistically hope to resume the status quo ante. We kicked Europe, hard, in the balls (it's one reason I think that the Commission is behaving like a bunch of third rate mindless jackasses, although the fact they are a bunch of third rate mindless jackasses probably has something to do with it as well). They are not going to keep cutting us slack with opt outs on Schengen, the euro and the rebate if we go crawling back admitting we were mistaken (in that, unusually, I agree with William Glenn of this parish).
(2) It's by no means clear we can revoke A50 and therefore the referendum would be based on a false premise. Hard to campaign for something you can't deliver (assuming for the moment that Corbyn wouldn't exert himself for Remain).
So the options should be to leave with the deal or leave on WTO. But that wouldn't suit the backers of a new referendum because, as we can see by stripping out the above points, their real motive is to try and get the result reversed. So suddenly for this to go ahead at all, we're staring at all three options on the ballot paper.
Now is anyone here willing to tell me that under those circumstances any option other than 'Leave to WTO', which surely would command 40%+ support, would not brutally spank the other two into submission? Which would be utterly, utterly disastrous.
This is why I am at a loss to understand why people think a further referendum - even if one wasn't as difficult as educating Ken Livingstone in Holocaust studies - would be a good idea. I can only conclude they haven't thought through the implications.0 -
I think Labour will get there eventually. Corbyn's not keen, clearly, be it for ideological or politically pragmatic grounds (they still have the remain vote and their Brexit vote, by and large ( but since he doesn't seem to care that much and has already shifted position a bit, the time may come where opposing the tories and potentially becoming pm will see him switch further.Cyclefree said:If Corbyn himself really wanted to Remain I’m sure he’d find a way to come out for this, regardless of what Labour voters want. But I don’t think he does. So they’re whistling in the wind these MPs.
Fantastic Derby btw!0 -
You’re a prisoner of process. If the Westminster Parliament passed an act within a week of the summit, ordering a referendum on the last Thursday in November, it would happen. Squealing about official campaigns and spending limits would be drowned out by the matter at hand.david_herdson said:
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.RoyalBlue said:@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
It wouldn’t be neat, but it would happen.0 -
The Radio 4/Hay Festival audience were purring all over him this morning. I realise that they're probably peak D.Miliband demographic, but still.kle4 said:
Seriously, why are his musings even still news?williamglenn said:0 -
Doesn't it have to be October because the EU Parliament and the 27 governments have to approve it (some of whom may need referendums on it - remember Wallonia over Canada)? That's another reason to be rather concerned at the drift we can all see on both sides.david_herdson said:
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.RoyalBlue said:@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.0 -
Plus more than half the doors that are opened to Tory canvassers are going to point out that they lied last time when they said they were going to leave if the public voted for it in the referendum.nielh said:It''s going to be the same establishment politicians being paraded around telling people that the world is going to collapse if we leave the EU, based on expert forecasts and not much more than that. It's just going to be exactly the same thing again, with probably the same result.
0 -
If we voted down any deal with the EU, in a Referendum, I'd be surprised if the EU member states would just revoke A50 and let us back in.0
-
At the very least it is more complicated than adherents suggest other than it will work out (yes this is analogous to the leave campaigns) and the idea it will solve our problems is very naive.ydoethur said:The problem with a second referendum (apart from the fact people appear to be a bit sick of them and time to hold one ran out about a year ago) is that it can't realistically be a binary choice because it offers the wrong options.
Certain obsessives on here - who shall be nameless - fantasise about a referendum with a choice to 'leave with the deal that this incompetent clown Davis has just about eked out or remain as we are.' And let's face it, it's these sort of people are the ones agitating for this referendum. But that's a fantasy even John Dorian or Walter Mitty would hesitate at. We voted to leave. If the options are to leave on terms, or not leave, it then becomes about respecting democracy and leave would almost certainly win by a large margin.
However, there is a very compelling argument that an option to remain is in itself is a dishonest choice for two reasons:
(1) we can't realistically hope to resume the status quo ante. We kicked Europe, hard, in the balls (it's one reason I think that the Commission is behaving like a bunch of third rate mindless jackasses, although the fact they are a bunch of third rate mindless jackasses probably has something to do with it as well). They are not going to keep cutting us slack with opt outs on Schengen, the euro and the rebate if we go crawling back admitting we were mistaken (in that, unusually, I agree with William Glenn of this parish).
(2) It's by no means clear we can revoke A50 and therefore the referendum would be based on a false premise. Hard to campaign for something you can't deliver (assuming for the moment that Corbyn wouldn't exert himself for Remain).
So the options should be to leave with the deal or leave on WTO. But that wouldn't suit the backers of a new referendum because, as we can see by stripping out the above points, their real motive is to try and get the result reversed. So suddenly for this to go ahead at all, we're staring at all three options on the ballot paper.
