Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not only will there not be an EURef2, there can’t be

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited February 3 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not only will there not be an EURef2, there can’t be

It’s the Remainer dream that won’t go away. Indeed, it’s as if they’ve never woken up to the strong coffee the electorate served on the fateful night in June 2016. They want to believe that the fight is still on and continue to make the case that they should have made better before EURef1. It isn’t still on and the dream is just that: an hallucination in the dark.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300
    First!

    Thanks, David.
  • JosephGJosephG Posts: 10
    edited February 3
    Thank you, David, for a typically sensible and interesting post.

    Even as someone who voted to leave, I have a lot of time for those who say that democracy requires that we voters should be able to change our minds. But on something as fundamental as this, it must surely be the case that there needs to be a fundamental change of circumstances if a vote is sensibly to be re-run within such a short period. Otherwise, the whole concept and purpose of referenda risks being brought into disrepute (although I rather suspect it has already suffered that fate already) and risks the backlash to which many other posters have alluded on previous threads passim.

    Such a fundamental change of circumstances could include a statement by HM Government to the effect that:

    "We have in all good faith attempted to implement the result of the referendum but, upon exploring the practical realities in more detail and given the approach of our interlocutors regarding the inviolability of the Four Freedoms, including free movement of people, during the course of our negotiations, this has simply proven to be impossible to achieve in a manner that is in the UK's interests. HM Government, therefore, advocates a second referendum and will campaign for a vote to remain".

    I'm not sure that much less would suffice. But no Conservative government (or, at least, no such government led by Mrs May) would survive the making of such a statement by more than 24 hours, even if the sentiment were supported by a majority in the polls or in Parliament. It would be interesting, however, to put Mr Corbyn upon the spot to see if he would lead a Labour Government upon the basis of such a policy...

    Another (practical as opposed to principled) reason (as David suggests) is that there is clearly no consensus as to the terms of a second vote. Is it simply a re-run? Is it a multi-answer question? Is it a vote to give the electorate's imprimatur to whatever deal Mrs May negotiates (and, if in the negative, what are the implications thereof). Without agreement on that (a) there will be insufficient momentum behind the call for such a referendum; and (b) the risk that we find ourselves back in a similar position of confusion regardless of its outcome.

    The practicalities of a second referendum (even leaving aside David's valid points on timing) simply do not stand up to any scrutiny.

    It's not going to happen.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,172
    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.
  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 179
    Clearly the time for a second referendum is AFTER HM Gov have negotiated what our world outside the EU will look like and that is likely to be towards the end of the transition phase not 2019 rather 2020. There is no point in asking people whether they would like a rethink when there is no detail on offer. Show us what our world will ACTUALLY look like outside the EU and then we can make an informed choice. The problem with the first referendum, that makes it invalid rather than legitimate as some suggest here, was that there were "50 shades" of Leave and only one of Remain. Well at least three; WTO, Canada and Norway style agreements and it is only right and proper that we the people get to choose our path. Which of these did the Conservatives offer in the last GE? (Hint: they still can't tell us). Give us the figures so we can choose how much of the NHS needs to be privatised and how many new hospitals, etc cannot be built because of our reduced tax take. People need to know how many millions won't be going into the NHS because we are leaving the EU and at least they can stop moaning about its poor service.
  • JosephGJosephG Posts: 10
    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 179
    edited February 3
    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300
    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why? Are 75 year olds no longer able to contribute? I thought a lot of people remained fully lucid until the day they died.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281
    edited February 3
    I have no issue with people wanting a rerun or confirmatory vote, but though I'm not sold on the precise timelines suggested the hard practicalities as laid out by Mr herdson would seem prohibitive. Events could change things rapidly of course, but it would never be so simple. The very fact it's been a thorny issue for decades and the existence of the push for another vote show it would be very hard.
    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why is it reasonable? We say those below 18, no matter their intellect or maturity, are children and so cannot vote. If we lower the limit were saying those below 16 are children. But while it may be much harder to meet all expectations of being an MP at an older age, it's a job with no performance criteria or required duties - if the public want to vote for someone who won't even show up they can, so presumably are allowed to vote for someone clearly past it, so long as they are compos mentis.

    And when it comes to voting age, I struggle to see how it could be justified. It's not comparable to jury service or the like, you can vote by mail after barely any thought. And sone want it to be as simple as clicking a button and doing it online. Unless we say all old people are incapable, as we do with children (though there is disagreement as to when that should stop) why shouldn't they get to vote?

    Says a 31 year old.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,281
    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become.

    No it isn't indicative of that. Oh, it's not gone great, but it would have been discussed regardless. How do we know? Because, famously, Farage was trying to lay the groundwork for another possible vote if Remain had won narrowly, and of course there was immediate reaction to have a rerun before anything had gone well or badly. A massive petition too, as I recall.

    It's like the initial exodus from the LDs on 2010. Near half the vote left upon coalition, so it wasn't indicative of how that choice and that government became a shit show, as those people didn't wait to see if it would, they just decided it would be (or wasn't worth it). That they stayed low and got worse indicated they didn't change their mind and more came to think they were right, but the first rush was not actually indicative, even if it was predictive.

    As with Brexit. The discussion came up immediately so is not due to the shit show. At best if it has become more popular it woukd be due to the shit show.
  • I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    I totally disagree. If only the leading Brexiters had been even slightly magnanimous in victory and reached out towards the defeated side then there might be more unity in the country by now.

