No politician is going to stick their head above the parapet and drive towards a no Brexit. It just won’t happen. Regardless of recent polls the country is still very split and large swathes still support the leave vote and feel that anything other than following the outcome of the referendum is a betrayal.
I know and agree with all the remain voices when saying this Brexit isn’t what people voted for, referendum was advisory, nobody voted to be poorer and all the other truths but the reality is neither the Tories or Labour who in reality are the only show in town won’t risk alienating a large percentage of their support by being overt in pushing for a no brexit.
There is one important question for me as a remainer. That is, would parliament stop a no deal Brexit if May takes this to the wire as it looks like she is doing or trying to do? If you believe the answer to that question is yes, events could be positive, as when the deal is rejected, parliament would have to force another vote or even kick Brexit into touch. However, if you do not believe Parliament will stop a no deal Brexit, or even think it may not be able to, it is probably best to support May's deal.
Seeing as it is a ridiculous deal that is nothing to nobody, maybe now is the time for remainers of all parties to grow a pair and work out how no deal will be stopped.
There would be an even bigger majority in the house to stop a no deal than to vote against this deal. But it would appear there is no legal process for Parliament to stop a no deal - there would be a vote but it would be a neutral vote and not binding on the Government.
That said, it would be almost unthinkable for any Government to refuse to accept the outcome of a vote to block a no deal. But in the absence of any acceptable deal the only way to stop crashing out would be to ask the EU to extend the 2 year Article 50 condition.
No politician is going to stick their head above the parapet and drive towards a no Brexit. It just won’t happen. Regardless of recent polls the country is still very split and large swathes still support the leave vote and feel that anything other than following the outcome of the referendum is a betrayal.
I know and agree with all the remain voices when saying this Brexit isn’t what people voted for, referendum was advisory, nobody voted to be poorer and all the other truths but the reality is neither the Tories or Labour who in reality are the only show in town won’t risk alienating a large percentage of their support by being overt in pushing for a no brexit.
The lib dems will as it is party policy but they are so small a party now and have little significance. Maybe the SNP and PC too although I'm not up to speed on their policy.
Plenty of remainer MPs in both main parties are happy to call for it but usually via another vote.
No politician is going to stick their head above the parapet and drive towards a no Brexit. It just won’t happen. Regardless of recent polls the country is still very split and large swathes still support the leave vote and feel that anything other than following the outcome of the referendum is a betrayal.
I know and agree with all the remain voices when saying this Brexit isn’t what people voted for, referendum was advisory, nobody voted to be poorer and all the other truths but the reality is neither the Tories or Labour who in reality are the only show in town won’t risk alienating a large percentage of their support by being overt in pushing for a no brexit.
The lib dems will as it is party policy but they are so small a party now and have little significance. Maybe the SNP and PC too although I'm not up to speed on their policy.
Plenty of remainer MPs in both main parties are happy to call for it but usually via another vote.
Agree with this. The Lib Dem’s are the only ones as far as I’m aware saying they would stop Brexit but I excluded them from the equation for the reason you cite.
I also am sure there are a majority of MP’s of all flavours who would support a call for a no deal but would they be willing to risk their seat if like many they come from a constituency that voted leave. Getting to the point of no deal will be a very big sell and I still can’t see it happening. Not in the timeframe anyway.
Should May be ousted and replaced and or the deal is voted down and or there is a general election then I suppose we are in uncharted waters but this deal and May are far from dead ducks as far as I can see.
Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.
What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,
The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.
And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).
But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system. -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.
The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.
I think we might not be far from Labour, inc. Corbyn (he tends to like to do his own thing, exempt from party policy), coming out in favour of a 2nd referendum once they’ve realised that a GE is definitely not on the cards.
Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.
What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,
The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.
And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).
But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system. -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.
The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.
The comments coming from the EU27 seem to make clear that they have compromised as far as they can with regard to the exit agreement. So, even if there was the time for renegotiation, there is unlikely to be the room.
However, what has to be stressed, and seems to be missing from the arguments of both Labour and eejits like the ERG, is that the proposed deal in question is not, to mangle the well known quote, the end or even the beginning of the end of trade negotiations, but the end of the beginning.