Now is anyone here willing to tell me that under those circumstances any option other than 'Leave to WTO', which surely would command 40%+ support, would not brutally spank the other two into submission? Which would be utterly, utterly disastrous.
This is why I am at a loss to understand why people think a further referendum - even if one wasn't as difficult as educating Ken Livingstone in Holocaust studies - would be a good idea. I can only conclude they haven't thought through the implications.0 -
Will that be from his home in NYC?williamglenn said:0 -
No but if say 55% of Labour voters voted Remain in a Labour seat which voted Leave and where Labour won 55% to 40% for the Tories at the last general election if say half the 45% of Labour voters who voted Leave then voted Tory at the next general election that would take the Tory candidate over 50% next timeBarnesian said:HYUFD said:
Only a minority of them, Turkeys don't vote for Christmaswilliamglenn said:
Other Labour MPs who represent Leave constituencies have also come out in support of a referendum.HYUFD said:Agree with TSE on this, all the Labour MPs who signed this letter calling for a second EU referendum represent Remain constituencies mainly in London, as does LD leader Sir Vince Cable who also signed the letter, yet as Corbyn well knows a majority of his MPs represent Labour seats which voted Leave
This mantra that a majority of Labour constituencies are Leave is a red herring used by Brexiteers to console themselves. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas
It doesn't mean a majority of Labour voters are Leave - we know they aren't. - they are Remainers. The Leave/Remain split isn't the most important determinant of voting intention. Kate Hoey, an ardent Leaver, got a majority of 11,000 in Vauxhall which was 78% Remain!0 -
Any law passed by parliament which is inconsistent with existing law (say the various Representation of the People Acts, the Electoral Administration Act, FTPA etc) is going to be challenged in the courts immediately.RoyalBlue said:
You’re a prisoner of process. If the Westminster Parliament passed an act within a week of the summit, ordering a referendum on the last Thursday in November, it would happen. Squealing about official campaigns and spending limits would be drowned out by the matter at hand.david_herdson said:
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.RoyalBlue said:@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
It wouldn’t be neat, but it would happen.0 -
Absolutely. Since Article 50 is still European Law the next government could be tempted to invoke it again and see if it can get a better deal. That way madness lies.Sean_F said:If we voted down any deal with the EU, in a Referendum, I'd be surprised if the EU member states would just revoke A50 and let us back in.
0 -
And what a great choice. I love the Class 37s - if I was to buy a diesel locomotive (*), it would either be a class 37 or a 58. Both great locos.tlg86 said:
Not really, I just know how popular trains are on here!david_herdson said:
Cheers. That would explain why I didn't recognise where it was!tlg86 said:FPT:
I've had that for a bit now. It's in the bay platform 6 at Woking in between measurement train duties.david_herdson said:
Have you changed your user pic for today's topic or was it always a class 37 (and where's it passing through?)tlg86 said:Big win for the bookies in The Derby.
Is there any significance to the picture?
If I was to have a steam loco, I'd buy the hulk of 9F 92219 or 92245 (heck, why not both?) , restore it as a Franco-Crosti and paint it in North Staffs Madder Lake just to give the rivet counters heart attacks ...
(*) Which I won't. Not only would Mrs J frown, but my neighbours wouldn't like it - especially as it would take over not only my garden, but the next two along as well!
(There was a gent in Nottinghamshire who had an ex-Barry steam locomotive in his front garden...)
And now everyone who is not a utter railway nut has just disappeared ...0 -
And that of course is why when it was drafted no loophole was left (that and the fact that the people who wrote the Lisbon Treaty never thought it would be used).Indigo1 said:
Absolutely. Since Article 50 is still European Law the next government could be tempted to invoke it again and see if it can get a better deal. That way madness lies.Sean_F said:If we voted down any deal with the EU, in a Referendum, I'd be surprised if the EU member states would just revoke A50 and let us back in.
0 -
That’s why there would be a notwithstanding prior legislation clause, as there was in the EU Notification of Withdrawal Act.Indigo1 said:
Any law passed by parliament which is inconsistent with existing law (say the various Representation of the People Acts, the Electoral Administration Act, FTPA etc) is going to be challenged in the courts immediately.RoyalBlue said:
You’re a prisoner of process. If the Westminster Parliament passed an act within a week of the summit, ordering a referendum on the last Thursday in November, it would happen. Squealing about official campaigns and spending limits would be drowned out by the matter at hand.david_herdson said:
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.RoyalBlue said:@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
It wouldn’t be neat, but it would happen.
0 -
Good post ydoethur,ydoethur said:The problem with a second referendum (apart from the fact people appear to be a bit sick of them and time to hold one ran out about a year ago) is that it can't realistically be a binary choice because it offers the wrong options.
