politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The magnificent resilience of TMay ploughing on relentlessly a

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Article from a PBer:

https://labourlist.org/2018/12/how-labour-can-win-a-parliamentary-consensus-and-then-an-election/

A good plan from a Conservative point of view. I have been wondering how we can pass the disaster over to Labour so they take the flak.

Nick has thought through a plan, for which credit. Solving the Tory crisis would also deserve credit.

It's biggest weakness is that they can't put no deal to a vote. Partly for the reasons already well rehearsed, but also because it's a non-seller to the minor parties and probably to most Labour MPs. They have already put an amendment ruling out no deal, so how can they possibly stick it in a referendum?

Tbe other weakness is that if Labour's sunshine and sweeties deal proves impossible to negotiate, what then?

And, of course, sorting out the personalities would be horrendous, and there won't be majority support for ever making Corbyn PM

It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks

Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.

And he wants to be PM

John_M said:

@DavidEvershed...snipped because of blockquote hell...

I mildly object to 'any'. I don't care about EU immigration - if you look at the various EU member states economic growth rates, you can see that it's a transient issue exacerbated by Blair's loop-de-loop decision not to have transitional controls.

Similarly, if we could simply *pay* for Single Market membership while otherwise being outside the EU's treaty structures, I'd have my cheque book out in short order.

I do appreciate that my position is a niche one of course .

If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

In a break from Brexit:

"Student loan change adds £12bn to deficit"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46591500

Woops!

Or an incentive to increase the repayment rate

Or reverse the policies of Thatcher and Sons
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html

We paid for higher education by, shock horror, progressive taxation. I benefited from the opportunity to be the first in my family to go to university. In hindsight, I'll always be grateful to the One Nation Conservative and Old Labour governments which then ran the country and understood that 'there is such a thing as society'.

I see that we are all on Santa's naughty list:

Europe's Retail Apocalypse Spreads to Online From Shopping Malls https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-17/asos-cuts-guidance-after-significant-deterioration-in-november

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks

Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.

And he wants to be PM

Spoken for 12 hours - and given the same answer to 154 different back-bench questions.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks

Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.

And he wants to be PM

Giving her enough rope? Not disagreeing, just wondering.

Xenon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This is what Farage should happen in the event of a 52/48 referendum result

There could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Which you would have completely disagreed with had remain won.

During the referendum campaign the government was heavily promoting the Remain side along with most establishment figures. It is generally hard to change the status quo because people are fearful of change. The referendum was heavily weighted in favour of Remain. So it is to be expeceted that anti-establishment forces would anticipate having to keep making their arguments against the established position.

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks

Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.

And he wants to be PM

Spoken for 12 hours - and given the same answer to 154 different back-bench questions.

The word different is doing some seriously heavy lifting here.

grabcocque said:

IanB2 said:

David_Evershed said:

Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.

From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.

We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.

However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.

Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.

I am sure we will all be happy to put our businesses and finances on hold and sit calmly while we wait for all that to carry on.

You realise, of course, the EU utterly refuses to begin any trade negotiations until there is a legally binding assurance of no hard border in Northern Ireland?

No matter how much you tut the word "WTO", it isn't going to change that.

No backstop = no trade negotiations.

They're bluffing.

If we exit with no deal are they going to start erecting customs posts etc? If not then there is no hard border despite being on WTO terms so there's nothing to resolve.

Barnesian said:

Donny43 said:

Andy_Cooke said:

When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.

"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.

I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.

The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).

Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.

But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.

There is plenty of harm in establishing the principle that things have to be voted for twice before they can be permitted to happen.

And, of course, that assumes that voting for them twice would be enough.

Andy isn't saying that.

It's what is implied, though.

How can Tony Blair's proposal to reform the EU and "rethink" FOM be implemented except if the richer member states invoke A50, leave the EU, and set up a replacement with different movement rules?

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

IanB2 said:

David_Evershed said:

Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.

From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.

We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.

However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.

Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.

I am sure we will all be happy to put our businesses and finances on hold and sit calmly while we wait for all that to carry on.

You realise, of course, the EU utterly refuses to begin any trade negotiations until there is a legally binding assurance of no hard border in Northern Ireland?

No matter how much you tut the word "WTO", it isn't going to change that.

No backstop = no trade negotiations.

They're bluffing.

If we exit with no deal are they going to start erecting customs posts etc? If not then there is no hard border despite being on WTO terms so there's nothing to resolve.

