Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
Almost as if Remainers planned this from the beginning. Keep power, dither until it's too late then say there is no choice but to stay. Leavers have no party to represent them, that will come next.
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
Almost as if Remainers planned this from the beginning. Keep power, dither until it's too late then say there is no choice but to stay. Leavers have no party to represent them, that will come next.
So, when you claimed that "80% of the population voted for a party that supports Brexit at the general election", you were joking?
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
The problem with a "people's vote" (in addition to getting the referendum and question(s) agreed by parliament) is that the evidence is that opinion remains very divided, very close, and very volatile.
'What UK Thinks' was created by the National Centre for Social Research providing 'Non-partisan information on UK attitudes to the EU before and since the EU Referendum' by publishing the results of relevant polls and tracking changes in opinions.
The three most relevant questions are:
If there was another referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote? (Field work dates: 28 June 2016 - 26 October 2018)
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union? (Asked after the referendum) (Field work dates: 19 October 2016 - 2 November 2018)
And while The What UK Thinks: EURef2 Poll of Polls (based on the average share of the vote for ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ in the six most recent polls of how people would vote if they were to be presented once again with the choice of either leaving the EU or remaining a member) currently shows 53% Remain and 47% Leave, it has gone up and down like a yo-yo since the 2016 referendum, and it is uncertain whether that margin would survive a referendum campaign, and (at best) it might simply reverse the narrow margin of the 2016 vote (with all the problems and divisions that might create).
He has been a positive force for change! People are talking hopefully about reforms that seriously benefit the working classes and the hard-up for the first time in living memory...
Are they really? I'd like to know what evidence there is of this, because if it's happening it's something that has genuinely passed me by. It seems to me that the entire political discourse in this country for over two years now has been about Brexit. Everything else is inconsequential. I hear lots of people (me being one of them) moaning about the mess that Brexit will cause and desperately seeking a way out of it. I hear lots of people on the other side of the argument who are as keen as mustard to leave Europe and who are upset by how badly it's been handled. In between those two camps, the mass of humanity seems to be totally fed up with politics, distrusting of politicians and just tries get on with their day to day business paying as little attention as possible to the machinations of the political classes. Who are these people who are talking hopefully about reforms, because it seems that none of them get on my bus?
...And suddenly Corbyn's the snake? Not the people who lied and lied and lied until the public gave them what they wanted?
Nobody has discounted the people who lied; that is an unfair argument. Fingers may be, quite rightly, being pointed at Corbyn for being complicit in the Brexit fiasco through his own negligence/ineffectiveness, but that doesn't mean that 'the people who lied and lied and lied' are off the hook. For the record, they are scum.
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
The problem with a "people's vote" (in addition to getting the referendum and question(s) agreed by parliament) is that the evidence is that opinion remains very divided, very close, and very volatile.
'What UK Thinks' was created by the National Centre for Social Research providing 'Non-partisan information on UK attitudes to the EU before and since the EU Referendum' by publishing the results of relevant polls and tracking changes in opinions.
The three most relevant questions are:
If there was another referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote? (Field work dates: 28 June 2016 - 26 October 2018)
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union? (Asked after the referendum) (Field work dates: 19 October 2016 - 2 November 2018)
And while The What UK Thinks: EURef2 Poll of Polls (based on the average share of the vote for ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ in the six most recent polls of how people would vote if they were to be presented once again with the choice of either leaving the EU or remaining a member) currently shows 53% Remain and 47% Leave, it has gone up and down like a yo-yo since the 2016 referendum, and it is uncertain whether that margin would survive a referendum campaign, and (at best) it might simply reverse the narrow margin of the 2016 vote (with all the problems and divisions that might create).
Interesting. On a two-thirds turnout, a 56% Remain vote would mean something in the region of 18.4m people voting to remain. It would be the biggest democratic exercise in Britain's history. And the largest mandate ever granted.
A result like that wouldn't necessarily do a great deal to bring the two sides together (although, of course, that's not what a People's Vote would be for). But it would certainly stifle some of the more boring claims made by Farage et al about the 2016 vote.
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
Almost as if Remainers planned this from the beginning. Keep power, dither until it's too late then say there is no choice but to stay. Leavers have no party to represent them, that will come next.
So, when you claimed that "80% of the population voted for a party that supports Brexit at the general election", you were joking?