    I typed a lot more than this because your comment made me feel so enraged... but I'm going to stay polite... so I thought better and deleted the rest of it.
  • kle4 said:

    I have no issue with people wanting a rerun or confirmatory vote, but though I'm not sold on the precise timelines suggested the hard practicalities as laid out by Mr herdson would seem prohibitive. Events could change things rapidly of course, but it would never be so simple. The very fact it's been a thorny issue for decades and the existence of the push for another vote show it would be very hard.


    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.

    Why is it reasonable? We say those below 18, no matter their intellect or maturity, are children and so cannot vote. If we lower the limit were saying those below 16 are children. But while it may be much harder to meet all expectations of being an MP at an older age, it's a job with no performance criteria or required duties - if the public want to vote for someone who won't even show up they can, so presumably are allowed to vote for someone clearly past it, so long as they are compos mentis.

    And when it comes to voting age, I struggle to see how it could be justified. It's not comparable to jury service or the like, you can vote by mail after barely any thought. And sone want it to be as simple as clicking a button and doing it online. Unless we say all old people are incapable, as we do with children (though there is disagreement as to when that should stop) why shouldn't they get to vote?

    Says a 31 year old.

    Who should be allowed to vote ? Now there's another question.

    It is sort of self-evident that 6 year olds should be denied the vote. But there comes a point when some voters lose the capacity to think required so much that they are less capable of giving a considered opinion that 6 yos. Ususally their family helps them fill out a postal vote.

    Why then should family not be allowed to help a 6 yo ?

    Voting is generally taken to require independent consideration of the facts, without influence. That rules out 6yos and as they are effectively creatures controlled by the state 16 yos. By that analysis it is difficult to justify anyone still at university being allowed to vote.

    It was widely expected that when the voting age was reduced to 18 there would eventually be an attempt to reduce it to 16. Why not 14, people used to leave school at 14, or 13, or 12 ?

    There is no rational answer.

    MEANWHILE: Am I the only one who wants to hit the telly when they say women first got the vote in 1918 ?

    We all know a very small number of women, in certain narrow circumstances had been able to vote in parochial and borough elections since the reign of Mary I. Such women were always expected to serve the parish officers, or pay for a substitute !
  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 179
    edited February 3
    kle4 said:

    Why is it reasonable? We say those below 18, no matter their intellect or maturity, are children and so cannot vote. If we lower the limit were saying those below 16 are children. But while it may be much harder to meet all expectations of being an MP at an older age, it's a job with no performance criteria or required duties - if the public want to vote for someone who won't even show up they can, so presumably are allowed to vote for someone clearly past it, so long as they are compos mentis.

    And when it comes to voting age, I struggle to see how it could be justified. It's not comparable to jury service or the like, you can vote by mail after barely any thought. And sone want it to be as simple as clicking a button and doing it online. Unless we say all old people are incapable, as we do with children (though there is disagreement as to when that should stop) why shouldn't they get to vote?

    Says a 31 year old.

    I think that is the point I am making, there is an age at which old people become incapable in the same way we consider children to be incapable. Obviously we can all point to exclusions at either end of the age spectrum but if we are saying, as seems to be the case with jury service, that ones judgement starts to be impaired beyond the age of 75 them restricting the right to be involved in certain professions or making judgemental decisions such as voting would appear to be reasonable.
    The company I worked for told me at the age of 59 that they were making me redundant because "I was blocking the promotion path for younger people" (I was an engineer). Clearly a 75 year old MP is doing likewise and is beyond their "shelf life".
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    I totally disagree. If only the leading Brexiters had been even slightly magnanimous in victory and reached out towards the defeated side then there might be more unity in the country by now.

    I typed a lot more than this because your comment made me feel so enraged... but I'm going to stay polite... so I thought better and deleted the rest of it.
    When does a victorious Labour government “reach out” to a defeated Tory opposition, or vice versa?

    This “reaching out” nonsense is code for “watering down the result” and Remainers still think the rest of us are too thick to notice. As Mr Herdson observes it’s almost certainly too late, but at least some on the Remain side have twigged that repeating the same argument and expecting a different result isn’t going to work:

    https://leftfootforward.org/2018/02/as-remainers-we-cant-win-the-brexit-debate-solely-on-economics/
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,392
    The point about needing the PM, who is a Conservative, to introduce it, is correct, which is why it's unlikely to happen. However, she does almost certainly think Brexit is a stupid idea, and a majority of MPs agree with her. And there's a political upside to having a referendum once the details are known in that it makes it harder for the extreme side of Leave to demagogue it, for fear of losing the re-referendum. So it's not quite impossible that the politics would work.

    On the logistics, I think the most plausible way to do it is to agree an extension as part of the final deal. So if you already have a two-year transition period of 2 years when Britain is basically in but formally out, you change the first 6 months of that to "still formally in" and use that to organize the vote. Obviously this has the complication of needing unanimous agreement from the other member states, but you'd want that anyhow, because otherwise the Leave side would argue that the bridges were already burned and there was no way back in without joining the Euro and sending Prince Harry to perform menial tasks in Emmanuel Macron's kitchen.
  • JosephGJosephG Posts: 10

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    I totally disagree. If only the leading Brexiters had been even slightly magnanimous in victory and reached out towards the defeated side then there might be more unity in the country by now.