Certain obsessives on here - who shall be nameless - fantasise about a referendum with a choice to 'leave with the deal that this incompetent clown Davis has just about eked out or remain as we are.' And let's face it, it's these sort of people are the ones agitating for this referendum. But that's a fantasy even John Dorian or Walter Mitty would hesitate at. We voted to leave. If the options are to leave on terms, or not leave, it then becomes about respecting democracy and leave would almost certainly win by a large margin.
However, there is a very compelling argument that an option to remain is in itself is a dishonest choice for two reasons:
(1) we can't realistically hope to resume the status quo ante. We kicked Europe, hard, in the balls (it's one reason I think that the Commission is behaving like a bunch of third rate mindless jackasses, although the fact they are a bunch of third rate mindless jackasses probably has something to do with it as well). They are not going to keep cutting us slack with opt outs on Schengen, the euro and the rebate if we go crawling back admitting we were mistaken (in that, unusually, I agree with William Glenn of this parish).
(2) It's by no means clear we can revoke A50 and therefore the referendum would be based on a false premise. Hard to campaign for something you can't deliver (assuming for the moment that Corbyn wouldn't exert himself for Remain).
So the options should be to leave with the deal or leave on WTO. But that wouldn't suit the backers of a new referendum because, as we can see by stripping out the above points, their real motive is to try and get the result reversed. So suddenly for this to go ahead at all, we're staring at all three options on the ballot paper.
Now is anyone here willing to tell me that under those circumstances any option other than 'Leave to WTO', which surely would command 40%+ support, would not brutally spank the other two into submission? Which would be utterly, utterly disastrous.
This is why I am at a loss to understand why people think a further referendum - even if one wasn't as difficult as educating Ken Livingstone in Holocaust studies - would be a good idea. I can only conclude they haven't thought through the implications.
good analysis and I agree with much of it, however I'm not convinced that 'Leave to WTO' would get 40% + in a 3 way contest.
For what its worth it would get my vote and I am confidant it would be the best for the economic situation in the UK. however, experience of talking to people about it would suggest that I am in a small group on this one.0 -
Like kle4 I don't think Corbyn is particularly dug in on this, but it's not obvious that coming down decisively on either side before the final deal makes political sense. Better to maintain studied agnosticism until we see what the Government comes up with. If it's rubbish, vote it down, offer to negotiate a better deal, and call for a referendum if that's refused.
A relevant fact is that much of the Corbyn scepticism among potential supporters overlaps with strong pro-EU feeling. If voting Labour meant staying in the EU, it would certainly put off some existing voters but it would potentially win over others who don't fancy Corbyn at all, on the basis that they'll all survive a term of Corbyn government but if we leave the EU it might be for good. It really depends on a shift in popular mood, and clearly there is unease about how Brexit is going, even among hardened Brexiteers.0 -
I still prefer my photo of Talyllyn.JosiasJessop said:
And what a great choice. I love the Class 37s - if I was to buy a diesel locomotive (*), it would either be a class 37 or a 58. Both great locos.tlg86 said:
Not really, I just know how popular trains are on here!david_herdson said:
Cheers. That would explain why I didn't recognise where it was!tlg86 said:FPT:
I've had that for a bit now. It's in the bay platform 6 at Woking in between measurement train duties.david_herdson said:
Have you changed your user pic for today's topic or was it always a class 37 (and where's it passing through?)tlg86 said:Big win for the bookies in The Derby.
Is there any significance to the picture?
If I was to have a steam loco, I'd buy the hulk of 9F 92219 or 92245 (heck, why not both?) , restore it as a Franco-Crosti and paint it in North Staffs Madder Lake just to give the rivet counters heart attacks ...
(*) Which I won't. Not only would Mrs J frown, but my neighbours wouldn't like it - especially as it would take over not only my garden, but the next two along as well!
(There was a gent in Nottinghamshire who had an ex-Barry steam locomotive in his front garden...)
And now everyone who is not a utter railway nut has just disappeared ...
And up to ten thousand posts in four years - that's a bit worrying.0 -
I wouldn't. A number of prominent EU leaders have said we're welcome to call it off if we want. They'd roll their eyes (hell, they're already rolling them over our inability to decide what we want), but they wouldn't make it hard.Sean_F said:If we voted down any deal with the EU, in a Referendum, I'd be surprised if the EU member states would just revoke A50 and let us back in.
0 -
The collapse of Brexit would be the EU’s greatest victory since expansion to the East in 2004. They would not put it at risk by quibbling over the rebate or our other opt-outs.NickPalmer said:
I wouldn't. A number of prominent EU leaders have said we're welcome to call it off if we want. They'd roll their eyes (hell, they're already rolling them over our inability to decide what we want), but they wouldn't make it hard.Sean_F said:If we voted down any deal with the EU, in a Referendum, I'd be surprised if the EU member states would just revoke A50 and let us back in.