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
The problem with a "people's vote" (in addition to getting the referendum and question(s) agreed by parliament) is that the evidence is that opinion remains very divided, very close, and very volatile.
'What UK Thinks' was created by the National Centre for Social Research providing 'Non-partisan information on UK attitudes to the EU before and since the EU Referendum' by publishing the results of relevant polls and tracking changes in opinions.
The three most relevant questions are:
If there was another referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote? (Field work dates: 28 June 2016 - 26 October 2018)
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union? (Asked after the referendum) (Field work dates: 19 October 2016 - 2 November 2018)
And while The What UK Thinks: EURef2 Poll of Polls (based on the average share of the vote for ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ in the six most recent polls of how people would vote if they were to be presented once again with the choice of either leaving the EU or remaining a member) currently shows 53% Remain and 47% Leave, it has gone up and down like a yo-yo since the 2016 referendum, and it is uncertain whether that margin would survive a referendum campaign, and (at best) it might simply reverse the narrow margin of the 2016 vote (with all the problems and divisions that might create).
Interesting. On a two-thirds turnout, a 56% Remain vote would mean something in the region of 18.4m people voting to remain. It would be the biggest democratic exercise in Britain's history. And the largest mandate ever granted.
A result like that wouldn't necessarily do a great deal to bring the two sides together (although, of course, that's not what a People's Vote would be for). But it would certainly stifle some of the more boring claims made by Farage et al about the 2016 vote.
An important point about the 2016 referendum is that the turnout (72.2%) was the highest in a UK national poll since 1992 (higher than the 66.4% in the 2015 and 69% in the 2017 General Elections) which means that around 3 million people who hadn't voted before (or at least for some time) felt sufficiently motivated to vote in the 2016 EU referendum. How many of those (plus others who didn't vote in 2016) might react to being asked to 'try again' is uncertain.
Below is a link to an article on 28 September 2018 by Professor John Curtice on 'Has There Been Any Kind of Swing Between Remain and Leave?', which he concludes by saying:
"At this juncture at least, and bearing in mind too that polls are not always perfect, the only safe conclusion that can probably be drawn is that that the outcome of any second ballot would most likely be close – just, of course, as the first one was"
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
Almost as if Remainers planned this from the beginning. Keep power, dither until it's too late then say there is no choice but to stay. Leavers have no party to represent them, that will come next.
So, when you claimed that "80% of the population voted for a party that supports Brexit at the general election", you were joking?
They lied
I see. The Labour and Conservative manifestos included supporting brexit, in order to fool brexit supporters to vote for them, despite not actually supporting brexit themselves?
So, for clarification, all parties were either supporters of remain and campaigned on that basis or they were supporters of remain and pretended they were for brexit. Is that right?
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
What I meant is that only once BINO is on the table, does that enable the nation consider BINO vs Remainwe. We always needed a material change from 2016, and people need to be at the cliff edge looking down, paying attention to consequences before we might consider aborting Brexit. For me it was impossible to expect the country to simply flip back from Leave to Remain again.
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
Almost as if Remainers planned this from the beginning. Keep power, dither until it's too late then say there is no choice but to stay. Leavers have no party to represent them, that will come next.
So, when you claimed that "80% of the population voted for a party that supports Brexit at the general election", you were joking?
They lied
I see. The Labour and Conservative manifestos included supporting brexit, in order to fool brexit supporters to vote for them, despite not actually supporting brexit themselves?
So, for clarification, all parties were either supporters of remain and campaigned on that basis or they were supporters of remain and pretended they were for brexit. Is that right?
Sounds a pretty reasonable supposition.
Do you think the two front benches really believe in Brexit? They had it in their manifestoes to get Brexit supporters to vote for them. Since then they have been looking for ways to get out of it. As I said, Leavers have no party, yet.
Can I just clarify something. Am I right in thinking that some Remainers think that both main parties are pro-Brexit, whilst some Brexiteers believe that both main parties are pro-Remain? At the same time all the other national parties are not making inroads into Labour or the Tories in the polls.
Just to wade into the Brext/Corbyn opposition stance. I dont think that Brexit is a party issue.....you can be a Tory & be a Remainer or a Brexiteer. Same for Labour supporters. I'm not a fan of JC but I dont think he's done much wrong. I dont think its down to the Opposition party to be tharwting Brexit.
My fellow remainers, what do you want? What would your plan be now if you were in power? What can realistically be done when we take into account people's feelings and their crazy views of democracy etc.