    Is there any objective evidence at all for this?
  • JosephGJosephG Posts: 10
    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,392
    PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.
  • Ally_BAlly_B Posts: 179
    JosephG said:

    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
    My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,300
    Ally_B said:

    JosephG said:

    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
    My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
    But jury service is random, selection to be an MP is not. I doubt they’d pick someone senile as prospective parliamentary candidate.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 111
    Any thinking Tory should support a 2nd ref Brexit or Remainer given that Brexit will produce both Winners and Losers but the losers will be bitter if they do not get a 2nd referendum and blame the Tories.
    If a 2nd referendum votes leave again nobody will have grounds to complain.If a 2 nd referendum votes remain then maybe we will head towards a 3rd referendum but that would still be better than the current situation where the govt are pushing through the biggest change in many decades on the basis 52-48 vote and where most experts are downcast about the future after Brexit
    Tories should see a 2nd referendum as an insurance policy against Brexit going wrong
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexiteers, not content with blaming Remainers for "losing", continue to blame the people who warned against it, campaigned against it, and voted against it, for the shitshow of Brexit.

    You won.

    SUCK IT UP!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    Isn’t it now clear that the government doesn’t believe in what it’s doing, can’t even decide how to do it, hasn’t the guts to say so, and is trying to creep forward under cover of fog, wretchedly hoping something will turn up? If Theresa May and her cabinet were a prisoner in the dock, mumbling and stumbling, avoiding our eyes, and under pressure dribbling out banalities, repetitions and evasions, the jury would need about thirty seconds to decide. Guilt is all over the pages of this contemptible Tory story. They know (most of them) that the referendum placed voters in an impossible position. They know that, narrowly, the voters made a mistake. They can see this is becoming plain. They know — the majority that are not zealots — that our party is now acting against the interests of our country. And nobody has the spine to say so.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/tories-are-lying-to-the-voters-and-themselves-over-brexit-r7nc79cw5
  • JosephGJosephG Posts: 10
    Ally_B said:

    JosephG said:

    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
    My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
    Or, does it simply mean that, after 75 years, society recognises that you've done your duty and we are not going to impose upon you any further?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    I totally disagree. If only the leading Brexiters had been even slightly magnanimous in victory and reached out towards the defeated side then there might be more unity in the country by now.

    I typed a lot more than this because your comment made me feel so enraged... but I'm going to stay polite... so I thought better and deleted the rest of it.
    Nobody has ever reached out to me, when I've been on the losing side.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    Scott_P said:

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexiteers, not content with blaming Remainers for "losing", continue to blame the people who warned against it, campaigned against it, and voted against it, for the shitshow of Brexit.

    You won.

    SUCK IT UP!
    I supported Remain. I also support democracy.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,368
    Hyperbole is alive and well in the Sun.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010
    Ally_B said:

    JosephG said:

    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
    My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
    I'm not sufficiently competent to be a plumber, electrician, or builder. It does not logically follow that I'm not sufficiently competent to select them.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,010
    edited February 3
    Scott_P said:

    Isn’t it now clear that the government doesn’t believe in what it’s doing, can’t even decide how to do it, hasn’t the guts to say so, and is trying to creep forward under cover of fog, wretchedly hoping something will turn up? If Theresa May and her cabinet were a prisoner in the dock, mumbling and stumbling, avoiding our eyes, and under pressure dribbling out banalities, repetitions and evasions, the jury would need about thirty seconds to decide. Guilt is all over the pages of this contemptible Tory story. They know (most of them) that the referendum placed voters in an impossible position. They know that, narrowly, the voters made a mistake. They can see this is becoming plain. They know — the majority that are not zealots — that our party is now acting against the interests of our country. And nobody has the spine to say so.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/tories-are-lying-to-the-voters-and-themselves-over-brexit-r7nc79cw5

    Parris will be supporting Corbyn before long, so unhinged has he become over Brexit.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    JosephG said:

    Ally_B said:

    JosephG said:

    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
    My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
    Or, does it simply mean that, after 75 years, society recognises that you've done your duty and we are not going to impose upon you any further?
    And that sitting in a Jury box - possibly for weeks or months is a different matter to filling in a postal ballot? Also with older Jury members the risk of ill-health or worse may be greater.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638

    Hyperbole is alive and well in the Sun.
    I see the “unnamed” but “senior” chap who was on the verge of resigning has kept his council.....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506

    I also support democracy.

    The principle that people should be allowed to vote, and change their mind...

    Good to know
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 26,638
    Scott_P said:

    I also support democracy.

    The principle that people should be allowed to vote, and change their mind...

    Good to know
    And if a Party fights and wins a GE on a manifesto to have a referendum on rejoining the EU I shall have no objection. It’s the short-circuiting of the process, with inconvenient intermediate steps omitted I object to.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543

    The point about needing the PM, who is a Conservative, to introduce it, is correct, which is why it's unlikely to happen. However, she does almost certainly think Brexit is a stupid idea, and a majority of MPs agree with her. And there's a political upside to having a referendum once the details are known in that it makes it harder for the extreme side of Leave to demagogue it, for fear of losing the re-referendum. So it's not quite impossible that the politics would work.

    On the logistics, I think the most plausible way to do it is to agree an extension as part of the final deal. So if you already have a two-year transition period of 2 years when Britain is basically in but formally out, you change the first 6 months of that to "still formally in" and use that to organize the vote. Obviously this has the complication of needing unanimous agreement from the other member states, but you'd want that anyhow, because otherwise the Leave side would argue that the bridges were already burned and there was no way back in without joining the Euro and sending Prince Harry to perform menial tasks in Emmanuel Macron's kitchen.

    A sensible post. To which I would add that the PM's hand could be forced by Parliament or indeed public opinion. In the lead, time is the main constraint/problem, and, if both the UK and the EU desire, it is relatively straightforward to provide lots more of it.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,527
    Scott_P said:

    I also support democracy.

