Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The man who helped stop a No Deal Brexit earlier this year is

SystemSystem Posts: 12,126
edited September 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The man who helped stop a No Deal Brexit earlier this year is confident there is a majority in Parliament for dealing with Brexit first and having an election after

There’s a fascinating interview with Oliver Letwin today, the man who helped prevent a No Deal Brexit earlier on this year.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • .



    Research like this you mean?

    "The British Election Study is pleased to announce the release of wave 15 of the British Election Study Internet Panel. Wave 15 was conducted in March 2019, immediately before the original Brexit deadline."
    https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-resources/bes-internet-panel-wave-15-data-released/#.XXp-TC5KgdU

    Can you really be claiming that the data is from after March 2019, given that the chart in the header that you published with your thread states "Source: BES Internet Panel Wave 15 (March 2019)"?

    No, I'm pointing out the previous other waves show similar things, so that covers periods with huge Tory leads, and no Tory leads whatsoever
    So, what you're saying is that your BES March 2019 data shows little appetite for 2017 Labour voters to vote Tory (which I accept), you accept my point that the data is well out of date, but you're saying that that doesn't matter because (you claim that) even earlier data showed much the same pattern and the data set is therefore inherently stable. Hence you infer that the current position must still be much the same, although there is no recent BES data available to test that.

    The only problem with your conclusion is that current data contradicts it, and moreover shows big shifts over the past 6 months.

    Compare the pattern in the Opinium data from March 2019, with that from September 2019. In March, only 4% of 2017 Labour Leave voters (and only 2% of 2017 Labour Remain voters) had switched to the Conservatives. Now, in September 2019, 22% of 2019 Labour Leave (and 1% of Labour Remain voters) have switched to Conservative.

    That is a big recent switch of Labour Leave voters to the Conservatives, and it is even more significant when you consider that back in March there was no Brexit Party to hoover up their disaffection as an alternative to the Tories. Taken as a group, in a forced choice Labour Leavers as a whole also now prefer Johnson to Corbyn as PM by 36% to 24%, so there is plenty to infer that the 19% who have switched to the BXP are just as likely to eventually vote Con as they are to vote Lab. Again that's in complete contrast to March 2019, when only 11% of Labour Leavers preferred May and 30% preferred Corbyn in the same two way choice.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825
    edited September 2019
    Scott_P said:
    Well it is certainly true that everyone knows the real reason for the prorogation, it's presumably just a question of whether being shifty about the real reason is indeed unlawful as the scottish judges think.
    JohnO said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    You are looking for Brenda from Bristol.

    Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.

    That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.

    You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
    Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
    I really hate canvassing. Never enjoyed it.

    I mean, there's something frightfully un-British about hassling someone on the doorstep. Now and again, I have a very interesting conversation. Other times people are very rude. It's terrifying ringing the doorbell.

    I do it out of duty.
    To be honest what I won't miss is those snapback letterboxes that guillotine your fingers.
    ...And the unspeakable curs who place their letterboxes at the very bottom of the door.
    Haven't they recently passed a law to prevent that in future?

    Who says politicians only focus on Brexit?

    Edit: Turns out it is not law yet - best hold off that election until late next year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47457758

    Granted its only new builds, but small steps.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,151
    Bloody Letwin again.

    This will probably end up going as well as the Poll Tax did! :D
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,151
    Mind you, Jezza wouldn't think twice about selling morons like Letwin down the river as soon as it's convenient for him.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well it is certainly true that everyone knows the real reason for the prorogation, it's presumably just a question of whether being shifty about the real reason is indeed unlawful as the scottish judges think.
    JohnO said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    You are looking for Brenda from Bristol.

    Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.

    That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.

    You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
    Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
    I really hate canvassing. Never enjoyed it.

    I mean, there's something frightfully un-British about hassling someone on the doorstep. Now and again, I have a very interesting conversation. Other times people are very rude. It's terrifying ringing the doorbell.

    I do it out of duty.
    To be honest what I won't miss is those snapback letterboxes that guillotine your fingers.
    ...And the unspeakable curs who place their letterboxes at the very bottom of the door.
    Haven't they recently passed a law to prevent that in future?

    Who says politicians only focus on Brexit?

    Edit: Turns out it is not law yet - best hold off that election until late next year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47457758

    Granted its only new builds, but small steps.
    Can someone explain how two courts have failed to find Boris guilty like the Scottish court did? Documents in public domain prove it was planned not as standard shorter suspension but deliberately longer to avoid scrutiny? That is the fact now? It’s an open and shut case. if Supreme Court can’t read the documents and conclude its extra longer than need be to avoid sensitive scrutiny that is important part of British Democracy, then its nearer a supreme dalek than a Supreme Court of justice, is it not?
  • Bit niche but:

    I note that Mark Pack (who has popped up on PB in the past, particularly in the podcasts) is standing for Lib Dem party president.

    I note also that Layla Moran's agent and general fixer has retweeted his announcement, which presumably means that (contrary to speculation earlier this year) she isn't standing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825
    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825
    edited September 2019
    egg said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well it is certainly true that everyone knows the real reason for the prorogation, it's presumably just a question of whether being shifty about the real reason is indeed unlawful as the scottish judges think.
    JohnO said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    You are looking for Brenda from Bristol.

    Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.

    That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.

    You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
    Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
    I really hate canvassing. Never enjoyed it.

    I mean, there's something frightfully un-British about hassling someone on the doorstep. Now and again, I have a very interesting conversation. Other times people are very rude. It's terrifying ringing the doorbell.

    I do it out of duty.
    To be honest what I won't miss is those snapback letterboxes that guillotine your fingers.
    ...And the unspeakable curs who place their letterboxes at the very bottom of the door.
    Haven't they recently passed a law to prevent that in future?

    Who says politicians only focus on Brexit?

