politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Beto O’Rourke, third favourite for WH2020, gets closer to putt
Comments
-
Mr. Xenon, I remember Laura Kuenssberg saying that if we did Remain we'd lose the rebate, as it's not in a treaty, but retain Shengen/single currency opt-outs, which are in treaties.0
-
Like the emergency budget in the event of voting leave for example.TheScreamingEagles said:
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.Philip_Thompson said:
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.CarlottaVance said:Xenon said:I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
The voters hate being lied to.
Both sides talked a lot of crap during the campaign, focusing purely on the opponents lies while hand-waving those on your own side just comes across as sour grapes.0 -
The day the government start publicly relying on this briefing by the Electoral Commission, we can expect a referendum announcement within a few days and the referendum itself within a couple of weeks.RobD said:
It's not a legal requirement, but it is advised:edmundintokyo said:
Where are you getting that from?Richard_Tyndall said:[The Electoral Commission] also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/195867/EU-Referendum-media-briefing.pdf
(section 2)0 -
I agree. I think May's deal is the way to go (although I think Cameron's deal was better, that is obviously impossible to get back to).Scott_P said:
That's probably (but not certainly) true, however, we have had 40 years of peace, growth and prosperity while constantly banging on about Europe.JosiasJessop said:Even if remain were to win, a second referendum with those options would solve nothing and would just lead to yet more banging on about Europe.
Sacrificing the former to silence the latter is not a good deal.
If we crash out, it will be a disaster and we will still bang on about whose fault it was until we all die.
But we are where we are.0 -
"if May really believes this is what the British people want, there is one thing she should fear less than anything else: a second referendum"JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, that presumes that the EU are willing to let us have the time to have such a referendum.logical_song said:
If the 2nd referendum is between May's Deal and Remain then a hard crash out is impossible.JosiasJessop said:
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.anothernick said:This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
Secondly, your choices neglect the hard leavers, insane winnets as they may be. Their side won the referendum, and a second referendum that did not have that option would be easy to call undemocratic - and perhaps it would be. If anything, it's easier to argue that as leave won, it should be a choice between May's deal and a hard Brexit.
Even if remain were to win, a second referendum with those options would solve nothing and would just lead to yet more banging on about Europe.
A May's deal / remain referendum would not solve anything in the short and long terms. Sadly, neither would many of the other options.
...
"May insisted that we ask the people again for a renewed mandate, just two short years later. If this logic worked then, why not now?"
https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-is-gaslighting-a-nation-with-her-brexit-deal-mantra-1076230 -
You're responsible too, by your logic. You voted for a party that had leave in its manifesto.TOPPING said:
Those who voted Leave, whatever colour horn they wanted the unicorn to have (h/t @rcs1000 ) are responsible. If they didn't realise it would turn out like this then it's worse than I thought. As for Remainers? Who cares, we lost.another_richard said:
And we could Leave or Remain.TOPPING said:
Nah. The ballot paper was the ballot paper.another_richard said:
There's a difference between Leavers and Brexiteers.TOPPING said:**NOTICE**
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
As there is a difference between Remainers and EverCloserUnioners.
But Leaving does not satisfy those who want to create libertarian pirate island while Remaining would not have satisfied those who wanted to create United States of Europe.0 -
Philip should really read Sean Fear’s excellent post from yesterday.Gallowgate said:
Delusional.Philip_Thompson said:
We did hold the cards but remainer May chucked away our aces.TheScreamingEagles said:
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.Philip_Thompson said:
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.CarlottaVance said:Xenon said:I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
The voters hate being lied to.0 -
Those are meaningless quotes; wish-fulfilment that ignore the real world.logical_song said:
"if May really believes this is what the British people want, there is one thing she should fear less than anything else: a second referendum"JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, that presumes that the EU are willing to let us have the time to have such a referendum.logical_song said:
If the 2nd referendum is between May's Deal and Remain then a hard crash out is impossible.JosiasJessop said:
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.anothernick said:This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
Secondly, your choices neglect the hard leavers, insane winnets as they may be. Their side won the referendum, and a second referendum that did not have that option would be easy to call undemocratic - and perhaps it would be. If anything, it's easier to argue that as leave won, it should be a choice between May's deal and a hard Brexit.
Even if remain were to win, a second referendum with those options would solve nothing and would just lead to yet more banging on about Europe.
A May's deal / remain referendum would not solve anything in the short and long terms. Sadly, neither would many of the other options.
...
"May insisted that we ask the people again for a renewed mandate, just two short years later. If this logic worked then, why not now?"
https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-is-gaslighting-a-nation-with-her-brexit-deal-mantra-107623
Please tell me how we get to a second referendum from where we are, and what options you think will 'solve' the current mess.0 -
The EU could fudge it if they wanted. I don't buy all this "bound by treaties" stuff, the EU just does what it wants.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Xenon, I remember Laura Kuenssberg saying that if we did Remain we'd lose the rebate, as it's not in a treaty, but retain Shengen/single currency opt-outs, which are in treaties.
If they want us to stay they will make it happen.0 -
And we need twelve good men and women to convict. I can't say I particularly liked the Onasanya mistrial verdict, but am thankful it's a reminder of the sanctity of the jury.YellowSubmarine said:Dianne Abbott is absolutely right. " Tactical contact " exists within a clear legal frame work. The idea any democracy let alone a common law one would go further and introduce a blanket indemnity for police officers to ram citizens with cars is absurd. It's the stuff of literal dictatorship.
0 -
That sounds a very reasonable position to be in, compared with the current one.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Xenon, I remember Laura Kuenssberg saying that if we did Remain we'd lose the rebate, as it's not in a treaty, but retain Shengen/single currency opt-outs, which are in treaties.
0 -
A joker, Mr Bun the Baker, and Ferrari Testarossa Top TrumpPhilip_Thompson said:We did hold the cards
0 -
This award is from an organisation that has listed the UK as an "Enemy Of The Internet" since 2014, along with:AlastairMeeks said:Another day, another award for Carole Cadwalladr:
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1067340429081890816
I'm sure the diehard Leavers who want to wave her work away will come up with some good reasons why her work is unaccountably winning so many awards.
Bahrain: 2012–present
Belarus: 2006–8, 2012–present
China: 2008–present
Cuba: 2006–present
Ethiopia: 2014–present
India: 2014–present
Iran: 2006–present
North Korea: 2006–present
Pakistan: 2014–present
Russia: 2014–present
Saudi Arabia: 2006–present
Sudan: 2014–present
Syria: 2006–present
Turkmenistan: 2006–present
United Arab Emirates: 2014–present
United States: 2014–present
Uzbekistan: 2006–present
Vietnam: 2006–present
Hmm..0 -
Because the reality of a crash out Brexit will be very far removed from the "sunny uplands" Leave voters voted for - even if some of them knew there would be compromises. And both sides told contradictory tales about the SM & CU (IIRC it was more Remain who said we'd come out of both, rather than Leave which had a kaleidoscope of options).Philip_Thompson said:
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.CarlottaVance said:Xenon said:I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")0 -
Which Aces were those?Philip_Thompson said:
We did hold the cards but remainer May chucked away our aces.TheScreamingEagles said:
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.Philip_Thompson said:
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.CarlottaVance said:Xenon said:I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
The voters hate being lied to.0 -
It is genuinely impressive how prodigiously and comprehensively fucked we now are whatever the outcome.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Xenon, I remember Laura Kuenssberg saying that if we did Remain we'd lose the rebate, as it's not in a treaty, but retain Shengen/single currency opt-outs, which are in treaties.
