It would probably be in January - It would mean article 50 would have to be put on hold. Which it will be because the EU's preferred option is us not leaving at all. We do have to grow a pair. In many ways, it is better we don't rush into the referendum and do it after May's vote. What is completely unbelievable with some, and I include you in that Prague with all respect, is that winning the referendum is as important as getting it. If it looks like Remainers have constructed this, it will be harder to win. If it is a last resort, it is infinitely better. We have to fall into it.
Mate, let's try again. In order to have a referendum, the Government of the day has to want it, and to get a Referendum Bill passed in the HoC. Given that May's WA debate has been put back to mid Jan, that's half that month gone. Everyone expects her to lose. Even if the very next day she says "OK, let's have another referendum" you've seen for yourself that there is no agreement within her party for that, indeed Rees-Mogg will doubtless grab the Mace and attack her with it in the name of "democracy". Then even if the principal of a referendum is agreed, they need a further debate about the questions. And then, they need to get it drafted and through Parliament. There is no way.
You're a printer, there must have been times, especially in the pre digital age, you had to tell a client that it's simply too late?
All the time,even in this digital age, people tend to leave things to the last minute for all sorts of reasons, but my point is that it isn't too late. And when Labour don't get their desired election, there is a majority for a referendum in the house when there isn't a majority for anything else. The problem is that the majority is small and requires Tory MPs who might change their mind. So we should all be worried, but the numbers do work. They might be more likely to work the nearer the edge of the cliff we are although it is frustrating.
I think you have to have faith in two things - which I do - and that is there are enough sensible Tories who won't allow the damage a hard Brexit will cause and secondly, you have to believe the EU will be supportive around us having a second vote, and I think they will, especially as they have hinted so.
I simply can't believe that the least popular option which everybody who is remotely sensible can see has the potential to be highly damaging will be allowed to happen.
It is frustrating that the no confidence vote in the Government hasn't happened, but it is important that May's plan is given its chance to be passed first. The delay is the fault of the government and nobody else.
It is a good point about the questions. This I am unsure about, but if a referendum is voted on, couldn't the terms of the referendum be included in that vote. I think and hope that some of the Christmas break time will be spent with like minded people of all parties working out the strategy and the numbers and the question so it plays out as soon as May's deal has been voted against.
Forget suspending Art. 50 and the practicalities of organising a referendum as well as the Norway option. There are actually three options on the table right now: Hard Brexit / No Deal (31%), the WA(16%) and No Brexit (Remain) (53%).
May isn't going to revoke Art.50 so how to get rid of May? Step 1 watch her delay and obfuscate. Step 2 defeat the WA Bill heavily Step 3 convince the Remain Tories to work with the opposition
We know steps 1 & 2 are happening but step 3 is as yet unclear. A government of national unity could deliver but let's ask ourselves whether Labour would and should cede the chance to take over completely just to save the Tories from their Brexit mess? It probably takes a full on No Confidence to change the outcome - will Soubry, Clarke and Greening vote for that in February. If yes then Article 50 can be revoked pending another vote but we get into details that cannot be predicted.
Leaving the EU next March 29th is not the tragedy that some make it out to be. In actual fact it needs to be a rallying point for movements such as the People's vote. The discussion about the Customs Union is won with the electorate, and only the ERG / Hard Brexit brigade object. Their arguments have no credibility and only a government on a suicide mission would leave a Customs Union with the largest trade bloc in the world.
Whatever the views of people on here, the argument to stay in the Single Market is in the balance. The damage inflicted by a xenophobic campaign banging on about immigration 24/7 has led to where we are today and there is still a 50:50 split in the electorate over limiting freedom of movement vs staying in the SM. That polling needs to move to 60:40 for this nation to recover its sanity and stop the slide into nationalism!
The biggest catalyst to break down the xenophobic bloc would be for Remain Tories to walk away from the Leave Party which is in power simply because of policies like Windrush and promising to "reduce immigration to the tens of thousands". They might object to Corbyn but their alliance in the Blue Party has delivered eight years of austerity as well as this Brexit mess. Perhaps they need to hold their noses and vote with Labour and the SNP in 2019?!