    Edit: Turns out it is not law yet - best hold off that election until late next year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47457758

    Granted its only new builds, but small steps.
    Can someone explain how two courts have failed to find Boris guilty like the Scottish court did? Documents in public domain prove it was planned not as standard shorter suspension but deliberately longer to avoid scrutiny? That is the fact now? It’s an open and shut case. if Supreme Court can’t read the documents and conclude its extra longer than need be to avoid sensitive scrutiny that is important part of British Democracy, then its nearer a supreme dalek than a Supreme Court of justice, is it not?
    I'm no lawyer, but they are different legal systems for starters, and even if it was to avoid scrutiny (which we know it was) that might not be illegal even if it is clearly wrong I would think (and slightly different questions were raised anyway). The courts are not there to say if things are wrong, but if they are legal.

    Or such is my general view at any rate. Clearly different lawyers are taking different views even in Scotland, and I'll trust the collective view of the court. But it seems quite possible they could conclude the government was being less than honest and yet no law was broken.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,473
    egg said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well it is certainly true that everyone knows the real reason for the prorogation, it's presumably just a question of whether being shifty about the real reason is indeed unlawful as the scottish judges think.
    JohnO said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    You are looking for Brenda from Bristol.

    Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.

    That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.

    You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
    Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
    I really hate canvassing. Never enjoyed it.

    I mean, there's something frightfully un-British about hassling someone on the doorstep. Now and again, I have a very interesting conversation. Other times people are very rude. It's terrifying ringing the doorbell.

    I do it out of duty.
    To be honest what I won't miss is those snapback letterboxes that guillotine your fingers.
    ...And the unspeakable curs who place their letterboxes at the very bottom of the door.
    Haven't they recently passed a law to prevent that in future?

    Who says politicians only focus on Brexit?

    Edit: Turns out it is not law yet - best hold off that election until late next year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47457758

    Granted its only new builds, but small steps.
    Can someone explain how two courts have failed to find Boris guilty like the Scottish court did? Documents in public domain prove it was planned not as standard shorter suspension but deliberately longer to avoid scrutiny? That is the fact now? It’s an open and shut case. if Supreme Court can’t read the documents and conclude its extra longer than need be to avoid sensitive scrutiny that is important part of British Democracy, then its nearer a supreme dalek than a Supreme Court of justice, is it not?
    I think the English Courts ruled that it wasn't within their remit, and NI that there was no nessecary conflict with the GFA. Neither commented on the rights or wrongs of prorogation and its motivations.
  • Letwin is the very definition of "the clever fool".
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    Andrew Bridgen on c4 news made an excellent point. The remainers winning meaningful vote at the supreme dalek empowered himself to torpedo May’s Deal. There are unforeseen consequences to many of these manoeuvres, for example minus the election is the extra long rougeing still in Boris interest or not? Maybe he would now like the Supreme Court to give him chance toshorten the back end of it to get some stuff through Parliament like the hugely popular mini deal on medicines. There’s been mini deals already on air and fish, Boris can subtract medicines out the mouth of every remainer argument given parliamentary time. Would leavers not like that? And not a single remainer in Parliament could possibly vote it down.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825
    Scott_P said:
    I wasn't outraged by the planned campaign, but it does seem at best peculiar that it can go ahead and not been delayed at the very least. I guess technically no deal and thus brexit is still possible if the EU said no to an extension, even though they won't.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    The only thing stopping a remainer cabal postponing an election until after a referendum is Jeremy Corbyn.
  • FPT @Foxy No, I detest the term "people's vote" and won't ever describe it as such. That's just something the ultra Remainers have been talking about to stop Brexit.

    If it's the only way the Commons can be told again by the people to vote for a compromise Leave deal then I reluctantly accept it as the only alternative.
  • egg said:

    Andrew Bridgen on c4 news made an excellent point. The remainers winning meaningful vote at the supreme dalek empowered himself to torpedo May’s Deal. There are unforeseen consequences to many of these manoeuvres, for example minus the election is the extra long rougeing still in Boris interest or not? Maybe he would now like the Supreme Court to give him chance toshorten the back end of it to get some stuff through Parliament like the hugely popular mini deal on medicines. There’s been mini deals already on air and fish, Boris can subtract medicines out the mouth of every remainer argument given parliamentary time. Would leavers not like that? And not a single remainer in Parliament could possibly vote it down.

    I've read this comment several times now and I don't understand a word of it.
  • So what do the Baker-Francois gang do when they realize they are not going to get what they want ?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    egg said:

    Andrew Bridgen on c4 news made an excellent point. The remainers winning meaningful vote at the supreme dalek empowered himself to torpedo May’s Deal. There are unforeseen consequences to many of these manoeuvres, for example minus the election is the extra long rougeing still in Boris interest or not? Maybe he would now like the Supreme Court to give him chance toshorten the back end of it to get some stuff through Parliament like the hugely popular mini deal on medicines. There’s been mini deals already on air and fish, Boris can subtract medicines out the mouth of every remainer argument given parliamentary time. Would leavers not like that? And not a single remainer in Parliament could possibly vote it down.

    I've read this comment several times now and I don't understand a word of it.
    I don't see what your problem is. What part of "mini deals on air and fish" do you not understand ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    egg said:

    Andrew Bridgen on c4 news made an excellent point.

    No
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,182
    edited September 2019
    "Whether Mr Johnson is still imprisoned in Downing Street while this happens is a secondary question."

    Boris will resign if his Big Deal is rejected and will advise HM to send for Corbyn who can hardly decline to form a government - what else is he for? Having done so the Tories will leave him swinging in the wind, unable to legislate and unable to govern.

    Lovers of precedent might refer to Ramsey MacDonald's first government in 1924. Boris could be the Baldwin of our age, rather than the Churchill.

