Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leading constitutional expert and Cameron’s former tutor think

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leading constitutional expert and Cameron’s former tutor thinks a second referendum now likely

Four reasons from Vernon Bogdanor for why a second EU referendum is now likely. Hard to disagree. pic.twitter.com/LQqNKfharq

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,407
    edited August 3
    1st like the EU :D
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    2nd Like Con in the next GE
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603
    Blimey, even the Sun's Political Editor agrees - that's surprising!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,025
    From pt:

    Hands up who thinks the independence of Bank of England will be reversed on day 1 of Corbyn's government?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    FPT: cheers, Mr. Pointer. Worst stuff was vicarious, and hoping things will improve in the next couple of months.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    edited August 3

    Blimey, even the Sun's Political Editor agrees - that's surprising!

    The Sun's political journalists on Twitter seem remarkably impervious to swivel-eyed Brexititis. The Telegraph on the other hand...

    If Murdoch decides supporting Brexit is flogging a dead horse, I would expect the Sun to be absolutely brutal in skewering the Brexiteers in government.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,407
    Actually, I think it is too late. Even if we change our minds I doubt the EU27 want us back. In any case it only takes one objection to prevent A50 being rescinded and our departure will change the balance of power in the EU.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,250
    Afternoon all :)

    It's no real surprise but a second referendum has exactly the same problems as the original EU Referendum. All those opposed to being in the EU could coalesce around LEAVE - all those opposed to the May deal can coalesce around NO but what then ?

    There will be various reasons why people vote NO so we can't just have a binary option. There have to be other choices - leave without a deal, remain in the EU, seek further negotiation and we need to decide if the referendum is going to be merely consultative or binding in advance.

    A ballot paper with four options means 25.1% could win but it wouldn't be like that. I suspect the more options the better for the Government as they will only be campaigning in support of the agreement (presumably).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698

    Actually, I think it is too late. Even if we change our minds I doubt the EU27 want us back. In any case it only takes one objection to prevent A50 being rescinded and our departure will change the balance of power in the EU.

    As Hannan said today, "The only justification for a second referendum would be if the question were significantly different – in other words, if the EU 27 came forward with substantively new terms."

    Surely joining the Euro would count as substantively new terms?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,603

    FPT: cheers, Mr. Pointer. Worst stuff was vicarious, and hoping things will improve in the next couple of months.

    Glad to hear it :smile:
  • NormNorm Posts: 756
    Is he offering hope to those irreconciled to leaving the EU or just saying there will be a second referendum on whether or not to accept whatever deal is concocted between the EU and the UK with the alternative being no deal and still leaving anyway?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267

    From pt:

    Hands up who thinks the independence of Bank of England will be reversed on day 1 of Corbyn's government?

    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 417

    Actually, I think it is too late. Even if we change our minds I doubt the EU27 want us back. In any case it only takes one objection to prevent A50 being rescinded and our departure will change the balance of power in the EU.

    I dunno, the propaganda value of the prodigal son returning tot he fold would be immense, and assuming we'd have to come back in without opt-outs it would kill the idea of opt-outs forever, together with the prospect of any one else leaving. Also we're a net contributor.

    France and Germany would be delighted to have us back in such circumstances. I could see some of the more Eurosceptic Eastern European countries might consider a veto because of the opt-out issue but the economic interest of us being a sink for their surplus population would outweigh that I feel.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,087
    That Vernon Bogdanor speech was made before Jezza sacked the dissenters. "Labours's 'soft Brexit' policy"? You must be joking.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 417
    stodge said:


    A ballot paper with four options means 25.1% could win but it wouldn't be like that. I suspect the more options the better for the Government as they will only be campaigning in support of the agreement (presumably).

    At the risk of turning this into an A********** V*** thread, a > 2 option referendum would have to have some sort of preference voting system. Straight FPTP wouldn't work for the reason you say.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,025
    MikeL said:

    From pt:

    Hands up who thinks the independence of Bank of England will be reversed on day 1 of Corbyn's government?

    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.
    Precisely. They wont be able to print money if they haven't got their hands on the printers.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686
    MikeL said:

    From pt:

    Hands up who thinks the independence of Bank of England will be reversed on day 1 of Corbyn's government?

    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.
    The other key issue would be what power the unions would have, and what "anti" union legislation would be repealed. In the '70s it was pressure from the unions for ungodly wage increases that exacerbated the crisis leading up to the IMF loan. If the unions are gifted the same sort of power and influence, then that could presage a leg down in our economic well-being.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    Vernon Bogdanor's article is quite bizarre. He starts with some good analysis, but then suddenly concludes, with no intervening reasoning, that the outcome could be a second referendum.

    A second referendum about what, exactly?

    You can only have a referendum about something which is the UK's control. So it can't be a referendum on which Brexit deal we should go for: there will only be one on offer, and that will have been hammered out in tense and difficult negotiations, so it won't be alterable. If we reject the deal, there's no deal, and we'll crash out in total chaos.

    Perhaps he means a referendum on whether we should accept the Brexit deal, with the alternative being remaining in the EU. But that makes no sense either. Remain on what terms, and by what mechanism? Although the legal position isn't completely clear, it seems most likely that there is no legal way of the UK unilaterally withdrawing the Article 50 notification. So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale? In any case, by then preparations for Brexit on both sides will be well advanced; in practical terms, how do you reverse them?

