UKH

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.

Logical and convincing. Therefore, unlikely.

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. 

Sadly that's true. 

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. 

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 

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.

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.

Agreed.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

I've no problem at all with it.

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

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.

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).

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Jk

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.

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

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-referendu...

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.

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'.

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.

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

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

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!!

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.

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.

Er.....don’t we already have a defined relationship within the eu. Or we did, pre Davis/May/Raab etc and their Chuckle Brothers act. I have always thought it was incumbent on leave to explain what the new relationship would be.

I’d agree a remain campaign should talk some sense about how the Eu should be made more relevant, visible and responsive 

It's not "picking and choosing". There are clear, principled reasons to regard it as advisory until ratified by a second, properly carried out referendum. As for "respect", I can't think of a national vote in our post-WWII history that's less deserving of respect.

It was probably poorly expressed at the time. By relationship I meant how we engage with EU directives and regulations.  I don't think we spend enough looking at how adapt some of those things to best suit the UK environment.

I have seen quite a lot of badly transposed legislation in my time!

As good as it gets when negotiated by a Conservative government. Obviously it would have been much easier to negotiate a deal staying in the customs union and single market. This would probably be viewed as better by most people.

Agree it would be better than a May/Boris deal, but it's also pointless and just gives away hard won influence and concessions (e.g. vetos opt-outs etc).

Whilst I think a hard brexit would be a complete disaster, I can see that it would at least allow the UK to negotiate its own (even if inferior) trade deals. For that reason I really can't see the point of a "soft" brexit - it has a lot of the downside without anything that could be described as an upside

Obviously it is pointless in that almost everybody would agree we would be better off remaining. The upside is that we would retain some of the most important benefits of EU membership while being able to say to leavers, "We've honoured the result of your stupid referendum. Now f*ck off."

Interesting analysis here, how Johnson can get a no deal

youtube.com/watch?v=gupTC8e5wvk&

Looks like Johnson's deal has first to be defeated on Saturday and then brought back with a referendum as solution [letting people decide} on Monday. This way the numbers are up on Monday for the motion with a referendum. Labour encouraged not to vote for deal on Sat and wait till Monday.

Seems like Labour Leave MPs could screw up a referendum if not careful!

Labour leave MPs with the tacit or explicit agreement / encouragement of Corbyn may very well for Johnson's WA bill, letting him off the Benn Act hook and thereby facilitating a no deal exit. Johnson cannot be trusted, and Corbyn wants brexit as long as the Tories get the blame

About 4 or 5 Labour MPs are likely to vote for the deal, 3 of them are standing down at the next election. Labour will have a 3 line whip to vote against Johnson's deal.

Looks very much like the bill will be defeated unless of course it is amended to make it subject to a confirmatory referendum.

The idea that Corbyn would give the wink to a number of his own MPs in the hope that the bill passes is ludicrous. It would in effect be handing a majority to the Tories at the subsequent GE having secured their deal (actually the EU's) "against all odds". Much better to have the bill defeated and even better to win a referendum prior to a GE which would humiliate the Tories.

I believe the deal will be voted down tomorrow, but it's horrifyingly close.

I can't agree with your analysis. Were I in the unlikely position to be advising JC today, and with my sole consideration being the gaining of power, no matter the cost, ie very much in tune with the leader himself, I would most certainly suggest he secretly indulge a few dissenters to support Johnson's deal. This would bring a number of huge benefits:

b) The likelihood of a referendum occurring before a GE is vanishingly small. And most polls suggest a Labour wipe-out in an election that is forced on the public because Labour failed to back Brexit. And worse, failed to fight it.

a) The Tories would "own" Brexit and any economic difficulties for the next generation can be lain at their door.

c) Post Withdrawal Agreement, the election will be fought, not on Brexit, but on the issues which Corbyn sees as Labour strengths, anti-austerity, re-nationalisation, massive fantasy giveaways to students, all paid for by Tory voters thanks to Labour's mastery of Game Theory.

d) Remember Attlee. Certainly not for any manner in which Corbyn resembles him. But rather, after the second world war, when Churchill might have expected to romp home to the cheers of the nation, the population was looking for change, a new model for society. Corbyn offers that, even if his sums don't add up. He can campaign on emotion (look what that did for Vote Leave) and move the debate away from Brexit, much to everyone's relief. I think Boris has seriously underestimated this possibility.