    Edit: and in a pleasing symmetry Corbyn might be the last Labour PM, following the pattern of the first.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,050
    edited September 2019

    The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.

    This is quite a good summary.

    However, it's not why Dominic Cummings went into politics. If his hand is forced by the Supreme Court next week, at the same time, Boris may go for two reasons, and it may be out of his hands.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825

    So what do the Baker-Francois gang do when they realize they are not going to get what they want ?

    What they have been doing for years, since they were not getting the no deal they wanted for most of this time. The question is how much the Tories will be punished or not for their failure.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,151

    The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.

    And if Remain wins the "legally binding" refernedum and the Brexit Party wins a majority at the general election?
  • kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    egg said:

    Andrew Bridgen on c4 news made an excellent point. The remainers winning meaningful vote at the supreme dalek empowered himself to torpedo May’s Deal. There are unforeseen consequences to many of these manoeuvres, for example minus the election is the extra long rougeing still in Boris interest or not? Maybe he would now like the Supreme Court to give him chance toshorten the back end of it to get some stuff through Parliament like the hugely popular mini deal on medicines. There’s been mini deals already on air and fish, Boris can subtract medicines out the mouth of every remainer argument given parliamentary time. Would leavers not like that? And not a single remainer in Parliament could possibly vote it down.

    I've read this comment several times now and I don't understand a word of it.
    1. Remainers winning right for parliament to have meaningful vote allowed brexiteer hands to strangle Mays softer brexit.
    2. Without an election does Boris still want and need a longer suspension?
    3. 2 mini deals already agreed on air and fish. The third mini deal stops all talk of medicines not getting through as part of no deal, proving my argument Boris could do himself a lot of good recalling Parliament earlier to help get this sort of planning across
  • kle4 said:

    So what do the Baker-Francois gang do when they realize they are not going to get what they want ?

    What they have been doing for years, since they were not getting the no deal they wanted for most of this time. The question is how much the Tories will be punished or not for their failure.
    It will certainly expose the difference between Leavers and those who only wanted to posture about the EU.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    'Honour the vote' does not work, since if remain do win they can honour that vote. 'Tell them again' gets the angry juices flowing to inspire people to turn out, although anecdotally I know some who just won't bother - they told them once and it did not work, so what would be the point?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555
    2016 referendum was flawed. Leave is a process, not a destination. It’s the reason we’re in this mess. Dave’s fault.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825

    kle4 said:

    So what do the Baker-Francois gang do when they realize they are not going to get what they want ?

    What they have been doing for years, since they were not getting the no deal they wanted for most of this time. The question is how much the Tories will be punished or not for their failure.
    It will certainly expose the difference between Leavers and those who only wanted to posture about the EU.
    That exposure has already happened, with some very surprising people revealed.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    Scott_P said:

    egg said:

    Andrew Bridgen on c4 news made an excellent point.

    No
    He did. The unforeseen consequences of the strategies being played.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    'Honour the vote' does not work, since if remain do win they can honour that vote. 'Tell them again' gets the angry juices flowing to inspire people to turn out, although anecdotally I know some who just won't bother - they told them once and it did not work, so what would be the point?
    Yes it does. Its about respecting the original decision and would appeal more to Remainers.

    Tell them again only appeals to Leavers.
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    So what do the Baker-Francois gang do when they realize they are not going to get what they want ?

    What they have been doing for years, since they were not getting the no deal they wanted for most of this time. The question is how much the Tories will be punished or not for their failure.
    It will certainly expose the difference between Leavers and those who only wanted to posture about the EU.
    That exposure has already happened, with some very surprising people revealed.
    Indeed.

    But further exposure and discrediting will be a good thing.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 596
    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    For most leavers now Brexit means "no deal", which remainers have now effectively outlawed. Hammond is fond of stating there is no mandate for no deal but Labour have ruled it out as a referendum option and deliberately denied Boris the chance to explicitly seek one from the people. Why on earth would leavers take part in another referendum when their first vote has been ignored and their preferred option is already off the table?

    The 2020 referendum will be BINO V Remain which the latter will win following a leave boycott only deepening the bitterness and division in the country. The Tories will then move to a position of honouring the 2016 result without a further referendum.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    'Honour the vote' does not work, since if remain do win they can honour that vote. 'Tell them again' gets the angry juices flowing to inspire people to turn out, although anecdotally I know some who just won't bother - they told them once and it did not work, so what would be the point?
    Yes it does. Its about respecting the original decision and would appeal more to Remainers.

    Tell them again only appeals to Leavers.
    'Honour the vote' appeals to remainers? Remainers who think the decision was a mistake, and will be riding a high at the prospect of finally winning the day, and are convinced a grateful nation will put it all behind them after the vote?

    I think people overestimate the influence of 2016 on any new referendum. There are remainers who believe the original vote should have been respected, and leavers unhappy with the precise leave they will be offered, but I tend to think that people will be pretty practical and regardless of whether they accepted the 2016 vote or not, will recognise a new vote is time for a new decision, and if they still believe remain is best won't change that view to honour an older vote.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.

    I think the most likely outcome is a backstop involving NI staying in EU customs, ie border in sea, getting through the commons therefore we brexit this year.
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,843
    GIN1138 said:

    The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.

    And if Remain wins the "legally binding" refernedum and the Brexit Party wins a majority at the general election?
    Well if remain won then A50 would be revoked. If the Brexit party then won a majority at the next election they'd have the numbers to reinvoke it and start the fun over again I guess!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    I suspect it will be close and depend on the perceived effectiveness of the Leave option. If the specific Leave option is believed to put the matter to bed without massive disruption, I suspect it will win. Otherwise not. I don't think democracy informs the decision. This is a democratic exercise after all.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    GIN1138 said:

    The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.