    The principle that people should be allowed to vote, and change their mind...

    Good to know
    David Davis said nations 'not democracies' if they can't change their mind.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-countries-democracy-brexit-vote-article-50-second-referendum-a7629636.html
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,368

    Hyperbole is alive and well in the Sun.
    I see the “unnamed” but “senior” chap who was on the verge of resigning has kept his council.....
    He/she might be waitring for a last hurrah with a S Times "exclusive" ;)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    edited February 3
    RobD said:

    Ally_B said:

    JosephG said:

    Ally_B said:


    JosephG said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    The fact that it's even being discussed is indicative of what a shit show Brexit has become. Even leaving aside the question of whether Brexit is a good or not (it's not) or whether it's even possible to have a good Brexit (it's not) the whole thing was made much more difficult by having DD in charge of it. He is too old, lazy, stupid and pissed for an epoch defining and transformational challenge like Brexit.

    Your first sentence may or may not be true - I am inclined to the former - but it does not meet David's arguments as to why a second referendum is unlikely to happen. As to your second sentence (and avoiding the potentially libellous elements), I'd be interested to hear your comments as to whether or not a 77-year-old Kenneth Clarke would be materially better than a 69-year-old David Davis (or for that matter a 61-year-old Theresa May or 68-year-old Jeremy Corbyn). Is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office? Or do you have an ad personam basis for the suggestion that David Davis is "too old"?
    I would put an age limit on being a MP or someone being able to vote in elections. The logical figure would be 75 which I believe is the exemption age for jury service. If we exclude from voting the under 18s then it is reasonable to apply an upper age limit.
    Why? (I'm not being rude by my terseness, just interested.)
    My thoughts were in relation to the comment "is there an age by which senilitude renders all of us unfit for office". A logical extension to this would be "is there an age by which senilitude renders us unfit to choose those who seek office". As one can see 75 is considered too old, by their exclusion from jury service, to be able to make consistent, logical and rational decisions then surely we ought to treat voting in the same way? If not then why not?
    But jury service is random, selection to be an MP is not. I doubt they’d pick someone senile as prospective parliamentary candidate.
    The capability of the previous MP for the Isle of Wight was widely questioned, and the local Conservatives very nearly forced him out before the 2015 election; by his own admission he had had some sort of aphasia stroke that had affected his ability to respond to people verbally; he would respond to points and queries later in writing. More was alleged but unproven and so inappropriate to comment.

    There is no capability test for MPs, and it was left up to the voters, who re-elected him but with one of the more significant swings against the Tories in the country. He'd still be there now, had the 2017 election not given Tories a second opportunity to get him to stand down.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791
    Ally_B said:

    Clearly the time for a second referendum is AFTER HM Gov have negotiated what our world outside the EU will look like and that is likely to be towards the end of the transition phase not 2019 rather 2020. There is no point in asking people whether they would like a rethink when there is no detail on offer. Show us what our world will ACTUALLY look like outside the EU and then we can make an informed choice. The problem with the first referendum, that makes it invalid rather than legitimate as some suggest here, was that there were "50 shades" of Leave and only one of Remain. Well at least three; WTO, Canada and Norway style agreements and it is only right and proper that we the people get to choose our path. Which of these did the Conservatives offer in the last GE? (Hint: they still can't tell us). Give us the figures so we can choose how much of the NHS needs to be privatised and how many new hospitals, etc cannot be built because of our reduced tax take. People need to know how many millions won't be going into the NHS because we are leaving the EU and at least they can stop moaning about its poor service.

    As it seems the Transition consists of membership without representation, this is the only realistic time for a further referendum before Brexit actually changes economic relationships. Technically it would be a Rejoin referendum.

    Personally, I would favour the Rejoin referendum be in about a decade. Voters would then know what the actual Brexit package was and what it meant to them, and also the future direction of the E27.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,653
    Good morning, everyone.

    Good article, Mr. Herdson.

    I think it's not impossible, however. Unlike Wales beating Scotland at the rugby, which will surely not happen.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    edited February 3

    MEANWHILE: Am I the only one who wants to hit the telly when they say women first got the vote in 1918 ?

    We all know a very small number of women, in certain narrow circumstances had been able to vote in parochial and borough elections since the reign of Mary I. Such women were always expected to serve the parish officers, or pay for a substitute !

    No. And of course it is an amusing irony that very few on the left can get their heads round that it was the Unionists who gave women the vote, the Liberals and a fair chunk (not all or even a majority) of Labour having been opposed.

    Indeed in some towns - the potwalloper boroughs spring to mind - women could vote for Parliamentary elections too at one time.

    1832, by standardising the franchise and adding the word 'male', took that possibility away.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,131

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    I totally disagree. If only the leading Brexiters had been even slightly magnanimous in victory and reached out towards the defeated side then there might be more unity in the country by now.

    Brexiters were insistent that once we voted leave every Remainer would instantly switch to favouring Hard Brexit and the country would be of single purpose. There was no need for Brexiters to reach across the chamber. It is, and can only be, Remainer's fault for not instantly seeing how brilliant Brexit should be.

    Not the xenophobic, hypocritical, mean spirited speak out of both sides of their mouth Leave campaign. Oh no.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892
    I agree , an in/out referendum is unlikely bar a clear collective change of mind that the Conservative PM agrees with. Slightly more likely is the inevitable stalemate translates into de facto membership that eventually gets converted into full membership. Ie if we are stuck with the EU programme we must as well have a say in what happens to us.

