/ all locked into referendum idea or they lose out?

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
MargieB 00:37 Sun

Boris can't avoid a referendum on his deal as a solution to bring Brexit to a conclusion. Polls suggest leavers are willing to forgive a failed 31st Oct deadline / no deal brexit as long as he ends the process somehow..The Boris deal makes him "popular" again.

Labour realises poll surge for Boris makes a GE too volatile for them so referendum preferable.

Lib dems think referendum is a principle.

tory rebels haven't a party as yet to be part of and need time to  sort themselves out so would support delaying a GE and would have to back referendum.

Eu will set a conditional reason for an extension- a referendum or GE.

Report
Jon Stewart 09:29 Sun
In reply to MargieB:

Logical and convincing. Therefore, unlikely.

Report
In reply to MargieB:

A referendum on this deal or staying in the EU is what needs to come next. The deal is the culmination of the efforts of two Tory governments. One a full on Brexiteer dominated government. The deal is as good as it gets. 

This next referendum is the informed one we should have had in 2016. 

Report
Rob Exile Ward 09:59 Sun
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Sadly that's true. 

Report
snoop6060 10:05 Sun
In reply to MargieB:

When was the last civil war? 

Even if remain won by a small margin do we just then cancel the whole thing because I can't see that ending well. It would have to be an absolute land slide to put this to bed and that just isn't going to happen. 

Report
paulcarey 10:25 Sun
In reply to snoop6060:

Part of any  remain campaign has to be to set out what the UK's relationship would be in the future. Also  how we might do things differently to at least deal with some of the concerns of 2016 leave voters.

If it doesn't do those things then I think any 'remain' referendum campaign would be doomed 

Report
oldie 10:48 Sun
In reply to MargieB:

Referendum is logical given the fact that voters will be better informed, so even a small majority either way is better than for our future to depend on a less informed electorate. Over three years have passed since the last vote, general elections are possibly held less frequently and we accept this (I am slightly uneasy with regard to Brexiteers' feeling of injustice. but anyway we are in this position).
I still think that there has been an element of wishful thinking rather than reality in expecting a referendum, though I certainly hope for one.

Of course the big question is what would the question be. Boris etc might want simply leave with agreed deal vs leave with no deal. My preference would be two votes a week or so apart: first remain vs leave; second (only if first majority to leave) would again be leave with an agreed deal vs leave with no deal.

Report
Eric9Points 11:18 Sun
In reply to paulcarey:

No, Remain just does what Leave did in 2016. Trash the deal, point out how rubbish it is. Everyone knows what they get as members of the EU.

Report
SDM 11:26 Sun
In reply to oldie:

> I still think that there has been an element of wishful thinking rather than reality in expecting a referendum, though I certainly hope for one.

Agreed.

> Of course the big question is what would the question be. Boris etc might want simply leave with agreed deal vs leave with no deal.

There is zero chance of a referendum with those as the only options getting through parliament.

 > My preferencewould be two votes a week or so apart: first remain vs leave; second (only if first majority to leave) would again be leave with an agreed deal vs leave with no deal.

If you are going to have a 3 option referendum, you have to have a 3 option referendum. To do it as 2 separate referenda where the result of the first changes whether or not to have a second is to influence the outcome and prevent acceptance of the outcome. To have a 3 way vote on this issue with any realistic prospect of a convincing majority can only be done by a 3 way transferable vote.

Report
john arran 11:53 Sun
In reply to SDM:

> If you are going to have a 3 option referendum, you have to have a 3 option referendum.

Pretty obvious really, unless you're trying to unfairly achieve a certain outcome. If there's one thing we definitely should have learned from 2016 it's not to hold a referendum without the outcomes and their consequences being well-defined. To cluster the votes of two very different outcomes into one choice would be simply dishonest.

Report
oldie 12:55 Sun
In reply to SDM:

> If you are going to have a 3 option referendum, you have to have a 3 option referendum. To do it as 2 separate referenda where the result of the first changes whether or not to have a second is to influence the outcome and prevent acceptance of the outcome. To have a 3 way vote on this issue with any realistic prospect of a convincing majority can only be done by a 3 way transferable vote. <

I used to prefer a similar option to you. However, if my understanding is correct, It could. for instance, well eliminate the deal option initially and lead to a contest between the extremes of leave or remain anyway (even though the second preferences of most leavers and remainers might be for a deal). It  is also a system that many in the UK are not so familiar with. Neither system is perfect. We do need to end with an absolute majority whichever method is used of course. 