    And if Remain wins the "legally binding" refernedum and the Brexit Party wins a majority at the general election?
    TBP will not win a majority in a FPTP election. Farage just this week demanded the Tories stand aside in 90 seats and he would not be guarenteed to win any of them.. He needs over 326 or whatever it is to form a majority government. He rather undermines your assertion. Also do you really think the Brexit supporting media will not back the Tories, when, Corbyn is Labour leader? The European elections were a one off to oust PM May. The Brexit supporting media wanted to install Boris by boosting TBP, hillariously the voters who were pushed into Farages arms have stayed with him despite daily attempts by the Brexit supporting media to get them bhind BJ! 😉
  • A fresh referendum currently looks like the least worst way forward. For that reason I expect it will be spurned.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    TGOHF said:
    Russia and Turkey can fuck off. I don't know where the idea has come from that democracy is a gold standard and the more you have of it the more virtuous you are. Direct democracy is a terrible thing, which is why it has no place in our constitution. If you had unlimited amounts of it you would have the death penalty restored in three seconds flat, and popular votes determining the verdict in murder trials. There is precisely one situation in which referendums are permissible, and that is in questions of self-determination. Border polls and Indy refs are therefore acceptable. With those exceptions we need a law declaring that referendums are unconstitutional and illegal, that any which have been held are null and void, and that proposing any new ones is an offence punishable as treason.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    Scott_P said:
    No, I sent JRM to do it for me. For old Etonians don't do it yourself, send your fag.
  • Told you it would be memetastic.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,151
    dodrade said:

    The Tories will then move to a position of honouring the 2016 result without a further referendum.

    The Tories will be done for as a political force in this country. It'll be Brexit party for most Leavers at that point I'd think.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825
    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    I suspect it will be close and depend on the perceived effectiveness of the Leave option. If the specific Leave option is believed to put the matter to bed without massive disruption, I suspect it will win. Otherwise not. I don't think democracy informs the decision. This is a democratic exercise after all.
    I think given so many leavers won't like the leave option that is offered even if there is not a mass stay at home reaction it will lose. Say for instance May's deal was the leave option - even if Boris, or god forbid even Farage brought themselves to back it, their message would basically be 'we said this thing was absolute garbage, and I hate it, now please vote for it'.

    That'll fire up the leave voting masses of 2016.
  • kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    And this is how democracy dies.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    A fresh referendum currently looks like the least worst way forward. For that reason I expect it will be spurned.

    It’s pointless - the last two referendums in the last 5 years have been ignored by the losers.

    Why expect the third to be any different ?
  • I live in hope if we do get this referendum it'll be a multi option referendum conducted under AV.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    kle4 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Well it is certainly true that everyone knows the real reason for the prorogation, it's presumably just a question of whether being shifty about the real reason is indeed unlawful as the scottish judges think.
    JohnO said:

    .

    kinabalu said:

    You are looking for Brenda from Bristol.

    Yep. We need to know how she is voting and also Mrs Duffy.

    That gives us the result of the election - perhaps even the seat totals.

    You can stick your yougovs up your arse.
    Nah, we need David Herdson to go canvassing.
    I really hate canvassing. Never enjoyed it.

    I mean, there's something frightfully un-British about hassling someone on the doorstep. Now and again, I have a very interesting conversation. Other times people are very rude. It's terrifying ringing the doorbell.

    I do it out of duty.
    To be honest what I won't miss is those snapback letterboxes that guillotine your fingers.
    ...And the unspeakable curs who place their letterboxes at the very bottom of the door.
    I think everyone knew the intention behind the prorogation. But is this the smoking gun ? A senior Scottish judge thinks so. I think the SC will find a way to avoid this issue.

    Haven't they recently passed a law to prevent that in future?

    Who says politicians only focus on Brexit?

    Edit: Turns out it is not law yet - best hold off that election until late next year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47457758

    Granted its only new builds, but small steps.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,239
    dodrade said:


    For most leavers now Brexit means "no deal", which remainers have now effectively outlawed. Hammond is fond of stating there is no mandate for no deal but Labour have ruled it out as a referendum option and deliberately denied Boris the chance to explicitly seek one from the people. Why on earth would leavers take part in another referendum when their first vote has been ignored and their preferred option is already off the table?

    The steady escalation of what counts as an “acceptable Brexit” has been one of the most aggravating & infuriating things about this whole affair. Like many who voted Remain, I did so without strong conviction & would have (grumpily) accepted one of the many options that Brexiteers had bandied about as being acceptable Brexits before the vote & then we’d have all got on with our lives.

    Instead we’re trapped in this never-ending Brexit hellscape where a vision of Brexit that would never have won the referendum had it been the only one on offer has become the only Brexit & the rest of us are just supposed to accept this, otherwise we’re “Remoaners” who want to “deny the will of the people”.

    May has a lot to answer for frankly - if she had reached across the floor in the first place, there would have been a clear majority in Parliament for a Brexit that clearly fulfilled the terms of the referendum & we could all have moved on.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Fuck off Bercow and good riddance

    That is all :-)
  • kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    I suspect it will be close and depend on the perceived effectiveness of the Leave option. If the specific Leave option is believed to put the matter to bed without massive disruption, I suspect it will win. Otherwise not. I don't think democracy informs the decision. This is a democratic exercise after all.
    I think given so many leavers won't like the leave option that is offered even if there is not a mass stay at home reaction it will lose. Say for instance May's deal was the leave option - even if Boris, or god forbid even Farage brought themselves to back it, their message would basically be 'we said this thing was absolute garbage, and I hate it, now please vote for it'.

    That'll fire up the leave voting masses of 2016.
    The most likely response to a second referendum is a mass official boycott by Leave followed by a promise to ignore the result and continue the campaign to Leave. Any Remainers thinking this will settle anything are deluded.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    I live in hope if we do get this referendum it'll be a multi option referendum conducted under AV.