Sometimes you just have to step back and look with awe and wonder.0 -
Sorry, that was her other award this month from RSF.TrèsDifficile said:
This award is from an organisation that has listed the UK as an "Enemy Of The Internet" since 2014, along with:AlastairMeeks said:Another day, another award for Carole Cadwalladr:
https://twitter.com/guardiannews/status/1067340429081890816
I'm sure the diehard Leavers who want to wave her work away will come up with some good reasons why her work is unaccountably winning so many awards.
Bahrain: 2012–present
Belarus: 2006–8, 2012–present
China: 2008–present
Cuba: 2006–present
Ethiopia: 2014–present
India: 2014–present
Iran: 2006–present
North Korea: 2006–present
Pakistan: 2014–present
Russia: 2014–present
Saudi Arabia: 2006–present
Sudan: 2014–present
Syria: 2006–present
Turkmenistan: 2006–present
United Arab Emirates: 2014–present
United States: 2014–present
Uzbekistan: 2006–present
Vietnam: 2006–present
Hmm..0 -
So a "real" Brexiter - one of those who ran away at the first sign of trouble, perhaps? - would not only have got more from the EU but would be more successful in winning a majority from Parliament? Expecting a unicorn is bad enough but you expect it to be able to fly as well?Philip_Thompson said:
We did hold the cards but remainer May chucked away our aces.TheScreamingEagles said:
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.Philip_Thompson said:
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.CarlottaVance said:Xenon said:I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
The voters hate being lied to.0 -
In 2017, we had a general election in which 86% of votes were cast for parties who pledged they would implement the decision to Brexit.TheScreamingEagles said:
It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.Philip_Thompson said:
What damage does winner takes all do to democracy? That's simply democracy when we are faced with a binary choice, especially one where we were told by both sides leaving meant leaving the SM and CU before the vote.CarlottaVance said:Xenon said:I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
The voters hate being lied to.
Theresa May in the Conservative manifesto said we would do this by leaving the CU and the SM.
That is a shed-load of lying, right there.0 -
That's a really good article, and worth reading in full. The part I'd highlight is this as it's underrated on PB (I'm going to the McDonnell meeting that the Guardian organised tonight - interesting to see if he adds anything on this):CarlottaVance said:
“People think of Corbyn ‘he’s a secret Brexiteer, he hates the EU,’” the [front-bench] MP said. “I don’t know any of that; all I know is that he voted Remain, he campaigned for Remain despite having a lifelong scepticism of the EU, but nonetheless I’ve got no reason to believe he’s done anything but tell the truth.
“In terms of him wrecking a people’s vote, I think you need to see it through the lens of — does having a people’s vote increase the chances of having a stable Labour government?”
The MP added: “That’s my view. Other people who are less friendly to Jeremy may be coloured by a ‘can’t stand Corbyn, he’ll block this,’ that kind of view. I know Jeremy. I can’t see he would deliberately block a people’s vote, especially if he knew that was going to gift us, you could make an argument that this was the best way out of this and at the same time it was going to deliver a stable Labour government.
“I think there’s a lot more pragmatism going on on the Labour front bench, with the Labour leadership, than people give them credit for.”0 -
CarlottaVance said:
Which Aces were those?
0 -
She's right, you can't have the old bill running people over at will. The police need less powers to inflict violence on the citizenry not more.Morris_Dancer said:0 -
Part of Kowloon as well, if one is being pedantic. The Peninsula Hotel could have been forever British. Mind you the lavatories would have been less effective if the Chinese had stopped water flowing from the New Territories.TOPPING said:
OMG not HK now.swing_voter said:
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.Pulpstar said:I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately.
Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
EDIT - I see that the point has been made. Still, union jack underpants.0 -
"The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored")."CarlottaVance said:Xenon said:I can't see anything except remain from here. They've made such a balls up of negotiations that there doesn't seem to be any other choice.
Unfortunately none of the options are great.
The option which does least damage to the economy - but most damage to democracy is Remain. ("You Plebs can be ignored").
The option which is pretty meh to the economy and ok-ish to democracy is the deal. (No one likes it much, but the country is still split)
Crash out Brexit does most damage to the economy and significant damage to democracy ("winner takes all Leave")
In a new referendum all of us, 'plebs' included, will be asked again and not ignored.0 -
Paying even more money into the EU? Hmmm.IanB2 said:
That sounds a very reasonable position to be in, compared with the current one.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Xenon, I remember Laura Kuenssberg saying that if we did Remain we'd lose the rebate, as it's not in a treaty, but retain Shengen/single currency opt-outs, which are in treaties.
0 -
If a second referendum were held, (and I think we're past the point where it could be) it would have to be between three options. Anything else would just be trying to rig the result.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, that presumes that the EU are willing to let us have the time to have such a referendum.logical_song said:
If the 2nd referendum is between May's Deal and Remain then a hard crash out is impossible.JosiasJessop said:
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.anothernick said:This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
Secondly, your choices neglect the hard leavers, insane winnets as they may be. Their side won the referendum, and a second referendum that did not have that option would be easy to call undemocratic - and perhaps it would be. If anything, it's easier to argue that as leave won, it should be a choice between May's deal and a hard Brexit.
Even if remain were to win, a second referendum with those options would solve nothing and would just lead to yet more banging on about Europe.
A May's deal / remain referendum would not solve anything in the short and long terms. Sadly, neither would many of the other options.0 -
Not really. I don't and didn't have a problem with the referendum being held. It is the result I take issue with.Sean_F said:
You're responsible too, by your logic. You voted for a party that had leave in its manifesto.TOPPING said:
Those who voted Leave, whatever colour horn they wanted the unicorn to have (h/t @rcs1000 ) are responsible. If they didn't realise it would turn out like this then it's worse than I thought. As for Remainers? Who cares, we lost.another_richard said:
And we could Leave or Remain.TOPPING said:
Nah. The ballot paper was the ballot paper.another_richard said:
There's a difference between Leavers and Brexiteers.TOPPING said:**NOTICE**
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
As there is a difference between Remainers and EverCloserUnioners.
But Leaving does not satisfy those who want to create libertarian pirate island while Remaining would not have satisfied those who wanted to create United States of Europe.0 -
This photo sums it all up.Scott_P said:
Despite a majority in the country wanting out of the EU, there weren't any prominent politicians who shared their views. They are all straight out of the Westminster bubble.
No wonder it's such a mess.0 -
Over 85% of voters in 2017 voted for parties with leave in their manifesto.Sean_F said:
You're responsible too, by your logic. You voted for a party that had leave in its manifesto.TOPPING said:
Those who voted Leave, whatever colour horn they wanted the unicorn to have (h/t @rcs1000 ) are responsible. If they didn't realise it would turn out like this then it's worse than I thought. As for Remainers? Who cares, we lost.another_richard said:
And we could Leave or Remain.TOPPING said:
Nah. The ballot paper was the ballot paper.another_richard said:
There's a difference between Leavers and Brexiteers.TOPPING said:**NOTICE**
Can all those Brexiters who voted Leave please stop talking about Brexiters in the third person as if they bear no responsibility for what is happening. Those in charge now, those in charge once and now gone, those who voted for it. All the same. No of course you didn't realise it would turn out like this and hoped for EEA/EFTA/Norway Plus/Canada Plus Plus whatever the fuck.