Corbyn has repeatedly said he wants a GE first, then to renegotiate his own fantasy version of brexit then to have a referendum. There is no way he will support an ammendment to force a ref. before a GE

I hope you're right but I can't get past my pessimism.

I think the ERG will back it en-masse, passing it in principle so they can neutralise the Benn act then try to paralyse the legislative phase. I think it hinges on a handful of outspoken Labour rebels and I think enough of them will back it as their last chance to deliver 'brexit'.

If the ERG do attempt to wreck the legislative phase the Labour party will end up sharing the blame for enabling Johnson's legislation or for causing a no-deal crash.

jk

The Letwin amendment if passed would effectively nullify this particular threat and presumably trigger the Benn Act.

That said, there are rumours that the ERG plan is instead to pass the deal, then fail to negotiate an FTA or extend the transition period, which brings us to the no-deal brink anyway at the end of 2020. They were asking the AG for confirmation of this last night.

Hopefully that will move a few Labour and ex-Tories to abstain. I also suspect Phillip Hammond will vote against it and Rudd may abstain.

..and I can't agree with yours 😊!

If the WA gets through I see Labour being punished at the forthcoming GE.

I don't see why a referendum can't happen before a GE provided the opposition parties are united. They can push through an amendment at some point and can vote down a GE until they decide they want one.

With Brexit out of the way Labour could campaign on all the other things the country should be thinking about and as such people will be free to make their choice of party irrespective of Brexit.

A GE after a vote would also take away the main reason for disaffected voters turning to the Lib Dems or the Greens.

How can that be avoided? 

Not only an amendment for a referendum

 but also an amendment now that adds on workers rights,  environmental issues  which prevents a full WTO rules based Brexit?

And this goes on referendum paper? 

I suspect add -ons that were being discussed between Labour and May are now back again but would they gain a majority, or just safely stick with a referendum as the only Parliamentary  majority accessible at this time?? I suspect the numbers are being reckoned right now.

One has to make provision in case the referendum still produces a Leave result.

Brexit has raised a peculiar similarity in England to Scotland- a disillusionment with the Westminster system that has brought minority, none proportionate government to rule our future.

I have a curious sympathy for the English part of the UK at the moment - it really is make or break for them. Here in Scotland I have the luxury of an independence movement as a fall back- not as good in my personal book as a completely reformed system of PR etc- but it gives a little relief. Where's the independence from the leave system in England- there isn't one. It is England that is very divided sadly so. There is a curious "unity" in Scotland that the future political system will reflect- no doubt. All I can say is a GE is a point of empathy for the English region of the UK to ponder the inadequacies of a system Scotland has for so long highlighted but not quite been able to got across to the rest of the UK until Brexit..

I hope a GE for the English will be cause to ponder the empathy many may now have for a reformed look at our constitution and not just  a chance to revert to business as usual after referendum does go Remain's way with the full weight of Scotland behind it.

You're right to feel sorry for England but spare a thought for poor Wales, which would be the only part of the UK to do worse than England out of Brexit. NI is all set to be free of the madhouse. Scotland would doubtless get a freedom vote too before long and return to the EU family. But poor Wales is set to lose all of the EU funding it gets from having some of the EU's poorest regions, and will have to hope that it is replaced by the benevolence of a cash-strapped England with a failing economy and a proven London-SE bias.

Well that's one way of looking at it.

To go back to the referendum, if the withdrawal bill is brought in on Monday and amendments passed, including a requirement of a referendum, could a referendum be arranged on Oct 30th,; could it be bureaucratically achievable?

I read a referendum would take 22 weeks to put in place.

I hope I'm being overpessimistic but I think that result is a real possibility. I still think there is a lot of wishful thinking in even getting a 2nd referendum and with suitable alternatives to vote for. That's assuming we are given an extension by the EU (at least that is likely?). However if there was a vote to Leave, even with a small majority, there would at least be much more acceptance by Remainers.

Incidentally talking to a guy on the train yesterday and he said he was a Remainer but would now just like it settled (as in BJ's: "The British people are tired.... etc). Of course the proposed deal would only be a preliminary to more negotiations, but I think that his is a view held by many, much as I dislike BJ's implication that it is all of Britain.