    But we'll probably decide a bad deal is better than no deal.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    Did I miss a trigger warning for williamglenn?

    I agree entirely David.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,714
    Brexit, what an almighty mess.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    I totally disagree. If only the leading Brexiters had been even slightly magnanimous in victory and reached out towards the defeated side then there might be more unity in the country by now.

    I typed a lot more than this because your comment made me feel so enraged... but I'm going to stay polite... so I thought better and deleted the rest of it.
    How does "magnanimous in victory" look to a Remainer? Accepting we are leaving would be a nice starting point of magnanimity from the Remain side. It was a binary choice - light switch off or light switch on? We voted light switch off. The only magnanimity we hear from Remainers is why can't we just install a dimmer switch....
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    edited February 3
    Ally_B said:

    The problem with the first referendum, that makes it invalid rather than legitimate as some suggest here, was that there were "50 shades" of Leave and only one of Remain.

    The problem is that there really were 50 shades of Remain. There was the 'we'll keep the status quo', there was 'things will change later so we can disengage gradually' there was 'we'll ignore the opt-outs because we don't like them' (Herr Juncker's distinctly unhelpful contribution that one) and there was 'we'll join Schengen/the Euro/a federal superstate/all the lot together.' That's without even thinking of the other arguments around globalisation, environmental impact etc.

    I think that may be one reason why Cameron and Osborne were forced to fall back on Project Fear and campaign solely on negatives. It wasn't ultimately a stupid idea - after all, it came within a whisker of winning, which given the latent euroscepticism of the last 30 years (which Cameron didn't know about because he never met the right people, I.e. non-political people) was quite an achievement. But it did tend to underline (a) that his negotiations had not been a success and (b) that the EU was a necessary evil not a positive good.

    And the further problem is that Project Fear's claims not having been realised that line of attack is out, while the 50 flavours issue aforesaid has not by any means gone away. That in itself makes a second referendum rather pointless.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,714

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    I totally disagree. If only the leading Brexiters had been even slightly magnanimous in victory and reached out towards the defeated side then there might be more unity in the country by now.

    I typed a lot more than this because your comment made me feel so enraged... but I'm going to stay polite... so I thought better and deleted the rest of it.
    How does "magnanimous in victory" look to a Remainer? Accepting we are leaving would be a nice starting point of magnanimity from the Remain side. It was a binary choice - light switch off or light switch on? We voted light switch off. The only magnanimity we hear from Remainers is why can't we just install a dimmer switch....
    In the referendum eea, cu were all still in play. Brexit supporters have been stretching things since then.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,131

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    I totally disagree. If only the leading Brexiters had been even slightly magnanimous in victory and reached out towards the defeated side then there might be more unity in the country by now.

    I typed a lot more than this because your comment made me feel so enraged... but I'm going to stay polite... so I thought better and deleted the rest of it.
    How does "magnanimous in victory" look to a Remainer? Accepting we are leaving would be a nice starting point of magnanimity from the Remain side. It was a binary choice - light switch off or light switch on? We voted light switch off. The only magnanimity we hear from Remainers is why can't we just install a dimmer switch....
    How about not suggesting anyone advocating soft Brexit is a sabotaging traitor.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506

    How does "magnanimous in victory" look to a Remainer? Accepting we are leaving would be a nice starting point of magnanimity from the Remain side. It was a binary choice - light switch off or light switch on? We voted light switch off. The only magnanimity we hear from Remainers is why can't we just install a dimmer switch....

    Bollocks

    BoZo and chums promised us a newer, much brighter light.

    What we will get is a single candle flame, guttering in the winds of International trade and diplomacy.

    And you want us to say Thankyou?

    No.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543
    Yet another bunfight between Tory MPs on R4 right now
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,131
    Jonathan said:
    BINO traitor scum. Purge the unclean, purge the unclean.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 2,612
    edited February 3
    Interesting how successfully the JRM scuffle is being spun as hard left violence when actually watching the videos you clearly see sometime tries to punch a leftie and hits a woman in the face
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,116
    Freggles said:

    Interesting how successfully the JRM scuffle is being spun as hard left violence when actually watching the videos you clearly see sometime tries to punch a leftie and hits a woman in the face

    You are BJO and I claim my five pounds...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    edited February 3
    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 34,506
    Despite giving off the vibes of a Swansea manager who’s just been given the full confidence of the board, May still appears to have a somewhat rosy view of the future. Britain would not have to choose between trade agreements with Europe and the rest of the world, she told the BBC, because “I don’t believe that those are the alternatives”. I mean … I don’t believe that I won’t open the batting against Pakistan at Lord’s in May, but it’s possible we’re both going to have to get used to disappointment.

    Stop me if I’m getting too technical here, but this is now a government where economists explaining that a “trade barrier” is a “barrier to trade” are accused of sabotage.

    Today, it is impossible to escape the judgment that the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, IDS and now Baker only know what they believe, whatever the facts and figures say.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/02/theresa-may-brexit-future-disappointment-fact-free?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Any evidence for this assertion?

    @PolhomeEditor: Jacob Rees-Mogg doubles down on his accusations against Treasury officials on Brexit: "I do think they're fiddling the figures." #r4today

    Oh...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    “Can’t” is a very strong word. “Won’t” is quite sufficient.

    Would a referendum bill even be strictly necessary?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,201
    We voted in 1975 (I certainly did), and changed our minds (I certainly did), but it took forty years before the powers that be relented, and then only because they thought they'd win.