If they won't then the campaigning has to continue... and the government will fall sooner or later. As long as we are still in the transition period this situation can be turned around. As @PragueAddick has noted, our reputation abroad has never been worse. The WA has been put in place ready for ratification simply because the UK cannot be trusted! One minute Davis agrees the outline of a backstop and the next he's blabbing to the media about how it's rubbish. That was 12 months ago... then we had Gove saying the same thing... one by one they all talk about the EU being the enemy and that any deal could and should be ripped up later on.
The Tory remainers are complicit in all of this as long as it keeps going. At the same time, every month the polls shift another 1% in favour of Remain and in favour of a second referendum. That the timeline for a second vote is inconvenient is immaterial. For it is the principle which resonates with the electorate. And that will continue way after we leave the EU next March. 1% equates to 500,000 voters - that's far higher than the demograhic effects which people have cited. By the time of the next scheduled election in 2022 there may well be a massive shift. Unfortunately it will take the shock of pain and uncertainty to for some to change their minds.
Let us be clear that the WA is only the beginning of Brexit for real. After that we have left but the destination is completely unclear. Not only have the polls shifted but so has the economic outlook and the editorial line of the Daily Mail. And at the same time, the Italian coalition have dropped their proposed deficit for 2019 to 2% of GDP (from 2.4%) and are haggling the final details to avid things kicking off with Brussels. That doesn't solve any real issues in Rome but just kicks the can down the road. However it does show that the Italian and Euro debate is nuanced and nothing like the rubbish printed in the Express and the Telegraph.
It will take a long time before the UK regains an appetite for truth, experts and rational analysis. But leaving the EU next March might be a good time to start?!
As ever Grapevine's succinct dissection is spot on. I have been bleating on about point 2. for ages. My understanding is that no border means no WTO deals except punitive ones and any potential WTO deals can be veto'd by EU27 until until border resolved.
No I heard from someone on this thread five minutes ago that the EU will definitely make England pay more money if we stay in!!
All of the EU will have to pay more money whether we are in or out. They’ve budgeted to spend more money and contributions have to increase. Some of those countries that were net receivers are in for a shock and if we are out and not contributing they are in for a bigger shock.
It's a nice little fairy story to tell yourself but in reality the other 27 will get on fine. In terms of actual net contributions/receipts and the overall economic benefit each country gets from being in the EU the increase/decrease on each country's net cost will be trivial in comparison to the size of their economies.
By the UK's own figures the net contribution to the EU is 9 billion but the estimated economic benefits of EU membership are between 30 to 90 billion.
So if anyone will be feeling the pinch, it will be us.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We can revoke Article 50 without reference to the rest of the EU. Its revocation is entirely down to the UK. (Ironically, demonstrating our sovereignty quite well).
I never said it wasn’t. Merely pointing out that the EU would not raise objections.
Oh right. So you were saying if we made a decision that the EU had no say in and couldn't object to, they wouldn't object to it.
Oh do grow up and behave. I said nothing of the sort.
This is a fantastic piece, and for those for whom 'sovereignty' was a key factor for voting Leave, the second point makes clear that by leaving our sovereignty position has not improved: we would still need to follow EU rules to trade with our largest trade partners, except we will have zero say in those rules from next year.
No I heard from someone on this thread five minutes ago that the EU will definitely make England pay more money if we stay in!!
All of the EU will have to pay more money whether we are in or out. They’ve budgeted to spend more money and contributions have to increase. Some of those countries that were net receivers are in for a shock and if we are out and not contributing they are in for a bigger shock.
It's a nice little fairy story to tell yourself but in reality the other 27 will get on fine. In terms of actual net contributions/receipts and the overall economic benefit each country gets from being in the EU the increase/decrease on each country's net cost will be trivial in comparison to the size of their economies.
By the UK's own figures the net contribution to the EU is 9 billion but the estimated economic benefits of EU membership are between 30 to 90 billion.
So if anyone will be feeling the pinch, it will be us.
Basically we're a mini playing chicken with a humvee. If we carry on down this path, yes it's going to put a dent in their front bumper, but we're going to completely cave in our front end.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We can revoke Article 50 without reference to the rest of the EU. Its revocation is entirely down to the UK. (Ironically, demonstrating our sovereignty quite well).
I never said it wasn’t. Merely pointing out that the EU would not raise objections.