You were shot down on this the last time.

tpfkar said:

Andy_Cooke said:

When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.

"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.

I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.

The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).

Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.

But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.

Excellent post.

I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.

The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)

The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?

One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks

Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.

And he wants to be PM

I take your point, but May has managed to say nothing at all in all of those 12 hours. Nothing has changed in fact. She will spend serval more hours saying nothing this afternoon.

TheKitchenCabinet said:

tpfkar said:

Andy_Cooke said:

When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.

"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.

I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.

The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).

Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.

But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.

Excellent post.

I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.

The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)

The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?

One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear

How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.

ExiledInScotland said:

malcolmg said:

grabcocque said:

As will a Labour government propped up by the SNP.

*innocent face*

https://twitter.com/BrexitCentral/status/1074612747390910464

It is coming

The remainer activity to overturn the Brexit vote is nothing compared to what would be done to overturn an indyref2 yes vote

Still be the same clowns & incompetents & all round horrible people doing it though, with the added bonus that it might be Boris or Corbyn at the helm.

anothernick said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks

Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.

And he wants to be PM

I take your point, but May has managed to say nothing at all in all of those 12 hours. Nothing has changed in fact. She will spend serval more hours saying nothing this afternoon.

I think that's right. Big_G is shooting himself in the foot a bit there. Oh...

williamglenn said:

We're in safe hands.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1074635519018131457

It looks increasingly like MPs will vote for a Norway option and EU referendum first by motions from MPs before they vote on the Deal, so if the first two fail that could help May put the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal

TheKitchenCabinet said:

tpfkar said:

Andy_Cooke said:

When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.

"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.

I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.

The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).

Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.

But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.

Excellent post.

I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.

The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)

The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?

One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear

The EU cannot take our opt outs away if we revoke Article 50 before March as the ECJ effectively confirmed

rural_voter said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

In a break from Brexit:

"Student loan change adds £12bn to deficit"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46591500

Woops!

Or an incentive to increase the repayment rate

Or reverse the policies of Thatcher and Sons
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html

We paid for higher education by, shock horror, progressive taxation. I benefited from the opportunity to be the first in my family to go to university. In hindsight, I'll always be grateful to the One Nation Conservative and Old Labour governments which then ran the country and understood that 'there is such a thing as society'.

We still do.
I believe we actually pay more for students to go to University today than we did back then. It's just that there are so many more going.

Back then, by and large, we didn't have free University education, because we didn't have University education. Only a very few special ones did.
If we went back to the same proportion going, we could pay for all their tuition and more towards their subsistence - but at the cost of most who currently go, not going.

Pulpstar said:

SandyRentool said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks

Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.

And he wants to be PM

Spoken for 12 hours - and given the same answer to 154 different back-bench questions.

The word different is doing some seriously heavy lifting here.

Fair play!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Xenon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

This is what Farage should happen in the event of a 52/48 referendum result

There could be unstoppable demand for a re-run of the EU referendum if Remain wins by a narrow margin on 23 June, UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Which you would have completely disagreed with had remain won.

Wrong.

He's right though. People can't spend the campaign dismissing Farage, calling him a liar and then select one thing that he said and hold it up as gospel. Not to mention that Farage was neither part of an official campaign, nor part of the electoral commission who set the question. It's really clutching at straws.

rural_voter said:

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

In a break from Brexit:

"Student loan change adds £12bn to deficit"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46591500

Woops!

Or an incentive to increase the repayment rate

Or reverse the policies of Thatcher and Sons
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html

We paid for higher education by, shock horror, progressive taxation. I benefited from the opportunity to be the first in my family to go to university. In hindsight, I'll always be grateful to the One Nation Conservative and Old Labour governments which then ran the country and understood that 'there is such a thing as society'.

What it does show is that the election debate had (by its very nature) a lot of partisan spin around how much cancelling debt would cost. If you look at the Lords report, the whole thing is just bizarre smoke and mirrors.
"I had not understood that by moving to a system of funding through loans, because of the accounting methods of the Treasury, it was possible for George Osborne to appear to increase funding for higher education by £3bn but at the same time cut his deficit by £3.8bn," said Lord Forsyth.

Donny43 said:

Barnesian said:

Donny43 said:

Andy_Cooke said:

When doing exams, or engineering calculations, you put the conclusion to a "sanity check". (Note that this has nothing to do with madness or otherwise; it's just the term used). You run the answer directly against the question and see if it makes sense. If it does not, there has likely been a breakdown somewhere in the chain of logic or calculations.