0 -
Just how grovelling an apology would be appropriate when this happens?ydoethur said:Certain obsessives on here - who shall be nameless - fantasise about a referendum with a choice to 'leave with the deal that this incompetent clown Davis has just about eked out or remain as we are.' And let's face it, it's these sort of people are the ones agitating for this referendum. But that's a fantasy even John Dorian or Walter Mitty would hesitate at.
0 -
I have to make a massive apology - I am afraid I made a massive mistake that is almost unforgivable.
In my last post I erred when I said a man from Nottinghamshire had a steam locomotive in his front garden.
It was actually his back garden:
http://standard4.com/76084inthebeginning.pdf
0 -
It is totally rational for the EU to offer us vassal status or nothing. They know that either outcome will dissuade other potential secessionists, and the prize of keeping the union together is far greater than short-term trade disruption for a few member states.
Those who thought otherwise were mad to do so. That is why our negotiations must lead to our Versailles.0 -
This is garbage analysis.ydoethur said:The problem with a second referendum (apart from the fact people appear to be a bit sick of them and time to hold one ran out about a year ago) is that it can't realistically be a binary choice because it offers the wrong options.
Certain obsessives on here - who shall be nameless - fantasise about a referendum with a choice to 'leave with the deal that this incompetent clown Davis has just about eked out or remain as we are.' And let's face it, it's these sort of people are the ones agitating for this referendum. But that's a fantasy even John Dorian or Walter Mitty would hesitate at. We voted to leave. If the options are to leave on terms, or not leave, it then becomes about respecting democracy and leave would almost certainly win by a large margin.
However, there is a very compelling argument that an option to remain is in itself is a dishonest choice for two reasons:
(1) we can't realistically hope to resume the status quo ante. We kicked Europe, hard, in the balls (it's one reason I think that the Commission is behaving like a bunch of third rate mindless jackasses, although the fact they are a bunch of third rate mindless jackasses probably has something to do with it as well). They are not going to keep cutting us slack with opt outs on Schengen, the euro and the rebate if we go crawling back admitting we were mistaken (in that, unusually, I agree with William Glenn of this parish).
(2) It's by no means clear we can revoke A50 and therefore the referendum would be based on a false premise. Hard to campaign for something you can't deliver (assuming for the moment that Corbyn wouldn't exert himself for Remain).
So the options should be to leave with the deal or leave on WTO. But that wouldn't suit the backers of a new referendum because, as we can see by stripping out the above points, their real motive is to try and get the result reversed. So suddenly for this to go ahead at all, we're staring at all three options on the ballot paper.
Now is anyone here willing to tell me that under those circumstances any option other than 'Leave to WTO', which surely would command 40%+ support, would not brutally spank the other two into submission? Which would be utterly, utterly disastrous.
This is why I am at a loss to understand why people think a further referendum - even if one wasn't as difficult as educating Ken Livingstone in Holocaust studies - would be a good idea. I can only conclude they haven't thought through the implications.
Of course the EU would let us in.
A way would be found.
We deserve a vote because we can now see more clearly what Brexit entails.
Arguments against are from those who are quite happy with the status quo, and don’t mind taking the rest of the country over Niagara in a barrel with them.
0 -
Yes, the arguments for why it can't happen remind me of the arguments for why May would have a devilishly difficult job to engineer an early election, mixed in with nationalistic hubris about how the vote of 2016 must be obeyed come what may.RoyalBlue said:
You’re a prisoner of process. If the Westminster Parliament passed an act within a week of the summit, ordering a referendum on the last Thursday in November, it would happen. Squealing about official campaigns and spending limits would be drowned out by the matter at hand.david_herdson said:
OK. Suppose May gets a deal in October. Personally, I think December is more likely and there's a reasonable chance it could go well into 2019 but let's run with a best-case.RoyalBlue said:@TSE - I think there’s a missing ‘not’ in your last sentence.
I’m not convinced. If the Commons rejects the deal, a second referendum will be almost irresistible for May. The Brexiteers might want a general election, but I don’t think they’ll get one.
The summit is on 18 October. May brings it to parliament later the same month and it's then voted down. Let's also assume that the referendum has to be held by mid-March, to give a little time to clear up the admin afterwards. Let's also suppose a four-week campaign, starting in mid-February.
All of these dates are pushing things to the limit and even then, it only gives three and a half months to pass the legislation, and for the campaign organisations to be created and registered with the Electoral Commission.
That timescale might, just about, be possible. In reality though, it wouldn't work like that. If parliament voted down the deal in October, either May would go back and try to renegotiate and come up with something else at the December summit, or she'd resign, there'd be a Tory leadership election and someone else would go to Brussels. Either way, the time would not be used putting in place the legally-essential framework for a referendum - and without that, it couldn't happen.