Oh right. So you were saying if we made a decision that the EU had no say in and couldn't object to, they wouldn't object to it.
Oh do grow up and behave. I said nothing of the sort.
It's exactly what you said.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We can never escape the fact we are European. It is where we are - in the continent of Europe. We don't live on the edge, we live in it. I don't want to escape it - I am British and proud of it, but am also a proud European. I wish there was a way of putting these people on the edge of Europe, on a big iceberg somewhere!
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We can revoke Article 50 without reference to the rest of the EU. Its revocation is entirely down to the UK. (Ironically, demonstrating our sovereignty quite well).
I never said it wasn’t. Merely pointing out that the EU would not raise objections.
Oh right. So you were saying if we made a decision that the EU had no say in and couldn't object to, they wouldn't object to it.
Oh do grow up and behave. I said nothing of the sort.
It's exactly what you said.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
You are like a little kid, yes you did ner ner ner ner ner .... if I can be bothered later I will explain it all to you very slowly.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
We can revoke Article 50 without reference to the rest of the EU. Its revocation is entirely down to the UK. (Ironically, demonstrating our sovereignty quite well).
I never said it wasn’t. Merely pointing out that the EU would not raise objections.
Oh right. So you were saying if we made a decision that the EU had no say in and couldn't object to, they wouldn't object to it.
Oh do grow up and behave. I said nothing of the sort.
It's exactly what you said.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
You are like a little kid, yes you did ner ner ner ner ner .... if I can be bothered later I will explain it all to you very slowly.
Reading the responses to the video a lot of people don’t seem to understand what a continent is.
It was more the irony of him using a European protest symbol to protest that he isn’t European that I thought was delicious.
Sadly, the irony will always be lost on these thickos!
The other irony was standing in front of the City of London boundry marker to make his little speech, that’s a part of the country that massively benefits from the freedom of movement of services (and people) that the EU brings and now powers the nations economy.
Reading the responses to the video a lot of people don’t seem to understand what a continent is.
It was more the irony of him using a European protest symbol to protest that he isn’t European that I thought was delicious.
Sadly, the irony will always be lost on these thickos!
The other irony was standing in front of the City of London boundry marker to make his little speech, that’s a part of the country that massively benefits from the freedom of movement of services (and people) that the EU brings and now powers the nations economy.
I don’t believe any action is too late - not sure if you object to this, but it's a matter of opinion so I assume this is not part of your objection.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum - not factual, merely conjecture on my part, so a matter of debate rather than objection.
(which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) - see above.
and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50 - as has been agreed by the ECJ, Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally by the UK.
I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU - if the revocation was introduced with the intention of allowing time for a 2nd referendum, then the EU would not object. However, if it is seen by the EU as not being ‘unequivocal and unconditional’, then it could be considered by the EU/ECJ to be invalid.
So, in the circumstances outlined, I have no doubt that the EU would not object. If you want to carry on with an empty argument, be my guest, as I am not going to bother educating you again on this point.
Reading the responses to the video a lot of people don’t seem to understand what a continent is.
It was more the irony of him using a European protest symbol to protest that he isn’t European that I thought was delicious.
Sadly, the irony will always be lost on these thickos!
You are not allowed to insinuate that Brexit voters are anything other than super intelligent defenders of democracy. Expect some flags from wannabe moderators.
Reading the responses to the video a lot of people don’t seem to understand what a continent is.
It was more the irony of him using a European protest symbol to protest that he isn’t European that I thought was delicious.
Sadly, the irony will always be lost on these thickos!
The other irony was standing in front of the City of London boundry marker to make his little speech, that’s a part of the country that massively benefits from the freedom of movement of services (and people) that the EU brings and now powers the nations economy.
Ireland is part of the British Isles. I double dare you to start refering to people from Ireland as British.
Comments
May isn't going to revoke Art.50 so how to get rid of May?
Step 1 watch her delay and obfuscate.
Step 2 defeat the WA Bill heavily
Step 3 convince the Remain Tories to work with the opposition
We know steps 1 & 2 are happening but step 3 is as yet unclear. A government of national unity could deliver but let's ask ourselves whether Labour would and should cede the chance to take over completely just to save the Tories from their Brexit mess? It probably takes a full on No Confidence to change the outcome - will Soubry, Clarke and Greening vote for that in February. If yes then Article 50 can be revoked pending another vote but we get into details that cannot be predicted.