Quite a few remain voting people I've spoken to are largely of the same view as this, they don't want to leave but accept that we are going to leave and ever further delay is only making the inevitable Brexit more painful and more drawn out. 

Well, there's a load of Leave voters who have since been convinced/put off and would like the chance to vote Remain. Check out Remainer Now for loads of testimonies.

Remain has been ahead in all binary Remain or Leave polls for a year now.

I doubt it.

I'd have thought about six weeks if everyone involved put their minds to it. The claims that it would take longer come from those who don't want one.

If Parliament voted for a final referendum on a deal or Remain which would effectively end all uncertainty for the EU, then it would be the best result they could hope for so there is no reason for them to refuse.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they would vote leave in a second referendum.

Remain was ahead in all the polls before the referendum as well. 

The point I was making though is there does seem to have been a noticeable shift in the thinking of many remain voters on how we should proceed from where we are now. It's not they want to leave all of a sudden and I'm sure if there was another referendum they would still vote to remain. It's just that many have accepted that remaining is not an option, that we are going to leave and that delaying that process now is simply dragging out the uncertainty and thus economic damage that causes.

I know it's not a big sample size but all of my friends who voted remain (which is most of them) have reached that or similar conclusions now, whereas this time last year many were still saying we should try and remain etc. 

 

Exactly.

Especially after it is pointed out to people who are sick and tired of the whole thing that a vote to Leave means more of the same for who knows how long while a vote to Remain means it's over - done - finished - the end.

I wish Labour could quickly and I mean immediately deselect the 5 or 6 MPs who would vote for BJs deal for new ones who won't.

Especially now Rab has just stated they have the numbers to get it through. How do we get a 2nd referendum? They say the numbers are not there for that. Worrying. 

Yeah, Leave support leapt at exactly the time Cummings and co dropped their CA targeted, illegally-funded adverts in the last days before the vote. They knew that even if it was found to be an illegal overspend the result would have been delivered before any investigation could happen.

And the opposite will be true in other groups of acquaintances.

That would be a shocking shame. the single issue of freedom of movement of people and wage repression has the only significance for that type of voting pattern with little consideration of the overall effect of a shift of economy downwards, with weak negotiating positions in facing making new deals which mean we sign up to deals that won't  respect many safeguards for wages, welfare and environment.

That single issue is obviously an issue and would need tackling within the EU, no doubt, but this is not the time!

How anyone can see any integrity in what Boris says is beyond me. No reassurances about anything fit a personality who can live right on the edge of integrity - who doesn't sign letters  and therefore effectively defies the spirit of an agreement if not the letter of the law. 

All his future negotiations have an undercurrent we can't assess. 

 wouldn't one rather vote to remain in the EU and have a place at the table than vote for a customs union which provides no place at EU table/decisions and would not necessarily not involve accepting freedom of movement of people - so what is the point. It does, however provide a workable Brexit option as opposed to disaster options?? So it has a point in that respect ?

or is my analysis of a customs union wrong and it would provide stringent control of freedom of movement of people?

I've been wondering whether an amendment to stay in the customs union might pass and then see the whole deal rejected by the ERG hardliners because it is not a "proper" Brexit any more. All options then open........

As I understand it, a customs union does not imply free movement of people. Turkey is in the customs union for instance. Interestingly CU doesn't help JIT supply chains either, so manufacturing would still be stuffed

Yes, freedom of movement comes with the single market.

And border controls in Ireland not eliminated (I read ) so any better than  Boris' idea????

Maybe just an amendment on a referendum on Boris' deal???But customs union probably aligns  Brexit standards to EU standards and spares us sliding standards that eventually mean the EU won't have anything to do with us in the future cause everything too crap.

Almost anything is better. It's about as hard as a WA could be.

Obviously that is ideal. Maybe the Labour rebels would support it?

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

The above is so true! The media has for decades put out lies about the EU. ( straight bananas and the like). They have subverted democracy by denying the public the true facts.