Genuinely, what can we do? Everyone is going to the edge of a cliff here, it's just some are trying to sprint to it, whilst others are just walking. The end conclusion the way I see it at the moment will be the same.
Interesting that no one took you up on this. It would be easy to say "it's not for Remainers to say how a mess they never created, should be cleared up", but that wouldn't normally be a reason for gobby types like me to swerve the challenge. It increasingly feels to me like a political problem so monstrous that I have no clear idea how i would solve it. Which was not how I felt about the 3 Day week, the Miners' Strike, the privatisations, what we should do about the fall of Communism, the Yugoslav wars, the euro.
I'll give it a go anyway, but in the full expectation that it could be easily shot down by just about everyone.
Assuming firstly I had a clear mandate from within my party (i.e no cartoon aristocrats or buffoon Johnsons behind me) as PM I would
- tell the EU side that there will be a referendum vote on any deal
- opt for a Norway style deal for now (with the EU knowing that the referendum questions could allow it to be rejected as not sufficiently "leaving")
- indicate as part of the negotiations that 29 March 2019 is no longer a deadline that serves anyone's interests, and that once a deal was done, an extension would be needed. (The alternative would be crashing out on 29 March, and our nearest neighbours don't want that any more than any sensible Brits do)
It's full of holes, but all the alternatives look worse to me.
Watching Thornberry on Marr. Embarassing watching her basically claim that if Labour were in power, by some supreme divinity there would be an amazing deal on the table, BUT whilst still Brexiting.
You can't on the one hand claim that the Conservatives are putting party before country whilst calling for a general election which, if they won would basically start the whole negotiating process again. The Labour party are no better than the Conservatives on this, and to claim they are is disingenuous.
I think most remainers in here are in agreement that the European Union has to have the intransigent stance it has and has been very clear on this. Therefore, Britain can not both leave the European Union, as well as having the 6 tests that Labour are talking about satisfied.
I think the truth is that from the moment article 50 was triggered, there were only two real options. Hard Brexit, or no Brexit (which could be spun in some way, but would be Brexit in name only).
I don't think people understood just how unwilling Europe would be to budge (as is their right) at the time of the vote.
My fellow remainers, what do you want? What would your plan be now if you were in power? What can realistically be done when we take into account people's feelings and their crazy views of democracy etc.
Genuinely, what can we do? Everyone is going to the edge of a cliff here, it's just some are trying to sprint to it, whilst others are just walking. The end conclusion the way I see it at the moment will be the same.
Interesting that no one took you up on this. It would be easy to say "it's not for Remainers to say how a mess they never created, should be cleared up", but that wouldn't normally be a reason for gobby types like me to swerve the challenge. It increasingly feels to me like a political problem so monstrous that I have no clear idea how i would solve it. Which was not how I felt about the 3 Day week, the Miners' Strike, the privatisations, what we should do about the fall of Communism, the Yugoslav wars, the euro.
I'll give it a go anyway, but in the full expectation that it could be easily shot down by just about everyone.
Assuming firstly I had a clear mandate from within my party (i.e no cartoon aristocrats or buffoon Johnsons behind me) as PM I would
- tell the EU side that there will be a referendum vote on any deal
- opt for a Norway style deal for now (with the EU knowing that the referendum questions could allow it to be rejected as not sufficiently "leaving")
- indicate as part of the negotiations that 29 March 2019 is no longer a deadline that serves anyone's interests, and that once a deal was done, an extension would be needed. (The alternative would be crashing out on 29 March, and our nearest neighbours don't want that any more than any sensible Brits do)
It's full of holes, but all the alternatives look worse to me.
Never forget who got us here....
Pretty much agree with most of that final statement. That's the key issue with Brexit, any suggestion that anyone brings up is actually full of holes. There is no real answer to the question of "what should we do?" One thing I will say though is that we as a nation and as Europeans are spending too much time debating the merits or otherwise of the fact that we voted Brexit in 2016, still going on about the various debates, when actually we should be devoting our attention to what happens going forward.
Watching Thornberry on Marr. Embarassing watching her basically claim that if Labour were in power, by some supreme divinity there would be an amazing deal on the table, BUT whilst still Brexiting.
You can't on the one hand claim that the Conservatives are putting party before country whilst calling for a general election which, if they won would basically start the whole negotiating process again. The Labour party are no better than the Conservatives on this, and to claim they are is disingenuous.