This absolute shithow is all your fault.
So please enough of the "they".
As there is a difference between Remainers and EverCloserUnioners.
But Leaving does not satisfy those who want to create libertarian pirate island while Remaining would not have satisfied those who wanted to create United States of Europe.0 -
Those lavatories are bliss.matt said:
Part of Kowloon as well, if one is being pedantic. The Peninsula Hotel could have been forever British. Mind you the lavatories would have been less effective if the Chinese had stopped water flowing from the New Territories.TOPPING said:
OMG not HK now.swing_voter said:
Picardo's `real world' is about the size of a municipal park in a UK metropolitan borough....., I dont blame him for fighting.hard to be heard...look what the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters when faced with a neighbour who wanted it back who had big trading potential....Gib folk should be fearful of vague Tory promises.Pulpstar said:I note Fabian Picardo absolubtely ripped the BBC to shreds this morning on their complete failure to present the Gibraltar situation accurately.
Certainly a politician living in the real world.
Hong Kong (ex the Island, for the details people) was on a lease which expired. The UK honoured that contract.
All the Conservatives did to Hong Kong's voters was to comply with their international treaty obligations.
EDIT - I see that the point has been made. Still, union jack underpants.0 -
Well according to Abbott figures under a corbyn government we will be able to afford 100,000s of new police, there will be so many on the streets there won’t be any need to chase anybody.Morris_Dancer said:Soft on crime:
twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/10673592922385448960 -
Ban all internal combustion engined vehicles and I'd be with you there.TheScreamingEagles said:
No. I’d ban mopeds from city centres.TGOHF said:
Surely then you will support the police shortening these chases by ejaculating these hoodlums from their mopeds at the earliest opportunity ?TheScreamingEagles said:
She has a point. Did you know in recent years 28 people have been killed during police chases, two thirds have been innocent bystanders.Morris_Dancer said:
The police display shocking judgment in a lot of these cases.
(exceptions for deliveries before 8am/after 6pm and for rural buses that terminate/originate in the city centre, obviously)0 -
There are not even two prominent politicians in that photo who share each other's views. That is what is wrong with this process: Cameron launched the referendum and later May triggered Article 50 without either of them troubling to establish what Brexit ought to look like. There is no consensus even amongst leavers, even amongst the ERG or UKIP, and there never was.Xenon said:
This photo sums it all up.Scott_P said:
Despite a majority in the country wanting out of the EU, there weren't any prominent politicians who shared their views. They are all straight out of the Westminster bubble.
No wonder it's such a mess.0 -
How do we count the votes, a three option referendum could well fall prey to condorcet's paradox.Sean_F said:
If a second referendum were held, (and I think we're past the point where it could be) it would have to be between three options. Anything else would just be trying to rig the result.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, that presumes that the EU are willing to let us have the time to have such a referendum.logical_song said:
If the 2nd referendum is between May's Deal and Remain then a hard crash out is impossible.JosiasJessop said:
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.anothernick said:This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
Secondly, your choices neglect the hard leavers, insane winnets as they may be. Their side won the referendum, and a second referendum that did not have that option would be easy to call undemocratic - and perhaps it would be. If anything, it's easier to argue that as leave won, it should be a choice between May's deal and a hard Brexit.
Even if remain were to win, a second referendum with those options would solve nothing and would just lead to yet more banging on about Europe.
A May's deal / remain referendum would not solve anything in the short and long terms. Sadly, neither would many of the other options.0 -
I think I agree but I wonder if the No Deal option isn't harder than it sounds. Are you allowed a minimal deal to keep the planes flying, or does No Deal mean No Deal? If you can have a minimal deal, what's the line between what you're allowed to do and what you're not?Sean_F said:
If a second referendum were held, (and I think we're past the point where it could be) it would have to be between three options. Anything else would just be trying to rig the result.0 -
Brexit has amply illustrated that our politicians are not fit for purpose.Xenon said:
This photo sums it all up.Scott_P said:
Despite a majority in the country wanting out of the EU, there weren't any prominent politicians who shared their views. They are all straight out of the Westminster bubble.
No wonder it's such a mess.
Don't be surprised if the voters sling out many of them. A new party that pledges to listen, then act, would clean up.0 -
-
The SDP?MarqueeMark said:
Brexit has amply illustrated that our politicians are not fit for purpose.Xenon said:
This photo sums it all up.Scott_P said:
Despite a majority in the country wanting out of the EU, there weren't any prominent politicians who shared their views. They are all straight out of the Westminster bubble.
No wonder it's such a mess.
Don't be surprised if the voters sling out many of them. A new party that pledges to listen, then act, would clean up.0 -
Yes, populists can win votes. Look at Trump.MarqueeMark said:A new party that pledges to listen, then act, would clean up.
But he is not actually delivering what they want.0 -
" I think you need to see it through the lens of — does having a people’s vote increase the chances of having a stable Labour government?”"NickPalmer said:
That's a really good article, and worth reading in full. The part I'd highlight is this as it's underrated on PB (I'm going to the McDonnell meeting that the Guardian organised tonight - interesting to see if he adds anything on this):CarlottaVance said:
“People think of Corbyn ‘he’s a secret Brexiteer, he hates the EU,’” the [front-bench] MP said. “I don’t know any of that; all I know is that he voted Remain, he campaigned for Remain despite having a lifelong scepticism of the EU, but nonetheless I’ve got no reason to believe he’s done anything but tell the truth.
“In terms of him wrecking a people’s vote, I think you need to see it through the lens of — does having a people’s vote increase the chances of having a stable Labour government?”
The MP added: “That’s my view. Other people who are less friendly to Jeremy may be coloured by a ‘can’t stand Corbyn, he’ll block this,’ that kind of view. I know Jeremy. I can’t see he would deliberately block a people’s vote, especially if he knew that was going to gift us, you could make an argument that this was the best way out of this and at the same time it was going to deliver a stable Labour government.
“I think there’s a lot more pragmatism going on on the Labour front bench, with the Labour leadership, than people give them credit for.”
The problem with that is that many things might increase the chances of having a stable Labour government. That does not mean the cost of those things is automatically worth the sunlit uplands of a stable Labour government.
Taking an extreme example, an attack on the Conservative Party Conference that saw all Conservative MPs killed might increase the chances of a stable Labour government (and indeed, Corbyn appears to have some sympathy for people who tried just that). Does that make it worthwhile?
Labour are helping the country towards a massively damaging hard Brexit that will cost people jobs, wealth and happiness. It is a sick example of putting party before the country.
It's time Labour loyalists grew up.0 -
Anyone British that volunteers to be Irish needs their hard drive examined by the police.Scott_P said:
0 -
The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down. A general election to get a public mandate for the deal just doesn't work as a plan - Tory MPs, having just trashed the deal, are hardly going to campaign a few weeks later in support of it. and if the PM tried it, she would split the party. However, there is no realistic possibility of the deal being renegotiated in any substantive way, and leaving with no deal is unthinkable. Asking for extra time of itself won't square this circle. Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum, which would almost certainly get through parliament with the support of Remainy Tories, the LibDems, a large chunk of Labour MPs even if not the leadership, and probably the SNP. The recent behaviour of Theresa May in seemingly going over the heads of MPs to appeal direct to the public for support for her deal makes good sense in this scenario, as does the warning in the Conservative whip's memo to MPs that there will be votes with three-line whips in the final week of the parliamentary term.