Democracy depends on people having the real facts on which to base their opinions 

re. confirmatory referendum

Then who implements it? This Johnson government won't and once this bill is passed Farage is pretty well neutered so Johnson goes on to win a majority then strips the referendum back out of the legislation as per his Farage besting manifesto pledge. Transition period times out, Johnson isn't strong enough to fight off the no-dealers (assuming he isn't one) his batshit party sends to parliament. Crash...

I see no way out of this now, we're now past the point of no return, a country in early stages of complete free-fall collapse.

jk

...whilst the rest of the world watches stupified.

ps. Barring the Trumpists and those of like ilk.

It looks like there is a possibility Johnson will drop the WA bill and ask for an election if the commons does not agree to the timetable. Is it possible that he could lose a GE if Farage splits his vote and the other parties get their act together?

or a Supreme court case "government dropping a bill versus Parliament passing a bill subject to amendments" and no 2/3 majority for triggering a GE.

Of course if that won then a referendum amendment would pose the question who would campaign for it whilst Boris sat in a Bus sulking.

No, dropping the bill which has now passed but a "pause". 

This could be more abusive of the process than could ever have been imagined by the opposition. Look at it. He now has the bill passed. He is a Leave vote magnet, effectively removing Farage from the picture.

IHe doesn't want an economic assessment because it exposes worse economic effects than May.

He doesn't want a referendum because it requires more than 50% of the vote to win.

He doesn't want a long delay or he loses momentum of yesterday's triumph.

And we have 8 days left.

Do nothing, pause, delay put kitchen sink in the way. and Prompt a no confidence vote at the last minute because a GE is preferable to win with just 35% or so of vote and banking on a split scottish vote between SNP and Lib Dem  and a FPTP distortion

He's not withdrawing the bill he's stalling the process to get a preference of GE and I don't know how we get round this.

It is the abuse /contempt  he is actually using to goad Parliament and this tactic is getting his own way!!

And who's falling for it Corbyn!.He's on board

The only way out is to use the GE as a referendum and revoke article 50 so I'm voting  Lib Dem to get maximum effect. Back to tactical voting !yawn!A green vote gets no where except in a Scottish Parliament vote.

It's possible but not looking likely, Johnson has momentum, he has a story to tell to challenge Farage's, he's offered his MPs a re-election lifeline they're desperately clinging to and Labour look thoroughly outmanoeuvred.

I can't see any real hope that we don't get, at best, Johnson's very hard brexit followed by a protracted struggle over the break up of the UK and a savage assault on public services. I say that not believing for a moment we get that best case scenario.

jk

I don't think the Bill will get to legislation in this Parliament with amaendments. Boris is going for a new Parliament and avoiding amendments . I think Letwin's win still reflects this Parliament's unwillingness to do anything other than put it to the people. Which Boris is manipulating into a GE. Boris is using outrage as a tactic. Outrage labour to get them to a vote of no confidence. Outrage scotland to split a GE vote between SNP and Lib Dem. It's a tactic!!

I'm inclined to agree but a GE in all probability makes the situation worse. We get a ruinously hard or no-deal brexit every which way, the only real question is how long it takes.

jk

precisely- except Boris and Rees Smug think it will be fine! It will be for hedge funders.

Boris can just do nothing now and no further stages to amendments can proceed.

Dominic Grieve couldn't understand the pause for EU consultation- cause it is crap- we know that they are  awaiting the Parliamentary process of bill and amendments. Its just a stall and I think this limbo can be maintained can't it? How can we drive it to amendments stage?

If BJ got a majority after a GE the current deal would go through.

Why would he try to negotiate something else? Whether you regard it as "hard" or not is your choice, it is what it is.

As risky as it is, I think a general election now is the best way forward. We're going to have one soon anyway and BJ will do far better if it happens once we're out. Labour will be punished by both remainers and leavers and the recent upsurge in Lib Dem support is likely to die down somewhat once their big policy platform is removed.

Realistically there's no chance of remainers getting a second referendum through the current HoC and it also begs the question of what happens in the interim. A GNU could not survive that long and a minority Tory govt limping on is pointless and wasteful, especially when there are other things the government needs to get on with. The other alternative, a Brexit with a commitment to negotiate a CU attached, is barely better than the current deal, and that commitment could easily be reversed with a Tory majority anyway. So I think there's nothing to lose from a GE at this stage. Plus, if Labour decline the chance of a GE again they'll look weak and like they're running scared of the polls.