    In other words, the distinguished professor seems to be out with the fairies.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,250
    MikeL said:


    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

    I have very little sympathy for those who swallowed the Daily Mail's dystopic imaginings about a Corbyn Government but they use Dominic Sandbrook who's a right-wing polemicist not a historian.

    To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 875
    edited August 3

    MikeL said:

    From pt:

    Hands up who thinks the independence of Bank of England will be reversed on day 1 of Corbyn's government?

    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.
    Precisely. They wont be able to print money if they haven't got their hands on the printers.
    Just think of it as returning power to the UK's government from unelected bureaucrats. That sort of thing is quite popular in certain quarters these days,
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    stodge said:

    To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

    That's a curious view from someone active in and interested in politics.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,237

    So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

    Ask them
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 864
    rpjs said:

    Actually, I think it is too late. Even if we change our minds I doubt the EU27 want us back. In any case it only takes one objection to prevent A50 being rescinded and our departure will change the balance of power in the EU.

    I dunno, the propaganda value of the prodigal son returning tot he fold would be immense, and assuming we'd have to come back in without opt-outs it would kill the idea of opt-outs forever, together with the prospect of any one else leaving. Also we're a net contributor.

    France and Germany would be delighted to have us back in such circumstances. I could see some of the more Eurosceptic Eastern European countries might consider a veto because of the opt-out issue but the economic interest of us being a sink for their surplus population would outweigh that I feel.
    Even with opt-outs, our £ billions of net contribution might make us welcome back.

    Denmark has kept its opt-outs by the cunning strategy of, er, staying in the EU.

    However, I fail to see this vast quagmire being navigated in two years plus three years of transition, er sorry, 'implementation'. Eight to ten total?

    Blimey, even the Sun's Political Editor agrees - that's surprising!

    The Sun's political journalists on Twitter seem remarkably impervious to swivel-eyed Brexititis. The Telegraph on the other hand...

    If Murdoch decides supporting Brexit is flogging a dead horse, I would expect the Sun to be absolutely brutal in skewering the Brexiteers in government.
    The Telegraph is owned by ultra-right-wingers - Private Eye calls them 'weirdos' - living on their own island off the coast of Sark, itself a pretty extreme tax haven.

    OTOH the Sun and Times are 'only' owned by ...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,341
    On topic, Bogdanor is wrong. Not for the first time, he's limiting his thinking too much to process. The political reality is that pretty much no-one in the Tory Party wants a second referendum and for good reason: it'd be bad politics and bad government.

    I would imagine that there are plenty in the Labour Party who wouldn't want one either - though they might want to call for one as long as they don't get it. It would be hard for Corbyn to hide his way through another referendum which could divide Labour as much as, if not more than, the Tories.

    But the biggest problem is what would Britain be voting on? If it's the deal, what happens if it's a No, as it probably would be (there are always more reasons to vote against something than for it). Remaining in the EU would very probably not be an option, restarting negotiations would probably not be a meaningful option, and crashing out having rejected a deal would not be a happy option.

    Bogdanor is right when he says that the deal the government negotiates might not make it through parliament (though I very much doubt that the Lords will block it). He's wrong when he looks to a referendum to break the deadlock in such a scenario.

    What is interesting and noteworthy is that Bogdanor implicitly now accepts the principle of popular democracy: that parliament is not sovereign de facto and whatever the constitutional theory might be, a decision of the people overrides one from parliament.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267
    OK, can I ask another question?

    Where is a country's border in financial terms?

    Suppose I'm worried about Corbyn and I want to get money out of the country in advance.

    Say I go to Bank of America in London and deposit £1million - what is the determinator of where that money is located? Could I just say "Deposit it in New York"?

    ie How is location defined in a world of electronic banking?

    The thinking is obviously to get the money outside the boundary of possible exchange controls.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 18,363
    stodge said:

    MikeL said:


    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

    I have very little sympathy for those who swallowed the Daily Mail's dystopic imaginings about a Corbyn Government but they use Dominic Sandbrook who's a right-wing polemicist not a historian.

    To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

    I wouldn't expect Britain to become Venezuela under Corbyn.

    I just think it would be quite unpleasant for people like me.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    edited August 3

    So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

    Ask them
    But they wouldn't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    Sean_F said:


    I wouldn't expect Britain to become Venezuela under Corbyn.

    I just think it would be quite unpleasant for people like me.

    Britain wouldn't become like Venezuela, but Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne would be trying their hardest to make it so.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    stodge said:

    MikeL said:


    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

    I have very little sympathy for those who swallowed the Daily Mail's dystopic imaginings about a Corbyn Government but they use Dominic Sandbrook who's a right-wing polemicist not a historian.

    To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

    Laws are just for the small people....

    https://order-order.com/2017/08/03/top-corbynistas-smart-benches-ripped/
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267
    stodge said:

    MikeL said:


    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

    I have very little sympathy for those who swallowed the Daily Mail's dystopic imaginings about a Corbyn Government but they use Dominic Sandbrook who's a right-wing polemicist not a historian.

    To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

    I don't read the Daily Mail and have never heard of Dominic Sandbrook.