It wouldn’t be neat, but it would happen.0 -
I'll accept an apology from you any time William for the abuse you've heaped on me or the lies you've told about me. You needn't worry, I'm very magnanimous really. But if you want a tip, make it a Tuesday, that's when I'm at my most magnanimous due to having lots of gain time.williamglenn said:
Just how grovelling an apology would be appropriate when this happens?ydoethur said:Certain obsessives on here - who shall be nameless - fantasise about a referendum with a choice to 'leave with the deal that this incompetent clown Davis has just about eked out or remain as we are.' And let's face it, it's these sort of people are the ones agitating for this referendum. But that's a fantasy even John Dorian or Walter Mitty would hesitate at.
(Or alternatively, wait till August, but that might not sound very magnanimous.)
And if you do really want a tip - for free - frustrating though it is to be on the losing side and worry that people have made a poor choice, it's much easier for everyone especially you if you just accept it and move on. We've lost. We're leaving. It's the hope that kills you. Don't let it.
And now if you'll excuse me, I have work to do.0 -
England should be 6-0 in the football, but sterling reputation for piss poor finishing is on show. Nigeria are shocking.0
-
As we see so often in life, few are magnanimous in victory, far more see it as the opportunity to stick the boot in.RoyalBlue said:
The collapse of Brexit would be the EU’s greatest victory since expansion to the East in 2004. They would not put it at risk by quibbling over the rebate or our other opt-outs.NickPalmer said:
I wouldn't. A number of prominent EU leaders have said we're welcome to call it off if we want. They'd roll their eyes (hell, they're already rolling them over our inability to decide what we want), but they wouldn't make it hard.Sean_F said:If we voted down any deal with the EU, in a Referendum, I'd be surprised if the EU member states would just revoke A50 and let us back in.
The behaviour of the EU thus far has been pour encourager les autres, it seems far more likely that the beatings will continue until morale improves.0 -
You’ve missed the point. There is no victory until we vote to Remain. They will be totally magnanimous up to that point.kyf_100 said:
As we see so often in life, few are magnanimous in victory, far more see it as the opportunity to stick the boot in.RoyalBlue said:
The collapse of Brexit would be the EU’s greatest victory since expansion to the East in 2004. They would not put it at risk by quibbling over the rebate or our other opt-outs.NickPalmer said:
I wouldn't. A number of prominent EU leaders have said we're welcome to call it off if we want. They'd roll their eyes (hell, they're already rolling them over our inability to decide what we want), but they wouldn't make it hard.Sean_F said:If we voted down any deal with the EU, in a Referendum, I'd be surprised if the EU member states would just revoke A50 and let us back in.
The behaviour of the EU thus far has been pour encourager les autres, it seems far more likely that the beatings will continue until morale improves.
Then, the wearisome march to integration will resume.0 -
A gentle reminder that you all should've voted for the Morris Dancer Party. Our sensible policy of invading France would've helped avoid this 'trade relationship' nonsense by having already conquered the entire EU.0
-
0
-
If we voted to Remain off the back of a positive campaign in favour of the EU warts and all, the domestic politics of our membership would be very different in future. The UK would also probably become an absolute stickler for 'no cakeism' from any other member state, having been on the receiving end of that logic during the Brexit negotiations.RoyalBlue said:
You’ve missed the point. There is no victory until we vote to Remain. They will be totally magnanimous up to that point.kyf_100 said:
As we see so often in life, few are magnanimous in victory, far more see it as the opportunity to stick the boot in.RoyalBlue said:
The collapse of Brexit would be the EU’s greatest victory since expansion to the East in 2004. They would not put it at risk by quibbling over the rebate or our other opt-outs.NickPalmer said:
I wouldn't. A number of prominent EU leaders have said we're welcome to call it off if we want. They'd roll their eyes (hell, they're already rolling them over our inability to decide what we want), but they wouldn't make it hard.Sean_F said:If we voted down any deal with the EU, in a Referendum, I'd be surprised if the EU member states would just revoke A50 and let us back in.
The behaviour of the EU thus far has been pour encourager les autres, it seems far more likely that the beatings will continue until morale improves.
Then, the wearisome march to integration will resume.0 -
What is 'tearing London apart' is massive inequality, the crazy cost of Buying a home (a first time buyer needs to earn nearly £100k to buy a House even in Dagenham now), many who cannot buy on average earnings having to pay the majority of their wages on rent, congestion and overcrowded transport, stretched public services and rising crime including acid attacks and shootings and stabbings. Not of course in the areas most of the remain metropolitan white middle classes live - but a really issue affecting many in the capital.RobinWiggs said:The irony of a London-centric metropolitan elite advocating a second referendum as the only way of avoiding "tearing the capital apart" - which would undoubtedly tear much of the rest of the country apart and destroy confidence in democracy for a generation or more - seems to be lost on those Remainer London MPs still trying to stop Brexit.