I think most remainers in here are in agreement that the European Union has to have the intransigent stance it has and has been very clear on this. Therefore, Britain can not both leave the European Union, as well as having the 6 tests that Labour are talking about satisfied.
I think the truth is that from the moment article 50 was triggered, there were only two real options. Hard Brexit, or no Brexit (which could be spun in some way, but would be Brexit in name only).
I don't think people understood just how unwilling Europe would be to budge (as is their right) at the time of the vote.
Not arguing that Labour's stance on Brexit hasn't been painful to watch but Theresa May set her red lines which have massively restricted her ability to get a good deal (from a Remainer perspective). If there were no set red lines surely there would be more flexibility to get a good deal removing the need to find alternatives (and have arguments about) to CU, SM, Free movement and the European Court.
Whether Labour would have the wit to get a better deal is another matter.
My fellow remainers, what do you want? What would your plan be now if you were in power? What can realistically be done when we take into account people's feelings and their crazy views of democracy etc.
Genuinely, what can we do? Everyone is going to the edge of a cliff here, it's just some are trying to sprint to it, whilst others are just walking. The end conclusion the way I see it at the moment will be the same.
Interesting that no one took you up on this. It would be easy to say "it's not for Remainers to say how a mess they never created, should be cleared up", but that wouldn't normally be a reason for gobby types like me to swerve the challenge. It increasingly feels to me like a political problem so monstrous that I have no clear idea how i would solve it. Which was not how I felt about the 3 Day week, the Miners' Strike, the privatisations, what we should do about the fall of Communism, the Yugoslav wars, the euro.
I'll give it a go anyway, but in the full expectation that it could be easily shot down by just about everyone.
Assuming firstly I had a clear mandate from within my party (i.e no cartoon aristocrats or buffoon Johnsons behind me) as PM I would
- tell the EU side that there will be a referendum vote on any deal
- opt for a Norway style deal for now (with the EU knowing that the referendum questions could allow it to be rejected as not sufficiently "leaving")
- indicate as part of the negotiations that 29 March 2019 is no longer a deadline that serves anyone's interests, and that once a deal was done, an extension would be needed. (The alternative would be crashing out on 29 March, and our nearest neighbours don't want that any more than any sensible Brits do)
It's full of holes, but all the alternatives look worse to me.
Never forget who got us here....
Pretty much agree with most of that final statement. That's the key issue with Brexit, any suggestion that anyone brings up is actually full of holes. There is no real answer to the question of "what should we do?" One thing I will say though is that we as a nation and as Europeans are spending too much time debating the merits or otherwise of the fact that we voted Brexit in 2016, still going on about the various debates, when actually we should be devoting our attention to what happens going forward.
Well said, pity our politicians do not have the same attitude.
Watching Thornberry on Marr. Embarassing watching her basically claim that if Labour were in power, by some supreme divinity there would be an amazing deal on the table, BUT whilst still Brexiting.
You can't on the one hand claim that the Conservatives are putting party before country whilst calling for a general election which, if they won would basically start the whole negotiating process again. The Labour party are no better than the Conservatives on this, and to claim they are is disingenuous.
I think most remainers in here are in agreement that the European Union has to have the intransigent stance it has and has been very clear on this. Therefore, Britain can not both leave the European Union, as well as having the 6 tests that Labour are talking about satisfied.
I think the truth is that from the moment article 50 was triggered, there were only two real options. Hard Brexit, or no Brexit (which could be spun in some way, but would be Brexit in name only).
I don't think people understood just how unwilling Europe would be to budge (as is their right) at the time of the vote.
Not arguing that Labour's stance on Brexit hasn't been painful to watch but Theresa May set her red lines which have massively restricted her ability to get a good deal (from a Remainer perspective). If there were no set red lines surely there would be more flexibility to get a good deal removing the need to find alternatives (and have arguments about) to CU, SM, Free movement and the European Court.
Whether Labour would have the wit to get a better deal is another matter.
Any flexibility ... for either side ... was lost when Article 50 was activated.
Personally, I think a second referendum is unnecessary and a waste of yet more money, time and effort when there are so many pressing issues for our government to deal with.