    I'm not interested in political banter.

    And I'm not posting for "political campaigning purposes".

    Thanks.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,250
    MikeL said:


    I don't read the Daily Mail and have never heard of Dominic Sandbrook.

    I'm not interested in political banter.

    And I'm not posting for "political campaigning purposes".

    Thanks.

    That wasn't a dig at you at all but you've annoyed me by assuming it was.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    FPT:



    "Labour's backbench would be the key constraint."

    LOL. They'll be living in constant fear of attack from the hard left's henchmen.

    Most of them have already given up the fight for a social democratic Labour party and are sucking up to Jezza as much as they can.

    Because there have been so many deselections?

    If Corbyn runs a bad government - Labour MPs will ditch him.

    It's their duty to do so, they tried in opposition already, and most of them don't particularly like him.

    They're on board now because he did quite well in the campaign. If he does badly in government he would be gone very quickly.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Mr. rkrkrk, that's optimistic. It's even harder to ditch a Labour PM than a Labour Leader of the Opposition, and they haven't even managed the latter.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267
    edited August 3
    stodge said:

    MikeL said:


    I don't read the Daily Mail and have never heard of Dominic Sandbrook.

    I'm not interested in political banter.

    And I'm not posting for "political campaigning purposes".

    Thanks.

    That wasn't a dig at you at all but you've annoyed me by assuming it was.

    Well it certainly came across as a dig.

    But sorry if I annoyed you - I didn't intend to.

    I've posted - usually occasionally - on here for 12 years.

    I am not - and have never - attempted to pursue an agenda.

    I'm well aware that many on here basically post to campaign - they are expressing their view in an attempt to influence others.

    I have no interest in any of that.

    What I do appreciate is that many on here are highly knowledgeable. So if I have a question, it makes sense to ask it here - rather than to have to pay a large amount to get advice from a professional adviser - who may not be very good or have a product to sell.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    edited August 3
    Support for joining the Euro is growing. Juncker looks like ending his term with the vision of one currency for the EU substantially closer to being realised.


  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Mr. rkrkrk, that's optimistic. It's even harder to ditch a Labour PM than a Labour Leader of the Opposition, and they haven't even managed the latter.

    I think it would be easier if anything.

    At least half of Labour MPs would choose Chukka over Corbyn today I suspect - never mind in the hypothetical disaster scenario we are discussing.

    And I'm sure a few Tories could be persuaded to join a unity government.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Mr. Glenn, like an increasing guest list for a dinner party at Lucrecia Borgia's home, that popularity doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

    Mr. rkrkrk, I'll believe that when I see it.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698

    popularity doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

    Hold that thought.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017
    I essentially agree with @RichardNabavi - Professor Bogdanor takes a leap without intervening steps. If there is no majority in Parliament for any Brexit deal, Britain will not have a second referendum, there will be nothing to vote on. Britain will simply crash out of the EU with no deal.

    I have for some time thought this the most likely outcome.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,250
    MikeL said:

    Well it certainly came across as a dig.

    But sorry if I annoyed you - I didn't intend to.

    I've posted - usually occasionally - on here for 12 years.

    I am not - and have never - attempted to pursue an agenda.

    I'm well aware that many on here basically post to campaign - they are expressing their view in an attempt to influence others.

    I have no interest in any of that.

    What I do appreciate is that many on here are highly knowledgeable. So if I have a question, it makes sense to ask it here - rather than to have to pay a large amount to get advice from a professional adviser - who may not be very good or have a product to sell.

    What it was a dig at was those who assumed the election of a Corbyn Government would inevitably to a British dystopia and you may not be surprised to hear the Mail has put together a couple of "future histories" suggesting a Corbyn Government would lead to riots, disorder and Britain becoming an international pariah or laughing stock.

    These "histories" were not a serious attempt at political analysis but a mechanism for frightening the often elderly Mail readership into sticking with the Conservatives.

    If you want to take advice from anyone who posts on here, well, that's a different matter. I'd rather seek advice from my valet as someone once said than anyone posting on here.

  • TonyETonyE Posts: 665

    I essentially agree with @RichardNabavi - Professor Bogdanor takes a leap without intervening steps. If there is no majority in Parliament for any Brexit deal, Britain will not have a second referendum, there will be nothing to vote on. Britain will simply crash out of the EU with no deal.

    I have for some time thought this the most likely outcome.

    It looks likely now because the pressure not to fail is not yet upon the negotiators on both sides. So they can play to the gallery for now. But very soon, we move past that stage, and we also don't know whether privately things are more harmonious that might be portrayed (like the union negotiators who drank tea all night with the management in the 70's to make it look like the deal was hard to reach).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    Even if there was a 2nd referendum, rejecting the deal, and electing to re-Remain in the EU instead, by, say, 54%-46% , I'm not sure that would solve anything.

    The terms and the mandate wouldn't be clear, and the argument would continue unfettered, just the other way round.

    The events of the last 18 months can't simply be wiped clean, and a sullen, divided UK inside the EU is likely to cause more trouble than its worth.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Well, that run of good luck lasted a long time.

    ....

    Mr. Glenn, touche (although it's worth noting the EU seemed a lot more popular until people actually had a vote on it).