It really isn't Brexit!
Even in London though more people voted leave than voted for the current Mayor - even after second preferences. Not everyone in London thinks the same on the issue either.0 -
Mr. Meeks, the young are often foolish. It's why they had the whip hand in 1984, students reporting on teachers, and why Anna Komnene excoriated the youth of Byzantium for spending their times playing draughts rather than educating themselves.
Mr. Glenn, ha. Like that would get implemented. Just what fines have been levied against the German car manufacturers caught up in the emissions scandal?0 -
Plus the trebuchet, if I remember correctly?Morris_Dancer said:A gentle reminder that you all should've voted for the Morris Dancer Party. Our sensible policy of invading France would've helped avoid this 'trade relationship' nonsense by having already conquered the entire EU.
0 -
Mr. Mortimer, many trebuchets. In a trebuchet-based justice system, reoffending rates are pleasing low.
And that's before we get onto the wonders of the space cannon, the enormo-haddock, the octo-lemur, or the small fleet of Death Stars.0 -
The collapse of Brexit would be the final admission that if voting changed anything they'd abolish it and the greatest national humiliation in British history.0
-
Also, the non-Labour-voting Leave voters would become more motivated to turn and vote (tactically if necessary) to kick out a Labour MP who ratted on them. The referendum result was down to people in these constituencies who don't always bother to vote coming out and voting Leave - a Labour reversal on Brexit could well be what gets them out on polling day again.HYUFD said:
No but if say 55% of Labour voters voted Remain in a Labour seat which voted Leave and where Labour won 55% to 40% for the Tories at the last general election if say half the 45% of Labour voters who voted Leave then voted Tory at the next general election that would take the Tory candidate over 50% next timeBarnesian said:HYUFD said:
Only a minority of them, Turkeys don't vote for Christmaswilliamglenn said:
Other Labour MPs who represent Leave constituencies have also come out in support of a referendum.HYUFD said:Agree with TSE on this, all the Labour MPs who signed this letter calling for a second EU referendum represent Remain constituencies mainly in London, as does LD leader Sir Vince Cable who also signed the letter, yet as Corbyn well knows a majority of his MPs represent Labour seats which voted Leave
This mantra that a majority of Labour constituencies are Leave is a red herring used by Brexiteers to console themselves. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas
It doesn't mean a majority of Labour voters are Leave - we know they aren't. - they are Remainers. The Leave/Remain split isn't the most important determinant of voting intention. Kate Hoey, an ardent Leaver, got a majority of 11,000 in Vauxhall which was 78% Remain!0 -
Mr. Tang, I take it you haven't read Marc Morris' biography of King John?
Edited extra bit: although that is English, so perhaps it doesn't count.0 -
-
Brexit would only be reversed if the British people voted for it in a second referendum or elected a PM who led a party committing to returning to the EU, more a case of voters changing their mind than a national humiliation on the scale of the bailing out of Rolls Royce, Suez, the fall of Singapore, or the loss of the American Colonies after the US War of Independencehoundtang said:The collapse of Brexit would be the final admission that if voting changed anything they'd abolish it and the greatest national humiliation in British history.
0 -
Nah, it won't be up there with the fall of Singapore or coming close to merging with France.houndtang said:The collapse of Brexit would be the final admission that if voting changed anything they'd abolish it and the greatest national humiliation in British history.
0 -
I think complaining about a referendum campaign being divisive is a good working definition of stupidity.AlastairMeeks said:
This detracts from the underlying validity of her point.0 -
Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead. I don't hear many of them saying, wait a minute, maybe this isn't the best thing to do.0
-
If in the uk, not sure ofsted would give the school an outstanding rating...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5798499/Proud-parents-video-fives-dressed-jihadis-storming-Israeli-building.html0 -
Has Lawson bribed the French to get his residency? If not, I don't get what all the fuss is about.RoyalBlue said:
I think complaining about a referendum campaign being divisive is a good working definition of stupidity.AlastairMeeks said:
This detracts from the underlying validity of her point.0 -
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.0 -
Only around 50% of Londoners now own their own home and by 2025 that is projected to fall to 40%, the same percentage as those who rent privately with 20% in social rented accommodation.brendan16 said:
What is 'tearing London apart' is massive inequality, the crazy cost of Buying a home (a first time buyer needs to earn nearly £100k to buy a House even in Dagenham now), many who cannot buy on average earnings having to pay the majority of their wages on rent, congestion and overcrowded transport, stretched public services and rising crime including acid attacks and shootings and stabbings. Not of course in the areas most of the remain metropolitan white middle classes live - but a really issue affecting many in the capital.RobinWiggs said:The irony of a London-centric metropolitan elite advocating a second referendum as the only way of avoiding "tearing the capital apart" - which would undoubtedly tear much of the rest of the country apart and destroy confidence in democracy for a generation or more - seems to be lost on those Remainer London MPs still trying to stop Brexit.