Boris will get a majority and do carte blanche. The GE is a split opposition vote that requires a low number of MPs relatively to get complete control. Hubris has got Corbyn- he'll win of course- a landslide!. How delusional and he's never had his heart in a referendum, I realise .

The best  hope is a GE with Lib dem landslide. And now out come the Scottish independence voters but that splits a GE vote  again! Chaos, in my view, absolute chaos without a referendum as an intermediate stage.

Because he can.  If he goes to a GE he can say that he accepted this deal in order to get out by the 31st, and because of the weak position Parliament put him in.  He can say that we know now that the EU line that they won’t renegotiate is obviously false.  They have, they will.  They really don’t want us to leave without a deal, that’s why they give extension after extension when originally they said they’d not give one without conditions (some EU figures said they wouldn’t give one full stop).

If he doesn’t say this Farage will.

I'm confused, I think you misunderstand me or me you. It's what was described as the worst case scenario by LEAVE, nothing like what they campaigned on, it comes with dire economic predictions its proponents are afraid to publish and it's clearly designed to offer the ERG nuts hope of run at no-deal by stalling talks during the transition then failing to extend it. He doesn't need to renegotiate anything, this treaty gives him freedom to do as he pleases and the ambiguity necessary to hold a coalition of the hopeful together to pass it. It's a blank cheque.

Johnson will in a post-brexit election be running on a pledge to unpick this parliament's safety-net of amendments, he'll need to do at least that if he's to face down Farage. In a pre-brexit election he's fighting for a majority to pass this calamity unmodified. It's his election to lose in both scenarios, his narrative can be clear and simplistic.

jk

I think you're probably right but it's only the best of a few very bad options from a remain and or progressive perspective.

The GNU is the interesting relatively unexplored option. I suspect it could hold together around the single task of delivering a referendum but I doubt it could agree on the question (it would need to be Johnson's deal as is vs remain) or who would lead it so that's a dead end.

As they probably should be

jk

Totally. It's not a good option but it's infinitely better than a post-Brexit election. It would also be better if Labour were the ones to push it with a VONC rather than reacting to a Tory motion.

This is why I think it's a non-starter. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, both Labour and the LDs are positioning themselves for the next election - Labour don't want to undermine Corbyn's legitimacy and Swinson doesn't want to alienate Tory remainers by supporting him. Now that the threat of inadvertent no deal has been removed (assuming that we get the extension) there's even less impetus for them to compromise.

True. But unless they get rid of Corbyn I think those numbers are only going in one direction. They won't change leader unless they lose another election. Best hope is probably another hung parliament but without the DUP supporting the Tories, a new Labour leader and a stronger LD faction - who knows what will happen then? 

Probably. Tories will win with a small majority, as Boris will blame Labour for everything. Corbyn will try to talk about his Stalinist ideas, but everyone will still just be thinking about Brexit and Christmas holidays. 

Lib dems will pick up many Labour voters.

If there is a GE prior to Brexit being settled BJ will have to tell people what he will do if he gets a majority.

It seems extremely unlikely to me that he's going to say that he wants to start all over again with a different set of conditions. The EU would probably tell him to "phurque orf" anyway. What seems plainly obvious to me from everything he has said is that if he wins a majority the current deal will be adopted as it stands.

Scottish perspective very interesting. Rage at Boris, vote SNP , split opposition. Get Boris by default. Westminster is like a negative photograph until change or independence- all detail stripped out and you live with what is left- Boris. No matter how one feels this is not the time for an independence vote because you get Boris. And then a conservative view steadfastly in place that refuses Scotland any say on anything. I stick with  my idea of treating GE like referendum, {if a real referendum is avoided, }and voting for revocation of article 50  as promised by Lib Dems- its a single issue GE no matter what anyone says, imo.

The GE will be a single issue GE if Brexit is not resolved.

If Brexit is resolved then the parties can campaign on their manifestos.

We may be obsessed with the subject but there are plenty more issues facing the country which should be debated and resolved.