    I would prefer it should be like the FIFA World Cup. First , a round robin league. The top 4 go through. Then AV to bring down to 2. Finally , a knock-out.
    WE should allow a whole year for all the stages.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825
    TGOHF said:

    A fresh referendum currently looks like the least worst way forward. For that reason I expect it will be spurned.

    It’s pointless - the last two referendums in the last 5 years have been ignored by the losers.

    Why expect the third to be any different ?
    I don't think everyone does, although some remainers are fooling themselves into thinking it will be essentially non-divisive once they win. But for the more reasilstic, well, if like me you think no deal needs to be avoided then previously unpalatable options which definitely have problems become palatable.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    And this is how democracy dies.
    Saddest tune, smallest violin.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    And this is how democracy dies.
    Saddest tune, smallest violin.
    Indeed scum like you have long shown you care nothing for democracy so I am not surprised you won't mourn its passing
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,555
    kle4 said:

    TGOHF said:

    A fresh referendum currently looks like the least worst way forward. For that reason I expect it will be spurned.

    It’s pointless - the last two referendums in the last 5 years have been ignored by the losers.

    Why expect the third to be any different ?
    I don't think everyone does, although some remainers are fooling themselves into thinking it will be essentially non-divisive once they win. But for the more reasilstic, well, if like me you think no deal needs to be avoided then previously unpalatable options which definitely have problems become palatable.
    There are no good outcomes now.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Jonathan said:

    2016 referendum was flawed. Leave is a process, not a destination. It’s the reason we’re in this mess. Dave’s fault.

    Herr Drunker thinks we are part time Europeans.

    Rather than a full time piss head I suppose.

    Anyhow - if we remain from here they must know we will turn into a European SNP - determined to make as much mischief as we can.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TGOHF said:
    Russia and Turkey can fuck off. I don't know where the idea has come from that democracy is a gold standard and the more you have of it the more virtuous you are. Direct democracy is a terrible thing, which is why it has no place in our constitution. If you had unlimited amounts of it you would have the death penalty restored in three seconds flat, and popular votes determining the verdict in murder trials. There is precisely one situation in which referendums are permissible, and that is in questions of self-determination. Border polls and Indy refs are therefore acceptable. With those exceptions we need a law declaring that referendums are unconstitutional and illegal, that any which have been held are null and void, and that proposing any new ones is an offence punishable as treason.
    These sort of issues are best sorted by adding a direction of travel policy to a manifesto in a GE, rather like Labour honestly did on 1983. The outcome is certainly clear, voters would know what they are getting, not a single leave or remain voter knows what leave means leave actually is when it can be so many things, and a government can be assessed at election where if the destination is ill thought out or unpopular it will be scrutinised and exposed, and that destination voted on. And it will use parliament to fine tune change, ratify final negotiation.

    I’m not wrong about that, the leave remain referendum was wrong, just as if I fail to convince you its all democracy, direct or representative, but some methods just damn stronger ways of doing things, you wont be wrong either. And the fact we wont agree isn’t wrong either. That’s the whole point of democracy.

    But that’s not really the point of what brexit has become. It was a bastard from birth. What did Ruth say in a parting shot, this mess came about because asking the nation that question was cop out, an abdication of leadership? It was marketed as sorting this issue out once and for all. Does anyone today believe having a remain leave referendum sorts this out once and for all. Does anyone believe if we brexit in some way that’s the end of it?

    Bottom line is People doing things, in the case of Patrick here saying things, in the name of democracy that is in fact for politics not democracy, they are choosing not to recognise this and modify their behaviour like good democrats need to make democracy work.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 596
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    'Honour the vote' does not work, since if remain do win they can honour that vote. 'Tell them again' gets the angry juices flowing to inspire people to turn out, although anecdotally I know some who just won't bother - they told them once and it did not work, so what would be the point?
    Leave won in 2016 because thousands of people who hadn't voted in years (or sometimes ever) saw their one chance to be listened to and change a system that doesn't work for them. They were ignored and lied to, why on earth would they bother voting again? A remainer parliament didn't accept the first leave vote, so why would you expect them to respect a second one? Taking part would merely legitimise the cancellation of the 2016 vote which is what holding another referendum without implementing the result of the first does.

    Denying a second referendum legitimacy and ensuring a remain total significantly below the 17.4m for leave is probably the only way of keeping the Brexit cause alive.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,753

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    And this is how democracy dies.
    Saddest tune, smallest violin.
    Indeed scum like you have long shown you care nothing for democracy so I am not surprised you won't mourn its passing
    Perhaps time to take another self-imposed break from PB Richard. That's not a comment you will be proud of.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Phil said:

    dodrade said:


    For most leavers now Brexit means "no deal", which remainers have now effectively outlawed. Hammond is fond of stating there is no mandate for no deal but Labour have ruled it out as a referendum option and deliberately denied Boris the chance to explicitly seek one from the people. Why on earth would leavers take part in another referendum when their first vote has been ignored and their preferred option is already off the table?

    The steady escalation of what counts as an “acceptable Brexit” has been one of the most aggravating & infuriating things about this whole affair. Like many who voted Remain, I did so without strong conviction & would have (grumpily) accepted one of the many options that Brexiteers had bandied about as being acceptable Brexits before the vote & then we’d have all got on with our lives.

    Instead we’re trapped in this never-ending Brexit hellscape where a vision of Brexit that would never have won the referendum had it been the only one on offer has become the only Brexit & the rest of us are just supposed to accept this, otherwise we’re “Remoaners” who want to “deny the will of the people”.

    May has a lot to answer for frankly - if she had reached across the floor in the first place, there would have been a clear majority in Parliament for a Brexit that clearly fulfilled the terms of the referendum & we could all have moved on.
    I feel like May is a toxin we collectively swallowed, and Boris is the process of messily puking it up
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,575

    The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.