"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.

I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.

The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).

Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.

But the stance that democracy means doing something we strongly believe the majority don't want - that fails the "sanity check". If they still want it, there's no harm in getting them to confirm it. If they don't, then the majority did not want it to happen after all.

There is plenty of harm in establishing the principle that things have to be voted for twice before they can be permitted to happen.

And, of course, that assumes that voting for them twice would be enough.

Andy isn't saying that.

It's what is implied, though.

It's what you want to read into it in order to justify the conclusion that democracy means doing what the majority don't want.

David_Evershed said:

John_M said:

@DavidEvershed...snipped because of blockquote hell...

I mildly object to 'any'. I don't care about EU immigration - if you look at the various EU member states economic growth rates, you can see that it's a transient issue exacerbated by Blair's loop-de-loop decision not to have transitional controls.

Similarly, if we could simply *pay* for Single Market membership while otherwise being outside the EU's treaty structures, I'd have my cheque book out in short order.

I do appreciate that my position is a niche one of course .

If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?

There has always been a significant minority of the Leave vote, such as Richard Tyndall, John M and myself, who wanted us to leave the political structure of the EU, but was largely happy with the Four Freedoms.

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

OldKingCole said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It was mentioned on 5 live last night that TM has spoken at the dispatch box for 12 hours, ex PMQ's, on brexit over the last few weeks

Meanwhile Corbyn is not to be seen, hiding in an Edinburgh community centre with a ban on reporters.

And he wants to be PM

Giving her enough rope? Not disagreeing, just wondering.

Not too sure I like the inference of the rope

I know you don't like the overuse of violent metaphors, and I broadly agree that we need to dial back the violent imagery in these troubled times, but surely "give somebody enough rope to hang themselves" gets a free pass because it's a common English idiom?

Point taken Mr G, but what other idiom or phrase could one use? 'Dig her own grave' is no better, surely?

grabcocque said:

It's leaving the European union. It is Brexit. And Brexit means Brexit.

The apparent tautology is solved as thus:

A vote to implement Brexit means that Brexit will be implemented.

grabcocque said:

David_Evershed said:

John_M said:

@DavidEvershed...snipped because of blockquote hell...

I mildly object to 'any'. I don't care about EU immigration - if you look at the various EU member states economic growth rates, you can see that it's a transient issue exacerbated by Blair's loop-de-loop decision not to have transitional controls.

Similarly, if we could simply *pay* for Single Market membership while otherwise being outside the EU's treaty structures, I'd have my cheque book out in short order.

I do appreciate that my position is a niche one of course .

If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?

It's leaving the European union. It is Brexit. And Brexit means Brexit.

We voted for Leave and Leave means Leave.

williamglenn said:

We're in safe hands.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1074635519018131457

"Have you considered resigning and letting some other poor fool try to sort your mess out?"

grabcocque said:

Here's Daily Mail readers upvoting the idea of the deep state "shooting another remain MP" to win a remain referendum.

Is Lucky Guy’s real name Frank Fisher?

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

IanB2 said:

David_Evershed said:

Entering a WTO Brexit is not the end of the story.

From that position the UK can then negotiate a trade deal in parallel with a divorce bill - a far stronger negotiating position than agreeing the divorce bill before having a trade agreement as now.

We originally hoped to avoid such a two stage change to import and export arrangements by having parallel negotiations on divorce and future trade and that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed.

However, May insisted Davis accept the EU plan to agree the divorce bill first, leaving no time for the trade agreement and now we are being made to accept the Withdrawal Agreement before any Trade Agreement - so we are not in a position where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A WTO Brexit would allow us to return to that position.

Negotiating Trade in parallel with Withdrawal also eliminates the Irish Backstop issue for Britain although the EU would have to allow Ireland to continue without a hard border until the Trade Agreement was finalised.

I am sure we will all be happy to put our businesses and finances on hold and sit calmly while we wait for all that to carry on.

You realise, of course, the EU utterly refuses to begin any trade negotiations until there is a legally binding assurance of no hard border in Northern Ireland?

No matter how much you tut the word "WTO", it isn't going to change that.

No backstop = no trade negotiations.

They're bluffing.

If we exit with no deal are they going to start erecting customs posts etc? If not then there is no hard border despite being on WTO terms so there's nothing to resolve.