Clearly there are big difficulties. Timing is a major issue; maybe the PM thinks she can get this through in time to hold the referendum before March 29th despite the existing legislation on referendums, although that looks really difficult, perhaps totally impractical. Alternatively an extension to Article 50 could be sought, although that brings further problems.
Another issue is whether Theresa May will be there to implement this, but if she isn't the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't change, so her successor has the same dilemma.
Clearly also the ERGers are going to kick up one hell of a stink if this is how things pan out, but they've somewhat neutered themselves by arguing that the deal is worse than Remain.
So, 2019 referendum it is, I think. And, ironically, all this is the doing of the ERG, for trashing what they have been campaigning for for years. If they’d said the deal isn’t perfect, but they’ll support it to get us out of the EU, we’d be definitely leaving in a few weeks’ time.
0 -
Mrs Brown's Boys, a BBC Christmas highlight? Jeez..... Looking like a Netflix Christmas.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-463460510 -
No that is unfair. You are effectively saying that everyone should "see sense" and vote with the Conservatives. But that makes a mockery of our politics. It is the job of the opposition to oppose and they are allowed to say that they wouldn't have started from there. It is a moral hazard for any government to get itself into all and any kinds of trouble and then expect the opposition to bail it out.JosiasJessop said:
" I think you need to see it through the lens of — does having a people’s vote increase the chances of having a stable Labour government?”"NickPalmer said:
That's a really good article, and worth reading in full. The part I'd highlight is this as it's underrated on PB (I'm going to the McDonnell meeting that the Guardian organised tonight - interesting to see if he adds anything on this):CarlottaVance said:
“People think of Corbyn ‘he’s a secret Brexiteer, he hates the EU,’” the [front-bench] MP said. “I don’t know any of that; all I know is that he voted Remain, he campaigned for Remain despite having a lifelong scepticism of the EU, but nonetheless I’ve got no reason to believe he’s done anything but tell the truth.
“In terms of him wrecking a people’s vote, I think you need to see it through the lens of — does having a people’s vote increase the chances of having a stable Labour government?”
The MP added: “That’s my view. Other people who are less friendly to Jeremy may be coloured by a ‘can’t stand Corbyn, he’ll block this,’ that kind of view. I know Jeremy. I can’t see he would deliberately block a people’s vote, especially if he knew that was going to gift us, you could make an argument that this was the best way out of this and at the same time it was going to deliver a stable Labour government.
“I think there’s a lot more pragmatism going on on the Labour front bench, with the Labour leadership, than people give them credit for.”
The problem with that is that many things might increase the chances of having a stable Labour government. That does not mean the cost of those things is automatically worth the sunlit uplands of a stable Labour government.
Taking an extreme example, an attack on the Conservative Party Conference that saw all Conservative MPs killed might increase the chances of a stable Labour government (and indeed, Corbyn appears to have some sympathy for people who tried just that). Does that make it worthwhile?
Labour are helping the country towards a massively damaging hard Brexit that will cost people jobs, wealth and happiness. It is a sick example of putting party before the country.
It's time Labour loyalists grew up.0 -
Do 2 rounds. I think this part is easy, because there are two distinct questions:Pulpstar said:
How do we count the votes, a three option referendum could well fall prey to condorcet's paradox.
1) What kind of Brexit?
2) Do you actually want to do it?
This works better as separate votes, because the media has a really hard time handling more than two opinions at the same time, so you get a much cleaner discussion than if you were trying to do 3 options at once.
The downside is that you have a big old bunfight about whether these two rounds are separate campaigns, in which case the winning Leave side gets to raise money and send out leaflets twice, or only one, in which case the winning Leave side is disadvantaged because they have to fight twice with the same resources. But I think Remainers would be prepared to suck it up if you settled this stuff in the Leave side's favour on the Beggars Can't Be Choosers principle.0 -
Yes, they are fools. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.Richard_Nabavi said:
...
So, 2019 referendum it is, I think. And, ironically, all this is the doing of the ERG, for trashing what they have been campaigning for for years. If they’d said the deal isn’t perfect, but they’ll support it to get us out of the EU, we’d be definitely leaving in a few weeks’ time.0 -
Hoisted by their own fantasies. I think there is a serious danger of the 48 letters going in if May puts forward that particular referendum though.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down. A general election to get a public mandate for the deal just doesn't work as a plan - Tory MPs, having just trashed the deal, are hardly going to campaign a few weeks later in support of it. and if the PM tried it, she would split the party. However, there is no realistic possibility of the deal being renegotiated in any substantive way, and leaving with no deal is unthinkable. Asking for extra time of itself won't square this circle. Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum, which would almost certainly get through parliament with the support of Remainy Tories, the LibDems, a large chunk of Labour MPs even if not the leadership, and probably the SNP. The recent behaviour of Theresa May in seemingly going over the heads of MPs to appeal direct to the public for support for her deal makes good sense in this scenario, as does the warning in the Conservative whip's memo to MPs that there will be votes with three-line whips in the final week of the parliamentary term.
Clearly there are big difficulties. Timing is a major issue; maybe the PM thinks she can get this through in time to hold the referendum before March 29th despite the existing legislation on referendums, although that looks really difficult, perhaps totally impractical. Alternatively an extension to Article 50 could be sought, although that brings further problems.
Another issue is whether Theresa May will be there to implement this, but if she isn't the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't change, so her successor has the same dilemma.
Clearly also the ERGers are going to kick up one hell of a stink if this is how things pan out, but they've somewhat neutered themselves by arguing that the deal is worse than Remain.
So, 2019 referendum it is, I think. And, ironically, all this is the doing of the ERG, for trashing what they have been campaigning for for years. If they’d said the deal isn’t perfect, but they’ll support it to get us out of the EU, we’d be definitely leaving in a few weeks’ time.
On the plus side for May I think Art 50 would be extended for that particular referendum.0 -
They won't allow a bare bones deal in case the public decide to actually vote for it.edmundintokyo said:
I think I agree but I wonder if the No Deal option isn't harder than it sounds. Are you allowed a minimal deal to keep the planes flying, or does No Deal mean No Deal? If you can have a minimal deal, what's the line between what you're allowed to do and what you're not?Sean_F said:
If a second referendum were held, (and I think we're past the point where it could be) it would have to be between three options. Anything else would just be trying to rig the result.