    +1

    This looks like a very plausible sequence to me.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    I suspect it will be close and depend on the perceived effectiveness of the Leave option. If the specific Leave option is believed to put the matter to bed without massive disruption, I suspect it will win. Otherwise not. I don't think democracy informs the decision. This is a democratic exercise after all.
    I think given so many leavers won't like the leave option that is offered even if there is not a mass stay at home reaction it will lose. Say for instance May's deal was the leave option - even if Boris, or god forbid even Farage brought themselves to back it, their message would basically be 'we said this thing was absolute garbage, and I hate it, now please vote for it'.

    That'll fire up the leave voting masses of 2016.
    The most likely response to a second referendum is a mass official boycott by Leave followed by a promise to ignore the result and continue the campaign to Leave. Any Remainers thinking this will settle anything are deluded.
    If your side loses the next referendum it will be because you have failed to convince ANY Remain voter of good will that Brexit should take place, while at the same time causing those previously supporting Leave to change their minds. If on the other hand you win, you can reasonably gloat or grumble about being asked twice

    The referendum doesn't get any more sensible on repetition, but the second exercise is no less democratic than the first.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    And this is how democracy dies.
    Saddest tune, smallest violin.
    Indeed scum like you have long shown you care nothing for democracy so I am not surprised you won't mourn its passing
    You revealed three days ago that you thought the Supreme Court could overrule primary legislation, so I don't think your insights into the current state of democracy are of great value. Do stop blathering away to the tune of "Did Magna Carta Die in Vain" about a bastard, unlawful and unconstitutional instrument invented by one political chancer less rhs 50 years ago and deployed by another, in both cases for short term personal gain. The sooner these things are outlawed the better.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    edited September 2019
    Any second referendum is pointless. The establishment will refuse to implement any result it disagrees with. Just as it has with the first referendum.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091

    Any second referendum is pointless. The establishment will refuse to implement any result it disagrees with. Just as it has with the first referendum.

    Unlike at the 2016 referendum, we actually now have a deliverable plan on the table (May's deal), which means that the legislation setting up the new referendum could make Brexit happen automatically after a Leave vote, regardless of what "the establishment" thinks.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,575
    TGOHF said:

    A fresh referendum currently looks like the least worst way forward. For that reason I expect it will be spurned.

    It’s pointless - the last two referendums in the last 5 years have been ignored by the losers.

    Why expect the third to be any different ?
    One difference is that in a 2nd referendum, if Remain wins, the result is already implemented. :smile:
  • A fresh referendum currently looks like the least worst way forward. For that reason I expect it will be spurned.

    It requires c. 320 MPs to agree on the terms of a referendum and a government willing and able to pilot complex legislation to the bitter end. The current HoC is incapable of satisfying either of these conditions so a GE must inevitably happen first.

    A third condition is that we must still be in the EU when the referendum takes place. Thanks to the Benn Act we might still be in according to British law but out according to our friends and colleagues in Brussels. It would be a sort of reverse-Taiwan situation.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,418

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    And this is how democracy dies.
    Saddest tune, smallest violin.
    Indeed scum like you have long shown you care nothing for democracy so I am not surprised you won't mourn its passing
    Howay man get a grip
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,462
    Danny565 said:

    Any second referendum is pointless. The establishment will refuse to implement any result it disagrees with. Just as it has with the first referendum.

    Unlike at the 2016 referendum, we actually now have a deliverable plan on the table (May's deal), which means that the legislation setting up the new referendum could make Brexit happen automatically after a Leave vote, regardless of what "the establishment" thinks.
    Indeed. May vs Remain has the added benefit of having no unicorn options too.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,575
    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    I suspect it will be close and depend on the perceived effectiveness of the Leave option. If the specific Leave option is believed to put the matter to bed without massive disruption, I suspect it will win. Otherwise not. I don't think democracy informs the decision. This is a democratic exercise after all.
    I think given so many leavers won't like the leave option that is offered even if there is not a mass stay at home reaction it will lose. Say for instance May's deal was the leave option - even if Boris, or god forbid even Farage brought themselves to back it, their message would basically be 'we said this thing was absolute garbage, and I hate it, now please vote for it'.

    That'll fire up the leave voting masses of 2016.
    Put No Deal and May's Deal on the 2nd ref alongsode Remain, use AV (or is it STV?).
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,418

    Any second referendum is pointless. The establishment will refuse to implement any result it disagrees with. Just as it has with the first referendum.

    The establishment, like all the major printed media and the ruling Conservative Party lead by Eton and Oxford educated Boris Johnson?

    Get a grip.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,119
    Ishmael_Z said:

    TGOHF said:
    Russia and Turkey can fuck off. I don't know where the idea has come from that democracy is a gold standard and the more you have of it the more virtuous you are. Direct democracy is a terrible thing, which is why it has no place in our constitution. If you had unlimited amounts of it you would have the death penalty restored in three seconds flat, and popular votes determining the verdict in murder trials. There is precisely one situation in which referendums are permissible, and that is in questions of self-determination. Border polls and Indy refs are therefore acceptable. With those exceptions we need a law declaring that referendums are unconstitutional and illegal, that any which have been held are null and void, and that proposing any new ones is an offence punishable as treason.
    Listen to yourself.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825

    kle4 said:

    FF43 said:

    kle4 said:

    As for being on topic, parliament does finally seem to be getting close to agreement, albeit they are not there yet. Playing for time until opinion changed has very much worked, but some of the people clamouring for a GE seem to have woken up to the fact that the Tories might actually win it even if offering no deal, or that a remain majority might split the vote inefficiently. Therefore, a referndum is less risky since the worst case scenario is a deal, if they even enact that result, and of course are confident of remain winning in any case.