No sane person in the country could possibly claim that this government did not try, with a 100% commitment, enormous amounts of money and effort, to implement the marginal result of the advisory referendum. But, the hard facts are that after 2 1/2 years it is clear there is no possibility of delivering a Brexit that does not result in serious damage to the people of this country for generations to come. There is a majority in Parliament of genuinely patriotic MPs who put country before party. And they were elected by the majority in the country. It is time that these MPs organise against the front benches of both main parties and simply force the abandonment of Brexit.
As pointed out in the article I linked above, the argument that we can’t do this because of the threat of a violent backlash from the people who voted Leave is nothing more than a shameful surrender to terrorism.
Well since you are here, perhaps you can tell us what form of Brexit you personally want to see, and then - and I really, really want to know this - what are the material changes in your own personal life that you expect that Brexit to bestow upon you.
Seems to me that the people who will be most directly affected by Brexit will either be EU nationals living or hoping to live in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU. Brits living in Britain will probably notice few material differences, unless of course there are economic problems, food and medicine shortages etc. The other likely tangible difference will be when Brits travel to Europe if they need visas and travel insurance as well as not having mobile roaming. It is very hard to see what actual relevant impact Brexit will have on day to day British life other than this vague idea of 'taking back control'.
From the very beginning of the referendum, Brexit has been a disaster.
The only reason for the referendum was Cameron’s weakness against the anti-European right wing of his party and his concerns about Farage and what may happen there:
Let us be clear, Farage is a privilidged, Dulwich College educated moron. He has gone on to make more money through being an MEP in salary and pension than he could as a fairly useless metals derivative trader.
The anti-European sentiment has been pushed by all the papers run by the Russians, the Berkeley brothers and Murdoch. The Sun, the Mail, the Times, the Telegraph. It has been drop fed into our news feed so much that many people believe it. It an educated discussion but an emotive push based on remembered identity of Empire and Commonweath. Britain (or more particularly England) as the last bastion of reason and democracy against the beurocratic or, even more so, the filthy surrender monkeys and Hitler supporters.
At no point has anyone been able to articulate to the mass audience of Englanders that the EU is a positive thing, yes not perfect, what is?
Has Germany got a good deal out of being in the Euro? Yes.
The UK has helped to develop the EU. Without UK influence it would perhaps have failed.
And now we are giving up our right to participate in the further development of Europe because of what?
A referendum potentially twisted by Russian money, an electorate asked to vote on something that is still unclear 2 years later, terrible remain campaign that failed to get across the benefits of being in the EU without being painted as Project Fear, and a bunch of lies from politicians who have a limited affinity for Brexit.
I wasn’t able to stay up to see final result as had work the next day (work that in part relies on the UK ability to access financial services markets freely across Europe). I looked at the internet that morning and nearly broke my fist punching the wall and my phone. What has the voting public just done to the future of our country, my son’s future? I could not see a path to victory for the UK under Brexit.
I still can’t see that in my lifetime, I have 20-30 years left,
The only point now is to minimise the size of the loss or to admit we had a bad day, apologise and hope the relationship is repairable.
Well since you are here, perhaps you can tell us what form of Brexit you personally want to see, and then - and I really, really want to know this - what are the material changes in your own personal life that you expect that Brexit to bestow upon you.
A no deal Brexit, or Brexit as it used to be known. We have wasted 2 years in what was always a pointless negotiation as many of us knew it would be. We should have been preparing for no deal from the start. We have gained nothing from waiting. We should have said we are leaving, declared that we would not charge import tariffs on our side, or block imports, and let the EU make its mind up if it still wanted to buy stuff from Britain. We should have unilaterally given all EU citizens the right to stay. Meanwhile we should have worked harder to get new trade deals ready. In other words we should have been open and confident, not timid supplicant like May and her Government. Had we had a Leave Government that could have happened. If you could be bothered to look you will see I was saying this 2 years ago by the way. Now we have the worst of all worlds and an on going political crisis. Lack of leadership has been the main problem. I have no idea what the economic impact of this chaos will be. But I have lived and worked through enough recessions to know we are not doomed whatever happens. But our political system is now completely disfunctional-that is the bigger problem.
Well since you are here, perhaps you can tell us what form of Brexit you personally want to see, and then - and I really, really want to know this - what are the material changes in your own personal life that you expect that Brexit to bestow upon you.