Report
pec 14:42 Sun
In reply to Eric9Points:

> No, Remain just does what Leave did in 2016. Trash the deal, point out how rubbish it is. Everyone knows what they get as members of the EU.


Alternatively Leave just do what Remain did in 2016. Trash the referendum, point out how rubbish it was and carry on fighting to get what they want like the result doesn't matter.

You might not like that but why wouldn't they? If the precedent has been set that if you don't like the result of a referendum then even if you promised you would implement it you can just keep fighting until you get another.

Of course that assumes that Leave even bother to fight the referendum in the first place. There's a good chance they'll just boycott it and go into a general election saying we'll cancel the referendum and leave anyway. As we all now know, parliament can do what the hell it likes. If it passes a law saying we are leaving then we can leave! Its no different from the Lib Dems saying they would revoke article 50 on the back of an election victory.

Report
jkarran 15:03 Sun
In reply to pec:

> Alternatively Leave just do what Remain did in 2016. Trash the referendum, point out how rubbish it was and carry on fighting to get what they want like the result doesn't matter.

Of course they would, who on earth would think otherwise, it's become religion. However in the event of a remain vote it's out of parliament, A50 clock stopped, back on the streets for a few years. We could use that time wisely and if we do the movement loses momentum. Or it doesn't, we live in a democracy, that's ok too.

> You might not like that but why wouldn't they?

I've no problem at all with it.

> Of course that assumes that Leave even bother to fight the referendum in the first place. There's a good chance they'll just boycott it and go into a general election saying we'll cancel the referendum and leave anyway. As we all now know, parliament can do what the hell it likes. If it passes a law saying we are leaving then we can leave! Its no different from the Lib Dems saying they would revoke article 50 on the back of an election victory.

That's a gamble which would jeopardise the stability of the country but you're probably right it's the best way to protect their donors' investment. The LibDem's policy could realistically only be implemented if they secured a majority of the vote and seats, neither is remotely plausible. Thanks to decades of careful gerrymandering the Con's by contrast could potentially form a government with ~30% of the vote. It's a similar problem but not quite the same.

jk

Post edited at 15:03
Report
Eric9Points 15:21 Sun
In reply to pec:

Actually that's not what happened. It was only when it became clear that what was being negotiated wasn't what the referendum was fought on and wasn't going to be what a significant proportion of Leave voters had voted for that people began to think that we should confirm that the nation was happy to leave on the negotiated deal. I realise that you don't want to go back and check that people do want to still leave because you know they've changed their mind but spare me the self serving nonsense that having a second referendum is somehow undemocratic.

and yes, government rules with the consent of Parliament, that's the way it is and you'll just have to accept it. If the government didn't answer to the elected representatives of the people of the UK who would it answer to? I thought one of the main arguments for leaving, the one Rees Mogg puffs out his chest and gets all self important about, is handing back power to Parliament. Bit hypocritical to start bleating about it when they actually do excercise their power, don't you think.

Report
deepsoup 15:28 Sun
In reply to pec:

> You might not like that but why wouldn't they? If the precedent has been set that if you don't like the result of a referendum then even if you promised you would implement it you can just keep fighting until you get another.

They'd be perfectly entitled to continue to campaign (legally and peacefully) to leave.  That was what Nigel Farage said he'd be doing in an interview with the Sun shortly before the vote if the 2016 referendum narrowly went against him.  Spookily the example he dreamt up was a 48:52 split, as opposed to a landslide which he said would 'finish it'.  Strangely it was only after the referendum that he changed his mind completely and realised that actually a 48:52 result was an overwhelming mandate and represented the final and irrevocable "will of the people" that could never be questioned.

And of course there is an inherent asymmetry in any irreversible change which is why a super-majority tends to be required in a well thought out vote for one.  If you choose not to jump off a cliff today, you can still decide to jump off a cliff tomorrow.  If you do jump off a cliff today, your future options are more limited.  That's why it's perfectly reasonable to require a higher degree of certainty for deciding that jumping off a cliff is what you want to do than for deciding not to (at least for now).

Report
deepsoup 15:35 Sun
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Bit hypocritical to start bleating about it when they actually do excercise their power, don't you think.

Almost as hypocritical as accusing 'remoaners' in parliament of having somehow sabotaged brexit by opposing May's deal, which the ERG themselves also voted against. 

If the people who are now saying "We don't care what kind of brexit it is, we just want to get it done" had voted for May's deal the first (or second, or third) time, they would have had the numbers to force it through and we would already be out by now, even though May's deal was already a *much* harder brexit than anything they were suggesting would happen while they were campaigning ahead of the referendum. 