    So we'll re-consider in 2056 or so. Fair enough?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,543

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993
    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 2,612
    Western civilisation back in business SeanT?

    https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/posts/10155543823947217
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Thanks for your well-argued contribution to the debate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    Freggles said:

    Western civilisation back in business SeanT?

    https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/posts/10155543823947217

    I wonder if the museum feel they boobed over this.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993
    FF43 said:

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
    It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
    How could they remove the Article 50 rights without doing so for every other EU country ? It is part of the EU constitution.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 2,612
    ydoethur said:

    Freggles said:

    Western civilisation back in business SeanT?

    https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/posts/10155543823947217

    I wonder if the museum feel they boobed over this.
    Two headlines in one week and all for the cost of removing and storing a picture for a few days
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497

    FF43 said:

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
    It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
    The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    ydoethur said:

    Freggles said:

    Western civilisation back in business SeanT?

    https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/posts/10155543823947217

    I wonder if the museum feel they boobed over this.
    If I had put up a post-it, t'would have been to demand that the Curator's salary be given to those who were putting up post-its to decide how the museum should be curated....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334
    Scott_P said:

    Despite giving off the vibes of a Swansea manager who’s just been given the full confidence of the board, May still appears to have a somewhat rosy view of the future. Britain would not have to choose between trade agreements with Europe and the rest of the world, she told the BBC, because “I don’t believe that those are the alternatives”. I mean … I don’t believe that I won’t open the batting against Pakistan at Lord’s in May, but it’s possible we’re both going to have to get used to disappointment.

    Stop me if I’m getting too technical here, but this is now a government where economists explaining that a “trade barrier” is a “barrier to trade” are accused of sabotage.

    Today, it is impossible to escape the judgment that the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg, IDS and now Baker only know what they believe, whatever the facts and figures say.


    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/02/theresa-may-brexit-future-disappointment-fact-free?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Any evidence for this assertion?

    @PolhomeEditor: Jacob Rees-Mogg doubles down on his accusations against Treasury officials on Brexit: "I do think they're fiddling the figures." #r4today

    Oh...

    JRM seems to be turning into Trump with better manners.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993
    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
    It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
    The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
    I must admit I never viewed him as a sceptic and of course he supported Remain during the referendum.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    The EU would accept Britain back on similar terms.

    Britain, however, should have the decency not to inflict itself on the EU again until it has firmly settled on a decision to stay in the EU. It is for that reason I would not support a second referendum unless there was good evidence that the public had collectively changed its mind. So far that evidence doesn’t exist.

    What Leavers are remarkably incurious about are the implications of Britain leaving the EU when they no longer command majority support for their project and they have completely failed to convince sceptics that it’s a good idea. Why they think a divided country with a large part deeply angry at them is going to prosper beats me.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
    How could they remove the Article 50 rights without doing so for every other EU country ? It is part of the EU constitution.
    You misunderstand me. I meant they think while the right to leave would still be there we would never dare use it.

    Personally I would have thought revoking article 50 would be the one certain way to ensure rock hard Brexit possibly even violence. But I am though I say it myself somewhat more intelligent than the likes of Juncker and Verhofstadt. I genuinely think that their fanaticism and dogmatism would blind them to the very real dangers of Britain remaining in the EU after this.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,201
    I think the museum should make a clean breast of it and admit they made a mistake.

    It can only have been a publicity stunt.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
    How could they remove the Article 50 rights without doing so for every other EU country ? It is part of the EU constitution.
    You think there won't be a "review" of the impracticalities of Article 50 when the next set of Treaty changes come along? Good Little Europeans will decide it is too difficult to do in practice. Best just forget it, eh?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791
    CD13 said:

    I think the museum should make a clean breast of it and admit they made a mistake.

    It can only have been a publicity stunt.

    One that went tits up...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497

    ydoethur said:

    FF43 said:

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
    It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
    The curious thing about that statement is that for many years Hammond was considered one of the Conservatives' leading sceptics.
    I must admit I never viewed him as a sceptic and of course he supported Remain during the referendum.
    So did many who were formerly either leavers or very lukewarm about the EU. May herself is another example.

    It may of course be housetraining by civil servants at the FO or Treasury or he may have genuinely changed his mind (it is allowed after all). But I would not describe him as a fanatical Remainer.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555
    Freggles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Freggles said:

    Western civilisation back in business SeanT?

    https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/posts/10155543823947217

    I wonder if the museum feel they boobed over this.
    Two headlines in one week and all for the cost of removing and storing a picture for a few days
    Quite. Whoever did this deserves a large bonus. I can’t imagine what advertising budget you would need to get that kind of attention.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 16,116

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    The EU would accept Britain back on similar terms.

    Britain, however, should have the decency not to inflict itself on the EU again until it has firmly settled on a decision to stay in the EU. It is for that reason I would not support a second referendum unless there was good evidence that the public had collectively changed its mind. So far that evidence doesn’t exist.