It really isn't Brexit!
Even in London though more people voted leave than voted for the current Mayor - even after second preferences. Not everyone in London thinks the same on the issue either.
http://www.onlondon.co.uk/london-is-becoming-a-private-renting-city-again/0 -
Yes, Corbyn cleverly neutralised Brexit last time by backing it while still promising a better deal than MayEssexit said:
Also, the non-Labour-voting Leave voters would become more motivated to turn and vote (tactically if necessary) to kick out a Labour MP who ratted on them. The referendum result was down to people in these constituencies who don't always bother to vote coming out and voting Leave - a Labour reversal on Brexit could well be what gets them out on polling day again.HYUFD said:
No but if say 55% of Labour voters voted Remain in a Labour seat which voted Leave and where Labour won 55% to 40% for the Tories at the last general election if say half the 45% of Labour voters who voted Leave then voted Tory at the next general election that would take the Tory candidate over 50% next timeBarnesian said:HYUFD said:
Only a minority of them, Turkeys don't vote for Christmaswilliamglenn said:
Other Labour MPs who represent Leave constituencies have also come out in support of a referendum.HYUFD said:Agree with TSE on this, all the Labour MPs who signed this letter calling for a second EU referendum represent Remain constituencies mainly in London, as does LD leader Sir Vince Cable who also signed the letter, yet as Corbyn well knows a majority of his MPs represent Labour seats which voted Leave
This mantra that a majority of Labour constituencies are Leave is a red herring used by Brexiteers to console themselves. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas
It doesn't mean a majority of Labour voters are Leave - we know they aren't. - they are Remainers. The Leave/Remain split isn't the most important determinant of voting intention. Kate Hoey, an ardent Leaver, got a majority of 11,000 in Vauxhall which was 78% Remain!0 -
If I were Sarah Wollaston I'd be more concerned whether people could buy a house in Totnes rather than in France.AlastairMeeks said:
' But buying a first home in the South Hams remains out of reach for many local people, with average house prices still around 14 times average salaries. '
http://www.dartmouth-today.co.uk/article.cfm?id=103855&headline=Two South Hams coastal towns among top 10 most expensive&sectionIs=news&searchyear=20160 -
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
0 -
If the status quo after Brexit is intolerable, then it won't be tolerated - and the settlement will be revisited.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
The EU commission don't seem to recognise this....0 -
You can tell Leavers think it’s a shitshow because they’ve all started talking about house prices instead. As if that’s going to restore the reputation of politicians that wallowed in xenophobic lies to cut Britain off from the rest of Europe with younger voters.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.0 -
Rightly or wrongly, I don't think the EU cares. The Commission are hired hands. I don't think there's mileage in dividing them out from the EU membership.Mortimer said:
If the status quo after Brexit is intolerable, then it won't be tolerated - and the settlement will be revisited.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
The EU commission don't seem to recognise this....0 -
That's what Article 49 is for.Mortimer said:
If the status quo after Brexit is intolerable, then it won't be tolerated - and the settlement will be revisited.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
The EU commission don't seem to recognise this....0 -
The moment when the final text of the withdrawal agreement is revealed will be a big political event that is quite likely to lead to a backlash. The best way for the government to make the political weather would be simultaneously to announce that there will be a referendum. I think they can afford to take a punt on which way public opinion will go, and May will try to rise above the fray.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.0 -
FPT
No cheap imports have led to low inflation and helped us be the wealthiest we've ever been. People who blame China etc are no better than other ignoramuses who blame things on the "others" who are to be blamed for all their ills. It doesn't make them right.HYUFD said:
The biggest reason why Trump etc have imposed tariffs is cheap imports of manufactured goods, particularly from Asia and Mexico for example, undermining domestic producers. New Zealand has a strong exporting industry for New Zealand lamb while being too small a country to target for many agricultural exporters elsewhere.Philip_Thompson said:
No its fine for anyone that's ever tried it. New Zealand unilaterally abolished its agriculture tariffs and slashed its subsidies and far from killing its agriculture industry it since boomed.HYUFD said:Fine in theory when you are a city state like Singapore and mainly built on financial services, less so when you still have a significant manufacturing and farming industry whose products other countries like the USA are imposing tariffs on.
Unilateral free trade would work for London not the rest of the country and it was the latter which voted for Brexit while London was happy with free movement of people as well as services and goods
Name any nation that has failed after slashing its protectionism. Protectionism simply doesn't work.0 -
Vassal status is the best they’ve got.AlastairMeeks said:
You can tell Leavers think it’s a shitshow because they’ve all started talking about house prices instead. As if that’s going to restore the reputation of politicians that wallowed in xenophobic lies to cut Britain off from the rest of Europe with younger voters.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
Brexit will be reversed once “Take Back Control” is widely seen to be a joke.