A no deal Brexit, or Brexit as it used to be known. We have wasted 2 years in what was always a pointless negotiation as many of us knew it would be. We should have been preparing for no deal from the start. We have gained nothing from waiting. We should have said we are leaving, declared that we would not charge import tariffs on our side, or block imports, and let the EU make its mind up if it still wanted to buy stuff from Britain. We should have unilaterally given all EU citizens the right to stay. Meanwhile we should have worked harder to get new trade deals ready. In other words we should have been open and confident, not timid supplicant like May and her Government. Had we had a Leave Government that could have happened. If you could be bothered to look you will see I was saying this 2 years ago by the way. Now we have the worst of all worlds and an on going political crisis. Lack of leadership has been the main problem. I have no idea what the economic impact of this chaos will be. But I have lived and worked through enough recessions to know we are not doomed whatever happens. But our political system is now completely disfunctional-that is the bigger problem.
I don't agree with you but at least your view is coherent (and consistent if, as you say, you have been arguing it since the referendum).
However, I think that even if work had begun in 2016 it's fanciful to imagine that alternative trade deals of a sufficient number and sufficient scale could have been concluded (and concluded in time) with other states and trading blocks to replace those the UK has with the EU (and through the EU with others) to be ready by the UK's EU exit date (as the experience of negotiations of other international trade deals demonstrates).
Well since you are here, perhaps you can tell us what form of Brexit you personally want to see, and then - and I really, really want to know this - what are the material changes in your own personal life that you expect that Brexit to bestow upon you.
A no deal Brexit, or Brexit as it used to be known. We have wasted 2 years in what was always a pointless negotiation as many of us knew it would be. We should have been preparing for no deal from the start. We have gained nothing from waiting. We should have said we are leaving, declared that we would not charge import tariffs on our side, or block imports, and let the EU make its mind up if it still wanted to buy stuff from Britain. We should have unilaterally given all EU citizens the right to stay. Meanwhile we should have worked harder to get new trade deals ready. In other words we should have been open and confident, not timid supplicant like May and her Government. Had we had a Leave Government that could have happened. If you could be bothered to look you will see I was saying this 2 years ago by the way. Now we have the worst of all worlds and an on going political crisis. Lack of leadership has been the main problem. I have no idea what the economic impact of this chaos will be. But I have lived and worked through enough recessions to know we are not doomed whatever happens. But our political system is now completely disfunctional-that is the bigger problem.
You do realise that a unilateral removal of trade barriers would have wiped out UK manufacturing and, probably, agriculture - because, in the absence of a free trade agreement, the UK cannot selectively remove tariff and non-tariff barriers, the WTO requires all countries, without specific trade agreements, to be treated equally.
With no requirement for other states to reciprocate, it would have been almost as if the UK was subsidising competitors to UK business.
I'll gloss over the practical difficulty that the UK Government has of not being legally able to negotiate any trade deals until after having left the EU. HMG cannot legally get trade deals ready (the conversations it can have are much more limited), and for potential partners the willingness of the UK to comply with its existing agreements is a bit important, not least because of what that signifies for future relationships.
A Leave Government, if by that you mean those ideologically committed to a complete rupture, would probably have tried something like the approach you suggest, but not, I fear, because it is workable or practical.
It's clear, from what they have said throughout the period since the beginning of the referendum campaign, that they wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent the relationships that the UK has, and can have, with the EU and the wider World. Theirs is a World view of entitlement and exceptionalism, that demands both that everyone else recognise and accept their own sovereign rights and that at the same time the sovereign rights of everyone else be swept aside to allow the achievement of their definition of Brexit. They portray the complex as simple, and shrug their shoulders and attempt to ignore any inconvenient problems that may arise, and, as with Ireland, decide that problems that they have created are for others to solve.
I almost wish that you had had your wish for a Government of the true believers, it would be (darkly) comic, but no-one deserves to be "governed" by such a coalition of the utterly talentless and delusional, lacking in any seriousness or understanding of or care about the consequences of their actions, and there are few, even Leave voters (barring Britain First and some UKIP), that I would willingly see be represented by such individuals.
Comments
The draft Chequers proposal has been the catalyst for both the rapid upturn in support for a "people's vote" together with the evolution and exposure of the hard brexit case. A vote on the actual deal is a different proposition to what we had in 2016. Whether we continue towards BINO in March with a seemless transition or we actually have another vote remains to be seen.
Keep power, dither until it's too late then say there is no choice but to stay.
Leavers have no party to represent them, that will come next.