    Which I think it would - enough people hate a deal of any kind, or have changed their mind, or would stay home in disgust, to see remain win.

    Any second referendum will be won on the backs of democratic Remainers, not Leavers.

    How the new Leave campaign conducts itself will be crucial. If it's "tell them again" or "honour the vote" they could win fairly clearly.

    If Farage, Banks, Francois and others all shout betrayal from the rooftops, say staying would be better than this, and argue for abstention or more direct action, it will be over before it starts.
    cracy informs the decision. This is a democratic exercise after all.
    I thin

    That'll fire up the leave voting masses of 2016.
    Put No Deal and May's Deal on the 2nd ref alongsode Remain, use AV (or is it STV?).
    I confidently predict there is no way in hell parliament would permit no deal to be an option in any referendum.

    Danny565 said:

    Any second referendum is pointless. The establishment will refuse to implement any result it disagrees with. Just as it has with the first referendum.

    Unlike at the 2016 referendum, we actually now have a deliverable plan on the table (May's deal), which means that the legislation setting up the new referendum could make Brexit happen automatically after a Leave vote, regardless of what "the establishment" thinks.
    Indeed. May vs Remain has the added benefit of having no unicorn options too.
    Frankly it seems the most reasonable option if we are to have one. Not necessarily because the May deal is great or anything, but more just that it saves time negotiating some other deal plenty of leavers would hate, so if it must be a deal vs remain, just get on with it.

    And though I would not expect it, just image May's reaction if her deal were to win.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,575
    Scott_P said:
    The comments on Jenkyns' tweet offer no solace to Boris if he's thinking of rehashing May's deal.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    Leavers always want someone else to blame .

    If no deal hadn’t been shoved down the throats of Remainers then perhaps we could have just moved on .

    The Tories forced the referendum on the country , own the chaos and division , even when they lost their majority they acted as if a deal should be delivered just for the Tories and not the whole country .

    Then at the last minute May decided in desperation to try and find a compromise , only then the no dealers had already hijacked the vote .

    So why on earth should Remainers accept that . .

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,802

    Any second referendum is pointless. The establishment will refuse to implement any result it disagrees with. Just as it has with the first referendum.

    The establishment, like all the major printed media and the ruling Conservative Party lead by Eton and Oxford educated Boris Johnson?

    Get a grip.
    All the major printed media are for Brexit? How far the Guardian has fallen. :D
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825
    nico67 said:

    Leavers always want someone else to blame .

    If no deal hadn’t been shoved down the throats of Remainers then perhaps we could have just moved on .

    The Tories forced the referendum on the country , own the chaos and division , even when they lost their majority they acted as if a deal should be delivered just for the Tories and not the whole country .

    Then at the last minute May decided in desperation to try and find a compromise , only then the no dealers had already hijacked the vote .

    So why on earth should Remainers accept that . .

    Looks like leavers are not the only ones wanting someone else to blame for all this mess.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    kle4 said:



    And though I would not expect it, just image May's reaction if her deal were to win.

    https://twitter.com/dancingtheresaM/status/1049581459680440320
  • nico67 said:

    Leavers always want someone else to blame .

    If no deal hadn’t been shoved down the throats of Remainers then perhaps we could have just moved on .

    The Tories forced the referendum on the country , own the chaos and division , even when they lost their majority they acted as if a deal should be delivered just for the Tories and not the whole country .

    Then at the last minute May decided in desperation to try and find a compromise , only then the no dealers had already hijacked the vote .

    So why on earth should Remainers accept that . .

    Have you quite finished?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,575

    Phil said:

    dodrade said:


    For most leavers now Brexit means "no deal", which remainers have now effectively outlawed. Hammond is fond of stating there is no mandate for no deal but Labour have ruled it out as a referendum option and deliberately denied Boris the chance to explicitly seek one from the people. Why on earth would leavers take part in another referendum when their first vote has been ignored and their preferred option is already off the table?

    The steady escalation of what counts as an “acceptable Brexit” has been one of the most aggravating & infuriating things about this whole affair. Like many who voted Remain, I did so without strong conviction & would have (grumpily) accepted one of the many options that Brexiteers had bandied about as being acceptable Brexits before the vote & then we’d have all got on with our lives.

    Instead we’re trapped in this never-ending Brexit hellscape where a vision of Brexit that would never have won the referendum had it been the only one on offer has become the only Brexit & the rest of us are just supposed to accept this, otherwise we’re “Remoaners” who want to “deny the will of the people”.

    May has a lot to answer for frankly - if she had reached across the floor in the first place, there would have been a clear majority in Parliament for a Brexit that clearly fulfilled the terms of the referendum & we could all have moved on.
    I feel like May is a toxin we collectively swallowed, and Boris is the process of messily puking it up
    If so, the cure is even worse than the complaint!
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    nico67 said:

    Leavers always want someone else to blame .

    If no deal hadn’t been shoved down the throats of Remainers then perhaps we could have just moved on .

    The Tories forced the referendum on the country , own the chaos and division , even when they lost their majority they acted as if a deal should be delivered just for the Tories and not the whole country .

    Then at the last minute May decided in desperation to try and find a compromise , only then the no dealers had already hijacked the vote .

    So why on earth should Remainers accept that . .

    As far as I can see both Leavers and Remainers are being equally tribal at present.
  • The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.

    +1

    This looks like a very plausible sequence to me.
    And who is supposed to run the country during the 12 months that it would take to organise a second referendum? What about the budget for a start? And what about any other legislation? If the remain alliance is running the country from the backbenches how is anyone supposed to hold them to account?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,825
    edited September 2019

    Scott_P said:
    The comments on Jenkyns' tweet offer no solace to Boris if he's thinking of rehashing May's deal.
    I do love the theories that Boris will offer a rehash May deal or even just the May deal after he wins a majority and can dump the DUP and ERG, as though he could get through an entire campaign without being made to utterly reject it. There's a reason he has been so strong against it despite voting for it as a last resort once, because he knows the Tory vote shatters if he tries it, and its why he is so petrified of Farage he has to flirt with breaking the law to get us out - we know even if he gets a deal next month which is genuinely majorly different in our favour, it will be called the same as May's deal because p 765 section 45 para 4 (ii) b is the same or something.