You were shot down on this the last time.

No I wasn't. You disagreeing isn't shooting down.

The Irish have said they won't build customs posts even if there is no deal so what's the big deal? They've preannounced that they are bluffing!

Benpointer said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Benpointer said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

tpfkar said:

Andy_Cooke said:

"It would be undemocratic if we didn't finish leaving the EU, despite the majority of the people now being against that" does seem to be placing an undue pressure on the word "undemocratic", and arguably more than it is able to bear.

I would agree, though, if the first vote had been ignored, or if it was still very recent (within a few months). If you make no effort to carry out the result, it's undemocratic. If you call for a revote immediately, you're trying to ride random swings in opinion, and it's not really democratic.

The plain fact is that the enacting of the result takes (and has taken) significant time. It has also produced a result that conflicts with what was advertised (which is arguably not unusual for politicians).

Requesting confirmation, now that nearly three years have passed and the specific withdrawal conditions/agreement are now known, is not ignoring the original vote (they've done a lot on this), nor is it an instant revote.

B.

Excellent post.

I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.

The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)

The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?

One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear

How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.

Is that like the fantasy thinking of an EU Army, which we were all told was garbage?

No - it's like the fantasy thinking of '12m Turks coming to Britain', 'The easiest deal in the world', 'They need us more than we need them', '£350m per week for the NHS'...

I could go on.

"The end of western civilisation" was, I think, the best.

Donny

Only narrowly - against generic ‘free unicorns’ Leave.

That form of Leave no longer exists, even in the imagination.

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

We're in safe hands.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1074635519018131457

It looks increasingly like MPs will vote for a Norway option and EU referendum first by motions from MPs before they vote on the Deal, so if the first two fail that could help May put the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal

Whatever motions are passed they don't change the law that we Leave on March 28th 2019.

Passing a motion just about sums up MPs trying to block the Leave result of the referendum.

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1074625562713313280

Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.

I don't believe the LDs would get a boost quite as high as that, although they'd undoubtedly get some. The focused nature of the question is pushing people in a direction and in numbers that wouldn't happen at a real election where there are so many different issues competing for attention. The problem with these types of questions is that they are focusing on just one issue.

I blame the English house sale/purchasing system for people not taking their leave/remain vote with the seriousness it deserved. I reckon less people in Scotland have changed their minds on the referendum with their frankly better system.

grabcocque said:

David_Evershed said:

grabcocque said:

David_Evershed said:

John_M said:

@DavidEvershed...snipped because of blockquote hell...

I mildly object to 'any'. I don't care about EU immigration - if you look at the various EU member states economic growth rates, you can see that it's a transient issue exacerbated by Blair's loop-de-loop decision not to have transitional controls.

Similarly, if we could simply *pay* for Single Market membership while otherwise being outside the EU's treaty structures, I'd have my cheque book out in short order.

I do appreciate that my position is a niche one of course .

If you don't mind having no control of immigration from the EU, making annual contributions to the EU, agreeing to EU single market regulations and not being able to negotiate free trade deals, are you really a Leave voter?

It's leaving the European union. It is Brexit. And Brexit means Brexit.

We voted for Leave and Leave means Leave.

And now people have decided that was a mistake, Remain means Remain.

Evidence?

David_Evershed said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

anothernick said:

glw said:

Xenon said:

I think that they will cancel A50 using a cross party majority of MPs at the last minute.

They won't allow no deal and they won't have another referendum (what would the question even be?).

That is also my expectation. A50 will be revoked and the question of whether this will be temporary or permanent will be left open. But the reality is that it will be permanent.

I worry a great deal about the political turmoil that putting Remain on the ballot will cause.

I think your suggestion is spot on. It honours the referendum result, and allows everyone a voice. From the EU's point of view, they'd rather we were Norway, rather than out altogether, as we'd be handing over at least some money, and it makes us a rule taker. From our side it allows us to resolve what the future relationship looks like, and allows purists to argue for No Deal.

A Hobson's choice to blackmail Remainers into backing a Norway-style deal was always the plan of certain people, but putting it in a referendum shows absolute contempt.

Well, you can see it that way, or you can accept that there was a vote and Leave won. To revisit that question is, I am very sad to say, probably going to be explosive.

I write as a Remainer.

I don't like any of this, but seems to me, increasingly, that a period in Norway arrangement and then a revisit of the rejoin question is probably a better way forward.