I don't know how Boris can be compelled to bring back the bill for amendment of a referendum?Can the Speaker of the House demand the return of the bill for amendments to scupper Boris' perpetual limbo position? Can Parliamentary  bill be really left in this type of limbo? What mechanism ? Scottish court of session as it is a 4 nation UK? I think there must be some legal position they have because the Scottish nation have certain rights within the constitution to not be ignored or treated contemptuously? I just don't know what those legal rights are specifically.

None of this is about getting brexit resolved. It's about getting it started, making it irreversible.

Once it is irreversible there will be no more space than there is today to focus on those other issues, we will be rushing headlong toward a no-deal crash in 2020, all efforts dedicated to making that happen or delaying it. Then 2021. 2022. 2023...

jk

It's easy.

Parliament amends the bill going through Parliament to make final approval subject to a referendum.

At the moment though it I claimed that there is not a majority in the Commons to pass this.

Yes but a resolution would bring about a pause if for no other reason than people are sick to death of hearing about it.

there was a majority for a referendum amendment. What has changed is the Labour Party Leader now dancing  for a GE at Boris' delight. Corbyn has shifted again.

It doesn't matter that we're sick of it, if we leave we're on the clock, the clock doesn't care that we're tired and fractious and need to fix other stuff. The next cliff edge deadline just keeps coming.

jk

Really? Where did you hear that?

Yes but that's a different point entirely.

The WA doesn’t settle anything, it only delays til the end of next year.  That’ll be brought up endlessly in an election campaign.  He’ll have to say what he’ll do, absolutely, and what he says needs to get enough votes to win.  Remainers won’t vote for him and he’s not got enough to win as it is - he has to get Brexit party voters.

We were told the EU would say that last time, they didn’t, and it’ll be clear he needs to negotiate another deal...why not do it now?  What’s his answer?  What does he say to Brexit party voters to make them vote Tory?  The election isn’t anything close to a guaranteed win for the Tories...

And not only does Corbyn not support the idea of a referendum on the detail of a Withdrawal Agreement in principle, neither does Nicola Sturgeon who also isn't championing a referendum on detail. Shows her principles doesn't it? Say on the detail of an independence referendum  as on an EU referendum. 

Where did you hear there was a majority in Parliament for a second referendum?

So you think that if an election is called before Brexit is settled the Tories will campaign on Leaving the EU without a deal?

Have I got that right?

Well, the Labour party conference said they would keep open the door of a  second referendum on any deal . Combined with Lib dems, greens and independents and kicked out Tories that added up at one point,

Its an act of will, rapidly declining.It would be possible to build up the amendment. But Corbyn isn't motivated that way, apparently.

So you didn't hear there was a majority in favour of a second referendum.

Thanks.

Not no deal, no.  A better deal maybe.  Labour will be doing the same (on their latest comments, anyway).

There is not such a thing as a definite vote for a second referendum in the history of the Brexit procedure. There are points in the procedure where one makes an assessment as to the numbers in favour of an action. I recall there were moments of close calls in the directives to suggest that at a later date these could be worked up into an majority. A referendum idea was one of them. Confirmatory Public Vote  directive proposed by Margaret Becket 268  to 295. Close enough to work up to a majority at a later date. One of the closest results in the history  of the directive votes.

The situation is also one about future actions. NOw, would be appropriate to push the boat out on a referendum but that is not where Corbyn is chosing to put his efforts,

Surely BJ would just campaign on his present policy?  His present Negotiated Deal or No Deal leaving at the end of any extension if the former fails to pass parliament (however it will probably pass if he gets a GE majority).

This is an interesting article - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/12/speedy-referendum-bet.... Suggests that a referendum could actually be done within 6 weeks, rather than the 6-9 months that's previously been mooted. However, I suspect that this would only be possible if there was a clear majority in parliament for it and unfortunately that doesn't exist.

This may be the problem with an amendment for a customs union -substantially changing the deal.

Maybe to have Boris' deal with amendment with referendum only.

Dominic Grieve championed referendum this afternoon.The idea there is not a majority for it cannot be ascerteained as we have not tested the water on it. Boris has no intention of doing so and I've voiced my disappointment with Corbyn above.