(Let's not forget that ahead of the referendum almost all of those oily f*ckers were saying we'd be staying in the common market, in which case the NI border would have been a *much* less intractable problem than it is now.)

Report
pec 16:09 Sun
In reply to jkarran:

> Of course they would, who on earth would think otherwise, it's become religion.

Well I'm glad you agree that's what would happen but a lot of people have convinced themselves that a second referendum will 'solve' the Brexit problem. It absolutely won't, as I've said many times before, the Brexit cat is out of the bag and it's not going back in.

> However in the event of a remain vote it's out of parliament, A50 clock stopped, back on the streets for a few years.

That assumes the opposition/government of national unity (ha,ha) can hold off a general election long enough to hold a referendum, otherwise if the Conservatives win it they can cancel the referendum. And even if there is a referendum before an election, the next government can still ignore it, they just pass a law saying we're going to leave.

No parliament can bind the hands of a future parliament. we were taken into the EEC by a vote of parliament and we can be taken out of the EU by another.

> That's a gamble which would jeopardise the stability of the country

Indeed but no more of a gamble with the country's stability than the losers of the last referendum forcing another on their terms in order to get what they want.

Yes, its all a spectacular mess. That's what happens when people pick and choose which democratic results they will and won't respect.

Report
Blunderbuss 16:19 Sun
In reply to pec:

> Yes, its all a spectacular mess. That's what happens when people pick and choose which democratic results they will and won't respect.

It's what happens when people are fed lies and bollocks by a campaign that would have been declared illegal if it was not an advisory referendum.

Every single poll in 2019 bar one shows Remain ahead of Leave....the will of the people in 2019, once the crap spouted by leave has been largely exposed, doesn't matter though.

Report
jkarran 16:27 Sun
In reply to pec:

Sure, it's always someone else's fault isn't it.

Jk

Report
pec 16:27 Sun
In reply to Blunderbuss:

> Every single poll in 2019 bar one shows Remain ahead of Leave....

and IIRC every single poll bar one showed remain ahead of leave before the referendum and we know how that turned out.

Look, I can't be arsed arguing about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, it's become completely pointless in a remain echo chamber like UKC. I'm simply pointing out to those willing to listen that a second referendum might not be the panacea they're hoping for.

Report
Blunderbuss 16:34 Sun
In reply to pec:

> and IIRC every single poll bar one showed remain ahead of leave before the referendum and we know how that turned out.

> Look, I can't be arsed arguing about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, it's become completely pointless in a remain echo chamber like UKC. I'm simply pointing out to those willing to listen that a second referendum might not be the panacea they're hoping for.

Leave flooded SM with 'bullshit' based messages in the last 48 hours before the vote....they were clever in that respect.

It'd be a panacea of sorts because at least we now have a far better idea of what we are letting ourselves in for in we decide to confirm we want to leave.

Report
john arran 16:42 Sun
In reply to pec:

> That's what happens when people pick and choose which democratic results they will and won't respect.

The word "democratic" is looking very much off colour for all the heavy lifting it's having to do in that sentence.

Report
pec 16:43 Sun
In reply to Eric9Points:

> Actually that's not what happened. It was only when it became clear that what was being negotiated wasn't what the referendum was fought on . . .

It's interesting that you think you know exactly what the referendum was fought on, because unlike the Scottish referendum where a specific leave manifesto was produced by the people who we knew for sure would be in charge of the process, the leave campaign was fought by a disparate group of indiviuals and organisations who all had differing visions of what leave meant.

There was no single unequivical vision of what leave would mean and how could there have been? Unlike the Scottish referendum where the SNP were actually the Scottish government, we had no idea who would be in charge of the leave negotiaitons.

Read this as an example of what I'm saying,

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/

It's as clear as mud as to what Brexit would look like exactly. Any version of leave will be simultaneously both compatible and incompatible with things that were said.

We weren't told unequivically what Brexit would look like, we were told it was a leap in the dark https://tinyurl.com/y4e3x4yb

But despite that, people chose to jump.

Report
john arran 16:47 Sun
In reply to pec:

That's as clear an explanation as I've heard for a while as to why the referendum result can't possibly represent any true and unified 'will of the people'.

Report
pec 16:49 Sun
In reply to deepsoup:

> Almost as hypocritical as accusing 'remoaners' in parliament of having somehow sabotaged brexit by opposing May's deal, which the ERG themselves also voted against. 