I think the betrayal narrative and conspiracy theories from a period in a Norway-style arrangement would be much greater and do more long-term damage: "They're not letting us leave properly!"

When you add in the fact that project fear would have been discredited by a soft exit, and you have the perfect conditions for a far nastier Brexit 2.0.

You may be right. There is no good answer on all this. Just various bad options of different degrees.

My guess is though, that enough Leave voters, sick to the back teeth of it all, will accept Norway and want to get on with life. There will be a noisy minority, but I doubt it will be as big or rabid as if Remain is back on the ballot.

Norway means no control of EU immigration and continuing contributions to the EU - both glaring red lines for any Leave voters.

How do you know what the "red lines" of every leave voter are? Is it just the vibe?

kinabalu said:

Another referendum;

We think that the public will understand a 600 page international treaty and the various complex competing options that the accompanying 30 pages of waffling and sometimes contradictory political aspiration make more or less likely, do we?

C'mon. It's a joke. The 'democracy' argument is a fig leaf. It's just desperation to Remain. First PV person to be honest and say so gets a week's holiday in the sun and £500 spending money.

After the fiasco of the past two years and the disastrous options in front of us, of course it is desperation to remain. Opinion has changed faced with the reality. Nevertheless it must be done via a vote and if people instead want to leave with the deal, so be it.

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1074625562713313280

Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.

Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 36%.

However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP

There is a third poll missing, Tories pivot to a second referendum.

David_Evershed said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

We're in safe hands.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1074635519018131457

It looks increasingly like MPs will vote for a Norway option and EU referendum first by motions from MPs before they vote on the Deal, so if the first two fail that could help May put the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal

Whatever motions are passed they don't change the law that we Leave on March 28th 2019.

Passing a motion just about sums up MPs trying to block the Leave result of the referendum.

It may leave with Deal as the last thing standing in the way of No Deal though

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1074625562713313280

Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.

Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 36%.

However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP

There is a third poll missing, Tories pivot to a second referendum.

Which is probably not going to happen, certainly at leadership level unless Deal or No Deal

TheScreamingEagles said:

David_Evershed said:

SandyRentool said:

Benpointer said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Benpointer said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

tpfkar said:

Excellent post.

I'm happy to accept that a second ref would be divisive - but cannot see how it is in any way a restriction rather than an extension of democracy.

The issue would be excluding people who didn't favour one of the two options given (e.g. Remainers in Deal/No Deal, hard Brexit fans in Remain / Deal - why I favour an AV three-way.)

The problem with this approach is why should be the second referendum be more decisive than the first? Let's say the second vote came in as Remain. We then stick with the EU. It then turns out that the EU takes away our opt-outs. Do we get another chance to vote then on the grounds of a material change? Who judges on what grounds another referendum be called for a third time?

One of the big unspoken reasons why there is opposition to a 2nd referendum is the belief that, if Remain won, all talk of "people can change their minds and should be consulted" would disappear

How does the EU take away our opt-outs? This is typical of the fantasy thinking of many (not all) Leavers.

Is that like the fantasy thinking of an EU Army, which we were all told was garbage?

No - it's like the fantasy thinking of '12m Turks coming to Britain', 'The easiest deal in the world', 'They need us more than we need them', '£350m per week for the NHS'...

I could go on.

"The end of western civilisation" was, I think, the best.

Wasn't there the threat of a Third World War if we left the EU - from David Cameron.

No.

Only because the backlash against the pre-briefing of his speech was so great that he took the line out.

tlg86 said:

Malmo v Chelsea. I can't see any problems with that draw...

I think it is time to ban Chelsea from European football.

Hopefully Tottenham Hotspur will not disgrace themselves again at the Emirates this week.

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Anazina said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1074625562713313280

Shows very little other than how toxic Brexit is for Labour.

Cons get their highest voteshare, 44%, if only they back Brexit and Labour and the LDs back EUref2 with Labour unchanged on 26%.

However the Tories would win a landslide on a lower voteshare of 42% if Labour backed Brexit and the LDs backed EUref2 as Labour would slump 14% to 22% while the LDs surge 16% to 26% repeating a 1983 general election scenario and splitting the centre left vote under FPTP

The one thing you can be >99.9% certain of is that none of those polls would be replicated in a real vote.

I think the LDs would surge at Labour's expense if there is a Commons motion for EUref2 and Corbyn opposes it and the LDs back it