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 19,797

    I essentially agree with @RichardNabavi - Professor Bogdanor takes a leap without intervening steps. If there is no majority in Parliament for any Brexit deal, Britain will not have a second referendum, there will be nothing to vote on. Britain will simply crash out of the EU with no deal.

    I have for some time thought this the most likely outcome.

    If there is no majority for any particular Brexit deal (about which you may very well be right), surely the government falls.

    Does this lead to us immediately departing the EU in a disorderly manner? Or does it lead to the EU deciding to pass a one month extension while we have an election?

    I think the lesson of Greece is that the EU would grant an extension. Don't forget that the EU loses too from us crashing out. It has a big budget hole, and means less demand from one of its biggest export markets. My guess is there's a 90% chance that they'd extend to the far side of the election.

    Now, the question is what happens in the event of (say) the Labour Party winning on a manifesto pledge of "renegotiating" the deal? Or if there's another hung parliament?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698

    Even if there was a 2nd referendum, rejecting the deal, and electing to re-Remain in the EU instead, by, say, 54%-46% , I'm not sure that would solve anything.

    The terms and the mandate wouldn't be clear, and the argument would continue unfettered, just the other way round.

    The events of the last 18 months can't simply be wiped clean, and a sullen, divided UK inside the EU is likely to cause more trouble than its worth.

    One side or the other will win the argument decisively and definitively over the next 18 months. Second referendum or no second referendum, Brexit or no Brexit. I know which side my money's on.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539

    Mr. Glenn, like an increasing guest list for a dinner party at Lucrecia Borgia's home, that popularity doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.

    Mr. rkrkrk, I'll believe that when I see it.

    Any PM leading the country into the kind of disaster we were discussing would be under enormous pressure. Corbyn would have to rely on a PLP who voted overwhelmingly to ditch him.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,237

    So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

    Ask them
    But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.
    Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

    The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,341
    rkrkrk said:

    FPT:



    "Labour's backbench would be the key constraint."

    LOL. They'll be living in constant fear of attack from the hard left's henchmen.

    Most of them have already given up the fight for a social democratic Labour party and are sucking up to Jezza as much as they can.

    Because there have been so many deselections?

    If Corbyn runs a bad government - Labour MPs will ditch him.

    It's their duty to do so, they tried in opposition already, and most of them don't particularly like him.

    They're on board now because he did quite well in the campaign. If he does badly in government he would be gone very quickly.

    By what mechanism?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017
    TonyE said:

    I essentially agree with @RichardNabavi - Professor Bogdanor takes a leap without intervening steps. If there is no majority in Parliament for any Brexit deal, Britain will not have a second referendum, there will be nothing to vote on. Britain will simply crash out of the EU with no deal.

    I have for some time thought this the most likely outcome.

    It looks likely now because the pressure not to fail is not yet upon the negotiators on both sides. So they can play to the gallery for now. But very soon, we move past that stage, and we also don't know whether privately things are more harmonious that might be portrayed (like the union negotiators who drank tea all night with the management in the 70's to make it look like the deal was hard to reach).
    The negotiators may reach a deal, though I'm doubtful about that too. But then it needs to get through Parliament.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487

    Even if there was a 2nd referendum, rejecting the deal, and electing to re-Remain in the EU instead, by, say, 54%-46% , I'm not sure that would solve anything.

    The terms and the mandate wouldn't be clear, and the argument would continue unfettered, just the other way round.

    The events of the last 18 months can't simply be wiped clean, and a sullen, divided UK inside the EU is likely to cause more trouble than its worth.

    One side or the other will win the argument decisively and definitively over the next 18 months. Second referendum or no second referendum, Brexit or no Brexit. I know which side my money's on.
    Yes, but you're a fruitcake.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Mr. rkrkrk, Brown had Labour on 19%, and they didn't ditch him.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022

    Even if there was a 2nd referendum, rejecting the deal, and electing to re-Remain in the EU instead, by, say, 54%-46% , I'm not sure that would solve anything.

    The terms and the mandate wouldn't be clear, and the argument would continue unfettered, just the other way round.

    The events of the last 18 months can't simply be wiped clean, and a sullen, divided UK inside the EU is likely to cause more trouble than its worth.

    One side or the other will win the argument decisively and definitively over the next 18 months. Second referendum or no second referendum, Brexit or no Brexit. I know which side my money's on.
    Yes, but you're a fruitcake.
    Whereas you are a model of disinterested, rational analysis ?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 21,487
    stodge said:

    MikeL said:


    I don't read the Daily Mail and have never heard of Dominic Sandbrook.

    I'm not interested in political banter.

    And I'm not posting for "political campaigning purposes".

    Thanks.

    That wasn't a dig at you at all but you've annoyed me by assuming it was.

    You overreact too easily to what posters say.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    rcs1000 said:

    Now, the question is what happens in the event of (say) the Labour Party winning on a manifesto pledge of "renegotiating" the deal? Or if there's another hung parliament?

    The same problem simply recurs. If there's a new government elected on the basis of negotiating some different deal, or of remaining in the EU, we still need the consent of the EU27, which couldn't be attainable in advance of the election (and might not be after the election).