The way we disagree with things in this country is to take the piss out it.0 -
If there's a backlash among Leave voters over the settlement, then I agree, we really could see a reversal. But surely that backlash should have started by now? Brexit very obviously isn't going smoothly. I am not hearing Leave voices saying, Brexit really isn't smart, is it?williamglenn said:
The moment when the final text of the withdrawal agreement is revealed will be a big political event that is quite likely to lead to a backlash. The best way for the government to make the political weather would be simultaneously to announce that there will be a referendum. I think they can afford to take a punt on which way public opinion will go, and May will try to rise above the fray.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
There isn't a fray Mrs May is capable of rising above. And certainly not this one.0 -
Indeed - he has had a home there for many years and is following general advice given by the French authorities. As a Remain voter I'm appalled at the unpleasant tone of these kind of attacks.tlg86 said:
Has Lawson bribed the French to get his residency? If not, I don't get what all the fuss is about.RoyalBlue said:
I think complaining about a referendum campaign being divisive is a good working definition of stupidity.AlastairMeeks said:
This detracts from the underlying validity of her point.0 -
Lol - OTT or what.AlastairMeeks said:
You can tell Leavers think it’s a shitshow because they’ve all started talking about house prices instead. As if that’s going to restore the reputation of politicians that wallowed in xenophobic lies to cut Britain off from the rest of Europe with younger voters.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.0 -
Are you back to 'xenophobic lies' ranting after making yourself look stupid re strawberries ?AlastairMeeks said:
You can tell Leavers think it’s a shitshow because they’ve all started talking about house prices instead. As if that’s going to restore the reputation of politicians that wallowed in xenophobic lies to cut Britain off from the rest of Europe with younger voters.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
Still if you want xenophobic lies how about this one from a London Remainer MP:
' Drug gangs controlled by Eastern European criminals are fuelling the rising tide of violent crime in London, a Labour MP has claimed. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-436532910 -
At the moment there's a taboo about reversal that can only be broken when one of the people with a hand on the steering wheel says that there's a problem, or when the agreement is there in black and white being dissected by the press. It's amazing how many people still think the negotiations are all posturing.FF43 said:
If there's a backlash among Leave voters over the settlement, then I agree, we really could see a reversal. But surely that backlash should have started by now? Brexit very obviously isn't going smoothly. I am not hearing Leave voices saying, Brexit really isn't smart, is it?williamglenn said:
The moment when the final text of the withdrawal agreement is revealed will be a big political event that is quite likely to lead to a backlash. The best way for the government to make the political weather would be simultaneously to announce that there will be a referendum. I think they can afford to take a punt on which way public opinion will go, and May will try to rise above the fray.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
There isn't a fray Mrs May is capable of rising above. And certainly not this one.0 -
I remember when Charles used to intone he knew a man in the ministry who assured him it was all going exceedingly well.williamglenn said:
At the moment there's a taboo about reversal that can only be broken when one of the people with a hand on the steering wheel says that there's a problem, or when the agreement is there in black and white being dissected by the press. It's amazing how many people still think the negotiations are all posturing.FF43 said:
If there's a backlash among Leave voters over the settlement, then I agree, we really could see a reversal. But surely that backlash should have started by now? Brexit very obviously isn't going smoothly. I am not hearing Leave voices saying, Brexit really isn't smart, is it?williamglenn said:
The moment when the final text of the withdrawal agreement is revealed will be a big political event that is quite likely to lead to a backlash. The best way for the government to make the political weather would be simultaneously to announce that there will be a referendum. I think they can afford to take a punt on which way public opinion will go, and May will try to rise above the fray.FF43 said:
Brexit will only be cancelled if Leave voters urgently change their minds. So far they haven't. The implication is that they prefer to be "vassals" of the EU than to be members of it. They probably think they were vassals already and with Brexit they make a point. It should become clear to anyone paying the slightest attention that we will end up with.a arrangement that is significantly worse than what we had while losing a big say over what happens to us. But, hey.williamglenn said:
Leave voters will only get a chance to go back on their vote if Leave members of the cabinet decide they are more afraid of the political consequences for them of leading the country to vassal status, than they are of the political consequences of a second referendum.FF43 said:Although Brexit is very definitely a problem, it mostly isn't the EU's problem (unlike Italy which really is s a big threat to the EU). The EU will happily accept the UK as a "vassal". On the assumption that Leave voters also prefer to be a "vassal" of the EU than to go back on their vote, Brexit will go ahead.
If we get to that point, it will be a completely new vote, and "we said Leave and we meant it" won't gain much traction when it means accepting a concrete deal.
There isn't a fray Mrs May is capable of rising above. And certainly not this one.0