    What Leavers are remarkably incurious about are the implications of Britain leaving the EU when they no longer command majority support for their project and they have completely failed to convince sceptics that it’s a good idea. Why they think a divided country with a large part deeply angry at them is going to prosper beats me.
    "No longer command majority support"? So now we have a new vote every time opinion polls change? That will keep us busy on here with general elections.....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892

    FF43 said:

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
    It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
    There are four "big gun" Leavers in Cabinet, three of whom are directly tasked with delivering the Brexit project. Two, David Davis and Liam Fox, are trying but failing. Boris Johnson doesn't even bother. That leaves Michael Gove, who at least has some interesting ideas, if not ones that are fundamental to the project. The point is, we are in the delivery stage, it's a leaver project,so they need to deliver, and they are not. The idea that Mrs May is secretly sabotaging Brexit is delusion. It's simply that's she is not able to deliver it to an acceptable level. We're not talking sunlit uplands here - that's for the fairies - but something that people can live with.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497

    Freggles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Freggles said:

    Western civilisation back in business SeanT?

    https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/posts/10155543823947217

    I wonder if the museum feel they boobed over this.
    Two headlines in one week and all for the cost of removing and storing a picture for a few days
    Quite. Whoever did this deserves a large bonus. I can’t imagine what advertising budget you would need to get that kind of attention.
    It was at the cost of displaying many tits at the museum in place of one painting though.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    The EU would accept Britain back on similar terms.

    Britain, however, should have the decency not to inflict itself on the EU again until it has firmly settled on a decision to stay in the EU. It is for that reason I would not support a second referendum unless there was good evidence that the public had collectively changed its mind. So far that evidence doesn’t exist.

    What Leavers are remarkably incurious about are the implications of Britain leaving the EU when they no longer command majority support for their project and they have completely failed to convince sceptics that it’s a good idea. Why they think a divided country with a large part deeply angry at them is going to prosper beats me.
    "No longer command majority support"? So now we have a new vote every time opinion polls change? That will keep us busy on here with general elections.....
    That is only your second dimmest post of the morning. Read the middle paragraph.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    Foxy said:

    CD13 said:

    I think the museum should make a clean breast of it and admit they made a mistake.

    It can only have been a publicity stunt.

    One that went tits up...
    That post is so milk and water.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
    How could they remove the Article 50 rights without doing so for every other EU country ? It is part of the EU constitution.
    You think there won't be a "review" of the impracticalities of Article 50 when the next set of Treaty changes come along? Good Little Europeans will decide it is too difficult to do in practice. Best just forget it, eh?
    Why would they remove A50? It is working fine from the EU point of view.
  • JamesMJamesM Posts: 209
    Excellent post David and a compelling argument.

    Another thing that bemuses me is the way the polling on a potential, future referendum alongside views on the last referendum is being read. We are talking minute movement as you acknowledge and I would hazard a guess that had we voted to remain in 2016 the polling now would have the exact opposite figures i.e. remain 'regret' and a surge of leave voters. Why? Because Leave voters would have the energy of defeat behind them and would feel aggrieved. The 'winning' sides voters inevitably feel less concerned and just get back to their day-to-day lives.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,392
    edited February 3
    One rather mysterious thing about this discussion is that the same people who a couple of years ago thought Britain could persuade the EU to transform itself from its current form to a piece of cheesecake with a union jack on it if only the British would seriously threaten to leave, now think they always wanted Britain out and won't let the British stay even if they want to.

    The reality is that they want Britain in, they appreciate the freedom it gives their citizens, and they like the net budget contributions. They're not going agree to start unravelling bits of it as the price of keeping Britain in, but they'd rather they stayed. And the other heads of state also have voters, and they understand that sometimes they vote in unhelpful ways and the politicians have to do some otherwise unnecessary work to get through it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,993
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
    It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
    There are four "big gun" Leavers in Cabinet, three of whom are directly tasked with delivering the Brexit project. Two, David Davis and Liam Fox, are trying but failing. Boris Johnson doesn't even bother. That leaves Michael Gove, who at least has some interesting ideas, if not ones that are fundamental to the project. The point is, we are in the delivery stage, it's a leaver project,so they need to deliver, and they are not. The idea that Mrs May is secretly sabotaging Brexit is delusion. It's simply that's she is not able to deliver it to an acceptable level. We're not talking sunlit uplands here - that's for the fairies - but something that people can live with.
    The problem is not that May is secretly sabotaging Brexit but that she is doing it quite openly through her incompetence. This is cock up not conspiracy. But the fact that she does not believe in Brexit in the first place means she has no reason to really try and make it work and she has very clearly hamstrung those who are trying.

    Her insistence from the start on the very hardest of Brexits - something that was not the view of at least Gove and Boris - has made negotiations almost impossible. She lacks both the conviction and the ability to try and make the project work.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,334

    The point about needing the PM, who is a Conservative, to introduce it, is correct, which is why it's unlikely to happen. However, she does almost certainly think Brexit is a stupid idea, and a majority of MPs agree with her. And there's a political upside to having a referendum once the details are known in that it makes it harder for the extreme side of Leave to demagogue it, for fear of losing the re-referendum. So it's not quite impossible that the politics would work.

    On the logistics, I think the most plausible way to do it is to agree an extension as part of the final deal. So if you already have a two-year transition period of 2 years when Britain is basically in but formally out, you change the first 6 months of that to "still formally in" and use that to organize the vote. Obviously this has the complication of needing unanimous agreement from the other member states, but you'd want that anyhow, because otherwise the Leave side would argue that the bridges were already burned and there was no way back in without joining the Euro and sending Prince Harry to perform menial tasks in Emmanuel Macron's kitchen.

    That still requires passing legislation for the referendum while simutaneously trying to negotiate the exit deal, and also - crucially - giving every other EU member an effective veto, which they don't currently have. That would give them an incredibly strong hand e.g. if Ireland doesn't like the border deal, it refuses to extend A50. Britain would get an appalling deal, making the chance of a rejection far higher. And then what?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791

    FF43 said:

    I agree with Mr Herdson. Once this is all over the big “if only” will be “if only Remainers had tried to shape the outcome of the referendum rather than thwart it”. But we are where we are and Remainers keep doubling down on the argument that lost them the vote.