    Utter chaos, in other words.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017
    rcs1000 said:

    I essentially agree with @RichardNabavi - Professor Bogdanor takes a leap without intervening steps. If there is no majority in Parliament for any Brexit deal, Britain will not have a second referendum, there will be nothing to vote on. Britain will simply crash out of the EU with no deal.

    I have for some time thought this the most likely outcome.

    If there is no majority for any particular Brexit deal (about which you may very well be right), surely the government falls.

    Does this lead to us immediately departing the EU in a disorderly manner? Or does it lead to the EU deciding to pass a one month extension while we have an election?

    I think the lesson of Greece is that the EU would grant an extension. Don't forget that the EU loses too from us crashing out. It has a big budget hole, and means less demand from one of its biggest export markets. My guess is there's a 90% chance that they'd extend to the far side of the election.

    Now, the question is what happens in the event of (say) the Labour Party winning on a manifesto pledge of "renegotiating" the deal? Or if there's another hung parliament?
    A Deal Or No Deal election would be won by No Deal. That, I suspect, was a main point of the government sowing the message that no deal is better than a bad deal.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,101
    stodge said:

    MikeL said:


    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

    I have very little sympathy for those who swallowed the Daily Mail's dystopic imaginings about a Corbyn Government but they use Dominic Sandbrook who's a right-wing polemicist not a historian.

    To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

    Sandbrook is an historian, by the way.

    In the same way that E.P. Thompson and Hobsbawm were historians.

    The fact that one writes with a particular view of history doesn't make one not an historian.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 2,539
    edited August 3

    rkrkrk said:

    FPT:



    "Labour's backbench would be the key constraint."

    LOL. They'll be living in constant fear of attack from the hard left's henchmen.

    Most of them have already given up the fight for a social democratic Labour party and are sucking up to Jezza as much as they can.

    Because there have been so many deselections?

    If Corbyn runs a bad government - Labour MPs will ditch him.

    It's their duty to do so, they tried in opposition already, and most of them don't particularly like him.

    They're on board now because he did quite well in the campaign. If he does badly in government he would be gone very quickly.

    By what mechanism?
    They vote with the Tories that they have no confidence in the government.

    Then they could form a new government backed by MPs from different parties.
    Chuka or Yvette Cooper could take over perhaps.

    Edit - I should add because I snipped from earlier - we were discussing why Corbyn couldn't turn the UK into a total disaster, where people on this board have to flee the country etc...

    It's perfectly possible Labour MPs would prop up a poor government - but if it really got that bad they would do something.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    What’s different about China’s approach is the content of the propaganda. The government doesn’t refute critics or defend policies; instead, it overwhelms the population with positive news (what the researchers call “cheerleading” content) in order to eclipse bad news and divert attention away from actual problems.

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/2/16019562/china-internet-freedom-dissent-twitter-facebook
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,341

    So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

    Ask them
    But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.
    Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

    The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.
    Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

    So how and why would a British PM make such a request?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022
    Mortimer said:

    stodge said:

    MikeL said:


    This is the thing.

    And to answer a question posed on the other thread - my concern isn't the Lab manifesto. Whilst I disagree with it, if they implemented it (full stop) I don't think I would need to think about leaving the country.

    My concern is about a spiral out of control - heading in the direction of a Venezuela. Obviously that would be very extreme and it would take a long time to get anywhere remotely near that bad.

    But reversing BoE independence would be the sort of thing not in the manifesto which could be a precursor to wild policies which could start us at least heading in that direction.

    I have very little sympathy for those who swallowed the Daily Mail's dystopic imaginings about a Corbyn Government but they use Dominic Sandbrook who's a right-wing polemicist not a historian.

    To bring it back to basics, a Government only has to ensure two things happen - the administration of law and the distribution of food. As long as the supply of food remains unchanged and there is enough law enforcement to maintain social order and cohesion, it doesn't really matter which party is in charge.

    Sandbrook is an historian, by the way.

    In the same way that E.P. Thompson and Hobsbawm were historians.

    The fact that one writes with a particular view of history doesn't make one not an historian.
    Quite - and to go further, without some view of history, it would be difficult to be much more than a researcher/stenographer.
    As for Sandbrook, I might not share his politics, but I thoroughly enjoyed his books on the 60s and 70s.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 5,530
    He'd be 78... doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Mr. Urquhart, it's some time since I was there, but there was an English language radio station. All the news was good. When the penny dropped, it suddenly sounded incredibly sinister.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,438
    edited August 3
    rkrkrk said:

    It's perfectly possible Labour MPs would prop up a poor government - but if it really got that bad they would do something.

    I think you are rather over-optimistic there. In the late sixties and through until 1979 we endured things being really bad; MPs didn't do anything about it then. Labour MPs in particular would find lots of reasons why chaos and poverty would be the fault of the IMF, large companies, wicked capitalists, landlords, banks, hedge funds, etc etc before they finally and reluctantly got round to addressing the real cause of the chaos: their own policies. It could easily be a decade or two of disaster.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,017
    The only way there will be a second referendum is if public opinion is seen to have decisively changed. Remain would need to hit something like 65% in the polls for that to be on the agenda. Seems unlikely to me.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,022

    What’s different about China’s approach is the content of the propaganda. The government doesn’t refute critics or defend policies; instead, it overwhelms the population with positive news (what the researchers call “cheerleading” content) in order to eclipse bad news and divert attention away from actual problems.