The problem with a "people's vote" (in addition to getting the referendum and question(s) agreed by parliament) is that the evidence is that opinion remains very divided, very close, and very volatile.
'What UK Thinks' was created by the National Centre for Social Research providing 'Non-partisan information on UK attitudes to the EU before and since the EU Referendum' by publishing the results of relevant polls and tracking changes in opinions.
The three most relevant questions are:
If there was another referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote? (Field work dates: 28 June 2016 - 26 October 2018)
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-a-second-eu-referendum-were-held-today-how-would-you-vote/
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU? (Field work dates: 1 August 2016 - 23 October 2018)
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/in-highsight-do-you-think-britain-was-right-or-wrong-to-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
and
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union? (Asked after the referendum) (Field work dates: 19 October 2016 - 2 November 2018)
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-remain-a-member-of-the-european-union-or-leave-the-european-union-asked-after-the-referendum/
And while The What UK Thinks: EURef2 Poll of Polls (based on the average share of the vote for ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ in the six most recent polls of how people would vote if they were to be presented once again with the choice of either leaving the EU or remaining a member) currently shows 53% Remain and 47% Leave, it has gone up and down like a yo-yo since the 2016 referendum, and it is uncertain whether that margin would survive a referendum campaign, and (at best) it might simply reverse the narrow margin of the 2016 vote (with all the problems and divisions that might create).
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/euref2-poll-of-polls/
Yup
A result like that wouldn't necessarily do a great deal to bring the two sides together (although, of course, that's not what a People's Vote would be for). But it would certainly stifle some of the more boring claims made by Farage et al about the 2016 vote.
Below is a link to an article on 28 September 2018 by Professor John Curtice on 'Has There Been Any Kind of Swing Between Remain and Leave?', which he concludes by saying:
"At this juncture at least, and bearing in mind too that polls are not always perfect, the only safe conclusion that can probably be drawn is that that the outcome of any second ballot would most likely be close – just, of course, as the first one was"
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/has-there-been-any-kind-of-swing-between-remain-and-leave/
So, for clarification, all parties were either supporters of remain and campaigned on that basis or they were supporters of remain and pretended they were for brexit. Is that right?
Sounds a pretty reasonable supposition.
What an effing mess.
I'll give it a go anyway, but in the full expectation that it could be easily shot down by just about everyone.
Assuming firstly I had a clear mandate from within my party (i.e no cartoon aristocrats or buffoon Johnsons behind me) as PM I would
- tell the EU side that there will be a referendum vote on any deal
- opt for a Norway style deal for now (with the EU knowing that the referendum questions could allow it to be rejected as not sufficiently "leaving")
- indicate as part of the negotiations that 29 March 2019 is no longer a deadline that serves anyone's interests, and that once a deal was done, an extension would be needed. (The alternative would be crashing out on 29 March, and our nearest neighbours don't want that any more than any sensible Brits do)
It's full of holes, but all the alternatives look worse to me.
Never forget who got us here....
You can't on the one hand claim that the Conservatives are putting party before country whilst calling for a general election which, if they won would basically start the whole negotiating process again. The Labour party are no better than the Conservatives on this, and to claim they are is disingenuous.
I think most remainers in here are in agreement that the European Union has to have the intransigent stance it has and has been very clear on this. Therefore, Britain can not both leave the European Union, as well as having the 6 tests that Labour are talking about satisfied.
I think the truth is that from the moment article 50 was triggered, there were only two real options. Hard Brexit, or no Brexit (which could be spun in some way, but would be Brexit in name only).
I don't think people understood just how unwilling Europe would be to budge (as is their right) at the time of the vote.
Whether Labour would have the wit to get a better deal is another matter.
No sane person in the country could possibly claim that this government did not try, with a 100% commitment, enormous amounts of money and effort, to implement the marginal result of the advisory referendum. But, the hard facts are that after 2 1/2 years it is clear there is no possibility of delivering a Brexit that does not result in serious damage to the people of this country for generations to come. There is a majority in Parliament of genuinely patriotic MPs who put country before party. And they were elected by the majority in the country. It is time that these MPs organise against the front benches of both main parties and simply force the abandonment of Brexit.
As pointed out in the article I linked above, the argument that we can’t do this because of the threat of a violent backlash from the people who voted Leave is nothing more than a shameful surrender to terrorism.