    Brexit is by definition a Leaver project. It's up to them to deliver a Brexit that's passably acceptable to the electorate. They are failing to do so, evidenced by the majority who think the thing's a mistake.
    It is not being delivered by a Leaver PM. It is being delivered (badly) by a Remainer PM along with a fanatical Remainer Chancellor.
    Isn't Hammond being accused of advocating the sort of Norway style Soft Brexit that you have advocated yourself?

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 4,334

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
    How could they remove the Article 50 rights without doing so for every other EU country ? It is part of the EU constitution.
    You think there won't be a "review" of the impracticalities of Article 50 when the next set of Treaty changes come along? Good Little Europeans will decide it is too difficult to do in practice. Best just forget it, eh?
    I think you're a touch paranoid.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,892

    Freggles said:

    ydoethur said:

    Freggles said:

    Western civilisation back in business SeanT?

    https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/posts/10155543823947217

    I wonder if the museum feel they boobed over this.
    Two headlines in one week and all for the cost of removing and storing a picture for a few days
    Quite. Whoever did this deserves a large bonus. I can’t imagine what advertising budget you would need to get that kind of attention.
    There are fine collections of pre-Raphaelite paintings in several of our unjustly disregarded provincial galleries. As well as Manchester, galleries in Liverpool, Birmingham and Aberdeen are all worth seeing.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,334

    PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.

    You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,555

    PS One extra political benefit to announcing a referendum at the same time as you announce the details of the deal: The next morning, everyone is talking about the referendum, not the details of the deal.

    You cannot just "announce" a referendum by executive fiat. That is the whole point.
    Why not? What bits of legislation are required to take the public's opinion on a systematised basis?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,392

    The point about needing the PM, who is a Conservative, to introduce it, is correct, which is why it's unlikely to happen. However, she does almost certainly think Brexit is a stupid idea, and a majority of MPs agree with her. And there's a political upside to having a referendum once the details are known in that it makes it harder for the extreme side of Leave to demagogue it, for fear of losing the re-referendum. So it's not quite impossible that the politics would work.

    On the logistics, I think the most plausible way to do it is to agree an extension as part of the final deal. So if you already have a two-year transition period of 2 years when Britain is basically in but formally out, you change the first 6 months of that to "still formally in" and use that to organize the vote. Obviously this has the complication of needing unanimous agreement from the other member states, but you'd want that anyhow, because otherwise the Leave side would argue that the bridges were already burned and there was no way back in without joining the Euro and sending Prince Harry to perform menial tasks in Emmanuel Macron's kitchen.

    That still requires passing legislation for the referendum while simutaneously trying to negotiate the exit deal, and also - crucially - giving every other EU member an effective veto, which they don't currently have. That would give them an incredibly strong hand e.g. if Ireland doesn't like the border deal, it refuses to extend A50. Britain would get an appalling deal, making the chance of a rejection far higher. And then what?
    No, you'd negotiate the deal first, then right at the end of the process you ask for the referendum extension. Then you make the announcement, and ask parliament to legislate. If parliament decides you can't have the referendum, then you're leaving anyway. You can't bring the referendum up in discussions earlier for the reason ypu give - even if it hadn't affected the deal, the Leave side would say it had, and pledge to renegotiate a better one.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 791
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
    How could they remove the Article 50 rights without doing so for every other EU country ? It is part of the EU constitution.
    You think there won't be a "review" of the impracticalities of Article 50 when the next set of Treaty changes come along? Good Little Europeans will decide it is too difficult to do in practice. Best just forget it, eh?
    I think you're a touch paranoid.
    Paranoia and searches for traitors, saboteurs and old regime loyalists are characteristic features of this phase of a political change. It is be to be expected.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,497
    edited February 3
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Let's say David has been unduly pesimistic - and a second Referendum is held. And the question to ask is settled. And by a 52-48 vote, we vote for the Government to withdraw Article 50.

    Why would the EU go long with accepting it? There's still a huge groundswell to Leave. An incredibly angry portion of the UK electorate, who aren't going to slide quietly into acceptance. No, they will fight like hell to unseat those who went along with the "treason". The EU can see that it's not gone away. At some point, quite possibly by 2022, this issue comes live again. Meantime, we are going to be semi-detatched, short term members.

    So what is their price? I suspect, along with waving goodbye to our opt-outs and our rebates, that we can't trigger Article 50 again. Become tightly bound, meek little EUropeans. And hell, THAT is going to need a Referendum....

    All nonsense.
    Why? Do you really think the EU are going to be happy with us staying on the same terms after all the trouble we will have caused them and with the promise of yet more trouble in the future?
    Actually I think they might accept the first. But that is only because they are too stupid and unselfaware to realise the second is a possibility. They would assume we had learned our lesson and would behave in future.
    How could they remove the Article 50 rights without doing so for every other EU country ? It is part of the EU constitution.
    You think there won't be a "review" of the impracticalities of Article 50 when the next set of Treaty changes come along? Good Little Europeans will decide it is too difficult to do in practice. Best just forget it, eh?
    Why would they remove A50? It is working fine from the EU point of view.
    Actually, as I recall until Lisbon there was no provision to withdraw from the EU, which was one of the reasons the Constitution drafted by Giscard was rejected. Article 50 was then added at quite a late stage as one of the few significant changes. The fact that in practice it's proving shambolic and unworkable (which is in large part due to the intransigence of the EU) is not necessarily relevant in this context.
This discussion has been closed.