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/2/16019562/china-internet-freedom-dissent-twitter-facebook

    And of course they do also jail more journalists than just about any other nation (Turkey pipped them to the title last year).

    Which tends to dampen the enthusiasm of critics of the regime.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Mr. Meeks, movement the other way is also possible (although equally, or even more, improbable). If the EU offered to increase the rebate, for example.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,237

    So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

    Ask them
    But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.
    Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

    The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.
    Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

    So how and why would a British PM make such a request?
    The "why" would be:
    1) They thought it was in the national interest
    2) They thought it would avoid short-term economic damage that would harm their chances of reelection
    3) Having the referendum forces the populist right to defend the exit deal they'd just cut, rather than demagoguing it as a traitorous betrayal

    The "how" would presumably involve making a speech of some kind, followed by a vote in parliament. But the choreography is tricky, and some Conservative MPs would be dissatisfied, to put it mildly.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,341
    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    FPT:



    "Labour's backbench would be the key constraint."

    LOL. They'll be living in constant fear of attack from the hard left's henchmen.

    Most of them have already given up the fight for a social democratic Labour party and are sucking up to Jezza as much as they can.

    Because there have been so many deselections?

    If Corbyn runs a bad government - Labour MPs will ditch him.

    It's their duty to do so, they tried in opposition already, and most of them don't particularly like him.

    They're on board now because he did quite well in the campaign. If he does badly in government he would be gone very quickly.

    By what mechanism?
    They vote with the Tories that they have no confidence in the government.

    Then they could form a new government backed by MPs from different parties.
    Chuka or Yvette Cooper could take over perhaps.

    Edit - I should add because I snipped from earlier - we were discussing why Corbyn couldn't turn the UK into a total disaster, where people on this board have to flee the country etc...

    It's perfectly possible Labour MPs would prop up a poor government - but if it really got that bad they would do something.
    That's pretty implausible. Labour MPs siding with the Tories to vote down a Labour government would be so hated by Labour activists that they'd make Blair or MacDonald look like Nye Bevan.

    And of course, they'd be signing their own political death warrants. There wouldn't be a new government in such circumstances; the Tories would refuse to take office and trigger a new election. Any other option would look like (and be) a parliamentary coup. Far more legitimate for a new election - which would naturally follow a VoNC anyway - and let the people decide. Against a failing Labour government and with the PLP in utter turmoil, why would the Tories settle for some second-rate minority administration when a landslide would be in the offing?

    But the political culture in Labour is not one of toppling the leader.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    What it doesn't say is how a second referendum would happen or what the question in it would be.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,407

    I essentially agree with @RichardNabavi - Professor Bogdanor takes a leap without intervening steps. If there is no majority in Parliament for any Brexit deal, Britain will not have a second referendum, there will be nothing to vote on. Britain will simply crash out of the EU with no deal.

    I have for some time thought this the most likely outcome.

    I have resigned myself to the fact that there is no time left for any other kind of outcome.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,341

    So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

    Ask them
    But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.
    Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

    The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.
    Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

    So how and why would a British PM make such a request?
    The "why" would be:
    1) They thought it was in the national interest
    2) They thought it would avoid short-term economic damage that would harm their chances of reelection
    3) Having the referendum forces the populist right to defend the exit deal they'd just cut, rather than demagoguing it as a traitorous betrayal

    The "how" would presumably involve making a speech of some kind, followed by a vote in parliament. But the choreography is tricky, and some Conservative MPs would be dissatisfied, to put it mildly.
    Not just the Con MPs but the membership too. If May or any successor tried it, he or she would find themselves on the losing side of a VoNC within a week.

    I can accept (1), though I can't see how it would override either the practicalities or the constitutional difficulty of ignoring the referendum; (2) is also possible though it'd be a grotesque political misjudgement, but (3) would also be wrong: the Brexiteers in government would be hamstrung but those on the outsides, whether backbench MPs, Kippers or the likes of Arron Banks, would have no difficulty denouncing the sell-out / thin gruel etc.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,407
    edited August 3
    rpjs said:

    Actually, I think it is too late. Even if we change our minds I doubt the EU27 want us back. In any case it only takes one objection to prevent A50 being rescinded and our departure will change the balance of power in the EU.

    I dunno, the propaganda value of the prodigal son returning tot he fold would be immense, and assuming we'd have to come back in without opt-outs it would kill the idea of opt-outs forever, together with the prospect of any one else leaving. Also we're a net contributor.

    France and Germany would be delighted to have us back in such circumstances. I could see some of the more Eurosceptic Eastern European countries might consider a veto because of the opt-out issue but the economic interest of us being a sink for their surplus population would outweigh that I feel.
    The propaganda value would be high and money talks so that would be a strong point in our favour. I have no doubt that the rebate would go, but I think requiring Euro membership would be a step too far for the UK even if they wanted out of A50.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660

    What’s different about China’s approach is the content of the propaganda. The government doesn’t refute critics or defend policies; instead, it overwhelms the population with positive news (what the researchers call “cheerleading” content) in order to eclipse bad news and divert attention away from actual problems.

    https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/2/16019562/china-internet-freedom-dissent-twitter-facebook

    That's interesting, thanks. There's a danger that, like Russia in the 1960s and 1970s, the Chinese leaders start believing the propaganda they feed their own people. In which case they might have a very rude awakening.