It is a possible means of allowing the breathing space in which the UK and EU27 can engage in the difficult negotiations on the arrangements for their future relationship.
In Ireland, comparisons are being made with Michael Collins' argument that the agreement that led to the creation of the Irish Free State did not make the Irish free, but provided the freedom to achieve freedom.
The agreement that Theresa May is proposing is not intended to be the Brexit end state, but the opportunity to allow HMG achieve it via further negotiation.
I don't know much about politics and not looking to get into a great debate... But this Jacob Reese Mog guy seems like a really slimey weasel.... Why do people listen to this guy he comes across like a complete snake? The very epitome of an untrustworthy polititian...
I said months ago, we should have another vote, because it was a complete and utter shambles and we were not going to get anything like the Brexit that was promised.
If there were 3 options to -
A Remain
B Accept May's deal
C No deal
Then surely the approximate 50% Brexit vote would be split, leaving Remain to win comfortably.
Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.
What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,
The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.
And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).
But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system. -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.
The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.
Without a people's vote, we will end up with the deal that Theresa May, her Cabinet and the current Parliament conclude is the right thing to do. So there are a couple of questions that are worth posing at this stage.
1. Would you be happy to accept the only deal that, so far, has been proposed by the Prime Minister and backed by a significant majority of the Cabinet? Because, of course, without a people's vote, we would simply be sitting back and waiting for these people to determine how we progress. If you're happy to leave the decision to the combined political intellect of those people, then opposing a people's vote seems to be the right thing to do. (Although, by definition, contradicts the notion of the 2016 vote in the first place).
2. A people's vote, in order to ensure it harvests votes from a better-informed electorate than in 2016, should only offer a choice of three, fact-based scenarios. So, the only options that can be on offer are a no-deal Brexit, Brexit on the agreed terms (ie the terms established and agreed by cabinet) and no Brexit. Each of these is a definable concept, not open to misinterpretation, unable to be obfuscated by lies. For example, no-one could (truthfully) promote option one (a no-deal Brexit) as preserving UK citizens' rights abroad, frictionless borders or guaranteed continuance of UK-Europe flights; no-one could promote option two (Brexit on the agreed terms) as being a way of delivering all the benefits of being a member of the EU, a permanent solution to the Irish border or enabling us to have frictionless borders; and no-one could promote option three (no Brexit) as being not being in the EU. Each of the options are clear, well-defined and not open to misinterpretation. Do you think it would be better to add some spurious, unicorn-coloured options, such as whatever Labour "think" they can get (which, spoiler alert: wouldn't be better than May's deal) or whatever the ERG "think" they can get (which, spoiler alert: ditto)? If we were to have a people's vote, do you think the options should be clear, unambiguous and decisive, or open to interpretation, promises and obfuscation?
There is no parliamentary majority for any of the three options. The result of this is that parliament cannot proceed with any of them. Is there a better way of extracting parliament from the position they have allowed themselves to get into, than by having a simple, clear, unambiguous instruction, from an informed, involved and engaged electorate?
I said months ago, we should have another vote, because it was a complete and utter shambles and we were not going to get anything like the Brexit that was promised.
If there were 3 options to -
A Remain
B Accept May's deal
C No deal
Then surely the approximate 50% Brexit vote would be split, leaving Remain to win comfortably.
Easily solved - one way is to give remainers the opportunity to have a second preference if their vote loses (between May's or No Brexit). Then that transfers to the leave options.
once you open pandoras box its not easy to put its all back in again, perhaps a sensible would have been to build 2 referendums in as part of the process in the first place. We have been given the decision making process because parliament couldn't decide, but its then been yanked back again, and guess what, they still cant decide..
I think its a straight vote Mays deal or Remain, Parliament wont support a no deal
But if Parliament shoots down May’s deal in the next couple of weeks, which it will, then that would be null and void with no need to consider it any further. Then we would be left with two clear choices - remain or leave with no defined deal.