It has occurred to me that a case could be brought before the Scottish Court of session {by say a Lib Dem MP from Scotland } that demands the application of a process of amendments to a bill and their enforcement { if Parliament reaches a majority  on these amendments } , arguing that

Not to do so is a deliberate attempt to  limit the constitutional right of Parliament to act in the interests of all 4 nations of the UK .

I just can't understand how a PM can put a bill into limbo with a view to forcing a GE.

Isn't that what happens, what am I missing, that the non-English home nations are under-powered in Westminster? That is generally true (except for the 2017-2019 DUP accident) but it's difficult to address in a manner that has legal clout and the convincing appearance of fairness.

Why not, it's the unseemly rush to toward an artificial deadline that's extraordinary, not the pause.

jk

and on Peston last night, even Mark Francois said that whilst he wasnt happy with any delay beyond Oct 31st, he didnt see it as being the end of the world if an extension of 7 - 10 days ish was required / allowed to debate and get the WAB through parliament properly.......John McDonnell was also ok with that, but wanted a confirmatory referendum.

So it appears Boris is being hemmed in on all sides.

I didn't mean in the short term. It is his long term strategy never to bring the bill back, to delay indefinitely and stall to avoid amendments. That is what he is up to, imo. To truncate the procedure in a cynical contempt of Parliamentary scrutiny and amendment by our MPs.

Clearly all the early stalling was because he wanted the bill presented and passed against a very tight deadline to minimise scrutiny of it and his exposure to it's embarrassing flaws but it's out in the wild now, wide open to scrutiny so that plan is basically shot.

Now it looks like he's just waiting to see how much pressure the EU27 will apply, whether it's enough to try for brexit or, much riskier, try win a whippable pro-brexit majority.

Doing nothing isn't much of a long term plan for a brexiter PM given parliament's only resolved position is no 'no-deal', if he leaves them absolutely no option they will revoke A50.

jk

At the moment the political parties are all judging if they can win a GE and went straight to that consideration.

But I'm a member of no political party. I voted in a referendum and with many others, all around the 4 nations of the UK, I got representation. Amendments represents the expression of those views and an attempt at Parliamentary action to resolve the  deleterious effects of any bill.

It's my rights that feel undermined ,in this sea of political manoeuvring for a GE, that can bring a process to a halt and truncate any action that could soften, if Parliament considers it so, an extremely detrimental bill. Imagine if it wins!!So it becomes a constitutional issue as well as a political issue. But People get so caught up in the political side and get swept along don't they?

Of course if most Labour MPs  are not interested in an amendment of a referendum,{ or even any amendments in case the bill wins a referendum}, it still does not mean others aren't interested . We always focus on the two party system.

But, saying all that I suppose you have to sound that out or it is a useless exercise.

And when MPs voted the bill through, how many voted for it with the expectation of an amendment for a referendum.? Quite a few wouldn't have voted for it if they thought they were going to be deprived of a referendum?

Using a GE to measure people's agreement for Boris' bill requires 9 million people to pass.

Using a referendum to measure people's agreement for Boris' bill requires 17 million people to pass.

Just heard that statistic on Sky news.

Must be based on minimum turnout requirements of 60 million people in UK

This is not really about the none  English nations being under-powered it is about all nations of the UK being held to ransom if Johnson adopts a limbo/ do nothing stance ,  No GE achievable by any means but not bring the bill forward either- and yet he is compelled to get EU to agree extension but EU can't give extension cause waiting for UK to take a path forward. But no path there.Limbo creating a no deal situation.  

Parliament is now considering taking the bill forward themselves by seizing the control of the commons order paper. They can put the bill forward and add some amendments but the government can only sanction the money resolution to allow the bill to go forward. Boris could do nothing again. Limbo

I think it is a constitutional problem. Like before with prorogation, it is arguable that there is a case for a decision by English High Court and Scottish Court of sessions and NI court to rule on democratic requirements as regards  the procedural requirements { not the actual decisions}. It is an argument again about democracy, like with the use[ abuse] of the prorogation power. The Supreme court having the final say on the procedure and whether Boris' inaction/ running a skeletal government, constitutes contempt of democratic process. The supreme court could decide, If Boris can't get a GE in Parliament, that he has to act by bringing the bill to Parliament for consideration, Limbo not being an option as it is a  denial/contempt of our democratic constitution.

Our constitution is not written it evolves.