Nobody sabotaged Brexit by voting against May's deal, neither the 'remoaners' nor the ERG. The law was that we would leave on March 31st with or without a deal. By voting against the deal, in law, they were ALL voting to leave without a deal.

The sabotage happened when the Cooper Letwin Bill was passed which mandated the PM to ask for an extension.

Report
Blunderbuss 17:08 Sun
In reply to pec:

> It's interesting that you think you know exactly what the referendum was fought on, because unlike the Scottish referendum where a specific leave manifesto was produced by the people who we knew for sure would be in charge of the process, the leave campaign was fought by a disparate group of indiviuals and organisations who all had differing visions of what leave meant.

> There was no single unequivical vision of what leave would mean and how could there have been? Unlike the Scottish referendum where the SNP were actually the Scottish government, we had no idea who would be in charge of the leave negotiaitons.

> Read this as an example of what I'm saying,

> It's as clear as mud as to what Brexit would look like exactly. Any version of leave will be simultaneously both compatible and incompatible with things that were said.

> We weren't told unequivically what Brexit would look like, we were told it was a leap in the dark https://tinyurl.com/y4e3x4yb

> But despite that, people chose to jump.

You seem to have made an excellent case for a confirmatory referendum.... 

Report
jkarran 18:27 Sun
In reply to pec:

> Look, I can't be arsed arguing about the rights and wrongs of Brexit, it's become completely pointless in a remain echo chamber like UKC. I'm simply pointing out to those willing to listen that a second referendum might not be the panacea they're hoping for.

Only a fool would consider it anything better than a less bad choice of only bad choices we've left ourselves. Unlike it would appear most leavers I do think another referendum will narrowly enable a no-deal brexit being politically impossible to keep off the ballot and the most simplistic leave narrative. Despite that I still support it, we should choose our fate if we're to tear ourselves apart. I also think it would be valuable to re-introduce secrecy. We've all nailed our colours to the mast these past few years. If, when the devastating consequences of our choices come the recriminations for those held responsible could be grim. If we're all to muddle together through the aftermath we're going to need some ambiguity.

jk

Post edited at 18:31
Report
MargieB 22:26 Sun
In reply to jkarran:

you would think that the hard lines would be drawn even harder now, but what is interesting is that there is some instinctual desire to avoid conflict somewhere in the electorate's psyche to be able to forgive and accept Boris' shift. Says a bit about our culture of compromise to avoid conflict. 

The idea of parties losing something if they don't back a referendum seems the oddest form of decision making that politics has sunk to. Nothing seems to be done for a positive reason now. Even the SNP would back a referendum so as not to seem peevish though their agenda would best be served by the whole thing falling irrevocably apart! But then they would lose credibility as a party  if theythat took full joyful advantage of a negative event - and they wouldn't want that perception of them.

So it seems parties at the moment are motivated only by what they will lose'.

Whilst I, as a member of the electorate, think it's my democratic right to vote on the detail.

Funny how few politicians have actually  mentioned this little principle!!

Post edited at 22:31
Report
deepsoup 22:27 Sun
In reply to pec:

> The law was that we would leave on March 31st with or without a deal.

What law is this?  Not the 'European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017', that just gave Theresa May the authority to submit the Article 50 notification.

There has never been a democratic mandate for leaving without a deal, all of the serious campaigners running up to the referendum were promising a really good deal, the easiest deal in history, a shedload of extra cash for the NHS etc..  The narrow victory for 'leave' was a mandate for what the leave campaign was telling people was likely to happen, nothing more. 

I'm sure some 'leave' voters would have been happy enough to support a 'no deal' exit, others have undoubtedly hardened their positions as things have become so polarised and would support it now even though they didn't then.  But it only takes a very small number to have actually voted for what the 'leave' campaign was telling them at the time they were voting for, and 'no deal' being the only thing on the table means even the wafer thin majority won three years ago is gone, let alone the "will of the people" now.

Report
oldie 11:40 Mon
In reply to MargieB:

>Even the SNP would back a referendum so as not to seem peevish though their agenda would best be served by the whole thing falling irrevocably apart! But then they would lose credibility as a party  if they took full joyful advantage of a negative event - and they wouldn't want that perception of them. <

There is also the future practical effect of the UK leaving with no deal or any deal with a hard border with the EU. An independent Scotland would presumably wish to join the EU but that would necessitate a hard border with England, with tariffs, immigration controls etc which would be a big disadvantage to both economies.

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.