    The whole theory is predicated on the same basis as all those super clever plans to get fig leaf changes from the EU to fool the ERG or get Labour brexiters on board, which fail because everyone can read the papers.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Drutt said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TGOHF said:
    Russia and Turkey can fuck off. I don't know where the idea has come from that democracy is a gold standard and the more you have of it the more virtuous you are. Direct democracy is a terrible thing, which is why it has no place in our constitution. If you had unlimited amounts of it you would have the death penalty restored in three seconds flat, and popular votes determining the verdict in murder trials. There is precisely one situation in which referendums are permissible, and that is in questions of self-determination. Border polls and Indy refs are therefore acceptable. With those exceptions we need a law declaring that referendums are unconstitutional and illegal, that any which have been held are null and void, and that proposing any new ones is an offence punishable as treason.
    Listen to yourself.
    I am guessing you had an outrage overload and failed to read past that point. Do so.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,853
    TGOHF said:

    A fresh referendum currently looks like the least worst way forward. For that reason I expect it will be spurned.

    It’s pointless - the last two referendums in the last 5 years have been ignored by the losers.

    Why expect the third to be any different ?
    If there is one thing that Indyref and the EU ref have proved it is that losing a referendum isn't the end of the matter.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    kle4 said:

    nico67 said:

    Leavers always want someone else to blame .

    If no deal hadn’t been shoved down the throats of Remainers then perhaps we could have just moved on .

    The Tories forced the referendum on the country , own the chaos and division , even when they lost their majority they acted as if a deal should be delivered just for the Tories and not the whole country .

    Then at the last minute May decided in desperation to try and find a compromise , only then the no dealers had already hijacked the vote .

    So why on earth should Remainers accept that . .

    Looks like leavers are not the only ones wanting someone else to blame for all this mess.
    Agreed. I don't blame May for Brexit being the mess I confidently expected it to be. That would be illogical!
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    AndyJS said:

    nico67 said:

    Leavers always want someone else to blame .

    If no deal hadn’t been shoved down the throats of Remainers then perhaps we could have just moved on .

    The Tories forced the referendum on the country , own the chaos and division , even when they lost their majority they acted as if a deal should be delivered just for the Tories and not the whole country .

    Then at the last minute May decided in desperation to try and find a compromise , only then the no dealers had already hijacked the vote .

    So why on earth should Remainers accept that . .

    As far as I can see both Leavers and Remainers are being equally tribal at present.
    I’m not disagreeing . I’m willing to accept a compromise but won’t accept a no deal .
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,418
    Jo Swinson seems pretty good at coalition and consensus building.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,418
    nico67 said:

    AndyJS said:

    nico67 said:

    Leavers always want someone else to blame .

    If no deal hadn’t been shoved down the throats of Remainers then perhaps we could have just moved on .

    The Tories forced the referendum on the country , own the chaos and division , even when they lost their majority they acted as if a deal should be delivered just for the Tories and not the whole country .

    Then at the last minute May decided in desperation to try and find a compromise , only then the no dealers had already hijacked the vote .

    So why on earth should Remainers accept that . .

    As far as I can see both Leavers and Remainers are being equally tribal at present.
    I’m not disagreeing . I’m willing to accept a compromise but won’t accept a no deal .
    EEA. The answer has always been EEA.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,575

    The Overton window is moving very quickly these days. The idea that we wouldn't have an election until post brexit seemed outlandish only a couple weeks ago. Now it seems more and more likely. More and more MPs suggest the idea and it becomes normalised. It's all starting to feel a bit like Trump's style of government, where everyday a new scandal or crazy story pushes yesterday's one off the news agenda, and it just becomes accepted. I think the Corbyn the Chicken narrative has already fallen away. Next is the idea that an election is urgent at all.

    Really not hard to see now that Boris resigns to avoid asking for an extension, the EU offer a long extension rather than the 3 months to the caretaker PM (Corbyn or otherwise). Limited plan of government agrees to put the existing May deal through against remain in a legally binding second referendum, with an election to follow soon after the result.

    +1

    This looks like a very plausible sequence to me.
    And who is supposed to run the country during the 12 months that it would take to organise a second referendum? What about the budget for a start? And what about any other legislation? If the remain alliance is running the country from the backbenches how is anyone supposed to hold them to account?
    I believe the electoral commision suggested 22 weeks was required to organised and run a 2nd referendum, not 12 months.

    Given we have experienced 3 years of effective non-government due to Brexit, I think we can cope with a further 6 months.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 1,119
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Drutt said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    TGOHF said:
    Russia and Turkey can fuck off. I don't know where the idea has come from that democracy is a gold standard and the more you have of it the more virtuous you are. Direct democracy is a terrible thing, which is why it has no place in our constitution. If you had unlimited amounts of it you would have the death penalty restored in three seconds flat, and popular votes determining the verdict in murder trials. There is precisely one situation in which referendums are permissible, and that is in questions of self-determination. Border polls and Indy refs are therefore acceptable. With those exceptions we need a law declaring that referendums are unconstitutional and illegal, that any which have been held are null and void, and that proposing any new ones is an offence punishable as treason.
    Listen to yourself.
    I am guessing you had an outrage overload and failed to read past that point. Do so.
    Read on to the bit where you suggest proposing a referendum should be an offence carrying a life sentence? Don't worry, I read that bit too.
This discussion has been closed.