It has to be total chaos or being subservient to the EU.0 -
Quite right Mr Dancer. Bull bars as fitted to US police cruisers should be permitted in order to reduce the damage to police vehicles too! Any nasty little oik who rides a motorcycle with the express intention of stealing someone's mobile phone deserves the full force of the law, even if it is in the form of a 2.5 tonne BMW X5!Morris_Dancer said:0 -
The legal challenges alone would take you way past 29th March. And if you do not include a No Deal option the hardliners will bring down May like a shot.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down. A general election to get a public mandate for the deal just doesn't work as a plan - Tory MPs, having just trashed the deal, are hardly going to campaign a few weeks later in support of it. and if the PM tried it, she would split the party. However, there is no realistic possibility of the deal being renegotiated in any substantive way, and leaving with no deal is unthinkable. Asking for extra time of itself won't square this circle. Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum, which would almost certainly get through parliament with the support of Remainy Tories, the LibDems, a large chunk of Labour MPs even if not the leadership, and probably the SNP. The recent behaviour of Theresa May in seemingly going over the heads of MPs to appeal direct to the public for support for her deal makes good sense in this scenario, as does the warning in the Conservative whip's memo to MPs that there will be votes with three-line whips in the final week of the parliamentary term.
Clearly there are big difficulties. Timing is a major issue; maybe the PM thinks she can get this through in time to hold the referendum before March 29th despite the existing legislation on referendums, although that looks really difficult, perhaps totally impractical. Alternatively an extension to Article 50 could be sought, although that brings further problems.
Another issue is whether Theresa May will be there to implement this, but if she isn't the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't change, so her successor has the same dilemma.
Clearly also the ERGers are going to kick up one hell of a stink if this is how things pan out, but they've somewhat neutered themselves by arguing that the deal is worse than Remain.
So, 2019 referendum it is, I think. And, ironically, all this is the doing of the ERG, for trashing what they have been campaigning for for years. If they’d said the deal isn’t perfect, but they’ll support it to get us out of the EU, we’d be definitely leaving in a few weeks’ time.0 -
The flaw in that plan is that it would peeve many many Conservative MPs and many many voters who would be quite angry.Richard_Nabavi said:
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum,
Nobody much would campaign for the deal - remain would probably win due to apathy - and the party would disintegrate.
It does kick the can down the road for a couple of months so it's right up TM's street.0 -
Is it?logical_song said:
If the 2nd referendum is between May's Deal and Remain then a hard crash out is impossible.JosiasJessop said:
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.anothernick said:This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
In what context is the choice any longer in our own hands?
We have a referendum, assuming the EU allows an extended period for this to happen. The result is close, but we ask to remain.
Remain as unhappy members, difficult members, a split nation who are members because they couldn't get the goodies they want. If you were the EU would you let us remain without some long term commitment? Say no more referendum for 10 years? Could we give that commitment?
A second referendum could make the EU less willing to keep us inside the club.
In that situation it is the deal of May of Drop out.
0 -
I thought you disagreed with this, because I am fairly certain that, when I said, you told me it was not an option.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down.
...
Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.0 -
Remain or remain in all but name.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down. A general election to get a public mandate for the deal just doesn't work as a plan - Tory MPs, having just trashed the deal, are hardly going to campaign a few weeks later in support of it. and if the PM tried it, she would split the party. However, there is no realistic possibility of the deal being renegotiated in any substantive way, and leaving with no deal is unthinkable. Asking for extra time of itself won't square this circle. Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
Let's be honest, that's all us plebs were ever allowed to choose from the start.
Of course remain would win that particular farce.
If they want to remain then just remain, don't try and pretend it is any way democratic, because it really isn't.0 -
The letters may well go in. But that doesn't necessarily mean she will lose the VONC.Pulpstar said:Hoisted by their own fantasies. I think there is a serious danger of the 48 letters going in if May puts forward that particular referendum though.
Anyway, what does she have to lose? She's trying to do her duty, and to be fair has done well to get this far. If she's lost the withdrawal bill vote anyway, she's got to find some other plan, and if Tory MPs decide to chuck her out, it's no longer her problem.0 -
The person they rob should be able to run them over several times and then give them a good kicking though.Dura_Ace said:
She's right, you can't have the old bill running people over at will. The police need less powers to inflict violence on the citizenry not more.Morris_Dancer said:0 -
That is what I thought, you are right. I have changed my mind because of the extraordinary behaviour of those Tory MPs who have decided to vote against the deal. That closes off the only way Brexit could reasonably be implemented, unless it can be salvaged through the referendum (although I think in practice the result would now be to cancel Brexit).Beverley_C said:
I thought you disagreed with this, because I am fairly certain that, when I said, you told me it was not an option.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down.
...
Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.0 -
It's very fair. It is not the job of the 'opposition' to oppose: it it to do what they think is right for the country. And indeed, they frequently do vote with the government, particularly after amendments.TOPPING said:No that is unfair. You are effectively saying that everyone should "see sense" and vote with the Conservatives. But that makes a mockery of our politics. It is the job of the opposition to oppose and they are allowed to say that they wouldn't have started from there. It is a moral hazard for any government to get itself into all and any kinds of trouble and then expect the opposition to bail it out.
Sadly, too many politicians think that doing what is right for the country really means doing what is right for their party, regardless of the harm it may cause the country. Oddly enough, something you could not accuse the ERGers of.0 -
A two stage referendum.Pulpstar said:
How do we count the votes, a three option referendum could well fall prey to condorcet's paradox.Sean_F said:
If a second referendum were held, (and I think we're past the point where it could be) it would have to be between three options. Anything else would just be trying to rig the result.JosiasJessop said:
Firstly, that presumes that the EU are willing to let us have the time to have such a referendum.logical_song said:
If the 2nd referendum is between May's Deal and Remain then a hard crash out is impossible.JosiasJessop said:
Actually, no. The Brexit issue was harmful to the Conservative Party, but it wasn't as though only traditional Conservative voters wanted Brexit: plenty of would-be Labour voters moved over to UKIP, and voted leave.anothernick said:This whole farrago results from the Tories putting party before country. The referendum was called in the interests of the Tory party, as was the 2017 election. Tories are in no position to appeal to their opponents on national interest grounds.
Anyway I guess most Labour MPs believe that the national interest lies in defeating the deal and going for a second referendum.
A referendum was required. There had been too many years' of people moaning and whinging about the EU, and we were not willing to deal with issues in our own remit as it was easier to blame the EU instead. If we had not had one in 2016, we would have had one within a few years, whoever was in power. It was inevitable.
Sadly for your last line, I cannot see a sane process or question for a second referendum that would deal with all the options, and also how to even get a second referendum.
*Anyone* wanting a second referendum are risking a very hard crash out. Some say they want a second referendum knowing that, others are deluded.
Secondly, your choices neglect the hard leavers, insane winnets as they may be. Their side won the referendum, and a second referendum that did not have that option would be easy to call undemocratic - and perhaps it would be. If anything, it's easier to argue that as leave won, it should be a choice between May's deal and a hard Brexit.
Even if remain were to win, a second referendum with those options would solve nothing and would just lead to yet more banging on about Europe.
A May's deal / remain referendum would not solve anything in the short and long terms. Sadly, neither would many of the other options.
Deal or no deal
If no deal wins the second referendum is remain or leave.0 -
-
Since there are in fact three possible outcomes, there should be three outcomes on the ballot.TGOHF said:
The flaw in that plan is that it would peeve many many Conservative MPs and many many voters who would be quite angry.Richard_Nabavi said:
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum,
Nobody much would campaign for the deal - remain would probably win due to apathy - and the party would disintegrate.
It does kick the can down the road for a couple of months so it's right up TM's street.
1. Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2. Leave the EU, rejecting the terms of the deal
3. Remain in the EU.
No-one will feel left out. May should go for this and promote the Goldilocks option.0 -
Agreed, but what other options are there?Richard_Tyndall said:
The legal challenges alone would take you way past 29th March. And if you do not include a No Deal option the hardliners will bring down May like a shot.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down. A general election to get a public mandate for the deal just doesn't work as a plan - Tory MPs, having just trashed the deal, are hardly going to campaign a few weeks later in support of it. and if the PM tried it, she would split the party. However, there is no realistic possibility of the deal being renegotiated in any substantive way, and leaving with no deal is unthinkable. Asking for extra time of itself won't square this circle. Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum, which would almost certainly get through parliament with the support of Remainy Tories, the LibDems, a large chunk of Labour MPs even if not the leadership, and probably the SNP. The recent behaviour of Theresa May in seemingly going over the heads of MPs to appeal direct to the public for support for her deal makes good sense in this scenario, as does the warning in the Conservative whip's memo to MPs that there will be votes with three-line whips in the final week of the parliamentary term.
Clearly there are big difficulties. Timing is a major issue; maybe the PM thinks she can get this through in time to hold the referendum before March 29th despite the existing legislation on referendums, although that looks really difficult, perhaps totally impractical. Alternatively an extension to Article 50 could be sought, although that brings further problems.
Another issue is whether Theresa May will be there to implement this, but if she isn't the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't change, so her successor has the same dilemma.
Clearly also the ERGers are going to kick up one hell of a stink if this is how things pan out, but they've somewhat neutered themselves by arguing that the deal is worse than Remain.
So, 2019 referendum it is, I think. And, ironically, all this is the doing of the ERG, for trashing what they have been campaigning for for years. If they’d said the deal isn’t perfect, but they’ll support it to get us out of the EU, we’d be definitely leaving in a few weeks’ time.0 -
Again, what other options are there?TGOHF said:
The flaw in that plan is that it would peeve many many Conservative MPs and many many voters who would be quite angry.Richard_Nabavi said:
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum,
Nobody much would campaign for the deal - remain would probably win due to apathy - and the party would disintegrate.
It does kick the can down the road for a couple of months so it's right up TM's street.0 -
What about people who wanted to leave but with a different deal?Jonathan said:
Since there are in fact three possible outcomes, there should be three outcomes on the ballot.TGOHF said:
The flaw in that plan is that it would peeve many many Conservative MPs and many many voters who would be quite angry.Richard_Nabavi said:
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum,
Nobody much would campaign for the deal - remain would probably win due to apathy - and the party would disintegrate.
It does kick the can down the road for a couple of months so it's right up TM's street.
1. Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2. Leave the EU, rejecting the terms of the deal
3. Remain in the EU.
No-one will feel left out. May should go for this and promote the Goldilocks option.0 -
They vote for 2RobD said:
What about people who wanted to leave but with a different deal?Jonathan said:
Since there are in fact three possible outcomes, there should be three outcomes on the ballot.TGOHF said:
The flaw in that plan is that it would peeve many many Conservative MPs and many many voters who would be quite angry.Richard_Nabavi said:
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum,
Nobody much would campaign for the deal - remain would probably win due to apathy - and the party would disintegrate.
It does kick the can down the road for a couple of months so it's right up TM's street.
1. Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2. Leave the EU, rejecting the terms of the deal
3. Remain in the EU.
No-one will feel left out. May should go for this and promote the Goldilocks option.0 -
My God - someone infiltrated an ERG meeting? I love the banner "Clinging to power". BrilliantScott_P said:
0 -
This is the point. The question/s to be put are not at all clear, and in what order, and under what system? Two stage French style, vote? AV? All options unfamiliar to an electorate used to FPTP.edmundintokyo said:
I think I agree but I wonder if the No Deal option isn't harder than it sounds. Are you allowed a minimal deal to keep the planes flying, or does No Deal mean No Deal? If you can have a minimal deal, what's the line between what you're allowed to do and what you're not?Sean_F said:
If a second referendum were held, (and I think we're past the point where it could be) it would have to be between three options. Anything else would just be trying to rig the result.
It's a total zoo, and a dangerous one at that.
Imagine a 51/49 style result either way with an option left off, (or half an option if we are allowed to consider "minimal deals on planes etc), carried out under an unfamiliar voting system that genuinely confused people. If we think it's fraught now just wait till people cry foul over the process itself - and have justification for doing so.0 -
Yes I think this is how things will go. Hard to see how a second referendum can be avoided. And hard to see how remain would not beat deal by a significant margin, helped on its way by those leavers who have helpfully pointed out that the deal is worse than remain.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down. A general election to get a public mandate for the deal just doesn't work as a plan - Tory MPs, having just trashed the deal, are hardly going to campaign a few weeks later in support of it. and if the PM tried it, she would split the party. However, there is no realistic possibility of the deal being renegotiated in any substantive way, and leaving with no deal is unthinkable. Asking for extra time of itself won't square this circle. Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum, which would almost certainly get through parliament with the support of Remainy Tories, the LibDems, a large chunk of Labour MPs even if not the leadership, and probably the SNP. The recent behaviour of Theresa May in seemingly going over the heads of MPs to appeal direct to the public for support for her deal makes good sense in this scenario, as does the warning in the Conservative whip's memo to MPs that there will be votes with three-line whips in the final week of the parliamentary term.
Clearly there are big difficulties. Timing is a major issue; maybe the PM thinks she can get this through in time to hold the referendum before March 29th despite the existing legislation on referendums, although that looks really difficult, perhaps totally impractical. Alternatively an extension to Article 50 could be sought, although that brings further problems.
Another issue is whether Theresa May will be there to implement this, but if she isn't the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't change, so her successor has the same dilemma.
Clearly also the ERGers are going to kick up one hell of a stink if this is how things pan out, but they've somewhat neutered themselves by arguing that the deal is worse than Remain.
So, 2019 referendum it is, I think. And, ironically, all this is the doing of the ERG, for trashing what they have been campaigning for for years. If they’d said the deal isn’t perfect, but they’ll support it to get us out of the EU, we’d be definitely leaving in a few weeks’ time.
0 -
May could say we're preparing for "No deal". She could offer a second vote to the commons, she might resign.Richard_Nabavi said:
Again, what other options are there?TGOHF said:
The flaw in that plan is that it would peeve many many Conservative MPs and many many voters who would be quite angry.Richard_Nabavi said:
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum,
Nobody much would campaign for the deal - remain would probably win due to apathy - and the party would disintegrate.
It does kick the can down the road for a couple of months so it's right up TM's street.
All the options look terrible to her.0 -
No, I wouldn't. Because:philiph said:
Remain as unhappy members, difficult members, a split nation who are members because they couldn't get the goodies they want. If you were the EU would you let us remain without some long term commitment? Say no more referendum for 10 years? Could we give that commitment?
1) A short-term headache is trying to either go away or postponing itself, which is one less thing to worry about, so risk messing it up?