Leaving the EU next March 29th is not the tragedy that some make it out to be. In actual fact it needs to be a rallying point for movements such as the People's vote. The discussion about the Customs Union is won with the electorate, and only the ERG / Hard Brexit brigade object. Their arguments have no credibility and only a government on a suicide mission would leave a Customs Union with the largest trade bloc in the world.
Whatever the views of people on here, the argument to stay in the Single Market is in the balance. The damage inflicted by a xenophobic campaign banging on about immigration 24/7 has led to where we are today and there is still a 50:50 split in the electorate over limiting freedom of movement vs staying in the SM. That polling needs to move to 60:40 for this nation to recover its sanity and stop the slide into nationalism!
The biggest catalyst to break down the xenophobic bloc would be for Remain Tories to walk away from the Leave Party which is in power simply because of policies like Windrush and promising to "reduce immigration to the tens of thousands". They might object to Corbyn but their alliance in the Blue Party has delivered eight years of austerity as well as this Brexit mess. Perhaps they need to hold their noses and vote with Labour and the SNP in 2019?!
If they won't then the campaigning has to continue... and the government will fall sooner or later. As long as we are still in the transition period this situation can be turned around. As @PragueAddick has noted, our reputation abroad has never been worse. The WA has been put in place ready for ratification simply because the UK cannot be trusted! One minute Davis agrees the outline of a backstop and the next he's blabbing to the media about how it's rubbish. That was 12 months ago... then we had Gove saying the same thing... one by one they all talk about the EU being the enemy and that any deal could and should be ripped up later on.
The Tory remainers are complicit in all of this as long as it keeps going. At the same time, every month the polls shift another 1% in favour of Remain and in favour of a second referendum. That the timeline for a second vote is inconvenient is immaterial. For it is the principle which resonates with the electorate. And that will continue way after we leave the EU next March. 1% equates to 500,000 voters - that's far higher than the demograhic effects which people have cited. By the time of the next scheduled election in 2022 there may well be a massive shift. Unfortunately it will take the shock of pain and uncertainty to for some to change their minds.
Let us be clear that the WA is only the beginning of Brexit for real. After that we have left but the destination is completely unclear. Not only have the polls shifted but so has the economic outlook and the editorial line of the Daily Mail. And at the same time, the Italian coalition have dropped their proposed deficit for 2019 to 2% of GDP (from 2.4%) and are haggling the final details to avid things kicking off with Brussels. That doesn't solve any real issues in Rome but just kicks the can down the road. However it does show that the Italian and Euro debate is nuanced and nothing like the rubbish printed in the Express and the Telegraph.
It will take a long time before the UK regains an appetite for truth, experts and rational analysis. But leaving the EU next March might be a good time to start?!
By the UK's own figures the net contribution to the EU is 9 billion but the estimated economic benefits of EU membership are between 30 to 90 billion.
So if anyone will be feeling the pinch, it will be us.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/18/ivan-rogers-brexit-bombshell-digested-home-truths
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum (which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50, I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU.
Brilliant from David Gauke!
Reading the responses to the video a lot of people don’t seem to understand what a continent is.
Like, the right to protest, maybe?
Great ain't it?
I don’t believe any action is too late - not sure if you object to this, but it's a matter of opinion so I assume this is not part of your objection.
If Parliament eventually agrees to a second referendum - not factual, merely conjecture on my part, so a matter of debate rather than objection.
(which I believe will happen once the political ‘It’s a Knockout’ is finished) - see above.
and, as a result, this requires revocation of Article 50 - as has been agreed by the ECJ, Article 50 can be revoked unilaterally by the UK.
I have no doubt that there would be no objection from the EU - if the revocation was introduced with the intention of allowing time for a 2nd referendum, then the EU would not object. However, if it is seen by the EU as not being ‘unequivocal and unconditional’, then it could be considered by the EU/ECJ to be invalid.
So, in the circumstances outlined, I have no doubt that the EU would not object. If you want to carry on with an empty argument, be my guest, as I am not going to bother educating you again on this point.