    There's also a possibility that external observers might be taking their propaganda at face value and over-egging the Chinese economic miracle.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 6,943

    What it doesn't say is how a second referendum would happen or what the question in it would be.

    Given the impracticality of acting on it, as others have said, why not stick with the tried and tested:

    “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

    Purely advisory, of course :p
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Mr. Jessop, also, rapidly expanding economies tend to have spikier growth paths than developed nations.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    I still think the most elegant way to honour the 2016 referendum is to dissolve the UK. As the stakes mount, Theresa May should channel her inner Gorbachev.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686
    edited August 3

    What it doesn't say is how a second referendum would happen or what the question in it would be.

    From the very beginning this was the problem with a second referendum. As mooted by the LDs, all it would have done is to give the public the right to vote down any deal and make us crash out on WTO terms. They didn't seem to get that.

    Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

    Could it say: "the deal as negotiated or go back and renegotiate"? Well there wouldn't be any time plus the EU27 would rightly say they weren't budging so that would only allow us to get a worse deal. Or WTO.

    Really, a second referendum makes no sense at all.

    A referendum to rejoin would, as @freetochoose says, be an option to campaign for, but I can't see the appetite for that for another 20 years or so.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133

    So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

    Ask them
    But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.
    Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

    The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.
    Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

    So how and why would a British PM make such a request?
    Given what's happening in Venezuela at the moment, I'm struggling even more than before to understand why some people are happy to establish the principle that a democratic decision can be ignored.
  • MonksfieldMonksfield Posts: 1,904

    Well, that run of good luck lasted a long time.

    ....

    Mr. Glenn, touche (although it's worth noting the EU seemed a lot more popular until people actually had a vote on it).

    Where is MrT? I haven't seen him post for a while.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 16,570

    Support for joining the Euro is growing. Juncker looks like ending his term with the vision of one currency for the EU substantially closer to being realised.


    This is inevitable. Being in the EU but not in the Euro has been increasingly uncomfortable for both sides with the Euro bloc anxious to use EU institutions and increase their co-operation and those outside increasingly concerned about this inner cabal voting for its own interest. Until now the smaller countries had the UK to support them and make legal challenges where required. With the UK on the way out those not in the Euro will inevitably be trampled and their interests disregard. Joining the Euro will create a series of problems for these countries but the alternatives are worse.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698

    So that means getting the unanimous consent of at least 27 other countries, plus probably the EU parliament and perhaps various oddball regional parliaments as well. How on earth could anyone know whether that is an option which might be available, and in what timescale?

    Ask them
    But they won't be able to answer. That is precisely the problem.
    Sure they would. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg says he would like to offer his voters the chance to think again, but he can only do if the other people in the room will assure him they would agree to this if his voters voted for it. 27 national leaders and the heads of 3 parliamentary groups breath an exasperated sigh of relief and say ffs but yeah, we'd let you stay if you voted for it.

    The problem isn't there, it's how the PM avoids getting strung uo from a lamppost by their own MPs.
    Well, quite. No Tory leader is going to advocate a reversal of Brexit and Remaining in the next decade, at least. And no Labour leader is going to advocate it while Corbyn's there.

    So how and why would a British PM make such a request?
    Given what's happening in Venezuela at the moment, I'm struggling even more than before to understand why some people are happy to establish the principle that a democratic decision can be ignored.
    Given that we have invoked Article 50 and are currently negotiating our exit, regardless of what happens in the future to argue that the referendum will have been ignored should we end up remaining would be thoroughly dishonest demagoguery.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,237
    TOPPING said:

    Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

    Dave's deal is a face-saver that didn't work called by a Prime Minister who has long since resigned. Nobody was impressed when he got it and nobody would miss it if it was gone.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686

    TOPPING said:

    Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

    Dave's deal is a face-saver that didn't work called by a Prime Minister who has long since resigned. Nobody was impressed when he got it and nobody would miss it if it was gone.
    so another one that fundamentally misunderstood it.

    Fair enough.

    I suppose an extra reason not to have a second referendum: the public isn't bright enough to understand the issues.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,237


    Given that we have invoked Article 50 and are currently negotiating our exit, regardless of what happens in the future to argue that the referendum will have been ignored should we end up remaining would be thoroughly dishonest demagoguery.

    This line only works until the referendum is called. At that point opponents are left trying to argue that the people shouldn't be allowed to decide, against a government that is trying to listen to them.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Mr. Monksfield, working on his latest bestseller, I think.

    F1: it'll be a while before the Belgian markets go up but I've got a couple of early ideas to check. Whilst the weekend bets (admittedly with some bad luck) have been poor at the last two races, the early bets have been reasonable.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 14,698
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

    Dave's deal is a face-saver that didn't work called by a Prime Minister who has long since resigned. Nobody was impressed when he got it and nobody would miss it if it was gone.
    so another one that fundamentally misunderstood it.

    Fair enough.

    I suppose an extra reason not to have a second referendum: the public isn't bright enough to understand the issues.
    Being at a potential disadvantage without Dave's deal wouldn't be an issue if we joined the Euro.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,660
    edited August 3
    Robert Hardy's died, aged 91.