2) You know governments can't bind their successors, so there's no point in making someone make a commitment they can't keep
3) It's pretty obvious that after Cameron ended an otherwise promising career by calling an EU referendum, no PM is going to be trying anything like that that again any time soon0 -
-
I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.Richard_Nabavi said:
Agreed, but what other options are there?Richard_Tyndall said:
The legal challenges alone would take you way past 29th March. And if you do not include a No Deal option the hardliners will bring down May like a shot.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down. A general election to get a public mandate for the deal just doesn't work as a plan - Tory MPs, having just trashed the deal, are hardly going to campaign a few weeks later in support of it. and if the PM tried it, she would split the party. However, there is no realistic possibility of the deal being renegotiated in any substantive way, and leaving with no deal is unthinkable. Asking for extra time of itself won't square this circle. Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum, which would almost certainly get through parliament with the support of Remainy Tories, the LibDems, a large chunk of Labour MPs even if not the leadership, and probably the SNP. The recent behaviour of Theresa May in seemingly going over the heads of MPs to appeal direct to the public for support for her deal makes good sense in this scenario, as does the warning in the Conservative whip's memo to MPs that there will be votes with three-line whips in the final week of the parliamentary term.
Clearly there are big difficulties. Timing is a major issue; maybe the PM thinks she can get this through in time to hold the referendum before March 29th despite the existing legislation on referendums, although that looks really difficult, perhaps totally impractical. Alternatively an extension to Article 50 could be sought, although that brings further problems.
Another issue is whether Theresa May will be there to implement this, but if she isn't the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't change, so her successor has the same dilemma.
Clearly also the ERGers are going to kick up one hell of a stink if this is how things pan out, but they've somewhat neutered themselves by arguing that the deal is worse than Remain.
So, 2019 referendum it is, I think. And, ironically, all this is the doing of the ERG, for trashing what they have been campaigning for for years. If they’d said the deal isn’t perfect, but they’ll support it to get us out of the EU, we’d be definitely leaving in a few weeks’ time.0 -
The problem is I cannot see how a second referendum can realistically occur, yet alone be conclusive. The problems Richard mentions in his post are just too great. I'm also really doubtful if the EU will leave all options open whilst we bicker amongst ourselves.anothernick said:Yes I think this is how things will go. Hard to see how a second referendum can be avoided. And hard to see how remain would not beat deal by a significant margin, helped on its way by those leavers who have helpfully pointed out that the deal is worse than remain.
We're being utterly unreasonable.0 -
On topic, I'm not convinced that Beto isn't still value at around 9-10 on Betfair. Being funded purely by small individual donations is a huge asset. Do the traditional "rules" of primaries still hold in the era of social media and Trump?
I do agree with @rcs1000's other tips though (Klobuchar / Brown).0 -
I think we are at the point where - if she fails to get her vote through - particularly by a wide margin - that 2 years is sufficient to judge Mrs May.Richard_Nabavi said:
Again, what other options are there?TGOHF said:
The flaw in that plan is that it would peeve many many Conservative MPs and many many voters who would be quite angry.Richard_Nabavi said:
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum,
Nobody much would campaign for the deal - remain would probably win due to apathy - and the party would disintegrate.
It does kick the can down the road for a couple of months so it's right up TM's street.
She has failed to bring enough of her party and the country along with her - she needs to go and someone else needs to have a chance to do it in a better way - not just the deal details but the selling of the deal.
It would require someone quite different from Mrs May and her unispiring "grey management" approach.
The time for aching hand wringing pragmatism is over.
0 -
There are three possible outcomes today. All three should be put to the people.Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.0 -
So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.Richard_Nabavi said:
That is what I thought, you are right. I have changed my mind because of the extraordinary behaviour of those Tory MPs who have decided to vote against the deal. That closes off the only way Brexit could reasonably be implemented, unless it can be salvaged through the referendum (although I think in practice the result would now be to cancel Brexit).Beverley_C said:
I thought you disagreed with this, because I am fairly certain that, when I said, you told me it was not an option.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down.
...
Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.0 -
Oh, what a tangled web we weaveDecrepitJohnL said:
There are not even two prominent politicians in that photo who share each other's views. That is what is wrong with this process: Cameron launched the referendum and later May triggered Article 50 without either of them troubling to establish what Brexit ought to look like. There is no consensus even amongst leavers, even amongst the ERG or UKIP, and there never was.Xenon said:
This photo sums it all up.Scott_P said:
Despite a majority in the country wanting out of the EU, there weren't any prominent politicians who shared their views. They are all straight out of the Westminster bubble.
No wonder it's such a mess.
When first we practise to deceive!0 -
But Labour thinks that what is right for the country is not to have had a Conservative government in the first place. Once either side frames any policy (Brexit, nationalising Tescos) as in the national interest then according to your view of how it should work, national politics would grind to a halt.JosiasJessop said:
It's very fair. It is not the job of the 'opposition' to oppose: it it to do what they think is right for the country. And indeed, they frequently do vote with the government, particularly after amendments.TOPPING said:No that is unfair. You are effectively saying that everyone should "see sense" and vote with the Conservatives. But that makes a mockery of our politics. It is the job of the opposition to oppose and they are allowed to say that they wouldn't have started from there. It is a moral hazard for any government to get itself into all and any kinds of trouble and then expect the opposition to bail it out.
Sadly, too many politicians think that doing what is right for the country really means doing what is right for their party, regardless of the harm it may cause the country. Oddly enough, something you could not accuse the ERGers of.0 -
Richard_Nabavi said:
That is what I thought, you are right. I have changed my mind because of the extraordinary behaviour of those Tory MPs who have decided to vote against the deal. That closes off the only way Brexit could reasonably be implemented, unless it can be salvaged through the referendum (although I think in practice the result would now be to cancel Brexit).Beverley_C said:
I thought you disagreed with this, because I am fairly certain that, when I said, you told me it was not an option.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down.
...
Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
I also moved on a bit. I am not sure we will get a referendum. I do not think we have the time, I suspect that, ECJ willing, we might simply have to ask for the process to be stopped and then Westminster takes the consequences.
I suspect that the bulk of the population will not care, they have bigger concerns called "Everyday life"0 -
Good question. Others are laughing without thinking but you've asked the good question.CarlottaVance said:
Which Aces were those?Philip_Thompson said:
We did hold the cards but remainer May chucked away our aces.TheScreamingEagles said:It damages democracy that those in favour of Leaving said this wouldn’t happen because we held all the cards etc.
The voters hate being lied to.
Ace of Hearts: This was our choice.
May has acted afraid and recalcitrant, like she's worried but 'doing her duty' in doing what the voters said, instead of doing what she wanted. This makes it very easy for the EU to threaten negative consequences and get her to back down as a result. For someone who campaigned for this to happen the idea of threatening consequences would have been dismissed as "we know that, we chose it".
Ace of Diamonds: Money, money, money
Unlike Greece which desperately needed money from the ECB to keep their banks open and pay the bills, the EU wants our money.
Ace of Spades: First mover.
The vote caught the EU off guard, the genuinely weren't expecting we'd actually do it, and following that they waited for us to propose our solutions. We didn't do so. We waited, stalled and May chose to 'keep her cards close to her chest' until belatedly the Commission got fed up and came up with their own proposals which then have become the outcome. Had May come up with a fleshed our proposal like Chequers when she invoked Article 50 that would have set the groundwork to build on, instead of chucking away that opportunity and waiting for the Commission to do her work for her.
Ace of Clubs: Parliament.