The only reason for the referendum was Cameron’s weakness against the anti-European right wing of his party and his concerns about Farage and what may happen there:
Let us be clear, Farage is a privilidged, Dulwich College educated moron. He has gone on to make more money through being an MEP in salary and pension than he could as a fairly useless metals derivative trader.
The anti-European sentiment has been pushed by all the papers run by the Russians, the Berkeley brothers and Murdoch. The Sun, the Mail, the Times, the Telegraph. It has been drop fed into our news feed so much that many people believe it. It an educated discussion but an emotive push based on remembered identity of Empire and Commonweath. Britain (or more particularly England) as the last bastion of reason and democracy against the beurocratic or, even more so, the filthy surrender monkeys and Hitler supporters.
At no point has anyone been able to articulate to the mass audience of Englanders that the EU is a positive thing, yes not perfect, what is?
Has Germany got a good deal out of being in the Euro? Yes.
The UK has helped to develop the EU. Without UK influence it would perhaps have failed.
And now we are giving up our right to participate in the further development of Europe because of what?
A referendum potentially twisted by Russian money, an electorate asked to vote on something that is still unclear 2 years later, terrible remain campaign that failed to get across the benefits of being in the EU without being painted as Project Fear, and a bunch of lies from politicians who have a limited affinity for Brexit.
I wasn’t able to stay up to see final result as had work the next day (work that in part relies on the UK ability to access financial services markets freely across Europe). I looked at the internet that morning and nearly broke my fist punching the wall and my phone. What has the voting public just done to the future of our country, my son’s future? I could not see a path to victory for the UK under Brexit.
I still can’t see that in my lifetime, I have 20-30 years left,
The only point now is to minimise the size of the loss or to admit we had a bad day, apologise and hope the relationship is repairable.
If I could, I would try for the latter.
We have wasted 2 years in what was always a pointless negotiation as many of us knew it would be.
We should have been preparing for no deal from the start. We have gained nothing from waiting.
We should have said we are leaving, declared that we would not charge import tariffs on our side, or block imports, and let the EU make its mind up if it still wanted to buy stuff from Britain. We should have unilaterally given all EU citizens the right to stay. Meanwhile we should have worked harder to get new trade deals ready. In other words we should have been open and confident, not timid supplicant like May and her Government.
Had we had a Leave Government that could have happened. If you could be bothered to look you will see I was saying this 2 years ago by the way.
Now we have the worst of all worlds and an on going political crisis.
Lack of leadership has been the main problem.
I have no idea what the economic impact of this chaos will be. But I have lived and worked through enough recessions to know we are not doomed whatever happens. But our political system is now completely disfunctional-that is the bigger problem.
However, I think that even if work had begun in 2016 it's fanciful to imagine that alternative trade deals of a sufficient number and sufficient scale could have been concluded (and concluded in time) with other states and trading blocks to replace those the UK has with the EU (and through the EU with others) to be ready by the UK's EU exit date (as the experience of negotiations of other international trade deals demonstrates).
With no requirement for other states to reciprocate, it would have been almost as if the UK was subsidising competitors to UK business.
I'll gloss over the practical difficulty that the UK Government has of not being legally able to negotiate any trade deals until after having left the EU. HMG cannot legally get trade deals ready (the conversations it can have are much more limited), and for potential partners the willingness of the UK to comply with its existing agreements is a bit important, not least because of what that signifies for future relationships.
A Leave Government, if by that you mean those ideologically committed to a complete rupture, would probably have tried something like the approach you suggest, but not, I fear, because it is workable or practical.
It's clear, from what they have said throughout the period since the beginning of the referendum campaign, that they wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent the relationships that the UK has, and can have, with the EU and the wider World. Theirs is a World view of entitlement and exceptionalism, that demands both that everyone else recognise and accept their own sovereign rights and that at the same time the sovereign rights of everyone else be swept aside to allow the achievement of their definition of Brexit. They portray the complex as simple, and shrug their shoulders and attempt to ignore any inconvenient problems that may arise, and, as with Ireland, decide that problems that they have created are for others to solve.
I almost wish that you had had your wish for a Government of the true believers, it would be (darkly) comic, but no-one deserves to be "governed" by such a coalition of the utterly talentless and delusional, lacking in any seriousness or understanding of or care about the consequences of their actions, and there are few, even Leave voters (barring Britain First and some UKIP), that I would willingly see be represented by such individuals.