    RIP

    Edit:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40818839

    It seems a little off that, givenhis bast body of work, the BBC call him "Harry Potter star"

    A few years back I watched a documentary about the raising of the Mary Rose, and was surprised to discover that Hardy was an acclaimed expert on the Longbow, and had been called in to look at the ones they recovered from the wreck.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,267
    Not sure if already posted:

    New YouGov poll on Wiki but can't see anywhere else:

    Con 41 (=)
    Lab 44 (+1)
    LD 7 (+1)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 38,386
    Mr. Topping, be fair. Both campaigns were bloody abysmal.

    Mr. Jessop, I used to watch All Creatures Great and Small as a child. Couldn't remember a damned thing about it, except the Doctor was in it, and the theme tune (which sounds like nostalgia personified).

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 8,429
    OK - completely off topic but a question for the PB brains trust and/pr Stodge's valet.

    I want to upgrade my computer (my Apple Mac being ca a decade old). A laptop would be good. I will have a website and be creating documents and presentations. It needs to be reliable. I don't need super fast gaming. It needs to be easy to use - as I will be my own IT department. And to have plenty of storage.

    So Apple or not. What is Chrome? Etc etc. Any recommendations?

    Thanks in advance.

    A vm will do.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,515

    What it doesn't say is how a second referendum would happen or what the question in it would be.

    Regardless of your pro / anti EU position, it is hard to understand how Referendum Mk II will work.

    Unless there is prior agreement with the EU, there isn't a single question that you can ask that it is within our capability to deliver, with the exceptions of accepting the deal on offer (which may be Brexit in anything from an ultra soft form to the hard as nails version), or to reject the deal and crash out to WTO.

    I think the starting point of a referendum has to be that it asks a question that it is possible to deliver. (Some may say David Camerons referendum failed that test, as Brexit is undeliverable!)
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

    Dave's deal is a face-saver that didn't work called by a Prime Minister who has long since resigned. Nobody was impressed when he got it and nobody would miss it if it was gone.
    so another one that fundamentally misunderstood it.

    Fair enough.

    I suppose an extra reason not to have a second referendum: the public isn't bright enough to understand the issues.
    Being at a potential disadvantage without Dave's deal wouldn't be an issue if we joined the Euro.
    The UK will never join the euro.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 29,510

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Could it be framed to say: "the deal we negotiated or stay in"? Not sure. Possibly. But that would be bad also because, without Dave's deal, staying in would put us at a disadvantage.

    Dave's deal is a face-saver that didn't work called by a Prime Minister who has long since resigned. Nobody was impressed when he got it and nobody would miss it if it was gone.
    so another one that fundamentally misunderstood it.

    Fair enough.

    I suppose an extra reason not to have a second referendum: the public isn't bright enough to understand the issues.
    Being at a potential disadvantage without Dave's deal wouldn't be an issue if we joined the Euro.
    Thank god we never did.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,341
    MikeL said:

    Not sure if already posted:

    New YouGov poll on Wiki but can't see anywhere else:

    Con 41 (=)
    Lab 44 (+1)
    LD 7 (+1)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

    SkyData tweeted that this morning but I didn't retweet it as I couldn't find any evidence of it on the Yougov site. Not checked since, mind.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4756248/ISIS-inspired-terrorists-bomb-discovered-minute.html

    Another terrorist attack only foiled because those trying to carry them out are total morons.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 10,686
    Cyclefree said:

    OK - completely off topic but a question for the PB brains trust and/pr Stodge's valet.

    I want to upgrade my computer (my Apple Mac being ca a decade old). A laptop would be good. I will have a website and be creating documents and presentations. It needs to be reliable. I don't need super fast gaming. It needs to be easy to use - as I will be my own IT department. And to have plenty of storage.

    So Apple or not. What is Chrome? Etc etc. Any recommendations?

    Thanks in advance.

    A vm will do.

    I recently bought an ASUS Zenbook

    techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/laptops-portable-pcs/asus-zenbook-ux305-1264384/review

    It is great and I am very happy (not so good points: shiny screen, plus no page up, page down functions).

    Looking at the two side-by-side in the shop, however, the Dell XPS series has the best display out there.

    = my $0.02
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 24,016
    edited August 3
    Cyclefree said:

    OK - completely off topic but a question for the PB brains trust and/pr Stodge's valet.

    I want to upgrade my computer (my Apple Mac being ca a decade old). A laptop would be good. I will have a website and be creating documents and presentations. It needs to be reliable. I don't need super fast gaming. It needs to be easy to use - as I will be my own IT department. And to have plenty of storage.

    So Apple or not. What is Chrome? Etc etc. Any recommendations?

    Thanks in advance.

    A vm will do.

    For laptop, dell xps can't really be beaten on price, build quality etc. Also with laptops, buy the best model you can afford* as little ability to upgrade and will maximise length it is useful to you.

    * just don't get a 4k screen on a laptop.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 3,976
    Having already decided to leave in the first referendum a second referendum would be a choice between

    a) leaving under the terms negotiated with the EU and

    b) leaving under WTO terms and any legal obligations to the EU (which are said to be few)
This discussion has been closed.