I think its a straight vote Mays deal or Remain, Parliament wont support a no deal
I think the point and purpose of a people's vote is to look at every defined option and to instruct parliament as to which option they must proceed with. In part, because, however damaging no-deal would be, there are some people who support it, and some people who support the people who support it. If it's put on the ballot and killed off by the electorate, it can't be brought back to life whatever the mewling pencil, bloviating blond or Pound-Shop Mosley say or think. (And, if those descriptions of Rees-Mogg, Johnson and Farage seem slightly harsh, I apologise: they're not meant to be "slightly" harsh).
Let me make it clear if I could wake up tomorrow and find that Brexit was over and the UK remained in the EU I would be happy.
What I have tried to do is introduce some caution into the idea that the outcome of another referendum would be clear cut and easy to organise,
The 'What UK Thinks' Poll Tracker shows how volatile and close opinion has been since the 2016 vote, and it's an open question how the 46% vs 40% Remain/Leave in this latest poll (54% vs 46% excluding won't vote/don't know) would stand up during another referendum campaign - we might at best end up with another divisive just over vs just under 50% outcome either way.
And even that is only if the practical issues I've also mentioned can be appropriately overcome; that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum (both the number of questions and exactly what they ask).
But if there is another referendum I will both vote and campaign for a Remain outcome.
Another referendum at this point would signal the utter bankruptcy of our political system. -It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would -It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.
The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.
Disagree. The government have delivered the best Brexit that was negotiable with the EU that didn’t plunge this country into an economic abyss. You fall into the brexiteer trap of believing that the UK would be able to get a deal that was as good as being a member. You listened to the likes of Farage, Johnson, Gove et al who promised the earth when it was never ever deliverable and now you despite all the evidence seem outraged at what was always inevitable.
This has I agree been a failure of democracy because the rules surrounding the referendum were abused. We were all lied to. Two something years down the line we are all much wiser. Still split but all wiser. There is nothing wrong with asking the question again. In medicine someone giving their consent is considered legally irrelevant if that consent did not have all the facts and information to consider. It’s called informed consent. A second referendum now would be informed. I still think it would be close but at least the outcome would be based on information unlike the first. Nothing undemocratic about asking the question.
If what you can offer may not be what people voted for, it might be deemed reasonable to check they are ok with it. Democratic even! Even more so when people who voted leave were promised how easy it would all be - and it clearly hasn't been. Not sure anybody could disagree with that, So maybe a sorry we made such a pig's ear of it, this is the best we can get - do you want it or shall we forget all about it is the only sensible option?
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
I point the finger at the government of the day who sleepwalked into that conflict while at the same time was was making plans to reduce our navy’s size and ability to defend our dependencies. A convenient truth that gets forgotten when we had such fine win that killed hundreds, maimed hundreds and caused and everlasting bad feelings on many fronts. Every prime minister seems to want to be remembered by a conflict, I wonder what T May’s will be?
Really? Funny, I point the finger at the fascist imperialist argentine government that were also busy sheltering nazis.
Yes really. You don’t have fight a war when you can avoid one. As what happened 4 years previously when David Owen sent 4 ships south as a show of force. If you may remember Lord Carrington resigned because it happened on his watch while he did nothing but allowing mixed messages go out.
I guess you point the finger of the holocaust and ww2 at Neville chamberlain and appeasement then?
Mate, I hate to look like Iam taking issue with you since I thoroughly enjoy your relevant contributions on the subject of this thread, (not to mention on cryptos) but if I may assume a couple of things, I think @charltonkeston and I are probably about as old as your Dad, and as such we probably remember the following key question which has never been answered:
If the Falklands were of such strategic importance that we wheeled out the might of the entire Navy to defend it, how come before that we "defended" those strategic interests with the sum total of one trawler with a machine gun mounted on the front?
Today i learned a military dictatorship is utterly blameless in attacking another nation.
Comments
I know and agree with all the remain voices when saying this Brexit isn’t what people voted for, referendum was advisory, nobody voted to be poorer and all the other truths but the reality is neither the Tories or Labour who in reality are the only show in town won’t risk alienating a large percentage of their support by being overt in pushing for a no brexit.
That said, it would be almost unthinkable for any Government to refuse to accept the outcome of a vote to block a no deal. But in the absence of any acceptable deal the only way to stop crashing out would be to ask the EU to extend the 2 year Article 50 condition.
Plenty of remainer MPs in both main parties are happy to call for it but usually via another vote.