@IanB2 suggested that a 'real Brexiteer' being able to command support in Parliament better was a 'flying unicorn' but of course that would have happened. Parliament was top ace for May. The Tories had an overall majority in Parliament and an opposition led by Jeremy Corbyn who was no confidenced by almost all his own MPs but clung on. She chucked away an overall majority, a 20+ point lead in the polls, a divided opposition and an opposition leader who wasn't taken seriously by calling an election then failing to turn up to the debates or win a majority.0 -
Leaving with PM's deal, apparently can't happen
Leaving with no deal, apparently can't happen.
Remain, apparently can't happen.
One of these must happen0 -
This has to get through parliament, and the vast majority of MPs quite rightly view No Deal as unthinkable.Richard_Tyndall said:I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.
0 -
No there's a fourth option.Scott_P said:Leaving with PM's deal, apparently can't happen
Leaving with no deal, apparently can't happen.
Remain, apparently can't happen.
One of these must happen
Leaving with a different deal can get through Parliament.0 -
If there is a referenum it should be a two stage questionJonathan said:
There are three possible outcomes today. All three should be put to the people.Richard_Tyndall said:
I don't support another referendum at all but if we have to have one it should be Deal vs No Deal. We already asked the question about whether or not we leave.
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.0 -
We will leave with May's deal.Scott_P said:Leaving with PM's deal, apparently can't happen
Leaving with no deal, apparently can't happen.
Remain, apparently can't happen.
One of these must happen
Edit: how, you ask! Well of course I have absolutely no idea but when you have ruled out two impossible things before breakfast...0 -
Labour cannot turn back the clock. For right or wrong, we've had a Conservative government. They need to deal with the reality that faces them.TOPPING said:But Labour thinks that what is right for the country is not to have had a Conservative government in the first place. Once either side frames any policy (Brexit, nationalising Tescos) as in the national interest then according to your view of how it should work, national politics would grind to a halt.
As for the rest, I'm unsure you're representing my view of how it should work correctly ...0 -
There is no other deal. You still want a unicorn, even now.Philip_Thompson said:Leaving with a different deal can get through Parliament.
0 -
-
This two week fakey-election campaign is going about as well for May as the real one went.
The thing is, May has spent two years painting herself into a corner using landmines, and now she has to come out of the corner. And the landmines are going off, one by one, and she's running out of limbs.
It's not even lunchtime, and today she's stepped on Sir Michael Fallon, Donald Trump, Gavin Barwell's pathetic pleading to a half-empty audience of Labour MPs, and trying and failing to pull a bait and switch on the Attorney General's legal advice.
The danger is that ridiculing the deal has now achieved critical mass. Once that happens, everything becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, every event gets construed in terms of how it confirms the narrative.
Even worse, countervailing narratives can no longer get a foothold. MPs who were minded to support or abstain on the deal, now feel they can or must join in the pile-on or be ridiculed/left out of the fun.
Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history, and Parliament seems to be about to award May an absolutely momentous shellacking of unparalleled historical brutality.
For comparison, Neville Chamberlain lost a VONC in the house by 83 votes, which as the time was considered an unparalleled political failure and abject humiliation.
May is on course to nearly double that record. She's going to massively outstrip the mauling of a Prime Minister whose crime was to appease Hitler.0 -
That one definitely can't happen.Philip_Thompson said:
No there's a fourth option.Scott_P said:Leaving with PM's deal, apparently can't happen
Leaving with no deal, apparently can't happen.
Remain, apparently can't happen.
One of these must happen
Leaving with a different deal can get through Parliament.0 -
Fraught with difficulty. The order of the questions materially affects the result.Slackbladder said:If there is a referenum it should be a two stage question
1)- Do you still wish to leave the EU?
if 'Yes' to 1 then
2) Do you wish to accept the negioated deal with the EU
If No to do then no-deal.0 -
@Richard_Nabavi - "Agreed, but what other options are there?"
Take a time machine and tell Ted Heath not having a referendum in 1972 was dumb beyond belief, and we were going to start having lots of them in future anyway despite his objections then, and that also he should've thought very hard about actually meaning "not joining without the whole hearted consent of the British people" rather than relying on Roy Jenkins and his mates in the lobby. Then telling all PM's since not to do anything by the way of signing treaties with the EU without having a referendum at each stage (like the sensible Irish), as all you would be doing is sweeping more gunpowder under the carpet for the future.
In other words, very unhelpfully, I wouldn't start from here(!)0 -
The PM would have to be nuts to go for that because it encourages Remain enthusiasts to vote No Deal to get their referendum. There's no need to get clever with conditionals and things, just do two rounds.philiph said:A two stage referendum.
Deal or no deal
If no deal wins the second referendum is remain or leave.0 -
Go back to the EU, say this deal is unacceptable and needs to change.Richard_Nabavi said:
Agreed, but what other options are there?Richard_Tyndall said:
The legal challenges alone would take you way past 29th March. And if you do not include a No Deal option the hardliners will bring down May like a shot.Richard_Nabavi said:The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that there is only one possible plan for Theresa May and the government if and when the deal is voted down. A general election to get a public mandate for the deal just doesn't work as a plan - Tory MPs, having just trashed the deal, are hardly going to campaign a few weeks later in support of it. and if the PM tried it, she would split the party. However, there is no realistic possibility of the deal being renegotiated in any substantive way, and leaving with no deal is unthinkable. Asking for extra time of itself won't square this circle. Therefore the choice is stark: either get the deal agreed some other way, or ask the EU if we can please reverse this Brexit malarkey. In terms of avoiding utter disaster, either would work if there is sufficient democratic cover.
My conclusion therefore is the obvious one that Plan B is a Remain/Deal referendum, which would almost certainly get through parliament with the support of Remainy Tories, the LibDems, a large chunk of Labour MPs even if not the leadership, and probably the SNP. The recent behaviour of Theresa May in seemingly going over the heads of MPs to appeal direct to the public for support for her deal makes good sense in this scenario, as does the warning in the Conservative whip's memo to MPs that there will be votes with three-line whips in the final week of the parliamentary term.
Clearly there are big difficulties. Timing is a major issue; maybe the PM thinks she can get this through in time to hold the referendum before March 29th despite the existing legislation on referendums, although that looks really difficult, perhaps totally impractical. Alternatively an extension to Article 50 could be sought, although that brings further problems.
Another issue is whether Theresa May will be there to implement this, but if she isn't the parliamentary arithmetic doesn't change, so her successor has the same dilemma.
Clearly also the ERGers are going to kick up one hell of a stink if this is how things pan out, but they've somewhat neutered themselves by arguing that the deal is worse than Remain.
So, 2019 referendum it is, I think. And, ironically, all this is the doing of the ERG, for trashing what they have been campaigning for for years. If they’d said the deal isn’t perfect, but they’ll support it to get us out of the EU, we’d be definitely leaving in a few weeks’ time.0 -
If an option can't get through parliament, it can't get through parliament. Reality trumps indignation, even in cases where the indignation is justified.Xenon said:So because our democratically elected representatives don't like the deal and want to go for a no deal bare bones exit, then that option must somehow be removed completely in a referendum stitch up.
0 -
Why not? If it addresses Parliament's concerns it can get through.Pulpstar said:
That one definitely can't happen.Philip_Thompson said:
No there's a fourth option.Scott_P said:Leaving with PM's deal, apparently can't happen
Leaving with no deal, apparently can't happen.
Remain, apparently can't happen.
One of these must happen
Leaving with a different deal can get through Parliament.0