I also am sure there are a majority of MP’s of all flavours who would support a call for a no deal but would they be willing to risk their seat if like many they come from a constituency that voted leave. Getting to the point of no deal will be a very big sell and I still can’t see it happening. Not in the timeframe anyway.
Should May be ousted and replaced and or the deal is voted down and or there is a general election then I suppose we are in uncharted waters but this deal and May are far from dead ducks as far as I can see.
-It would mean that the Government had failed to deliver Brexit, despite the Referendum promise that it would
-It would mean that Parliament as a whole, largely composed of MPs from parties that backed Brexit in last year's election, had failed to deliver Brexit.
The transferable vote would only work if the questions were clear. The suggestion has been- No deal, May's deal or Remain. But no deal has meaning only if you accept that a better deal than May's cannot be achieved, yet that is exactly what Labour and the ERG are arguing for just now. Labour would have to shift their position to Remain,-something they have resisted for fear of losing their Brexit supporters.
Not sure I could survive that.
However, what has to be stressed, and seems to be missing from the arguments of both Labour and eejits like the ERG, is that the proposed deal in question is not, to mangle the well known quote, the end or even the beginning of the end of trade negotiations, but the end of the beginning.
It is a possible means of allowing the breathing space in which the UK and EU27 can engage in the difficult negotiations on the arrangements for their future relationship.
In Ireland, comparisons are being made with Michael Collins' argument that the agreement that led to the creation of the Irish Free State did not make the Irish free, but provided the freedom to achieve freedom.
The agreement that Theresa May is proposing is not intended to be the Brexit end state, but the opportunity to allow HMG achieve it via further negotiation.
His twin has raised a glass to that.
If there were 3 options to -
A Remain
B Accept May's deal
C No deal
Then surely the approximate 50% Brexit vote would be split, leaving Remain to win comfortably.
Hey Boris, Rabb, any ideas?
1. Would you be happy to accept the only deal that, so far, has been proposed by the Prime Minister and backed by a significant majority of the Cabinet? Because, of course, without a people's vote, we would simply be sitting back and waiting for these people to determine how we progress. If you're happy to leave the decision to the combined political intellect of those people, then opposing a people's vote seems to be the right thing to do. (Although, by definition, contradicts the notion of the 2016 vote in the first place).
2. A people's vote, in order to ensure it harvests votes from a better-informed electorate than in 2016, should only offer a choice of three, fact-based scenarios. So, the only options that can be on offer are a no-deal Brexit, Brexit on the agreed terms (ie the terms established and agreed by cabinet) and no Brexit. Each of these is a definable concept, not open to misinterpretation, unable to be obfuscated by lies. For example, no-one could (truthfully) promote option one (a no-deal Brexit) as preserving UK citizens' rights abroad, frictionless borders or guaranteed continuance of UK-Europe flights; no-one could promote option two (Brexit on the agreed terms) as being a way of delivering all the benefits of being a member of the EU, a permanent solution to the Irish border or enabling us to have frictionless borders; and no-one could promote option three (no Brexit) as being not being in the EU. Each of the options are clear, well-defined and not open to misinterpretation. Do you think it would be better to add some spurious, unicorn-coloured options, such as whatever Labour "think" they can get (which, spoiler alert: wouldn't be better than May's deal) or whatever the ERG "think" they can get (which, spoiler alert: ditto)? If we were to have a people's vote, do you think the options should be clear, unambiguous and decisive, or open to interpretation, promises and obfuscation?
There is no parliamentary majority for any of the three options. The result of this is that parliament cannot proceed with any of them. Is there a better way of extracting parliament from the position they have allowed themselves to get into, than by having a simple, clear, unambiguous instruction, from an informed, involved and engaged electorate?
This has I agree been a failure of democracy because the rules surrounding the referendum were abused. We were all lied to. Two something years down the line we are all much wiser. Still split but all wiser. There is nothing wrong with asking the question again. In medicine someone giving their consent is considered legally irrelevant if that consent did not have all the facts and information to consider. It’s called informed consent. A second referendum now would be informed. I still think it would be close but at least the outcome would be based on information unlike the first. Nothing undemocratic about asking the question.